The devil is in the definitions: Contrasting American and German approaches to zoning

Journal of the American Planning Association

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 436-450

  Hirt, Sonia ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Germany; Mixed use; New urbanism; Zoning

Indexed keywords

REFORM PROCESS; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; URBAN PLANNING; ZONING POLICY;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 36549026348     PISSN: 01944363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01944360708978524     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Alterman, R. (1997). The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a six-nation comparison. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 220-243.
2. American Planning Association. (1998). Planning Advisory Service report no. 479: The principles of smart development. Chicago: Author.
3. Angotti, T., & Hanhardt, E. (2001). Problems and prospects for healthy mixed-use communities in New York City. Planning Practice and Research, 16(2), 145-154.
4. Asabere, P., & Forrest, H. (1997). Hierarchical zoning, incompatible uses and price discounts. Real Estate Economics, 25(3), 439-451.
5. Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6. Booth, P. (2003). Planning by consent: The origins and nature of British development control. London: Routledge.
7. Boyer, M. C. (1983). Dreaming the rational city: The myth of American city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Burchell, R., & Mukherji, S. (2003). Conventional development versus managed growth: The costs of sprawl. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1534-1540.
9. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis. Ecology, community, and the American dream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
10. Congress for the New Urbanism. (2001a). New urbanism: Comprehensive report & best practices guide. Ithaca, NY: New Urban Publications.
11. Congress for the New Urbanism. (2001b). Model codes. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from www.cnu.org/www.cnu.org/pdf/ codeťalog_8-1-01.pdf
12. Cullingworth, J. (1993). The political culture of planning. American land use planning in comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
13. Daniels, T. (2001). Smart growth: A new American approach to regional planning. Planning Practice and Research, 16(3/4), 271-279.
14. Department of Commerce. (1926). A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/pdf/ SZEnablingAct1926.pdf
15. Dietrich, H., & Dransfeld, E. (1995). Dusseldorf. In J. Berry & S. McGreal (Eds.), European cities, planning systems and property markets (pp. 84-101). London: E & FN Spon.
16. Dowall, D. (1984). The suburban squeeze. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17. Downs, A. (2001). What does "smart growth" really mean? Planning, 67(4), 20-25.
18. Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-380.
19. Duany, A., & Talen, E. (2002a). Making the good easy: The Smart-Code alternative. The Fordham Law Journal, (April), 1445-1468.
20. Duany, A, & Talen, E. (2002b). Transect planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 245-267.
21. Duany, A., Wright, W., Sorlinen, S., Hall, L., Watkins, M., Slone, D,. Hugalde, G., & Merson, R. (2004). SmartCode & manual. Ithaca, NY: New Urban Publications.
22. Egan, J. (2006, November 21). Survey indicates mixed-use trend on the rise. National Real Estate Investor. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://nreionline.com/news/Survey_Mixed_use_Trend_Rise/ index.html
23. European Commission. (1999). The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: Germany. Luxemburg: Official Publications of the European Communities.
24. Euclid v. Ambler, 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
25. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impacts. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America.
26. Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Housing. (1990). Federal land utilization ordinance [Baunutzungsverordnung]. Berlin: Author.
27. Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Housing. (1997a). Federal building code [Baugesetzbuch]. Berlin: Author.
28. Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Housing. (1997b). Federal regional planning act [Raumordnungsgesetz]. Berlin: Author.
29. Federal Office of Regional Planning, Building and Urban Development. (1993). Law and practice of urban development in the Federal Republic of Germany. Berlin: Author.
30. Fischel, W. (1999). Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan areas to be too spread out? In A. Altshuler, M. Morill, H. Wolman, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), Governance and opportunity in metropolitan America (pp. 151-191). Washington, DC: National Academy.
31. Fischler, R. (1998a). The metropolitan dimension of early zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York ordinance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 170-188.
32. Fischler, R. (1998b). Toward a genealogy of planning: Zoning and the welfare state. Planning Perspectives, 13(4), 389-410.
33. Fischler, R., & Kolnick, K. (2006, July). American zoning: German import or home product. Paper presented at the Second World Planning Schools Congress, Mexico City, July 11-16.
34. Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois utopias: The rise and fall of suburbia. New York: BasicBooks.
35. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
36. Freund, E. (1926). Planning problems of town, city and region. Philadelphia: W. Fell.
37. Gerckens, L. (2003). Planning ABCs: An overview of 26 planning topics from automobile to zoning. Burlington, VT: Champlain Planning Press/Planning Commissioners Journal.
38. Gerckens, L. (2005). American zoning & the physical isolation of uses. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www. plannersweb.com/articles/ger065.html
39. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience in implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71-84.
40. Hirt, S. (2005). Toward post-modern urbanism: Evolution of planning in Cleveland, Ohio. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 27-42.
41. Hirt, S. (2007). The mixed-use trend: Planning attitudes and practices in northeast Ohio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 24(3), 224-244.
42. Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(1), 112-120.
43. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
44. Kamba, W. (1974). Comparative law: A theoretical framework. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 23(3), 485-519.
45. Katz, P. (2004, November). Form first: The New Urbanist alternative to conventional zoning. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/referencelibrary/f/formbasedzoning/ formfirst.htm
46. Kimminich, O. (1975). Town and country planning law in the Federal Republic of Germany. In J. Garner (Ed.), Planning law in Western Europe (pp. 155-176). New York: Elsevier.
47. Krier, L. (1988). Traditional ideas for today's towns. City Magazine, 10(2), 20-23.
48. Kunstler, J. (1996). Home from nowhere: Remaking our everyday world for the twenty-first century. New York: Simon & Schuster.
49. Langdon, P. (2006, January). The not-so-secret code. Planning, 72(1), 24-29.
50. Lefcoe, G. (1979). Land development in crowded places: Lessons from abroad. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
51. Lepaulle, P. (1922). Functions of comparative law. Harvard Law Review, 35(7), 838-858.
52. Levine, J. (2006). Zoned out: Regulation, markets and choices in transportation and metropolitan land use. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
53. Liebmann, G. (1996). Modernization of zoning: A means to reform. Regulation, 19(2). Retrieved September 10, 2007, from www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regl9n2f.html
54. Light, M. (1999). Different ideas of the city: Origins of metropolitan land-use regimes in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland. Yale Journal of International Law, 24(2), 577-612.
55. Logan, T. (1976). The Americanization of German zoning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(4), 377-385.
56. Miller, J. (2004). Smart codes, smart places. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.realtor.org/smartòwth.nsf/ docfiles/summer04sm.pdf/$FILE/summer04sm.pdf
57. Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 93-115.
58. Nelson, R. (1977). Zoning and property rights: An analysis of the American system of land-use regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems and planning projects. London: Routledge.
60. Nivola, P. (1999). Laws of the landscape: How policies shape cities in Europe and America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
61. Pendall, R. (1999). Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(4), 555-571.
62. Pendall, R. Puentes, R., & Martin, J. (2006). From traditional to reformed: A review of the land use regulations in the nation's largest metropolitan areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
63. Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place: Social order and land use in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Platt, R. (2004). Land use and society: Geography, law and public policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
65. Pollard, W. (1931). Outline of the law of zoning in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 155(2), 15-33.
66. Reitz, J. (1998). How to do comparative law. American Journal of Comparative Law, 46(4), 617-636.
67. Scott, M. (1971). American city planning since 1890. Berkeley: University of California.
68. Schmidt-Eichstaedt, G. (2001). National-level planning institutions and decisions in the Federal Republic of Germany. In R. Alterman (Ed.), National-level planning in democratic countries: An international comparison of city and regional policy-making (pp. 127-147). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
69. Siy, E. (2004). Learning from abroad: The European approach to smarter growth and sustainable development. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/ Learning_from_Abroad-FINAL.pdf
70. Steigerwald, B. (2001, June). Urban studies legend Jane Jacobs on gentrification, the new urbanism, and her legacy. The Reason Magazine. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.reason.com/ news/show/28053.html
71. Strickland, R. (1993). The 1961 zoning revision and the template of the Ideal City. In T. Bressi (Ed.), Planning and zoning New York City: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (pp. 48-60). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
72. Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning. London: Routledge.
73. Talen, E. (2006). Design that enables diversity: The complications of a planning ideal. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(3), 233-249.
74. Talen, E., & Knaap, G. (2003). Legalizing smart growth: An empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 345-359.
75. Toll, S. (1969). Zoned American. New York: Grossman Publishers.
76. Wickersham, J. (2001). Jane Jacobs's critique of zoning: From Euclid to Portland and beyond. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 28(4), 547-563.
77. Wiegandt, C. (2000). Urban development and urban policy in Germany: An overview. Bonn: Federal Office for Regional Planning and Building.
78. Willis, C. (1993). A 3D CBD. In T. Bressi (Ed.), Planning and zoning New York City: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (pp. 3-26). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.