58 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION 



surrounded by buildings of similar type and use, all of which have been 

 constructed with reference to that particular use. Anything that will tend 

 to preserve the character of a particular section for a reasonable period of 

 years, will tend to bring about the uniform improvement of the section. A 

 large proportion of the land of New York City that is now unimproved or 

 poorly improved is in that condition because the owners feel that the char- 

 acter of the section is changing, is bound to change in the near future or 

 that the permanent character of the section is unknown. If restrictions 

 were imposed so that the general character of particular sections could be 

 forecasted with reasonable certainty for a period of years, owners who had 

 been holding back on account of the uncertainties of the situation would find 

 it clearly to their advantage to improve their holdings. The result would 

 be that these restricted sections would be more quickly built up with build- 

 ings of similar type and use. This should have the effect of improving 

 living conditions, reducing the cost of living and maintaining real estate 

 values. 



Any growing city that fails to control building development must in- 

 evitably suffer enormous loss due to building obsolescence. Obsolescence 

 may be defined as lack of adaptation to function. It results from changed 

 conditions and surroundings that render the building an inappropriate im- 

 provement for the particular location. The total social loss does not consist 

 merely of the great cost of building reconstruction or of the great decline 

 in the rental value of the inappropriate buildings that are not reconstructed, 

 but there is added to this the social loss due to the retardation of real estate 

 improvements owing directly to the obsolescence hazard. 



In a memorandum submitted to the Commission by Frederick L. Acker- 

 man, the importance of districting and its superiority over private restrictive 

 covenants, is clearly pointed out. Mr. Ackerman says : 



" We should not confuse the term ' zoning ' with the ideas sur- 

 rounding the present use of the word ' restriction.' It is true that 

 restrictions upon property are a necessary part of any scheme of zon- 

 ing, but there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the re- 

 strictions. When a group of individuals restrict a section of the city, 

 it is done for the purpose of conserving that section for a particular 

 use. In practice, this object is rarely attained for the simple reason 

 that there are parcels of property within that section which, for one 

 reason or another, are withheld with the result that sooner or later 

 these pieces are used for a purpose detrimental to the adjacent prop- 

 erty, causing the restricted property to depreciate in value. Oft times 

 the restrictions made by individual owners hamper seriously the 

 growth of a section, and in practice, instead of conserving the sec- 

 tion to a better development of the particular activity for which it 

 was intended, these restrictions simply serve as a check upon its de- 

 velopment owing to the fact that owners know that sooner or later 

 the restrictions will be removed, when other activities will enter and 



