Actually, it didn't. Zoning has been in effect in cities for hundreds of years. Lack of zoning/boundaries is what decentralized America.
BU Development Thread
- Thread starter bosdevelopment
- Start date
Actually, it didn't. Zoning has been in effect in cities for hundreds of years. Lack of zoning/boundaries is what decentralized America.
PlanBoston
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 12
You are talking about two very different concepts. I agree that lack of (Portland, OR style urban growth) boundaries contributed to suburbanization; but lack of zoning for uses is what allows a city to have a mixed use texture. Zoning is a big part of what decentralized America, not the lack of it.
Zoning in America has historical implications (it may have gone without a name, but it existed), where local government dictated land use.
I recommend reading:
"Colonial Towns of Carolina and Georgia" by John Reps (Chapter 11 especially)
"Notes on the State of Virginia" by Thomas Jefferson
"The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by FJ Turner
Getting back to the main point -- there is still no correlation between the granite sign at BU and encroaching suburbanization. As a reminder, the redevelopment of Commonwealth Avenue through BU actually reduced car lanes from 6 to 4, added bike lanes, and expanded the sidewalks.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Wait, sorry, you can't equate "dictating land use" with zoning. There's a difference between being able to say what goes where and having a specific philosophy as to how to do so - i.e., large swathes of land devoted to single uses.
I know the BU sign doesn't usher in structural suburbanization. But it connotes it - by being a boundary marker that delineates the edge of one zone and the beginning of another. It brings to mind the pods-off-the-highway type development common to suburbia. If nothing else, signs that drivers can fixate on make the road less safe for pedestrians, who they might miss in the process.
I know the BU sign doesn't usher in structural suburbanization. But it connotes it - by being a boundary marker that delineates the edge of one zone and the beginning of another. It brings to mind the pods-off-the-highway type development common to suburbia. If nothing else, signs that drivers can fixate on make the road less safe for pedestrians, who they might miss in the process.
I'd like to hear more...
You've stated (and I paraphrase):
1) The sign is wrong because Harvard doesn't have one.
2) It's suburban because you can find something similar out around 128.
3) It's unsafe for pedestrians because a driver can see it on the road and therefore may hit someone.
Aren't I the one who should be saying, "Wait, sorry..."?
TomOfBoston
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reaction score
- 426
Good grief! The intellectualization of a sign/
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Kennedy's right; that's what I meant.
Land use control and zoning are not the same. If a government has control over land use, it can theoretically zone. But governments did not do so for centuries; no one had yet come up with zoning because it made no sense. Technology didn't yet allow the spread of cities that would enable the single use of large tracts of land, and because they had not developed a philosophical agenda against mixed-use cities yet.
Land use control and zoning are not the same. If a government has control over land use, it can theoretically zone. But governments did not do so for centuries; no one had yet come up with zoning because it made no sense. Technology didn't yet allow the spread of cities that would enable the single use of large tracts of land, and because they had not developed a philosophical agenda against mixed-use cities yet.
^I do know a thing or two about the historical implications here, and I do suggest that you both read my recommendations above. They are a good start--and will shed light on this issue much more eloquently than I'm doing here.
There are at least 2 inaccuracies being stated in your most recent post:
1) There was a philosophical agenda against mixed use cities, and cities in general, in this country literally from it's conception. This is well documented.
2) Technology only helped the spread of cities into single use land tracts; it was already going on all over for at least 150 years before the industrial revolution.
There are at least 2 inaccuracies being stated in your most recent post:
1) There was a philosophical agenda against mixed use cities, and cities in general, in this country literally from it's conception. This is well documented.
2) Technology only helped the spread of cities into single use land tracts; it was already going on all over for at least 150 years before the industrial revolution.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 413
I suppose one can divorce "zoning" as a legalism from urban planning as a practice. But if zoning is inherent to the physical realization of an urban plan, then zoning is indeed as ancient a concept as urban planning.
I surmize that ancient cities could be purposefully laid out and built up with reference to military necessities, or even for religious reasons, with a sacra via set out on particular geographic axis. The most comprehensive, widespread example I can think of are the Roman colonia, which used a cookie cutter city plan across the breadth of the Empire.
I surmize that ancient cities could be purposefully laid out and built up with reference to military necessities, or even for religious reasons, with a sacra via set out on particular geographic axis. The most comprehensive, widespread example I can think of are the Roman colonia, which used a cookie cutter city plan across the breadth of the Empire.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
I was under the impression that most contemporary uses of the word "zoning" refer to Euclidean Zoning which has a definitive birth date.
I think the definitive date is 1916 when zoning was adopted in New York City. Use segregation schemes had been adopted earlier (for laundries in California going back to 1885) but these were not comprehensive in the way the new york's was - they didn't regulate bulk and density, and usually singled out only certain uses (this was called districting) not broad categories of uses. (LA from 1908 had residence districts effectively exclusive of all commercial activity).
The interesting backstory to the Euclid case is that Edward Bassett, one of the principal architects of NYC's zoning, spent the decade after 1916 marketing zoning across the United States, so that hundreds of jurisdictions had adopted it before Euclid. In this way it appeared that zoning was less in the experimental stage and more of an established tool of city planning.
The result of this however was that zoning spread across the country before master planning, and until World War II there were many cities that zoned (mostly according to the wishes of individual property owners) and did not plan.
The FHA provided a convincing case that cities needed to plan (and for low-density), and use zoning less as an ad hoc device and more as an implementation method for the plan.
The interesting backstory to the Euclid case is that Edward Bassett, one of the principal architects of NYC's zoning, spent the decade after 1916 marketing zoning across the United States, so that hundreds of jurisdictions had adopted it before Euclid. In this way it appeared that zoning was less in the experimental stage and more of an established tool of city planning.
The result of this however was that zoning spread across the country before master planning, and until World War II there were many cities that zoned (mostly according to the wishes of individual property owners) and did not plan.
The FHA provided a convincing case that cities needed to plan (and for low-density), and use zoning less as an ad hoc device and more as an implementation method for the plan.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Yes, governments have in the past designated tracts of land for different uses and purposes. But that's also not the same as zoning. For one, it wasn't necessarily systemic. The entire city was not necessarily controlled to that degree - certain areas were often merely off limits, kept for special classes (the clergy, the military). Second, it wasn't on the same scale. The effect of a Via Sacra on the urban fabric is not the same as acres and acres given over to industrial use in a contemporary city; only transportation could enable this effect. Third, it didn't have to do with a philosophy of the city (not against the city, of it). The advocates of zoning believed a non-mixed-use city would be healthy, productive, efficient, etc. - they were Progressives who embraced much about modernity, not the direct heirs of Jeffersonian agrarians. This philosophy led them to segregate living and production in ways that were never contemplated by Roman city planners, or possible before the industrial age.
The 1916 zoning code of NYC was comprehensive zoning, 10 years before Euclid. Euclid v Ambler was a test of zoning, it didn't create zoning. Hundreds of jurisdictions had zoning before Euclid.
The districting ordinances of 19th and early 20th century california were not zoning, never said they were. were they inconsequential? Certainly not. The entiretly of Los Angeles was districted as of 1909, generating a shortage of industrial land.
I never said building codes or CC&Rs were zoning, or whatever you thought I was getting at.
The districting ordinances of 19th and early 20th century california were not zoning, never said they were. were they inconsequential? Certainly not. The entiretly of Los Angeles was districted as of 1909, generating a shortage of industrial land.
I never said building codes or CC&Rs were zoning, or whatever you thought I was getting at.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 413
Zoning is but the means to implement a plan for land use. Zoning is naked compulsion by the sovereign to achieve a result. Now let's peel the layers of my friend's proposition that zoning began with Euclid.
Q: Is Euclid is the first ever example of zoning?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because Euclid was not the first example of a city built out to a plan.
Q: But these other cities did not look like Euclid and were not laid out like Euclid; doesn't that mean they had no plan?
A: No.
Q: But if even if they had a plan, how does that prove there was zoning?
A: These urban plans actually left the papyrus and took an organized earthly form.
Q: But there were no railroads, modern factories, and things associated with modern life. Doesn't that mean they were not systematic in their plans, or at least had no need to be systematic like we moderns?
A: The object of the plans may have differed from Euclid purposes, but the difference in purpose should not be confused with a lack of purpose. For example, ancient city planning in North India and Cambodia had as its object the earthly approximation of Hindu cosmology.
Q: Ok, these cities were built for purposes alien to my cultural background; how does the fact of their existence prove the existence of zoning?
A: The cities were built to a plan, which means that the plan was enforced, hence zoning existed. The different object of the zoning, alien though it may be, should not be confused with the absence of compulsion.
Q: What does all this ratiocination of yours prove?
A: The very existence of planned cities that predate Euclid is proof of the existence of zoning before Euclid. Planned cities built millennia before the hamlet of Euclid graced the State of Ohio are tangible proof that zoning has been around for quite some time now.
Q: Prove it!
A: I again refer you to the study of Roman colonial cities, as well as to the writings of Vitruvius.
Q: Don't you have anything better to do?
A: Sadly, tonight I do not.
Q: Is Euclid is the first ever example of zoning?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because Euclid was not the first example of a city built out to a plan.
Q: But these other cities did not look like Euclid and were not laid out like Euclid; doesn't that mean they had no plan?
A: No.
Q: But if even if they had a plan, how does that prove there was zoning?
A: These urban plans actually left the papyrus and took an organized earthly form.
Q: But there were no railroads, modern factories, and things associated with modern life. Doesn't that mean they were not systematic in their plans, or at least had no need to be systematic like we moderns?
A: The object of the plans may have differed from Euclid purposes, but the difference in purpose should not be confused with a lack of purpose. For example, ancient city planning in North India and Cambodia had as its object the earthly approximation of Hindu cosmology.
Q: Ok, these cities were built for purposes alien to my cultural background; how does the fact of their existence prove the existence of zoning?
A: The cities were built to a plan, which means that the plan was enforced, hence zoning existed. The different object of the zoning, alien though it may be, should not be confused with the absence of compulsion.
Q: What does all this ratiocination of yours prove?
A: The very existence of planned cities that predate Euclid is proof of the existence of zoning before Euclid. Planned cities built millennia before the hamlet of Euclid graced the State of Ohio are tangible proof that zoning has been around for quite some time now.
Q: Prove it!
A: I again refer you to the study of Roman colonial cities, as well as to the writings of Vitruvius.
Q: Don't you have anything better to do?
A: Sadly, tonight I do not.