AICP_1.25 Flashcards
Charles Abrams
As an international housing consultant, Charles Abrams had a major impact on housing policy after World War II. He was a longtime adviser to the United Nations and, in the 1950s, he chaired the New York State Commission Against Discrimination. In the mid-1960s, he headed a task force that recommended consolidating New York’s housing activities, a proposal that led to the creation of the New York City Housing and Development Administration. Designated a National Planning Pioneer in 1993.
Frederick Adams
Frederick J. Adams (1901-1980) founded the city and regional planning department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1932. Adams insisted that the planning program should be interdisciplinary while also making sure that the field maintained its own identity. His students helped to create university planning programs at the University of California at Berkeley, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, Ohio State University, and Pennsylvania State University at State College. Designated a National Planning Pioneer in 1996.
Thomas Adams
British-born planner Thomas Adams supervised work on the 1929 Regional Plan of New York and Environs. Adams was a prolific designer of low-density residential developments that were commonly referred to as “garden suburbs.” Upon returning to Great Britain, he served as one of the early presidents of the Institute of Landscape Architects, which became the Landscape Institute. Designated a National Planning Pioneer in 1989.
Radburn Style
US - based public housing method, backyards facing each other and front yards accessed by public streets. Due to concentration of poverty and lack of “eyes on the street”, crime was rampant
Sherry Arnstein
1969 book- “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” about the hierarchy of public involvement. Arnstein’s work influenced how planners and communities go about engaging the public in the planning and decision-making process, provided the theoretical framework for advocacy planning, and organized planners’ understanding of meaning public participation as a way for citizens to be equal partners in shaping programs and plans. Designated a National Planning Pioneer in 2005.
A Ladder of Citizen Participation
THEORY, ARNSTEIN: Citizen participation in democratic processes, if it is to be considered participation in any genuine or practice sense, requires the redistribution of power. In Arnstein’s formulation, citizen participation is citizen power. Without an authentic reallocation of power in the form of money or decision-making authority, for example participation merely allows the powerholders to claim that all sides were considered, but makes it possible for only some of those sides to benefit. It maintains the status quo.
1) MANIPULATION
2) THERAPY
3) INFORMING
4) CONSULTATION
5) PLACATION
6) PARTNERSHIP
7) DELEGATED POWER
8) CITIZEN CONTROL
EDMUND BACON
Edmund N. Bacon, Philadelphia’s planning director from 1949 to 1970, is honored for bringing national attention to the rebuilding of the American city in the post-World War II era. In Design of Cities, Bacon explains his philosophy of design, derived in part from his study of great urban design achievements of the past, and shows how it applies to the revived design of mid-20 century Central City Philadelphia. Designated a National Planning Pioneer in 1993.
DESIGN OF CITIES (BACON)
Bacon identifies eight elements of ‘Involvement’ in Architecture and Urban Design. To identify these elements, Bacon utilizes Francesco Guardi’s painting Architectural Capriccio. Describing these elements as functions of design, he argues the urban designer should be aware of these elements and use them as tools when developing a ‘design idea’ of what the city or place ought to look like:
Meeting the sky - building elements to create skylines and identity.
Meeting the ground - to give a quality of stability and definition.
Points in space - which interplay to create tension and dynamic spatial harmony.
Recession planes - framing and creating drama, scale and position for the viewer.
Design in depth - creating perspective and a sense of movement within space.
Ascent and descent - levels producing anticipation and pleasure.
Convexity and concavity - the interplay of positive and negative forms to shape volume.
Relationship to people - human-scale design to connect and involve.
FREDERICK BAIR JR
Author of The Text of a Model Zoning Ordinance. He also refined the land-use intensity system, which he first adapted to Norfolk, Virginia. Besides writing three editions of Model Zoning, he wrote commentaries for Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, was a founder of the Florida Planning and Zoning Association (1950), and practiced professionally, first with the Florida Development Commission and then as an independent consultant at his own firm, Bair & Abernathy.
HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW
Harland Bartholomew was the first planner ever to be put on staff by an American city. It was Newark, New Jersey, that hired Bartholomew to work on a comprehensive plan in 1914, a year after he started his planning career. His 1932 book, Urban Land Uses, is considered a classic in quantitative analysis.
EDWARD BASSETT
Edward Murray Bassett (1863-1948) chaired the commission that produced New York City’s landmark 1916 zoning code plan. Participant in a wide array of civic boards and commissions, including the National Conference on City Planning, a forerunner of the American Planning Association.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CITY PLANNING
FORERUNNER OF THE APA
CATHERINE BAUER
Today’s debates about public housing have a familiar ring to those who know the work of Catherine Bauer, who described many of the problems in her 1934 book, Modern Housing. Bauer’s views had a strong influence on the housing legislation of the New Deal, but in the 1950s she became an equally articulate advocate for long-range planning to guide metropolitan growth. In a 1951 essay titled “Social Questions in Housing and Community Planning,” she laid the foundation for what would later be called social planning. Catherine Bauer was a leader of the “housers” advocates for high-quality public housing in the U.S., a cause that gathered steam during the Great Depression. Her 1934 book “Modern Housing” was an indictment of America’s failure to build comfortable, dignified housing for ordinary people amid a national housing shortage. Bauer largely wrote the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, which created America’s public-housing program. In the 1950s, Jane Jacobs, then an editor at Architectural Forum, criticized Bauer Wurster’s ongoing faith in top-down social-housing projects, while Bauer Wurster argued that these kinds of interventions were necessary to fight segregation, a topic Jacobs hardly ever confronted head-on. Bauer Wurster’s accomplishments are not widely recognized today. But in a moment of increased interest in housing policy in America ”and a renewed push for public housing” she could be more relevant than ever.
MODERN HOUSING
BAUER - Published in 1934, laying out the recent developments in European modernist housing for an American audience. Bauer would become one of the leading “housers” in the United States, arguing for the provision of high-quality planned public housing between the 1930s and 1960s.
THE CITY IN HISTORY
MUMFORD (1961) Mumford argues for a world not in which technology rules, but rather in which it achieves a balance with nature. His ideal vision is what can be described as an “organic city,” where culture is not usurped by technological innovation but rather thrives with it. Mumford contrasts these cities with those constructed around wars, tyrants, poverty, etc. However, the book is not an attack on the city, but rather an evaluation of its growth, how it came to be, and where it is heading, as evidenced by the final chapter “Retrospect and Prospect.”
LEWIS MUMFORD
Lewis Mumford (1895-1990), author and critic, promoted the idea of planning through such books as The Culture of Cities (1938) and The City in History (1961), the latter of which received the National Book Award. He believed that urban planning should accentuate a natural relationship between people and their living spaces. The author of more than 30 books, Lewis Mumford was a public intellectual of remarkable breadth, with a critical view that spanned history, philosophy, city planning, technology, and literature. As his New York Times obituary noted, there was scarcely any aspect of modern society that he left unexamined. His best-known book may be 1961’s The City in History, which received the National Book Award.
In 1923 he co-founded the Regional Planning Association of America, a group that promoted Ebenezer Howard’s planning principles. He lived those ideals, moving into Sunnyside Gardens in Queens, an innovative development of modestly priced apartments and townhouses, arranged around common green courts to emphasize urban nature and resident co-operation.
Mumford, as a socialist, thought that people, in order to fight, need to see what an alternative vision of the city might look like.
ROBERT MOSES
Power broker–Served as NYC Parks commissioner, head of state parks council, head of the state power commission, and chairman of the triborough bridge and tunnel authority. Built over 400 miles of parkways, 150,000 housing units, 13 bridges, and 600 playgrounds, but often displaced the poor to make room for middle income housing. Stopped from building a cross-Manhattan roadway by Jacob’s book “Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Like Baron Haussmann, Moses presided over the transformation of a great city without ever holding elected office, embodying a top-down, authoritarian approach to urban planning.
The Housing Act of 1949 gave Moses broad authority to engage in “slum clearance” for large-scale public housing projects as well as civic projects like Lincoln Center and the UN headquarters.
Moses displaced 250,000 people during highway construction alone. Moses was known as a bigot, and many of his most disruptive projects targeted low-income, minority areas. Especially next to Jane Jacobs, against whom he is often pitted,
Baron Haussmann, 1809-1891
Prefect of the Seine during the reign of France’s Emperor Napoleon III (1853 - 1870), used his authoritarian mandate to transform the medieval Paris into the paragon of a modern city. He ran broad new boulevards through maze-like old neighborhoods to slow the spread of disease and improve transportation
The buildings that replaced the ”with five or six stories and mansard roofs” have since become symbols of Paris and his remaking of it. Haussmann placed grand, secular monuments strategically along the sight lines of the new boulevards, and created parks and squares. New sewer and gas lines improved sanitation and, virtually overnight, transformed Paris into the City of Light.
Haussmann’s renovation of Paris displaced 350,000 people. Haussmannization was widely adopted across Europe at the end of the 19th century, shaping the forms of countless cities.
Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr
As the designer of iconic public parks and some of America’s earliest suburbs, Olmsted became known as the founding father of landscape architecture.
Designed Manhattan’s Central Park, with a plan that combined elements of the English ramble with more formal, geometric French landscaping. Olmsted was committed to providing public spaces for the enjoyment of all. Olmsted & Vaux would design Prospect Park in Brooklyn, Chicago’s Riverside parks, and the park system for Buffalo, New York, 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, along with numerous other parks, parkways, and university campuses. After his death, Olmsted’s sons John Charles Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. continued in the family business.
Olmsted pioneered street layouts and design elements, such as street setbacks and gaps between houses, that were widely copied in future zoning laws, helping to establish the visual character of American suburbs.
DANIEL BURNHAM
Daniel Burnham was an architect, urban designer, and director of works for the 1893 Worlds Fair. In his Chicago architecture practice, Burnham and partner John Wellborn Root designed some of the then-tallest buildings in America.
Burnham masterminded the White City, which set the stage for the City Beautiful movement. Using neoclassical architecture to promote moral and social order among the urban citizenry. The most visible legacy of the City Beautiful are the grand civic centers Burnham went on to design in numerous American cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and Philadelphia.
Make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work.
1909 Plan of Chicago was the first comprehensive plan for a growing city in the United States. It called for lakefront improvements and a new highway system, among other changes. Burnhams advocacy was key to Chicago’s lakefront being set aside as public parkland.
1909 PLAN OF CHICAGO
The 1909 Plan of Chicago, the Burnham Plan, was a proposal that sought to beautify Chicago and improve efficiency of commerce. The plan used renderings to convey the possible scenarios for a rapidly growing city. Many of its aspirational ideas never became reality.
Burnham and Bennett researched numerous cities around the world. They studied how the growth of these cities and how large-scale infrastructure influenced the economy and mobility of their inhabitants. As a result, the Plan of Chicago was broken down into six categories and focused on the economic, transportation, and social needs of Chicagoans. The six categories, as laid out by Burnham and Bennett in the final chapter of the Plan of Chicago, are as follows:
1) The improvement of the lake front.
2) The creation of a system of highways outside the city.
3) The improvement of railway terminals, and the development of a complete traction system for both freight and passengers.
4) The acquisition of an outer park system, and of parkway circuits.
5) The systematic arrangement of the streets and avenues within the city, in order to facilitate the movement to and from the business district.
6) The development of centers of intellectual life and of civic administration, so related as to give coherence and unity to the city.
Projects such as the widening of Chicago’s streets and boulevards took shape over the next few decades. New streets were introduced, such as Wacker Drive along the Chicago River. One of the most noticeable portions of the plan to come to fruition is the city’s 25 miles of lakefront (out of its 29 miles of lakeshore) that serve as public parkland.
e, its adoption and realization will produce for us conditions in which business enterprises can be carried on with the utmost economy. While the Plan of Chicago will never be fully realized, it continues to provide solutions and possibilities for the ever-changing Chicago and for other cities around the globe.
EBENEZER HOWARD
Ebenezer Howard was attuned to the keen and pure delights of the countryside. But he was also a Londoner, and a realist. He understood the economic forces that were driving urbanization at the end of the 19th century, and the miserable conditions that poverty and overcrowding had created for many of his fellow city-dwellers.
With his concept of the Garden City, he attempted to marry the benefits of city and country living. In his much-read book Garden Cities of To-Morrow (1902), Howard presented careful diagrams of these new 6,000-acre towns, which would be built on open land and linked by railroads. The inner ring of the city would contain a central park and civic institutions, followed by houses and commercial avenues, and finally industrial and agricultural uses at the fringes.
JANE ADDAMS
Addams, along with Ellen Gates Starr, founded Chicago’s Hull House, a woman-run “settlement house” designed to improve the lives of immigrants and the poor in Chicago’s Near West Side. A cross between a community college, rec center, and clinic, Hull House offered shelter for victims of domestic violence and language classes for recently arrived immigrants. It also included Chicago’s first public playground, as children’s play made for happier, healthier adults.
In her 1907 essay Utilization of Women in City Government, Addams wrote that the mandate of a modern city government primarily encompasses “civic housekeeping,” including issues like sanitation, social welfare, education, and combating vice. Because these urban problems correspond to traditional women’s roles, a more humanitarian city must include women leaders.
WEB DU BOIS
Du Bois was a writer, sociologist, civil rights advocate, the first African American to earn a doctorate from Harvard, and a founder of the NAACP.
The Philadelphia Negro was the first sociological study of a black community in the United States. To understand Philadelphia’s segregated Seventh Ward “city within a city” Du Bois analyzed its street life, housing stock, and community institutions, and conducted detailed surveys of residents. The problems Du Bois observed in the Seventh Ward (and which, he noted, neighboring white communities willfully ignored) would persist for the next century and beyond. He famously stated that “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line”, and helped the public see that divide more clearly, not just through words.
Le Corbusier, 1887-1965
Modernist architecture and planning were embodied in Le Corbusier. His “Five Points of Architecture” helped spur a revolution in design, enabled by the new material of reinforced concrete. Two of the “points” in his manifesto were an 1) open floor plan because concrete supporting columns made internal load-bearing walls unnecessary, and a “free” facade, or exterior walls that were not load-bearing, either, so could be designed as the architect wished.
Agitated for the wholesale demolition of old cities and their replacement by rational superblocks of high-rise offices and apartment buildings.
notable for its monumental civic buildings and broad boulevards.
GRACE LEE BOGGS
Chinese-American philosopher and political activist who spent decades striving for a second, more just American revolution,
From the early 1940s, she became enmeshed in radical black politics, with her belief in “the power that the black community has within itself to change this country when it begins to move.”
By the late 1970s, Lee Boggs had distanced herself from the Black Power and New Left movements and focused on neighborhood activism. She and her husband founded Detroit Summer, an intergenerational community arts and activism organization. She planted community gardens, organized workers, and fought crime in a city undergoing decline. In her later years, she became more involved in environmental and anti-war activism, but remained a popular figure in Detroit.
JANE JACOBS
Did more to popularize critical thinking about cities than any other individual. Her 1961 bestseller The Death and Life of Great American Cities dismissed the grand plans of the Radiant Garden City Beautiful and pointing the way toward more human-centered urban design and bottom-up decision-making.
Death and Life was a love letter to many of the things planners and other bureaucrats had been trying to eradicate with urban renewal: crowded neighborhoods, chaotic streets, jarring mixtures of people and land uses. Jacobs’s most high-profile enemy was Robert Moses,
Instead of freeways and superblocks, Jacobs advocated for short blocks and varied buildings, with small businesses at ground level and apartments above, much like the urban fabric of Manhattan’s West Village.
Jacobs was able to speak about cities in emotional terms.
Her writing helped spur an anti-freeway, anti-urban-renewal revolt across the country, which largely ended sweeping Modernist planning and vastly expanded community control over land-use decisions (a mixed blessing).
Jacobs view of her New York neighborhood was idyllic, largely glossing over problems like housing affordability and segregation. She failed to grasp how community control over land use could exacerbate those problems.
WILLIAM WHYTE
Whyte is best known for The Organization Man, his bestselling indictment of the culture of conformity in 1950s suburbia and corporate America. His emphasis on creativity and self-expression would be an inspiration for future urbanists and social critics, including Jane Jacobs
His Street Life Project sought to understand why some New York City parks and plazas were well used, and others studiously avoided. Aided by time-lapse photography, Whyte charted how pedestrians moved through space.
; where they would sit to eat lunch; where they would stop and converse; and where they would move hurriedly on their way. He found that the most-used plazas in New York were more likely to have people in pairs or groups, and that stepped seating arrangements make a plaza more attractive by allowing loiterers to observe “the theater of the street,” among many other observations. Assisted by female graduate students, he was also one of the first researchers to study the different ways men and women engage with urban space. A conservationist as well as a lover of cities, Whyte applied his small-scale observations to advocate for greater investment in downtowns as opposed to sprawl. One of his maxims, “good space beckons people in”, sounds obvious now.
IAN MCHARG
McHarg was a pioneering landscape architect from Scotland who advocated designs that work with, rather than against, a place’s ecology. In this respect, he helped move the field of landscape architecture into the realm of environmental planning. Published in the early days of the environmental movement, McHarg’s 1969 book Design With Nature influenced policies for managing coastlines, watersheds, and forests, and advocated for environmental review of major development projects. His use of separate map overlays to evaluate different ecological concern ”including climate, hydrology, and soil conditions” laid the intellectual groundwork for Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Clarence Perry
Perry devised the neighbourhood unit plan, a residential community scheme disseminated through the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs in 1929 that influenced planning in US cities. neighborhood unit was mixed with garden city to create Radburn
1) School should be in center so no child walked more than 1/4 mile to school and didn’t cross major roadways. School should have large play area entire community could use. should support 5-9k
2) Major arterials are located along perimeter to eliminate through traffic
3) Internal streets to be curvilinear for aesthetic and safety concerns, discourage through traffic and non local intrusion
4) Local shopping along neighborhood’s perimeter or at main entrance
5) at least 10% of land area dedicated to parks or open space
Patrick Geddes
He introduced the concept of “region” to architecture and planning.
He elaborated “neotechnics” as the way of remaking a world apart from over-commercialization and money dominanc.
Interconnectedness of city region as a potentially autonomous unit.
The concept of biological evolution could be applied to explain the evolution of society
Key units of society as constituting “Place, Work, Folk”
According to Geddes, it is from “stable, healthy homes” providing the necessary conditions for mental and moral development that come beautiful and healthy children who are able “to fully participate in life”.
His central argument was that physical geography, market economics and anthropology were related, yielding a “single chord of social life [of] all three combined”.
Rachel Carson
Her book (Silent Spring) in 1962 became an expose on the effects of pesticide use and became a catalyst for the environmental rights movement
James Howard Kunstler
The Geography of Nowhere (1994), a history of American suburbia and urban development, The Long Emergency (2005), and Too Much Magic (2012). In The Long Emergency he imagines peak oil and oil depletion resulting in the end of industrialized society, forcing Americans to live in smaller-scale, localized, agrarian (or semi-agrarian) communities
Saul Alinsky
American community activist and political theorist. His work through the Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation helping poor communities organize to press demands upon landlords, politicians, bankers and business leaders won him national recognition and notoriety.
Alinsky, in his widely cited Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer (1971) defended the arts both of confrontation and of compromise involved in community organizing as keys to the struggle for social justice.
Jared Diamond
Guns, Germs and Steel
Diamond is commonly referred to as a polymath, stemming from his knowledge in many fields including anthropology, ecology, geography, and evolutionary biology.
Charles Lindbloom
Lindblom was one of the early developers and advocates of the theory of incrementalism in policy and decision-making.
“muddling through,” approach to decision-making processes. In it, policy change is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. He came to that view through his extensive studies of welfare policies and trade unions throughout the industrialized world.
“The Science Of ‘Muddling Through’” (1959)
Jacob Riis
Wrote book changing how people thought about how the other half lived, housing and neighborhood reform through photo journalism.
He endorsed the implementation of “model tenements” in New York.
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.
Followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a notable American landscape architect and city planner. He was best known for his wildlife conservation efforts and contributions to national parks. He worked on projects in Acadia, Everglades, and Yosemite National Parks. President Theodore Roosevelt would appoint him to serve on the McMillan Commission.
James Rouse
Rousted up dying downtowns and creating malls for young roustabouts (you see that?)
Rouse is responsible for the development of Columbia, Maryland in the 1960s. Prior to that, he pioneered indoor shopping malls in the 1950s and festival marketplaces into dying downtowns like Inner Harbor in Baltimore or South Street Seaport in New York.
Guy Tugwell
Rexford “Guy” Tugwell was the head of the Resettlement Administration and a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “brains trust.” He worked on greenbelt city programs during Resettlement and later went on to serve as governor of Puerto Rico.
Sir Raymond Unwin
Sir Raymond Unwin was an English town planner. He designed Letchworth, a neighborhood based on Ebenezer Howard’s Utopian plan. They later went on to plan the new garden suburb at Hampstead.
A second English Garden City was Hampstead, which was where cul-de-sacs were invented. Both communities were designed by Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker. However, in reality, no Garden City was even truly self-contained and eventually became residential subdivisions.
Clarence Stein and Henry Wright
Designed Radburn NJ using garden city design, focusing on pedestrian separation from cars through green belts and cul de sacs
Edge City
From 1985 to present, suburbanization has only continued and we’ve seen a rise of the megaburb and edge city. An Edge City is when a new concentration of businesses, shopping, and entertainment forms outside of the traditional urban area in what had been considered the suburban or rural area of the city, making the area more self-contained. Fairfax, Virginia is identified as a common example of an Edge City.
Five rules:
1. more than five million square feet of office space which hosts 20,000 to 50,000 workers.
2. retail space exceeding 600,000 square feet.
3. more jobs than bedrooms in an edge city.
4. It must be perceived as one place by the population.
5. nothing like a city 30 years prior
New Town Movement
Influenced by Garden Cities movement within the United States, which included Forest Hills Garden, New York; Radburn, New Jersey (1928); Reston, Virginia; and Sunnyside Gardens, New York (1924); and Park Forest, Illinois. Radburn, New Jersey was designed by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright in 1928 and they used cul-de-sacs and greenways to separate pedestrian traffic from automobiles.
President Roosevelt established the Resettlement Administration during the Depression in 1935. This agency, ran by Rexford Tugwell, was responsible for the New Towns program, which developed three cities founded on Ebenezer Howard’s principles. These were; Greendale Wisconsin; Greenhills, Ohio; and Greenbelt, Maryland.
Garden City
Ebenezer Howard’s movement, wrote book “Tomorrow, a Peaceful path to real reform”. First was Letchworth. Self-contained cities of 32,000 on 6,000 acres, with density of of 30,000 on 1,000 acres. - surrounded by greenbelts and owned through coops. Influenced New Town Movement, developed Forest Hills Garden, Sunnyside Gardens, and Park Forest and Radburn NJ. Used Cul de sacs and greenways to separate pedestrians from cars.
City Beautiful
Daniel Burnham: Emerged as a way to address high rates of poverty, blight and crime. Believed that a beautiful city would inspire citizens to live more virtuous lives. Included:- tree lined boulevards- uniform building setbacks and heights- waterfront parks- civic buildings and museums centered around parks
Inspired by Haussmann’s work in Paris. Exampled in 1909 Chicago Plan, McMillan Plan (1901) and White City
Chicago World’s Fair
White City inspiration created by Daniel Burnham, inspiration for 1909 Chicago Pan.
Technocratic Planning
Technocratic planning is a model of governance that emphasizes technical expertise and background
1. It involves the development of a balanced policy and program planning model based on connectivity, risk, and performance which are linked
2. Technocracy is a system of planning and rational order in which society would specify its needs and organize the factors of production to achieve them
3. In most governments worldwide, technocrats are selected to head key departments that require specialized skills and experts
Advocacy Planning
Paul Davidoff proposed Advocacy Planning in the 1960s as an attempt to represent the various interest groups within a community. Prior to this theory, planners operated on public interest, or the good of the whole. Now, planners would be quasi-lawyers, advocating for the interests of a particular group. Advocacy planning was in an effort to give voices to the underrepresented or disadvantaged. Davidoff believed that there was never one sole public interest so planners were forced to become advocates for special interests. But this approach resulted in unbalanced representation. Davidoff suggested planners should represent interest groups, rather than the whole community. This would result in plans that would represent the interest group’s values and objectives. A planner would still use rational or incremental approaches to planning, but advocacy planning changed who the planner would plan for.
Utopianism
Pursuit of a community of society that has perfect qualities and is designed in such a way that the citizens do not have any problems. Plan for Chicago and Broadacre City (Frank Lloyd Wright) are examples.
Rational Planning
Rational Planning was a dominant theory in the 1950s and assumes a planner has perfect knowledge of all the factors in a situation. In this theory of a practice, a planner evaluates the alternatives and is not constrained by time and money limitations. However, we know this can never be true as humans are imperfect. Instead, planners must satisfice.
Rational planning is not well applied when “wicked” problems exist. Wicked problems are issues that are complicated and difficult to solve. One example is homelessness, because the issue does not have a single root cause and one alternative could not eliminate the problem.
Further, rational planning is supposed to be value-free, meaning that goals are based on the public interest (the good of the whole community). If there is no consensus on an issue, it is difficult to determine the public interest. Therefore, rational planning is best used when a problem is easily defined and there can be a “best” solution applied.
While it is impractical for larger issues, planners utilize the theory often by completing the following steps during a planning process: HERBERT SIMON DEVELOPED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE HUMAN MIND IS LIMITED IN ITS ABILITY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, SO INSTEAD WE CHOOSE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE GOOD ENOUGH.
- Set Goals
2.Determine Alternatives - Evaluate Alternatives
- Choose an Alternative
- Implement Alternative
- Evaluate the Results
Mixed Scanning
Mixed Scanning was described as a compromise between rational planning and incremental planning.
Etzioni introduced Mixed Scanning as a rational analysis of alternatives but with implementation completed incrementally.
The theory acknowledges the differences between policy decisions and implementation decisions. For example, the development of a comprehensive plan would be completed rationally; however, implementing the future land uses would be done incrementally.
Equity Planning
As a result of advocacy planning shortcomings, Norman Krumholz adopted Equity Planning in the 1970s. Equity planning made low-income needs the ultimate priority and shifted the goals of a planner to redistributing power, resources, or participation away from the elite and towards the working class or low-income citizens. Plans are evaluated on improvements to quality of life factors, as opposed to the delivery of services. Saul Alinsky, regarded as the Father of Community Organizing, is best known for his book “Rules for Radicals.” His main focus was improving living conditions in poor communities. Alan Altshuler also supported the notion that planners could not be objective and to be most effective, must be involved in the politics of planning.
Incremental Planning
Incremental Planning was proposed in 1959 by Charles Lindbloom in his publication “The Science of Muddling Through.” Lindbloom introduced the idea that individuals make successive, incremental decisions and, therefore, planning should be more piecemeal and pragmatic. His point was that the real world is not rational and comprehensive so neither should planning. Instead, it should be approached incrementally. He argues that major policy changes are most successful when done in small increments over long periods of time and this approach is most common in planning offices today.
Transactive Planning
Transactive Planning: John Friedmann published a book in 1973 titled “Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning.” Friedmann recognized that under advocacy planning, planners were still serving as technical experts determining alternatives. Transactive planning theory was a response to advocacy planning that aimed to get the public involved in the planning process. In transactive planning, planners meet with individual community members to discuss issues. Through mutual learning, the planner shares technical information with citizens, and citizens provided the planner with community knowledge. These meetings help the planner develop a plan. Transactive planning, similar to advocacy planning, believed planning could not merely be scientific. The largest critique of transactive planning is that meeting with citizens individually and having an engaging dialogue of mutual learning is time consuming. Also, determining the value or importance of each person’s knowledge is difficult and it cannot work where there are large disparities of opinions among stakeholders.
Radical Planning
Radical Planning: John Friedmann published another book in 1987, this time called “Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action” where he introduces the concept of radical planning. Radical planning is a theory that takes power away from the government and instead empowers the people. Radical Planning shuns bureaucracy and centralized planning and believes planning is most effective when common citizens are empowered to solve their own problems. Friedmann’s ultimate outcome are a series of collective actions that result in self-reliance. Citizens get together and develop their own plans; however, this theory was nearly impossible to implement as John Friedmann theorized. There is no structure that allows individuals or groups to develop and implement plans outside of the government.
First state to institute statewide zoning
Hawaii
First City to adopt zoning
NYC
Tennessee Valley Authority
America’s experiment in river basin planning. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides electricity for 153 local power companies serving 10 million people in Tennessee and parts of six surrounding states, as well as directly to 58 large industrial customers and federal installations. We don’t get taxpayer funding; rather, our revenues come from sales of electricity. TVA also provides flood control, navigation, and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and regional governments with their economic development efforts. Congress initiated
Standard State Zoning Enabling Act and Standard City Planning Enabling Act
Failed to define the relationship between planning and zoning.Sanctioned piecemeal adoption of a comp plan’s components
Resettlement Administration
New deal organization (FDR and Rex Tugwell)– that relocated struggling urban and rural families to communities planned by the federal government. Built greenbelt towns. The main focus of the RA was to now build relief camps in California for migratory workers, especially refugees from the drought-struck Dust Bowl of the Southwest.Greenbelt’s innovative design, based on both the garden cities of England and the late 1920s community of Radburn, New Jersey, features residential superblocks four to five times the size of a standard city block and homes with an unusual orientation. Service entries, normally considered back doors, faced the street and the garden side or front entries faced the interior of the block which was shared green space. This configuration provided access to walking paths that wound through the blocks and under roads via underpasses and which connected the homes to numerous parks and playgrounds, and to a town center. Greenbelt MC (near Washington DC) is one of three completed federal green towns, the others being Greendale, Wisconsin and Greenhills, Ohio. A fourth, planned for New Jersey, was never built. In 1997, Greenbelt’s innovative plan became a National Historic landmark.
Housing Act (1934)
Part of the New Deal passed during the Great Depression in order to make housing and home mortgages more affordable. It created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). hese policies had disparate impacts on Americans along segregated lines (see Redlining):Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a “state-sponsored system of segregation.”The government’s efforts were “primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families,” he says. African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
Federal Aid Highway Act (1956)
President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law. With an original authorization of $25 billion (equivalent to $207 billion in 2022)[1] for the construction of 41,000 miles (66,000 km) of the Interstate Highway System over a 10-year period, it was the largest public works project in American history through that time
Agricultural Act (1949)
first time permanent legal basis by which surplus food can be donated to friendly overseas countries as development aid.
Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (1944)
provided World War II veterans with funds for college education, unemployment insurance, and housing. Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business or farm, one year of unemployment compensation, and dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college, or vocational school. An important provision of the G.I. Bill was low interest, zero down payment home loans for servicemen, with more favorable terms for new construction compared to existing housing. This encouraged millions of American families to move out of urban apartments and into suburban homes.
Garden Suburb
Different than a garden city since all residential. Hampstead was a garden city that basically became a suburb. Where cul de sacs were invented.
Housing Act (1954)
The 1954 Act provided funding for 140,000 units of public housing, giving preferential treatment to families that would be relocated for slum eradication or revitalization. In 1965, federal housing programs came under the purview of the new United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). If you are in a small- to mid-size community, chances are that planning began with a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 701 grant made to your community between 1954 and 1981. If your city did not receive a 701 grant directly, it may have participated in a council of government (or similar association of local governments) that prepared comprehensive plans using 701 funds. Even if this assistance did not reach your community directly or indirectly, your community may have emulated those communities that had their plans financed by 701 by developing plans with other grants or its own funds.
Colonial Street System
Savannah GA development (1773) General Oglethorpe laid out city in a series of grids, wide open streets and public squares. Squares would be meeting places. Considered first planned city, still generally the same.
Land Ordinance of 1785
Thomas Jefferson outlined a system of designing and surveying the lands to determine the boundaries as we added the west. Rectangular land survey was based on township, six mile square (36 sq. miles) and land was sold as auctions for a minimum bid of $1 per acre.
Development of DC
1791 Pierre L’Enfant (hired by Washington), designed as orthogonal, gridded street network with diagonal avenues connecting key civic buildings and spaces visually. East-west buildings had letters, N/S had numbers. Plan would be modified by McMillan in 1901 to include Mall
McMillan Plan
instrumental in developing DC
Homestead Act (1862)
Opened public land to settlers for a nominal fee and five years of residence. Signed by Lincoln after secession. Has turned over 10% of the country’s land area to private settlement. To claim land, had to be 21 or older, head of a household, live in the land, building a home, and farm for 5 years
Morrill Act (1862)
provided land grants for public domain to the states–each state recieved 30,000 acres of public land for each senator and house rep. Land was then sold and proceeds from sales to fund agricultural and mechanical schools for each state. Provided strong foundation for higher education from the government and shifted to applied studies instead of classics.
US Reclamation Act (1902)
called for the revenue of federal lands to fund water development projects. Reclamation projects, called irrigation projects, became a priority as the west had inadequate preciptation to use for agriculture and demand for water increased.
Taylor Grazing Act (1934)
regulated the use of the range in the west for conservation and decreased the amount of land available for homesteading out west. Act used to address increasing erosion of land resulting from grazing and was an attempt to organize grazing on public land.
New Deal Programs
Civilian Conservation Corps: CCC critical in development of environmental projects, including planting trees and constructing trails to transform national and state parks system. Works Progress Admin: constructed public buildings and roadsTennessee Valley Authority. Built dams to control flooding and developing the rural areas in Tennessee Valley to help farms and bring industries to area
Modernism/Radiant City
Le Corbusier (1922) - urban environment based on building, car and limited access highway. Housing and ofifce towers arranged in abstract formal relationships to maximize exposure to sun. Each group isolated from others in park-like settings with museums, stadiums, etc along waterfronts. Very little ornamentation and primarily box shaped buildings. Vertical architecture that would leave open space for people to enjoy as public landscaping. Peds/cyclists have dedicated routes, business districts connected by underground transit to nearby residences and commercial districts. Residences separated from industrial uses.
Broadacre City
Concept by Frank Lloyd Wright in Disappearing City - each family would be given one acre of land and transport would be reliant on car. Opposite of transit oriented development and similar to Edge City
Marshall Plan (1947)
reconstruction of Europe after WW2, provided $15b to rebuild cities, industries and infrastructure damaged by WW2. Encouraged commerce between Europe and USA by removing trade barriers.
Post-WW2 population trends
mass migration - inner city white ppl move to the suburbs- Norther whites went from Rust Belt to Sun Belt (CA to FL)- black ppl left south to move north to rust belt- increased suburban sprawl, because of housing programs to support homeownership, GI Bill, and investment during the war of transportation infrastructure.As ppl moved to suburbs in white flight, those left behind in cities were african american. Left a pattern of residential segregation in housing, transportation and education. Redlining and restrictive covenants became banned in 1968 Civil Rights Act (although could be considered still around in other ways)
Edge City
1985 on, when a concentration of businesses, shopping and entertainment forms outside the traditional urban area in what had been considered the suburban or rural area of the city, making it more self-contained. Fairfax VA is an example. 5 Rules:
1) must have more than 5 million sq. f.t of offices for 20-50,000 workers
2) Must have retail space exceeding 600,000 sq. ft.
3) More jobs than bedrooms
4) must be perceived as one place by the population
5) should be nothing like a city 30 years prior
Edgeless Cities
Robert Lang (2002)- large, isolated suburban office complexes sprawling from urban environmens. Typically not accessible by transit or pedestrian friendly.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
FactsIn 1878, Pennsylvania Coal Company granted a deed to homeowner Mahon for all surface property rights, but expressly reserved the right to mine coal beneath the surface, with Mahon waiving all rights to any damages caused. Mahon sued under Pennsylvania’s Kohler Act (1921), which forbade mining activities that caused any homes to subside.
Discussion The court focused on the constitutionality of the Kohler Act. Reviewing property rights broadly, it maintained that “[g]overnment hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law.” However, the court argued that since Mahon was only a single property owner, “A source of damage to such a house is not a public nuisance. … The damage is not common or public.” Therefore, “the statute does not disclose a public interest sufficient to warrant so extensive a destruction of the defendant’s constitutionally protected rights.”
Holding: The court held that the Kohler Act did not constitute an exercise of legitimate police power, because it would prevent the property owner (in this case, Pennsylvania Coal, the subsurface property owner) from its right to gain profit from the use of its property (by mining coal). In other words, “To make it commercially impracticable to mine certain coal has very nearly the same effect for constitutional purposes as appropriating or destroying it.” According to the court, “The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.”
Significance: For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that regulation of land use, including regulation that destroys the economic value of a property, might constitute a taking.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
Facts In 1922, Euclid, a suburb outside of Cleveland, adopted “a comprehensive zoning plan for regulating and restricting the location of trades, industries, apartment houses, two-family houses, etc., the lot area to be built upon, the size and height of buildings, etc.” Ambler Realty claimed that the zoning ordinance as applied to its individual property (which would mostly allow only residential, as opposed to industrial, uses) violated its constitutional property rights, and constituted an attempt to restrict and control the lawful uses of its land by confiscating and destroying much of its value.
Discussion: The court reviewed the history of nuisance law and zoning ordinances, the latter of which had been in effect throughout the country for about 25 years. Asserting that “[a] nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard,” the court supported deference to the legislative, arguing that generally “[i]f the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.” Although a zoning ordinance that is intended to restrict the location of nuisances may in fact also restrict nonnuisance properties, the court said that it is difficult to define what exactly constitutes a nuisance (e.g.,an apartment building can be considered a nuisance if it causes increased traffic and noise), and this regulation of uses generally falls within the police power.
Holding For a zoning ordinance to be declared unconstitutional, it must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable,having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. For claims such as Ambler’s, which protest the general validity of the zoning ordinance, the court will defer to the legislature, although complaints about specific provisions of an ordinance may prove unconstitutional.
Significance Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government that in general does notviolate the constitutional protection of the right to property.
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
FactsThe Town of Ramapo, New York, enacted a concurrency ordinance prohibiting any proposeddevelopment unless developers obtained a special permit. Permits were awarded based on a pointsystem that took into account available municipal facilities in the development area, includingsewerage, drainage, roads, firehouses, park and recreation space, and public schools. The ordinancewas designed to phase development over time — as long as 18 years — although developers couldaccelerate the approval process by constructing their own infrastructure. Golden protested the denialof a special permit to construct a residential subdivision.
Discussion After confirming that the ordinance was permissible under the local zoning enabling act, the court asserted that the “restrictions conform to the community’s considered land use policies as expressed inits comprehensive plan and represent a bona fide effort to maximize population density consistent with orderly growth.” Furthermore, the court argued, the temporary nature of the growth controls allowed properties to be put to profitable uses within a reasonable time, meaning that the permit system did not qualify as a form of confiscation. In addition, property owners could develop their land if they provided their own infrastructure.
Holding: “…where it is clear that the existing physical and financial resources of the community are inadequate to furnish the essential services and facilities which a substantial increase in population requires, there is a rational basis for ‘phased growth,’” validating the Ramapo ordinance.
Significance: Recognized growth phasing programs as valid exercises of police power.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [Mount Laurel I]
FactsIn 1964, the suburban community of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, adopted an ordinance zoning 29.2percent of all land as industrial, 1.2 percent retail, and the remaining nearly 70 percent residential.Residential zones permitted only one detached, single-family dwelling per lot, with large minimums forlot size and building floor area. In 1968, a private nonprofit sought to build a subsidized multifamilyhousing development in a residentially zoned area of Mount Laurel, but zoning that required 20,000-square-foot lots effectively killed the project. The NAACP argued that the town’s zoning ordinancediscriminated against low-income families.DiscussionThe court asserted that the township had restricted multifamily housing in order to reduce the numberof school children in its jurisdiction, and thus keep property taxes low by not paying for additionalschool facilities. This type of land use planning exhibited a “selfish and parochial interest” in attracting”sizeable industrial and commercial ‘ratables’” to increase municipal revenues. Concerning the case athand, the court sought to answer the question of “whether a developing municipality can validly, by asystem of land use regulation, make it physically impossible to provide low and moderate incomehousing in the municipality for the various categories of persons who need and want it and thereby, asMount Laurel has, exclude such people from living within its borders because of their limited incomeand resources.”HoldingThe court held that every “municipality must, by its land use regulations, presumptively makerealistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing … it cannot foreclose the opportunityof the classes of people mentioned for low and moderate income housing and in its regulations mustaffirmatively afford that opportunity, at least to the extent of the municipality’s fair share of thepresent and prospective regional need therefore.” The Mount Laurel ordinance “is presumptivelycontrary to the general welfare and outside the intended scope of the zoning power,” and as such “nomunicipality may exclude or limit categories of housing” for fiscal purposes.SignificanceFormalized the concept of a regional “fair share” affordable housing burden
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Facts: A religious order operating in the mostly white, low-density suburban community of Arlington Heights outside of Chicago sought, with help from non-profit Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.(MHDC), to construct low- and moderate-income housing on some of its land. The Village’s Board Of Trustees denied MHDC’s application for a variance to construct 20 two-story buildings with a total of 190 units on property zoned R-3 single-family housing, citing the community’s desire to preserve single-family housing at the proposed location. MHDC filed suit against the Village, claiming racial discrimination and violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Discussion: Citing its 1976 decision in Washington v. Davis, the court recalled that “[d]isproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination.” The court asserted that “[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. … When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, [] judicial deference is no longer justified.” Departures from normal procedural sequences and legislative or administrative history may be “highly” relevant to determine whether such intent exists.
Holding Because the rezoning request progressed according to the usual procedures, the property in question had been zoned for single-family housing since the Village first adopted a zoning map, and the public comments of the Plan Commission and Board of Trustees did not support inferences of invidious purposes, the zoning decision was rationally determined and the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the village’s decision.
Significance: Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York
FactsIn 1965, two years after the demolition of historic Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, New Yorkadopted its Landmarks Preservation Law. The law established a Landmarks Preservation Commission,which among other duties regulated alterations to landmarked buildings, and included a provisionallowing historic property owners to sell air development rights to owners of nearby parcels. PennCentral, owner of the historic landmark Grand Central Terminal, leased the building to a developer in1968 in order to increase its income by building a 50-plus story skyscraper on top of the terminal. TheLandmarks Commission denied building permits for the project, citing impact both to the historicresource and the surrounding viewshed. Claiming that the denial constituted both a taking and aviolation of due process, Penn Central sought compensation from the City equal to the fair marketvalue of the property’s air rights.DiscussionTo decide whether the Landmark Commission’s action had effected a taking, the court focused on the”economic impact of the regulation … [and] the extent to which the regulation [] interfered withdistinct investment backed expectations,” as well as “the character of the governmental action”, i.e.whether the action “can be characterized as a physical invasion” versus “some public programadjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.” Citing Euclid, thecourt argued that diminution in property value alone cannot establish a taking, which must apply to an entire property, not just a “discrete segment” (in this case, air space). In addition, because the landmarks program, which benefited the public, applied to hundreds of properties, Penn Central was not solely burdened by the law. The court thus concluded that the Landmark Commission’s action did not constitute a taking, that the Landmarks Law did not interfere with the “present uses” of the terminal, and that Penn Central could still obtain a reasonable return on its investment by selling its development rights.
Holding: “The restrictions imposed [by the Landmarks Law] are substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare and not only permit reasonable beneficial use of the landmark site but afford …opportunities further to enhance not only the Terminal site property but also other properties.”
Significance: Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings and validated historic preservation controls.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
Facts: In 1972, San Diego enacted an ordinance prohibiting all off-site outdoor advertising display signs, i.e.any signs not identifying the use, facility, or service located on the premises where a product was produced, sold, or manufactured. Under the ordinance, all existing signs had to be removed after an amortization period ranging from 90 days to four years, depending on the location and depreciated value of the sign. Metromedia, Inc., owner of many off-site billboards in the San Diego area, filed several complaints against the city, centering on the financial consequences of the ban for billboardbcompanies. The Supreme Court considered the case after the Supreme Court of California held that the billboard ban fell within the police power of San Diego.
Discussion: The court began its analysis by discussing the communicative and non-communicative aspects of billboards, e.g. their publicly beneficial uses from political campaign ads to promotion of charities, andthe difficulty posed by their size and immobility. Addressing the lesser Constitutional protection of commercial speech, the court then reviewed its 1980 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Communication decision, which established a “four-part test for determining the validity of government restrictions on commercial speech as distinguished from more fully protected speech.”The ordinance passed the Central Hudson test because it followed substantial public interests increasing traffic safety and improving the appearance of the city” and did not limit all speech via the medium of billboards.
Holding Although San Diego met the constitutional requirements of Central Hudson, the court held that the ordinance violated First Amendment free speech protections by restricting noncommercial speech via billboards to a similar degree as its commercial restrictions. The court asserted that “[t]he city does not explain how or why non commercial billboards located in places where commercial billboards are permitted would be more threatening to safe driving or would detract more from the beauty of the city.”
Significance: Established a high standard for aesthetic regulation of billboards by providing First Amendment Protection to commercial firms that advertise goods or services not available at the location of thesign.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel [Mount Laurel II]
Facts: Despite the 1975 Mount Laurel decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that the township had continued its exclusionary housing policies, and that not enough legislative action had been taken to mandate provision of affordable housing on a regional level throughout the state. This second case consolidated six exclusionary housing cases.
Discussion In a lengthy discussion, the court reviewed the criteria for “fair share” housing distributions described in Mount Laurel I within the context of the new (1980) State Development Guide Plan (SDGP). This Plan provided “a statewide blueprint for future development” and its “remedial use in Mount Laurel disputes will ensure that the imposition of fair share obligations will coincide with The States regional planning goals and objectives.” In particular, the SDGP defined “growth areas” throughout the state, which the court asserted should be held to the Mount Laurel doctrine.HoldingAmong several rulings, the court concluded that:
1. “every municipality’s land use regulations should provide a realistic opportunity for decent housing for at least part of its resident poor who now occupy dilapidated housing.”
2. SDGP-defined “growth areas” must “provide a realistic opportunity for fair share of a region’s present and prospective low and moderate income housing.”
3. Litigation should reference specific numbers of units needed in a municipality, both immediately and for a reasonable period of time in the future.
4. A special three-judge panel would hear all Mount Laurel exclusionary housing cases
5.. Beyond elimination of obstacles to affordable housing, municipalities should use affirmative policies such as density bonuses and mandatory set-asides.6. “Builder’s remedies” may allow developers, given judicial approval, to circumvent local zoningdecisions and build affordable housing units if a need has been established.
Significance Created the model fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
FactsThe Nollans owned beachfront property in Ventura County, California, bordered on either side bypublicly accessible beaches. Their lease required that upon purchase of the property, an existingbungalow on the lot be demolished. Similar to its decisions in other beachfront property cases, theCalifornia Coastal Commission (CCC) conditioned the Nollans’ building permit application to demolishthe bungalow and build a new home upon their allowing the public an easement to pass across aportion of their beachfront. The Nollans appealed the California Court of Appeal decision that the CCCaction did not constitute a taking.DiscussionThe court asserted that a permanent physical occupation had occurred since the public wascontinuously allowed to pass through the Nollans’ property without compensation. But does requiringthe public easement as part of a condition still constitute a taking? Analyzing the CCC’s motives, thecourt determined that in fact the legitimate state interests leading to the conditional approvalcentered on providing the public with visual access to the beach so as to reduce the psychologicalbarrier against beach use — not on the physical use of the beach on the Nollans’ property by thepublic.HoldingThe constitutionality of a building permit condition “disappears … if the condition substituted for theprohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition.” In otherwords, “the lack of [an essential] nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the buildingrestriction converts that purpose to something other than it was” — a taking for a legitimate stateinterest, but without compensation. The building permit condition thus constituted a taking, andcompensation must be paid.SignificanceCreated “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications andexactions. There must be a strong relationship between the problem created by proposeddevelopment and the proposed exaction (or mitigation), or else compensation may be required.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Facts In 1986, Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the South Carolina coast, intending to build single-family homes. In 1988, the state enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which barred Lucas and other coastal property owners from erecting any permanent habitable structures, in order to prevent erosion. Lucas claimed that the regulation constituted a taking. The state trial court awarded$1.2 million compensation, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, contending that the state could take property without compensation in order to prevent serious public harm.
Discussion The court reviewed its previous rationales for takings requiring compensation: (1) any degree of permanent physical invasion, or (2) the denial of all economically feasible or beneficial use of property. While previous cases “suggested that ‘harmful or noxious’ uses of property may be proscribed by government regulation without the requirement of compensation,” in this case the line between”harm-preventing” and “benefit-conferring” regulation was too blurred to justify a nuisance exception to these rules, requiring the creation of a new standard for regulatory takings.
Holding “Where the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives the land of all economically beneficial use …it may resist compensation only if … the proscribed use interests were not part of [the] title to begin with.” In cases where property owners’ titles included such interests, “Any limitation so severe [as to remove all economically beneficial use of the property] cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but must inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.” To determine whether sucha “total taking” of economic value has occurred, courts must examine:
(1) the degree of harm to public lands and resources,
(2) the social value of the claimant’s activities and their suitability to their locality,
(3) the relative ease with which the alleged harm can be avoided, and
(4) how long the use has been engaged in by similarly situated owners. The case was remanded to allow the state to determine”background principles of nuisance and property law” applicable to the case.
Significance: Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principlesof law; compensation to be paid to landowners when regulations deprive them of all economicallybeneficial land use unless uses are disallowed by title or by state law background principles of privateand public nuisances.
Dolan v. City of Tigard
FactsDolan owned a plumbing and electrical supply store in Tigard’s Central Business District (CBD). Thetown’s Community Development Code required property owners in the CBD to reserve 15 percent oftheir property for open space and landscaping, and its Master Drainage Plan called for mitigation offlood damage around a creek that runs through the CBD. When Dolan applied for a permit to nearlydouble the size of her store, the local planning commission approved the application on the conditionthat she dedicate roughly 10 percent of her property, located in the creek’s floodplain, toward a flooddrainage system and a public pedestrian and bike path. Dolan appealed this exaction.DiscussionThe court evaluated the proposed conditions using the Nollan standard, and determined that a nexusdid indeed exist between the city’s dual goals of minimizing development in the creek’s floodplain andreducing traffic congestion in the CBD, and its proposed conditions dedicating a portion of Dolan’sproperty to open space and a public pathway, respectively. However, the court sought to “determinewhether the degree of the exactions demanded by the city’s permit conditions bear the requiredrelationship to the projected impact of [the] petitioner’s proposed development.” Reviewing severalstate laws regarding exactions, the court agreed that “the dedication should have some reasonablerelationship to the needs created by the [development].”Holding”No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualizeddetermination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of theproposed development” — a “rough proportionality” between the proposed dedication and thedevelopment’s potential impact. In this case, because the city used vague standards to justify itsconditions on development (the proposed landscaping could have been private, and traffic studies didnot prove that the public pathway would alleviate traffic), taking 10 percent of Dolan’s property wasexcessive compared to the potential harm of the building expansion.SignificanceEstablished a higher standard for takings by extending Nollan’s “essential nexus” test to require “roughproportionality” between development impact and conditions.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
FactsThe City of Edmonds, Washington, enacted a zoning ordinance that required single-family dwellingunits to be inhabited only by a “family,” which was defined as “an individual or two or more personsrelated by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons, who are not related bygenetics, adoption or marriage.” Oxford House-Edmonds, located in a single-family neighborhood andsubject to the family definition, operated a group home for 10-12 persons recovering from alcohol anddrug addiction. After learning of Oxford House’s operation, the City issued criminal citations to theowner and a resident of the house on the ground that the occupants did not constitute a family.Oxford House requested a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604 etseq. (a change in rules, policies, or practices when necessary to afford handicapped persons an equalopportunity enjoy the housing of their choosing) allowing it to operate as, but the City denied therequest. The City sued Oxford House seeking a declaration that the FHA was inapplicable to the City’sdefinition of family under the FHA’s maximum occupancy exemption. The FHA exempts any”restriction[s] regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C.§2607(b)(1). Oxford House filed a counterclaim, alleging that the definition of family was not exemptunder the FHA, and that the City violated the FHA by denying Oxford House’s request for a reasonableaccommodation.DiscussionThe court distinguished between ordinances capping the number of individuals who may occupy adwelling and ordinances limiting who may occupy a dwelling. Capping ordinances are meant to limitthe total number of occupants in order to prevent overcrowding and generally do so in relation to floorspace or the number and type of rooms. Ordinances defining family composition are intended topreserve the family character of a neighborhood rather than the total number of occupants.HoldingThe Court determined that the family composition ordinance does not cap the number of individualswho may occupy a dwelling. Rather, it describes who may live in the dwelling. The Court noted that theCity had a separate ordinance which limited the number of occupants of a dwelling based on floorarea. Accordingly, the ordinance was subject to the requirements of the FHA. The Court remanded thecase to the lower courts to determine whether the ordinance was unlawful under the FHA.SignificanceRecognizes that definitions of “family” contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy adwelling are subject to the requirements of the FHA.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FactsNevada and California established the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to study the impact ofgrowth on Lake Tahoe and to create moratoria, one lasting two years and another for an ensuing eightmonths (for a total of 32 months), on all development in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The petitioners, theTahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., representing about 2,000 owners of about 400 individualowners of vacant lots in the basin, filed suit in federal court, alleging that the moratoria faciallyviolated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.DiscussionThe Court reviewed its historical treatment of takings issues, with particular focus on the distinctionbetween physical takings, where a government physically acquires land, and regulatory takings, wherea government restricts the use of a property so much that it renders the property economically orpractically useless for a landowner. Relying on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the petitionerscontended that the Court should establish a bright line rule that a regulation that imposes a temporarydeprivation of all economically viable use of property — no matter how brief — is an unconstitutionaltaking. The Court refused to do so, and found that claims of temporary deprivation are regulatorytakings claims that should be analyzed under the multi-factor framework of Penn CentralTransportation Co. v. New York City. The Court observed that creating a categorical rule that temporarydeprivations always constitute a taking would run afoul of important planning principles advancedthrough moratoria.HoldingThe Court held that the moratoria did not constitute a taking. The Court noted that its ruling wasnarrow in that the petitioners had brought only a facial challenge, and that the petitioners did notchallenge the moratoria under the Penn Central factors.SignificanceRecognizes that partial, temporary deprivations of property may constitute a taking under the FifthAmendment, but must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis under the regulatory taking frameworkof Penn Central
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.
FactsThe difficulties presented by travel between the continental United States and the large number ofislands comprising the state of Hawaii resulted in a small concentration of oil refineries and distributorsin Hawaii. The unique circumstances in Hawaii led to most gasoline stations in the state operatingunder an independent lessee-dealer model. Chevron operated in the area predominately on theindependent lessee model, charging monthly rent for lessees and stipulating that all gasoline from thestations under contract use Chevron oil. Concern that the concentration of industry under this modelcould inflate gasoline prices prompted the Hawaii state legislature to enact a law that capped theamount of rent that an oil company could charge lessee-dealers at 15 percent of a dealers gross profitfrom sales. Chevron sued the state, alleging that this law constituted a regulatory taking of its propertyunder the Fifth Amendment. Chevron argued that the rent control statute was a regulatory takingbecause it failed to advance Hawaii’s goal of protecting consumers against high gasoline prices.According to Chevron, the rent control statute failed to substantially advance a legitimate stateinterest and thus constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking under Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447U.S. 255 (1980).DiscussionThe Court reviewed its holdings in previous takings cases, noting that there were two situations wherethe government must compensate a landowner: (1) where government physically invades alandowner’s land, no matter how small the intrusion; and (2) where regulations deprive a landownerof all economically viable use of the property. The Court noted that outside of these two setcategories, regulatory takings claims should be evaluated under Penn Central Transportation v. NewYork City (1978). The Court found that the test established in Agins was more appropriate to dueprocess claims, as whether a regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevantto whether that regulation affects a taking of property without just compensation.HoldingThe court overruled Agins’s “substantially advances a legitimate state interest” test to determinewhether there has been a regulatory taking. The Court clarified that such a test is more appropriate indue process challenges. Instead, regulatory takings challenges that do not deprive a landownerof all economically viable use or property must be analyzed under Penn Central.SignificanceRecognizing that regulatory takings claims that do not deprive an owner of all economically viable useof land or property must be evaluated under the factors set forth in Penn Central.
Agins v Tiberon (1980)
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether such action “substantially advances†a legitimate state interest.The Court subsequently overruled this decision twenty-five years later in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 554 U.S. 528 (2005).BackgroundCalifornia state law required the city to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open space land.After Dr and Ms Agins acquired 5 acres (20,000 m2) of unimproved property zoned one house per acre, the city announced that it intended to acquire it, and issued bonds to finance the taking. It filed an eminent domain action, but on the eve of trial abandoned it. Instead, it amended the zoning ordinance placing the subject land in a zone that permitted construction of one to five homes, the exact number being discretionary with the city. The owners contended that the applying for permit(s) to construct seriatim of one to five home would be economically infeasible and that the city intended to convert their land into open space by preventing its development. They sued seeking just compensation for a regulatory taking.The owners alleged that their land had greater value than other land in California because of its spectacular views of San Francisco Bay, and the rezoning prevented economically feasible development, thereby completely destroying its value, and thus effecting its taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.The California Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of a regulatory taking cause of action, and held that the only remedy available to the owner would be a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the regulation on grounds of denial of substantive due process.Court’s decisionThe question in this case was whether the ordinances took Agins’ property without just compensation.The complaint framed the question as to whether a state court’s decision to deny compensation for regulatory takings was constitutional, and whether a zoning ordinance that de facto forbade all development of their land effected a taking under the 5th and 14th Amendments. However, as noted, because the owners had not yet applied for a permit for development, the court found that the issue of whether an as-applied taking occurred, was not yet ripe for decision. Therefore, the only issue left was whether this zoning ordinance constituted a taking on its face.The Court held that a general zoning law can be a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest or denies an owner economically viable use of his land. In spite of its finding of lack of ripeness, the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court’s holding that the zoning ordinances did not on their face effect an uncompensated taking.
Kelo v. City of New London
Facts: Decades of economic decline and job losses had left New London, Connecticut, a “distressed municipality,” as defined by the state. In the 1990s, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was reactivated to promote economic development in the city. NLDC devised a plan calling for construction of a research facility for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer on a site then containing 115privately owned properties. As a means of creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and sparking downtown revitalization, NLDC proposed to use eminent domain to acquire the private properties,most of which were non-blighted single-family homes. Susette Kelo and eight other petitioners protested the city’s use of eminent domain to acquire their properties.
Discussion The court reviewed basic propositions of takings law, positing that the government “may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation,” while it may “transfer from one private party to another if future ‘use by the public’ is the purpose of the taking,” such as when land is condemned for construction of a passenger railroad. The court believed that the case hinged on whether the development plan served a “public purpose,” and looked to the precedents of Berman v. Parker (approval of urban renewal project planned as a whole, even though some properties taken were not blighted) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (special case of taking to eliminate an oligopoly) to find the answer.
Holding: “Given the comprehensive character of the plan, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption,and the limited scope of our review, it is appropriate for us … to resolve the challenges of the individual owners … in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.” Thewell-researched nature of the city’s “integrated development plan” further justified deference to localdecision makers, in the court’s opinion.
Significance: Upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FactsUnder Florida law, littoral owners have the right of access to the water, the right to use the water forcertain purposes, the right to an unobstructed view of the water, and the right to receive accretionsand relictions to the littoral property. In Florida, the littoral owner takes title to dry land added to hisproperty by accretion, but formerly submerged land that has become dry land by avulsion continues tobelong to the owner of the seabed (usually the State) because the property abutting the water belongsto the State. The mean high-water line is the ordinary boundary between private beachfront, or littoralproperty, and state-owned land. In 1961, Florida passed the Beach Shore Preservation Act whichestablishes procedures for “beach restoration and nourishment projects,” under which a fixed erosioncontrol line replaces the fluctuating mean high-water line as the boundary between privately ownedlittoral property and state property. When accretion to the shore moves the mean high-water lineseaward, the property of littoral owners is not extended to that line (as the prior law provided). In2003, the City of Destin, Florida, and Walton County, Florida, applied to the state to add a largequantity of sand to beach that had been eroded by several hurricanes. Beachfront property ownerswere upset by the decision and incorporated a nonprofit organization known as Stop the BeachRenourishment, Inc. to halt the action. The petitioners argued that the additional sand deprived theowners of their rights to accretion and a water boundary, and that the government action amountedto a taking of their land in violation of the Fifth Amendment.DiscussionThe Court began the opinion by reviewing the overarching principles of takings jurisprudence, includingthe principle that states effect a taking if they recharacterize private property as public property. TheCourt noted that state law defines property interests and therefore looked to Florida property law todetermine whether beachfront landowners had a perpetual right for their property to touch the water.Under Florida law, the State has the right to fill its own seabed and that filled land will belong to theState.HoldingThe Court held that there was no taking because the submerged land at Florida’s shoreline continuedto belong to the State even after the State added new sand to extend the beach.SignificanceRecognizes that states may fill submerged land without constituting a taking on the rights of littoralproperty owners.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District
FactsCoy Koontz, Sr. owned 14.9 acres of land in Florida containing wetlands. He applied to the St. JohnsRiver Management District to develop 3.7 acres. To mitigate adverse environmental impacts, Koontzoffered to restrict future development on the remaining 11 acres with a conservation easement. TheDistrict considered the conservation easement for the 11 acres inadequate. The District Court statedthat it would approve Koontz’s development proposal only if he either: (a) reduced the size of hisdevelopment to one acre and deeded a conservation easement on the remaining 13.9 acres, or (b)built on the 3.7 acres, deeded a conservation easement to the District on the remainder of property,and agreed to hire contractors to make improvements to District-owned land several miles away.Koontz sued because he believed that the District’s demands for mitigation were excessive.DiscussionThe Court began its opinion by discussing the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, which preventsthe government from coercing individuals into giving up Constitutional rights. The Court discussed thisdoctrine as relating to its decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. Cityof Tigard (1994), noting that the land use permitting process leaves permit applicants particularlysusceptible to coercion from governments, but that proposed land uses often invoke costs on thepublic that dedications of land can offset. For instance, the Court noted that a development may causemore traffic congestion which can be offset by the permit for development being conditioned on theowner’s agreement to deed land to widen the adjacent road. The Court then reiterated the principlesestablished by Nollan and Dolan that the government is allowed to condition the approval of a permiton the dedication of property, so long as the property the government demands and the social costs ofthe development share a “nexus” and “rough proportionality.” The Court wrote that the principlesof Nollan and Dolan apply regardless of whether the government approved a permit on the conditionthat the applicant turn over property or denied a permit because an applicant refused to do so.Further, the Court discussed the rising trend of monetary exactions (such as those imposed on Koontzby the District) in land use, noting that they are a commonplace alternative to common alternatives toeasements.HoldingGovernment’s demand for property from a land use permit applicant must satisfy the requirementsof Nollan and Dolan even where (a) the government denies the permit, and (b) the demand is formoney. The Court remanded for further proceedings on the merits of Koontz’s claims.SignificanceRecognized that monetary exactions are subject to the per se takings test of Nollan and Dolan
Reed v Gilbert
FactsThe Town of Gilbert, Arizona, had a sign code that imposed different requirements on ideological signs,political signs, and temporary directional signs. Ideological signs included any “sign communicating amessage or ideas for noncommercial purposes that is not a Construction Sign, Directional Sign,Temporary Directional Sign Relating to a Qualifying Event, Political Sign, or a sign owned or required bya governmental agency.” Of the three categories, the sign code treats ideological signs most favorablyin terms of allowable size, location, and duration. Political signs included any “temporary sign designedto influence the outcome of an election called by a public body.” The sign code treated political signsmore restrictively than ideological signs in terms of allowable size, location, and duration. Temporarydirectional signs relating to a qualifying event included any “temporary sign intended to directpedestrians, motorists, and other passersby to a ‘qualifying event.’” A qualifying event is any”assembly, gathering, activity, or meeting sponsored, arranged, or promoted by a religious, charitable,community service, educational, or other similar non-profit organization.” The sign code treatedtemporary directional signs more restrictively than political signs.Clyde Reed is the pastor of Good News Community Church. As a small, cash-strapped entity, the churchholds services at a variety of locations. The church relies on temporary directional signs to inform thepublic about where it will hold services. The Town of Gilbert issued two citations to the church forviolating the sign code’s durational limits and for failing to include the date of the events on the signs.The church and Reed sued to challenge the Town’s sign code as an abridgment of their freedom ofspeech.DiscussionThe Court began by discussing the concept of content-neutrality, a central tenet of First Amendmentlaw, that requires the government to regulate speech without regard to its content, subject matter, ormessage. If a law is considered content-based, it triggers strict scrutiny, under which government canprevail only if it the challenged law furthers a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored. A law canbe content-based either on its face or, if facially neutral, with respect to its governmental purpose. Butgovernmental purpose cannot be used to justify a law that is content-based on its face. Content-baseddiscrimination occurs where the speech regulations target specific subject matter, even if they do notdifferentiate among viewpoints within that subject matter. Finally, the Court stated that sign codesmay regulate many aspects that have nothing to do with a sign’s message, including size, buildingmaterials, lighting, moving parts, and portability.HoldingThe Court held that the sign code was content-based on its face because it targeted specific subjectmatter: temporary directional signs were treated worse than ideological or political signs. The signcode failed strict scrutiny because it was underinclusive. While the Town of Gilbert argued that the signcode was meant to advance the compelling governmental interests of aesthetics and traffic, politicalsigns and ideological signs affected these alleged interests the same as temporary directional signs butwere treated better.SignificanceRecognized that subject matter distinctions are facially content-based and subject to strict scrutiny,and clarified the relevance of governmental purpose in enacting the challenged law.
Spectrum Act
The collocation of wireless communication facilities
Nectow v City of Cambridge
The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance that rezoned an owner’s land because it had no valid public purpose. Governments do not have unlimited power to restrict the rights of landowners if the regulation does not serve a public purpose.
Berman v. Parker
Approval of urban renewal project planned as a whole, even though some properties taken were not blighted
Hawaii HousingAuthority v. Midkiff
Special case of taking to eliminate an oligopoly
Communicative Planning
Communicative Planning is based on the idea of intensive public participation and transparent planning. As planning often deals with several stakeholder interests and operates within a political realm, this theory uses a rational approach for planners to gather information and provide stakeholders with key information so people can be brought together to discuss community issues. Communicative planning also uses elements of advocacy and transactive planning as interest groups opinions are solicited. However, the most important difference between the other planning theories is in communicative planning, planners act as the facilitator amongst stakeholders and listen to stakeholder stories in an attempt to reach consensus. Communicative planning is perhaps the most utilized and preferred theory among planners.
Growth Management
Tools like UGB to contain sprawl and ensure services can meet demand
Concurrency
the timely provision of public facilities and services relative to the demand for them. To maintain concurrency means that adequate public facilities are in place to serve new development as it occurs or within a specified time period
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fiscal Impact Analysis is a tool used to measure the revenues and costs to be incurred by a local entity if a potential project or policy change were to be implemented. For example, a new residential development in a given town will require additional services for the new residents such as new utility lines, emergency services, additional road infrastructure, and transit service. These additional services provided to the new residents are calculated as a cost to the town. The revenue that the potential development would provide is calculated from the additional local and property tax revenues the town would receive from the additional residents. While the analysis allows for the net fiscal impact of a development or proposed policy change to be determined, critics claim that it often times does not fully represent the benefits and impacts a project may have. In its most basic form, fiscal impact analyses fail to recognize qualitative benefits of projects or policy changes. This occurs most frequently with affordable housing projects as they may result in a negative fiscal impact according to analysis but it does not take into account the intrinsic benefits of providing quality, affordable housing options to those who did not previously have it. Standard fiscal impact analysis methods also do not account for the extended benefit of new service beyond the proposed development for which they are being provided. For example, if a new transit line is implemented to serve a new mixed-use development, other people in that city will benefit from having this new option.
Environmental Impact Assessment process
Required by NEPA. Start with Environmental Assessment, if determine there’s a significant impact eco, cultural, historic or social, need to do an EIS for any federal project affecting the quality of the environment. If assessment finds will not have significant impact, FONSI is filed.
Transactive planning
relies on face to face dialogue between planners and public. Assumes various interests exist, that dialogue triggers a learning process. Planning is carried out decentrally, but participation takes time
REPORT ON MANUFACTURERS
By: Alexander Hamilton, 1791Hamilton discusses the importance of protective tariffs for the manufacturing industry to support industrial development.
American System (1818)
By: Henry Clay, 1818Clay’s “American System” involved a tariff toprotect/promote American industry; a national bank to support commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and internal improvements required to encourage the development of the national economy.
Principles of Scientific Management
By: Frederick Winslow Taylor, 1911Taylor’s publication outlined the ideas of the Efficiency Movement of the early 20th century, where leaders strived to reduce waste and implement best practices for mechanical, economic, and social improvement. His work heavily influenced today’s field of industrial engineering.
The Making of Urban America (1965)
By: John Reps, 1965John Reps discusses European influence on earlycommunities and presents case studies of American cities and the unique factors impacting their development.
Tomorrow: a peaceful path to real reform
By: Ebenezer Howard, 1898This book initiated the Garden City movement. Howard’s vision was a place with the benefits of a town (opportunity, amusement and high wages) and the country (beauty, fresh air and low rents). His “Three Magnets” concept addressed the question “Where will the people go?”: town, country, or towncountry.
WACKER’S MANUAL OF THE PLAN OF CHICAGO (1912)
By: Walter Moody, 1912This book was adopted as a textbook for eighth graders in Chicago and is believed to be the first formal educational tool for city planning.
Carrying out the City Plan (1914)
By: Flavel Shurtleff, 1914.This book was the first major textbook on city planning. The textbook focused on design of municipal improvements like parks, playgrounds, public squares, parkways, streets, and the placement public buildings.
Cities in Evolution
By: Patrick Geddes, 1915Patrick Geddes, considered the Father of Regional Planning, published Cities in Evolution, which was an introduction to town planning and civics. Concept of “region” created here
PLANNING OF THE MODERN CITY (1916)
By: Nelson Lewis, 1916.Planning of the Modern City uses a systems method of planning, calling on engineers and planners to each consider the other field in their approach to physical problems.
Local Planning Administration (1941)
By: Ladislas Segoe, 1941This book was the first in the Green Book Series produced by the International City/County Management Association. Segoeencouraged planning and government be integrated in order to be most credible.
City Efficient Movement
Emphasized technical details in planning and highlightd engineers and lawyers in city planning, rather than architects. Ended with introduction of automobile shifting priorities to public works projects instead of civic buildings. Court decisions supporting the implementation of land use controls, zoning, and subdivision regulations became the mechanisms for city planning
Concentric Circle Theory
Developed by Ernest Burgess in 1925, the Concentric Circle Theory was based on his belief that cities grow in a series of five outward rings. That is, land uses were determined based on distance from the downtown core. The innermost ring was the Central Business District (CBD) which contained government, office, and commercial functions. The second ring contained industrial uses. The third ring was a transition zone, including a mixture of industry and low-income housing. The fourth ring was where working men resided. The fifth ring was for high-class residential suburbs. This theory has also been referred to as the Invasion/Succession Theory.
Sector Theory
Homer Hoyt developed the Sector Theory in 1939. Hoyt did not agree with the concentric circle theory and argued instead that land use was linked to transportation routes. As a result of transportation, cities developed as a series of sectors radiating out from the Central Business District. Commercial and industry followed transportation routes tightly, while expensive housing moved toward open spaces. Less expensive housing fell wherever land was left.
Multiple Nuclei Theory
Harris and Ullman developed the Multiple Nuclei Theory in 1945, which stated that cities developed a series of specific land use nuclei. A land use nuclei formed as a result of access to natural resources, land prices, and the clustering of similar land uses. For instance, certain land uses take advantage of one anothers facilities and dependencies. This theory best explains cities with more than one Central Business District.
Central Place Theory
Walter Christaller (1933), discusses settlements from small to large and economic drivers based on size of city
Neighborhood Unit Concept
(Clarence Perry), Inspired by Garden Cities. Promoted neighborhood community and recreation centers. Outlined in The Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs and centered around the following design guidelines:
1. The school should be in the center of the neighborhood so each child did not walk more than ¼ mile and did not have to cross major roadways. The neighborhood should support between 5,000 and 9,000 residents and the school should have a large play area that the entire community could use.
2. Major arterial roads would be located along the perimeter to eliminate through traffic. This would prevent the neighborhood from being split by hard to cross roads.
3. Internal streets would be curvilinear for aesthetic and safety concerns. They would discourage through-traffic and be distinguished from arterial streets.
4. Local shopping would be placed along the neighborhoods perimeter or at the main entrance so non-local traffic would not intrude in the neighborhood.
5. At least 10% of land area would be dedicated to parks and open space so there would be more opportunities for play and community socialization.
