91视频

The notion that government may direct, and even veto, particular land uses is contrary to the self-image of the rugged American. We cherish the idea that the individual is responsible for the use and management of land. We in Oregon often hark back to a received history of 鈥渃onquering the frontier,鈥� 鈥渞emoving鈥� indigenous peoples, and establishing farms and, eventually, cities. Land use regulations, as we know them now, however, are only slightly more than a century old 鈥� beginning with the adoption of New York City鈥檚 1916 Zoning Resolution.

Zoning is a product of planning 鈥� a means for implementation of planning. Zoning is often confused with its older sister, planning, a 19th century concept that began with the promise of building viable urban areas only to flounder when the focus turned rather to the protection of property and property values in about 1910. Some history of planning and zoning in the United States is in order.

Jon Peterson鈥檚 2006 book, 鈥淭he Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840-1917,鈥� is a good place to begin that historical review. The book traces the history of planning and land use regulation from its rudiments, 鈥渢ownsite planning鈥� or regulations governing the subdivision of land to facilitate description of lots for future sale, and 鈥渟pecial purpose planning,鈥� which focused on individual sites (such as university campuses) or projects (such as water or transportation facilities).

Before 1900, American pragmatism justified new legislative measures to avoid harsh urban outcomes: clean water was routed from reservoirs instead of individual wells, cholera was avoided by the first sewer systems, and fire disasters (like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911) were avoided by the adoption of building and fire safety codes.

At about the same time the City Beautiful movement was born, taking its cue from grand European conurbations and the 鈥淲hite City鈥� element of the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago in 1893. This movement was the product of upper-class and middle-class urbanites who were often associated with the Progressive movement in politics. These advocates saw civic art, parkways, and open spaces, along with neoclassical buildings as part of a moral uplift of the citizenry, leading to pride in one鈥檚 own urban area. Indeed, the idea of a beautiful and refined city was missionary work for progressives as part of a social Darwinist vision 鈥� to improve the physical aspects of urban life so that they may be more fit to compete with other urban areas, morally and economically.

Besides the Columbian Exhibition, another landmark of American planning before zoning became its focus was the McMillan Plan for Washington, D.C., in 1902, which featured a series of public improvements (buildings, parks and open spaces, and transportation routes) on a grand scale. These improvements were part of an overall plan, rather than a series of projects, and led to the notion that rational comprehensive urban planning, informed by expert advice from engineers, architects, and landscape architects, was good public policy. The new planning profession would persuade various interest groups in a city to agree on a 鈥渟cientific鈥� plan in furtherance of an overall public interest. Progressives were impressed by the work of planning and urban design in Germany and the United Kingdom. However, a division between City-Beautiful-oriented planners and other political progressives came to a head in 1910.

The division between the orthodox new planning profession, born in the City Beautiful movement, and other political and social progressives interested in how physical planning may address housing and other social ills, manifested. As the progressive movement morphed into pragmatism with the 鈥渞eturn to normalcy鈥� following World War I, the City Beautiful morphed into the 鈥淐ity Practical.鈥� Political and social concerns were no longer concerns of zoning, which was focused on the protection of existing businesses and residents from public health and safety hazards and the need to plan and site transportation facilities to serve urban uses.

In a city planning conference in Washington in 1910, advocates of the 鈥淐ity Practical鈥� won out over those who emphasized relief from congested cities and the need for better housing. Instead, planning became institutionalized as a profession as a part of urban government with the establishment of planning commissions. These bodies were often representative of the business and Realtor communities and often more focused on addressing urban transportation over other forms of congestion or on housing. Indeed, it was the public housing and urban renewal movements that addressed these problems more comprehensively, even if sometimes mistakenly (as the now-familiar images of the demolition of the many-storied Pruitt-Igoe public housing projects in the 1970s demonstrates).

New York City鈥檚 1916 zoning regulations, adopted in the twilight of the progressive movement, were not a positive product of reform, but rather an effort to protect retail merchants in lower Manhattan from the location of the garment industry in its midst, and protect residential uses from the shadows cast by skyscrapers (and later multistory apartment buildings). And while those regulations were predicated on a statutorily required, 鈥渨ell considered鈥� (and in later versions, 鈥渃omprehensive鈥�) plan, there was no separate planning document in 1916 to present a city vision or land use policies. Indeed, the absence of a plan, or its relegation to a mere hortatory document, still characterizes most zoning exercises in the United States. Zoning has become an end in itself 鈥� a means to protect existing private property investments. Only more recently has zoning reconnected with planning to realize overall community objectives for the future.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.