Form Follows Function? How America Zones

Planning Practice and Research

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 204-230

  Hirt, Sonia ^a  

^a Industrial Design Program   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANNING PRACTICE; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; URBAN PLANNING; ZONING SYSTEM;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84876277174     PISSN: 02697459     EISSN: 13600583     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2012.692982     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abeles, P. 1989. "Planning and zoning". In Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep, Edited by: Haar, C. and Kayden, J. 122-152. Chicago: Planners Press.
2. Angotti, T. and Handhardt, E. 2011. Problems and prospects for mixed-use communities in New York City. Planning Practice and Research, 16(2): 145-154.
3. Booth, P. 2003. Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Development Control, London: Routledge.
4. Boyer, C. 1986. Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning, Cambridge: MIT Press.
5. Bressi, T. (ed.) (1993) Planning and Zoning New York City: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (New Brunswick: Rutgers University)
6. Burchell, R. 1972. Planned Unit Development: New Communities American Style, New Brunswick: MacCrellish & Quigley.
7. Cable, F. 2009. Design first, codify later: Germany offers lessons for US planners. Planning, July: 25-27.
8. Calthorpe, P. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream, Princeton: Princeton Architectural.
9. Congress for the New Urbanism. (2001) Charter of the New Urbanism. Available at http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed 7 November 2011)
10. Cullingworth, B. and Nadin, V. 2006. Town and Country Planning in the UK, London: Routledge.
11. Daniels, T. 2001. Smart growth: A new American approach to regional planning. Planning Practice and Research, 16(3/4): 271-279.
12. Downs, A. 2001. What does "smart growth" really mean?. Planning, 67(4): 20-25.
13. Duany, A., Platter-Zyberk, E. and Speck, J. 2000. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, New York: North Point.
14. Duany, A. and Talen, E. 2002a. Making the good easy: The Smart Code alternative. The Fordham Law Journal, April: 1445-1468.
15. Duany, A. and Talen, E. 2002b. Transect planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3): 245-267.
16. Elliott, D. 2008. A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Livable Cities, Washington, DC: Island.
17. Fischel, W. 1999. "Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan areas to be too spread out?". In Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, Edited by: Altshuler, A., Morill, M., Wolman, H. and Mitchell, F. 149-191. Washington: National Academy.
18. Frug, J. 1996. The geography of community. Stanford Law Review, 48(5): 1047-1108.
19. Gerckens, L. (undated) American Zoning & The Physical Isolation of Uses. Available at http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/ger065.html (accessed 19 September 2011)
20. Godschalk, D. 2007. U.S. zoning: Mixed-use by design. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4): 451-453.
21. 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.
22. Grant, J. 2006. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.
23. Haar, C. and Kayden, J. 1989. Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep, Chicago: Planners Press.
24. Hall, E. 2007. Divide and sprawl, decline and fall: A comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 68: pp. 915-952.
25. Hirt, S. 2005. Toward post-modern urbanism: Evolution of planning in Cleveland, Ohio. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1): 27-42.
26. Hirt, S. 2007a. The devil is in the definitions: Contrasting American and German approaches to zoning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4): 436-450.
27. Hirt, S. 2007b. The mixed-use trend: Planning attitudes and practices in Northeast Ohio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 24(3): 224-244.
28. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random House.
29. Janin Rivolin, U. 2008. Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An unbearable co-habitation. Planning, Practice & Research, 23(2): 167-186.
30. Kayden, J. 1986. Incentive Zoning in New York City: A Cost-Benefits Analysis, Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
31. Kayden, J. 2000. Privately Owned Public Spaces: The New York Experience, New York: The New York City Department of City Planning and the Municipal Art Society of New York.
32. Kelbaugh, D. 1997. The New Urbanism. Journal of Architectural Education, 51(2): 142-144.
33. Kendig, L., Connor, S., Byrd, C. and Heyman, J. 1980. Performance Zoning, Washington, DC: Planners Press.
34. Kleppel, G. 2002. Urbanization and environmental quality: Implications for alternative development scenarios. Albany Law Environmental Outlook, 37(40): 37-64.
35. Kunstler, J. 1996. Home from Nowhere: Remaking Our Everyday World for the 21st Century, New York: Simon & Schuster.
36. Levine, J. 2006. Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
37. Lewis, R. 2004. Traditional zoning can't meet the challenge of modern development. Washington Post, July 24: F04
38. Marwedel, J. 1998. Opting for performance: An alternative to conventional zoning for land use regulation. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(2): 220-231.
39. Morris, M. 2000. Incentive Zoning: Meeting Urban Design and Affordable Housing Objectives, Chicago: Planners Press.
40. Nelson, A. 2004. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land-Use and Facility Needs, Chicago: Planners Press.
41. Ohm, B. and Sitkowski, R. 2003. The influence of New Urbanism in land use, planning and zoning. Urban Lawyer, 35: 783-943.
42. Pendall, R., Puentes, R. and 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.
43. Porter, D. 2004. Business-oriented neighborhoods: Their time has come. Planning, 70(1): 30-33.
44. Rowley, A. 1996. Mixed-use development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking. Planning Practice and Research, 11(1): 85-97.
45. Silver, C. 1997. "The racial underpinnings of zoning in American cities". In Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows, Edited by: Manning, J. and Ritzdorf, M. 23-42. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
46. Talen, E. 2009a. Design by the rules: The historical underpinnings of form based codes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2): 1-17.
47. Talen, E. 2009b. Urban Design Reclaimed: Tools, Techniques and Strategies for Planners, Washington, DC: Planners Press.
48. Talen, E. and 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.
49. Wolf, M. 2008. The Zoning of America: Euclid vs. Ambler, Lawrence: University of Kansas.