|
- �h
<br />?'7�
<br />� �
<br />�
<br />a
<br />'=a
<br />! he first modern American public land use
<br />zoning restriction was enacced in San Francisco
<br />in 18fi! ro cons[rain the location o€ obnosious
<br />uses. Los Angeles, in 1909, applied land use controls
<br />to an iminense area it had amie:ced, sparking a
<br />series oF ]��vsuits tliat culminated in the U.S. �^'�
<br />Supreme Courts 1915 ri�ling in Hnd4�he[l:
<br />¢ Sebastian. The Court upheld the "'""'"'�'
<br />Cit}''s proliihition of brid<yards in a �
<br />residentially zoned district, ,
<br />despite ihe fact Ehat the
<br />brickyard in quesiion pre-
<br />da�ed the restdencill
<br />development.
<br />Wltile Cali- ,
<br />{ornia cities ex- �
<br />ptored latnd � i d
<br />use controls, in
<br />ihe East the focus
<br />�
<br />was on cautroi of _�s
<br />building height, bu11<, and
<br />��ards. ac[iuns co limit the '
<br />heigh� of 6uildings and to vary
<br />these heigtits 6p zones taken in .
<br />Evlasslchusetts were iound ro be con-
<br />stitational by the Supreme Court in �
<br />bUc1d� v. Avase}' in 14U9. �his was followed
<br />tl�ree years IaEer hy the Court's cleari}� implied
<br />approval oF building set�ack mntrols in Eitbnrik v
<br />8iclunond.
<br />[n die early decades of !he 20th century, New York
<br />Cit�r ���as faced with construction of tall biiildings thac cut
<br />o[f light and air to [he streets belo�v and to si�rroimding build-
<br />ings. It also esperienced an invasion of manuCacturing uses into
<br />azeas [liat were predominantly residential and business in cliarac-
<br />ter, ln response, in 1916, New Yorlc en.icted the first "comprehen-
<br />sive zoning code." It utilized the three geographically� zoned
<br />elcn�ents that the U,S. S�c�reme Court pre��iously acted ou (build-
<br />ing heiglit, setbacl<s and 1�ards,
<br />and land use) and cumbined
<br />them in a single urdinance chat
<br />included the entire area ofjuris- �
<br />cliction. I his combinatian oC Fac ,�-�-� �<—
<br />tors still defiues "comprehensire � _ '�
<br />zuning." � � ��,,''�
<br />tvlost cmumunities hesitated �" !'
<br />m Follow New Yurlc's lead in � �' �� �����
<br />adopting compret�ensive zoning
<br />because the circumstances of the
<br />Hndnchecle case induded an
<br />immediate threat ro pi�blic health
<br />as well as the iand use zoning
<br />issue. bVould the Caurc have
<br />�
<br />appro>>ed the Los Angeles zoning i£ the Uridcyard in question
<br />had not also been a direci d�reat to tl�e health of neigl�bors?
<br />[n 19Z6, in Euclid r. Arnbler, a c�se wi�ltuui a direct
<br />health threat issue, die Supreme Court supporied
<br />comprehensiee zoning, including the creation oi
<br />single-famil}• �esidential districts. bVitl� the
<br />Supreine Court's ruling, comprehensive
<br />� zoning spread across America, and
<br />, single-[a��iily-onl}� districts became
<br />the preCerred zoning for new resi-
<br />dential flevedoptnent.
<br />� Spatial segrega£ion of
<br />uses over ever-increasing
<br />distances Uecame �
<br />major cl�aracteris-
<br />a [ic of American
<br />9 � A � zoning.Ihis
<br />often resulLed
<br />in rings uC in-
<br />� 1� . 3 � creasingly low den-
<br />sity 5ingle-(amily resi-
<br />Q� dential zones as one moved
<br />ounvard from the city center,
<br />along rvith �viciely separated retail
<br />- and emplo}�nent areas. This pattern
<br />yielded physical and social isola[ion
<br />by income, inability to support �vallc-in
<br />eletnentar}• sclioals, and immense infrastrnc-
<br />ture costs.
<br />ln the past decade {as noted in "Y" is for Youth)
<br />a mitnter-cutrent has emerged. Tiie "Netiv Urbanism°
<br />� and "Smart Growth° mo��ements have sough[ to prumute
<br />infill and mixed use deveiopment. ]nstead of serving [o
<br />segregate and isol�te land uses, zoning codes are being
<br />redesigned ro%ster deveiopment o� neighborhoods ot mixed lund
<br />uses and varied 1'tfe styles and income, ofreii at liigher densities.
<br />Also of note, a sort of "parailel nni��erse" of lund use controls
<br />that predate go��ernmeucal land use controls has expanded in the
<br />form of private covenancs and
<br />�� � restrictions applied [o properties
<br />�� �� � 1��'���� � in uxost new developments. 4Vl�at
<br />,�'° �,� , ���'� these rutes proliibit is already o[
<br />a� �� greater conseqt�et�ce to many
<br />� i��'i� 1� � Americans than �vhat is sel out in
<br />f: �`r��� �I f�: dte lo�al zoning ordizzance.'
<br />I / r.��-!F .,`,' ,, �`�t,-„^ -: � .r i I i
<br />_,^---'�� �l �-a: ��.,-r �'1 i � i �
<br />�-��� ����,"�� ;��� �� � � �};� , .
<br />� � � '3 �., �
<br />Brith pinnts nndym�ls ircrc n��tong thr tucs cai�t�uflcd by e<u'7y 1m�d usc
<br />rcgufalions. Pholo of br'id; Ylant iic L{ �limniaa. Uregon, (al:cn iri 1912.
<br />Copyrialit Yandul! Cawtty Historirnf Soriely; itpriutcd �ridi ycnnissimi.
<br />1 ln 1998, :here �eere somc 20i,000 pri�
<br />rate aeighburhoad assoeiatio�is, witli
<br />almost -}2 milliun inhabi�ants — nuirty 1�
<br />perccnc of dic L' S pppitlat�on. Oret h:tlf
<br />uf ne�v huusing in the 50 larges� metro
<br />areas is pnrt oI � priva�c associaiion. Ca�u-
<br />m�uilty Associn�ion Fac[Look, 1)49
<br />(Ale,ea�zdria, VA: Cowmunity Associnuons
<br />insiiiutc).
<br />PL.�NNING COtvIIvfISSiONERS JOU2N�1L / NUMSL-R 51 / SUIv1MER 3003
<br />� i��i4
<br />
|