208 COMMISSION ON BUILDING DISTRICTS 



may be true of Manhattan, such regulations are not necessary in the other 

 boroughs. In Brooklyn, for instance, the single house is holding its own, 

 more land being developed with this type of building each year than with 

 tenements. That the Heights of Buildings Commission believed in provid- 

 ing for rather than preventing types of building other than that of the con- 

 gested tenement is shown by their suggesting in their report a district in 

 which height should be limited to 50 feet, and another in which it should be 

 restricted to 36 feet, at the street line. These were, of course, mere hints 

 of districts and not fully developed districting provisions ; but they at least 

 indicate the point of view that we believe should, and in reality, does, prevail 

 in your Commission. There is much cheap land in this great city; there 

 are enormous areas in it which, fortunately, are still undeveloped. There, 

 at least, we can still not only permit but aid our people to do pleasant things, 

 and do them in their own way. There, it is still possible to give people 

 more freedom in the use of. their land than seems to have been feasible in 

 the parts subjected to minute codes for areas congested with endless tene- 

 ments, all much alike. It has been done elsewhere under similar conditions. 

 In Forest Hills, Boston, for instance, are to be found three-story buildings, 

 covering not more than twenty-five per cent, of the lot, furnishing light, 

 air. view, gardens, tennis courts and recreation space of many kinds to all 

 the tenants at a moderate cost. Might not the giving to a land owner of 

 the option in these outlying districts to go up higher than some low limit 

 like 36 feet, if he covered a less proportion of his lot, be one of the many 

 ways which study will reveal of accomplishing a variety of results somewhat 

 like these, if your Commission desires them? In a later memorandum we 

 may be able ourselves to suggest other methods of limiting height and area 

 in most parts of the city which will allow the builder greater freedom with- 

 out endangering the public welfare. Here, however, as elsewhere it is in 

 the skill, industry and wisdom of your Commission that we are glad to 

 trust. 



True principle of districting 



To what we have urged in the districting of this city as to height and 

 area, your tentative report contained but one answer, and that is the impli- 

 cation to be found in many parts of it that land the same time distance by 

 the new dual transit system from City Hall should receive the same district- 

 ing provisions. With any such principle we most emphatically disagree. 

 No such principle, so far as we are aware, has even been suggested before 

 in the history of districting. The true principle, we believe, was stated by 

 the Heights of Buildings Commission in the chapter of its report entitled 

 " Conclusions and Recommendations," as follows : 



" Profiting by past experience, we can do much to safeguard the 

 future. We can prevent the repetition all over the city of conditions 

 and evils now confined to comparatively limited areas. Regulations, 

 however, must be carefully devised so as not to interfere unduly with 

 existing property values. 



" The Commission believes that any complete system of height 

 and court restriction necessitates the application of different regula- 

 tions to different parts of the city. The city should be divided into 

 districts, and the restrictions for each district worked out with 

 reference to the peculiar needs and requirements of that particular 

 district. * * * The blanket restrictions which we have recom- 

 mended for immediate adoption have, as a matter of fact, been de- 

 vised with reference to the needs of the downtown office and financial 



