Herbert Hoover is not a man I consider a “Legend” – quite the contrary. I use the words “Urbanism Legend” in the context of the series of posts intended to dispel popular myths as they relate to urbanism.
Myths and fallacies about Herbert Hoover are abundant these days as the media discusses the Great Depression. Most of the myths incorrectly accuse Hoover of being a laissez-faire ideologue. However, Hoover is better described as a Progressive, and strongly believed in the power of government to shape society. (at the time Progressive elitists enjoyed a home within the Republican party and advocated vast social engineering programs such as alcohol prohibition) This was a significant departure from the relatively laissez-faire doctrines of previous Republican Presidents Coolidge and Harding. In fact, Hoover’s commitment to progressive programs prompted Franklin Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, to accuse the Republican of “leading the country down the path of socialism” during the 1932 presidential campaign.
I urge everyone to learn more about Hoover’s progressive interventionist policies on your own. (I also recommend Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression
Hoover, an engineer by trade, was a strong supporter of the Efficiency Movement, a significant campaign of the Progressive Era. He believed everything would be made better if experts identified the problems and fixed them, and that efficiency could be achieved through government-forced standardization of products. This helps explain Hoover’s zealous affection for planning, zoning, home ownership, and various objectives often shared by the (often conflicting) elitist-progressive strains seen in Robert Moses or Lewis Mumford (and later New Urbanists). (not to be confused with the Roosevelt New Deal Democrats who preferred intervention to promote decentralization and ruralization)
Hoover’s philosophy on planning and zoning could be exemplified by his praise of the Regional Plan of New York he gave in 1922:
The enormous losses in human happiness and in money which have resulted from lack of city plans which take into account the conditions of modern life need little proof. The lack of adequate open spaces of playgrounds and parks the congestion of streets the misery of tenement life and its repercussions upon each new generation are an untold charge against our American life. Our cities do not produce their full contribution to the sinews of American life and national character. The moral and social issues can only be solved by a new conception of city building. The vision of the region around New York as a well planned location of millions of happy homes and a better working center of millions of men and women grasps the imagination. A definite plan for its accomplishment may be only an ideal. But a people without ideals degenerates one with practical ideals is already upon the road to attain them.
(Later in 1922, progressive zoning triumphed over property rights in the US Supreme Court ruling, Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon, which decided, “property may be regulated to a certain extent, [but] if regulation goes too far it constitutes a taking.”)
We can trace the rapid growth of the adoption of zoning codes to Hoover’s tenure as Commerce Secretary during the 1920’s, when Commerce changed from a minor cabinet post to the most visible cabinet position. Before Hoover’s term as Commerce Secretary began in 1920, only forty-one municipalities throughout the United States had any sort of zoning laws. However, after eight short years this number had skyrocketed to 640. Popularity and legal legitimacy of planning and zoning grew rapidly through the 20’s with help from Hoover’s influence. By 1924, the US department of Commerce under Hoover wrote the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, which, had it passed Congress, would have granted cities the power to, “regulate and restrict the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population and the location and use of buildings, structures and land of trade, industry, residence or other purposes.” Instead, many states used the act as framework to implement comprehensive plans on their own. (Zoning as we know it today was Constitutionally validated by Euclid v. Ambler Realty two years later.) Then, in 1928, Hoover’s Commerce Department rewrote the Enabling Act in the form of the Standard City Planning Enabling Act to more precisely address and promote the use of master plans and comprehensive plans. The primary principles of the SCPEA were to:
1) organization and power of a planning commission to develop a master plan
2) plan for the physical development
3) master street plan
4) approval of public improvements
5) control private subdivision of land
6) develop a regional planning commission and regional plan.
In a 1996 article published by the American Planning Association entitled, “The Real Story Behind the Standard Planning and Zoning Acts of the 1920’s” [pfd], Ruth Knack, Stuart Meck, AICP, and Israel Stollman, AICP wrote:
[Hoover] was, in many respects, a progressive who hoped to reform society by reforming the operations of government. To some extent, in fact, the Commerce Department under Hoover could be said to be the first activist federal agency-presaging the New Deal vigor of the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Of particular importance to land-use planners is the fact that Hoover took an active role in shaping the statutes that govern American city planning.
Hoover was instrumental in starting the “Own Your Own Home” suburban advocacy movement, which lasted through the twenties. The government and business leaders of the “Own Your Own Home” movement described the single family home as a “symbol that could build consensus” and a “hallmark of the middle-class arrival in society.” To encourage home building, Hoover created the division of Building and Housing within the Commerce Department to coordinate the activity of builders, real estate developers, social workers, and homemakers as he worked closely with banks and savings and loans industry to promote long term mortgages (a new concept at the time – sound familiar?). Hoover’s promotion of home ownership as an investment of the 20’s remains a concept embedded in the American psyche, and may have helped contribute to our current financial mess.
The 1920’s also ushered in huge spending increases under the Federal Highway Act of 1921. At the time, highways were under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Nonetheless, Hoover hosted two conferences on traffic while he was Secretary of Commerce. These conferences yielded a Uniform Vehicle Code and a Model Municipal Traffic Ordinance, which were heavily influenced by the automotive trade associations.
While popular legend paints Herbert Hoover as a laissez-faire ideologue, the evidence says otherwise, particularly when it comes to urban issues. Many of the problems of sprawl and auto-dependency derided by today’s progressives can be traced to policies of yesterdays’ progressive elitists, including Hoover. Maybe modern-day urbanists should look at Hoover’s legacy of land use policy and suburban advocacy, and reconsider their support of Hoover-like intervention and “stimulus” today that will burden future generations as Hoover’s legacy burdens living generations.
—–
For further reading, here’s a recent article from Citiwire (as permitted) I googled-upon when searching for more information on the “Standard Zoning Enabling Act” of 1926:
Hoover’s Other Error: Making Sprawl the Law
By Rick Cole
For Release January 18, 2009
Citiwire.net
Take any great place that people love to visit. You know, those lively tourist haunts from Nantucket to San Francisco. Or those red hot neighborhoods from Seattle’s Capital Hill to Miami Beach’s Art Deco district. Or those healthy downtowns from Portland, Oregon to Chicago, Illinois to Charleston, South Carolina. What do they all have in common?
The mix of uses that gives them life are presently outlawed by zoning in virtually every city and town in all 50 states.
Crisis offers opportunity. With real estate in a freefall, there is an opportunity to lay the foundation for a more prosperous and sustainable American landscape.
If only there is the vision and political will.
Scrapping zoning codes is the single most significant change that can be made in every town and city in America. It would aid economic development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, foster healthier lifestyles, reduce dependence on foreign oil, protect open space and wildlife habitats, and reduce wasteful government spending.
Zoning is a legacy of Herbert Hoover. As Commerce Secretary, he championed the “Standard Zoning Enabling Act” to address “the moral and social issues that can only be solved by a new conception of city building.” In 1926, the Supreme Court upheld zoning to protect health and safety by “excluding from residential areas the confusion and danger of fire, contagion and disorder which in greater or less degree attach to the location of store, shops and factories.” The quite sensible idea that people shouldn’t live next to steel mills was used to justify a system of “zones” to isolate uses that had lived in harmony for centuries.
Under zoning, new neighborhoods were segregated by income, and commerce was torn asunder from both customers and workers. Timeless ways of creating great places were ruthlessly outlawed. The sprawl spawned by zoning spread from sea to shining sea.
Almost everyone admits the environmental and social devastation caused by sprawl. Yet it remains the law. What’s been lacking is the tool for producing great places instead of bleak, auto-dependent landscapes. If “zoning” is the DNA of sprawl the coding that endlessly replicates the bleak landscape of autotopia, then what is the DNA of livable communities?
It is found in timeless ways of building, updated for the 21st Century, including the need to accommodate cars. It regulates incompatible uses without the absurdities of conventional zoning. It is calibrated for new buildings to contribute to their context and to the larger goal of making a great place. It does so primarily by regulating the form of buildings, since that is what determines the long-neglected public realm of streets and sidewalks. It does that by regulating setbacks, heights and the physical character of buildings. For example, a form-based code could protect the existing scale of a neighborhood from the “teardowns” of traditional homes for replacement by McMansions–or facilitate the evolution of an auto-oriented commercial strip to a mix of uses, including residential and/or office over retail.
Called “form-based codes” or “smart codes,” this alternative framework for shaping great places exists, and it’s quietly spreading.
Where it’s been tried, it’s been a success. Seaside, Florida, the poster town for “new urbanism,” was “coded” rather than zoned, and ended up on the cover of Time magazine. In 2003, Petaluma, California scrapped its zoning regulations and adopted a new code for 400 underdeveloped acres in their Downtown, producing more than a quarter billion dollars in new investment. Now cities as diverse as Miami, Buffalo, Tulsa and La Jolla are pursuing “form-based codes.”
Unlike zoning, “form-based coding” is not a “one-size fits all” solution. The rules for form in a dense urban center are distinctly different from those for a predominantly residential suburban neighborhood. In each case, the form and character of buildings are “calibrated” to achieve a cohesive and complimentary sense of place.
Still, widespread adoption waits upon the widespread recognition that the time for reform has come. The real estate meltdown provides that wake-up call. The model is broken. Financing generic products (class A office; suburban housing tract; grocery-anchored strip center; business park, etc.) through globally marketable securities has become radioactive. By the time supply and demand right themselves, the financial and economic unsustainability of sprawl will be laid bare.
Of course, one can never underestimate what historian Barbara Tuchman called “the march of folly.” Perhaps in the interest of “stimulus” to the moribund economy, we will be willing to spend trillions more to subsidize sprawl. But in the end, as economist Herbert Stein pointed out, “That which cannot go on forever, won’t.”
Before that day comes, we can save untold environmental, economic and social damage by the widespread adoption of coding that respects human scale, restores the proximity of complimentary uses, and repairs the damage done to the American landscape and our rich (but abandoned) tradition of creating fine neighborhoods, towns and cities.
Scrap zoning. Adopt coding. Legalize the art of making great places that people cherish, that produce economic value, and that leave a lighter environmental footprint on the land.
Rick Cole’s e-mail address is RCole@ci.ventura.ca.us.
Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.
DVA says
February 12, 2009 at 4:36 pmFYI, the word you’re looking for is “myth” if you want to make it clearer that you’re not holding up Hoover as legend.
DVA says
February 12, 2009 at 4:36 pmFYI, the word you’re looking for is “myth” if you want to make it clearer that you’re not holding up Hoover as legend.
MarketUrbanism says
February 12, 2009 at 6:15 pmThanks. Maybe I’ll re-title it to make clear, but wanted to keep “Urbanism Legend” in the title as it refers to the series of posts.
Market Urbanism says
February 12, 2009 at 6:15 pmThanks. Maybe I’ll re-title it to make clear, but wanted to keep “Urbanism Legend” in the title as it refers to the series of posts.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 12:22 amHaven’t got a chance to read this post in detail yet, but it looks very interesting.
A quick comment, though, regarding the first part of the post’s title (the “Urbanism” part) and then two general questions about the Market Urbanism blog set-up:
1) Although this may be too “trendy” or “fussy,” perhaps you may want to consider entitling your “Urbanism Legends” posts, “Urban[-ism] Legends,” instead? I think with the brackets (and, perhaps with the added hyphen too) it becomes clearer that you are commenting upon and adapting the well-known expression, “Urban Legend” (having the meaning, more or less, of modern day, non-rural folklore).
I’m not sure how successfully its worked for me, but that’s why I type-out the phrase, “New [Sub-]Urbanism,” when I refer to the movement that is more conventionally known as “New Urbanism.” I think the brackets and hyphen make it easier for others to see that I’m referring to what is conventionally called New Urbanism (but, at the same time, they allow me to make my own comment on the expression).
2) What is that little rectangular box on the upper right side of each thread title? Initially it says “submit,” and then sometimes it says something about “points” with an up or down arrow too, I think. If I remember correctly, the points don’t always seem to reflect the number of comments that have been posted to that thread, so I assume it means something else.
3) Is there a simple way to print-out “Market Urbanism” posts — i.e., a printable version button? I like to print-out longish posts, like “Urbanism Legend: Herbert Hoovwer” and “Hoover’s Other Error” (since I prefer reading such posts on paper), but I don’t what to wind-up printing everything else that’s also displayed on the screen too.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 12:22 amHaven’t got a chance to read this post in detail yet, but it looks very interesting.
A quick comment, though, regarding the first part of the post’s title (the “Urbanism” part) and then two general questions about the Market Urbanism blog set-up:
1) Although this may be too “trendy” or “fussy,” perhaps you may want to consider entitling your “Urbanism Legends” posts, “Urban[-ism] Legends,” instead? I think with the brackets (and, perhaps with the added hyphen too) it becomes clearer that you are commenting upon and adapting the well-known expression, “Urban Legend” (having the meaning, more or less, of modern day, non-rural folklore).
I’m not sure how successfully its worked for me, but that’s why I type-out the phrase, “New [Sub-]Urbanism,” when I refer to the movement that is more conventionally known as “New Urbanism.” I think the brackets and hyphen make it easier for others to see that I’m referring to what is conventionally called New Urbanism (but, at the same time, they allow me to make my own comment on the expression).
2) What is that little rectangular box on the upper right side of each thread title? Initially it says “submit,” and then sometimes it says something about “points” with an up or down arrow too, I think. If I remember correctly, the points don’t always seem to reflect the number of comments that have been posted to that thread, so I assume it means something else.
3) Is there a simple way to print-out “Market Urbanism” posts — i.e., a printable version button? I like to print-out longish posts, like “Urbanism Legend: Herbert Hoovwer” and “Hoover’s Other Error” (since I prefer reading such posts on paper), but I don’t what to wind-up printing everything else that’s also displayed on the screen too.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 2:40 amRe: Urbanism legend: Herbert Hoover
This is a very interesting post, as were previous similar ones on the progressive movement by Stephen Smith!
Aside from providing interesting new information, these various posts bring to mind (and help solidify in my mind), the strong “progressive,” “left/liberal,” “orthodox planning” connection to Robert Moses that I first really became aware of with a panel discussion I attended in the Fall of 2006 (?) on Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs and with the subsequent “catalog” and series of exhibits and panel discussions on Robert Moses that were produced during the Winter-Spring of 2007 (?).
Although “the Power Broker” does mention that Robert Moses was, professionally speaking, a child of the Progressive movement and does mention the strong support by progressives, like the owners of the “New York Times,” of many of his projects over the years, all the personal dislike for Moses and his “methods” among progressives also obscured, so it seems to me now, how much of a liberal, progressive, orthodox planner Robert Moses actually was. So at first I was both shocked and surprised that so many leftist / liberals / progressives were essentially bad-mouthing Jane Jacobs and jumping on the Moses bandwagon, and I had trouble understanding where they were coming from. (The fact that much of their writing and speaking was couched in hard to fathom, “academia-speak” didn’t help either.) But as I read more and more (and attended more and more panel discussions) the thrust of their arguments became clearer to me: “The real problem with Robert Moses was that, personally speaking, he was an obnoxious SOB, who created a lot of unnecessary enemies for himself and his projects. But most of what he did was actually the “platform” of leftists / liberals / progressives, and not only useful but actually necessary — without it NYC would have died. So we should really look past the idiosyncratic obnoxiousness and consider what happens to democracies if they never get a Moses every once and a while.”
Looking at it now, the best way to understand the animosity between Moses and progressives is to see Moses as an egotistical, renegade progressive who looked down at other progressives as being impractical dreamers and so went it alone with his own idea of regional planning.
A important book along these lines (although it is so poorly written, so it seems to me, that it’s hard to tell what the author himself really meant to say) is “The New York Approach” by the late Joel Schwartz. The author, who appears to have been a leftist historian at a local university, did an incredible amount of archival research (e.g., in the minutes of labor unions and various obscure local organizations) to come up with a very detailed history of the positive / negative relationship between Moses and various liberal organizations. Hillary Ballon, the curator of the Robert Moses exhibits (and co-editor of and contributor to the “catalog” of the exhibits, which is really more of a separate book on Moses) appears to cite “the New York Approach” as a key source book and inspiration.
– – – – – – –
I also hope to comment on the Rick Cole post, “Hoover’s Other Error,” later this evening.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 2:40 amRe: Urbanism legend: Herbert Hoover
This is a very interesting post, as were previous similar ones on the progressive movement by Stephen Smith!
Aside from providing interesting new information, these various posts bring to mind (and help solidify in my mind), the strong “progressive,” “left/liberal,” “orthodox planning” connection to Robert Moses that I first really became aware of with a panel discussion I attended in the Fall of 2006 (?) on Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs and with the subsequent “catalog” and series of exhibits and panel discussions on Robert Moses that were produced during the Winter-Spring of 2007 (?).
Although “the Power Broker” does mention that Robert Moses was, professionally speaking, a child of the Progressive movement and does mention the strong support by progressives, like the owners of the “New York Times,” of many of his projects over the years, all the personal dislike for Moses and his “methods” among progressives also obscured, so it seems to me now, how much of a liberal, progressive, orthodox planner Robert Moses actually was. So at first I was both shocked and surprised that so many leftist / liberals / progressives were essentially bad-mouthing Jane Jacobs and jumping on the Moses bandwagon, and I had trouble understanding where they were coming from. (The fact that much of their writing and speaking was couched in hard to fathom, “academia-speak” didn’t help either.) But as I read more and more (and attended more and more panel discussions) the thrust of their arguments became clearer to me: “The real problem with Robert Moses was that, personally speaking, he was an obnoxious SOB, who created a lot of unnecessary enemies for himself and his projects. But most of what he did was actually the “platform” of leftists / liberals / progressives, and not only useful but actually necessary — without it NYC would have died. So we should really look past the idiosyncratic obnoxiousness and consider what happens to democracies if they never get a Moses every once and a while.”
Looking at it now, the best way to understand the animosity between Moses and progressives is to see Moses as an egotistical, renegade progressive who looked down at other progressives as being impractical dreamers and so went it alone with his own idea of regional planning.
A important book along these lines (although it is so poorly written, so it seems to me, that it’s hard to tell what the author himself really meant to say) is “The New York Approach” by the late Joel Schwartz. The author, who appears to have been a leftist historian at a local university, did an incredible amount of archival research (e.g., in the minutes of labor unions and various obscure local organizations) to come up with a very detailed history of the positive / negative relationship between Moses and various liberal organizations. Hillary Ballon, the curator of the Robert Moses exhibits (and co-editor of and contributor to the “catalog” of the exhibits, which is really more of a separate book on Moses) appears to cite “the New York Approach” as a key source book and inspiration.
– – – – – – –
I also hope to comment on the Rick Cole post, “Hoover’s Other Error,” later this evening.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 3:59 amThree comments on “Hoover’s Other Error”
1) I am not as familiar with “form-based codes” as I would like to be, so perhaps I’m off base here, but it seems to me that form-based codes (at least as they are discussed by Rick Cole) are likely to be worse than properly written conventional zoning regulations.
Conventional zoning that has been, for lack of a better term, “loosely written” seems to easily provide for high densities and a great mix of uses and building types. NYC’s 1916 zoning code, although not as “loose” as it perhaps should have been, still allowed for high densities and a great diversity of uses and building types. In terms of core concepts, such zoning didn’t seem to me to produce sprawl! Which has higher densities and a greater mix of uses and building types?: the areas of NYC built between 1916 and 1961, e.g. Bay Ridge (built under conventional zoning), or Seaside, Florida (which, according to Cole, was coded rather than zoned)?
It’s hard for me to imagine that the same densities and mix of uses and building types found in many districts of NYC would likely be built under form-based codes — at least as these codes seem to be described by Rick Cole:
“The rules for form in a dense urban center [area] are [to be(?)] distinctly different from those for a predominantly residential suburban neighborhood. In each case, the form and character of buildings are [to be] “calibrated” to ACHIEVE A COHESIVE AND COMPLIMENTARY SENSE OF PLACE [emphasis mine — BH].”
“For example, a form-based code could protect the existing scale of a neighborhood from the ‘teardowns’ of traditional homes for replacement by McMansions [is this really urbanism?] — or facilitate the evolution of an auto-oriented commercial strip to a mix of uses, including residential and/or office over retail [how, exactly?].”
How does a form-based code both protect the existing scale of a neighborhood and also facilitate an evolution to higher densities and a mix of uses AND building types?
2) Again I’m not as familiar as I would like to be with the lingo of “form-based codes” and “smart codes,” but one kind of new regulation that does seem to me to be useful are performance based regulations (perhaps these are what is meant by smart codes?) — for example, not forbidding nightclubs but having instead regulations on objectively measureable maximum noise levels. Perhaps, such functional or performance based reguations could also vary by zones in certain instances. However, this does not seem to me to be counter to conventional zoning, but rather a refinement of it.
3) One reason I’m so “suspicious” of New [Sub-]Urbanism is that I used to participate in a New [Sub-]Urbanist “list-serve” (internet mailing list), and it seemed to me that most participants (some of whom were very high profile “New [Sub-]Urbanists”) were really somewhat anti-city (and anti-marketplace) [sub-]urbanists at heart — it’s just that the [sub-]urbanism that THEY favored had higher densities and a greater mix of uses and building types than post-WWII auto-centered suburbs.
Benjamin Hemric says
February 13, 2009 at 3:59 amThree comments on “Hoover’s Other Error”
1) I am not as familiar with “form-based codes” as I would like to be, so perhaps I’m off base here, but it seems to me that form-based codes (at least as they are discussed by Rick Cole) are likely to be worse than properly written conventional zoning regulations.
Conventional zoning that has been, for lack of a better term, “loosely written” seems to easily provide for high densities and a great mix of uses and building types. NYC’s 1916 zoning code, although not as “loose” as it perhaps should have been, still allowed for high densities and a great diversity of uses and building types. In terms of core concepts, such zoning didn’t seem to me to produce sprawl! Which has higher densities and a greater mix of uses and building types?: the areas of NYC built between 1916 and 1961, e.g. Bay Ridge (built under conventional zoning), or Seaside, Florida (which, according to Cole, was coded rather than zoned)?
It’s hard for me to imagine that the same densities and mix of uses and building types found in many districts of NYC would likely be built under form-based codes — at least as these codes seem to be described by Rick Cole:
“The rules for form in a dense urban center [area] are [to be(?)] distinctly different from those for a predominantly residential suburban neighborhood. In each case, the form and character of buildings are [to be] “calibrated” to ACHIEVE A COHESIVE AND COMPLIMENTARY SENSE OF PLACE [emphasis mine — BH].”
“For example, a form-based code could protect the existing scale of a neighborhood from the ‘teardowns’ of traditional homes for replacement by McMansions [is this really urbanism?] — or facilitate the evolution of an auto-oriented commercial strip to a mix of uses, including residential and/or office over retail [how, exactly?].”
How does a form-based code both protect the existing scale of a neighborhood and also facilitate an evolution to higher densities and a mix of uses AND building types?
2) Again I’m not as familiar as I would like to be with the lingo of “form-based codes” and “smart codes,” but one kind of new regulation that does seem to me to be useful are performance based regulations (perhaps these are what is meant by smart codes?) — for example, not forbidding nightclubs but having instead regulations on objectively measureable maximum noise levels. Perhaps, such functional or performance based reguations could also vary by zones in certain instances. However, this does not seem to me to be counter to conventional zoning, but rather a refinement of it.
3) One reason I’m so “suspicious” of New [Sub-]Urbanism is that I used to participate in a New [Sub-]Urbanist “list-serve” (internet mailing list), and it seemed to me that most participants (some of whom were very high profile “New [Sub-]Urbanists”) were really somewhat anti-city (and anti-marketplace) [sub-]urbanists at heart — it’s just that the [sub-]urbanism that THEY favored had higher densities and a greater mix of uses and building types than post-WWII auto-centered suburbs.
MarketUrbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:11 amI like that idea. I think I’ll make that change…
It’s a little link to submit or vote up or down on a bookmarking site called Reddit. When an article is submitted to reddit, it often generates good traffic – higher rated articles are ranked higher an thus more widely visited. However, posts here are often obscure compared to articles on the stimulus, Obama, or Michael Phelps…
Market Urbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:11 amI like that idea. I think I’ll make that change…
It’s a little link to submit or vote up or down on a bookmarking site called Reddit. When an article is submitted to reddit, it often generates good traffic – higher rated articles are ranked higher an thus more widely visited. However, posts here are often obscure compared to articles on the stimulus, Obama, or Michael Phelps…
MarketUrbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:24 amI guess that article is less about Hoover, than it is about form-based codes. Form baseed codes seem like a lesser evil to me – compared to conventional zoning.
It seems like more of a character code than a density code. But, it’s interesting that many planners and new urbanists want to instill a culture upon people – it doesn’t seem to different than the religious right’s attempt at the imposition of religious morals upon society. (originally a progressive intent too)
The same goes for New Urbanists who either seem to have an aesthetic fetish or odd environmental notions that the only efficient use is their form. And thus feel the need to impose those wishes upon society. Nonetheless, I do welcome the parts of the movement that wish to liberalize land-use regulations…
Market Urbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:24 amI guess that article is less about Hoover, than it is about form-based codes. Form baseed codes seem like a lesser evil to me – compared to conventional zoning.
It seems like more of a character code than a density code. But, it’s interesting that many planners and new urbanists want to instill a culture upon people – it doesn’t seem to different than the religious right’s attempt at the imposition of religious morals upon society. (originally a progressive intent too)
The same goes for New Urbanists who either seem to have an aesthetic fetish or odd environmental notions that the only efficient use is their form. And thus feel the need to impose those wishes upon society. Nonetheless, I do welcome the parts of the movement that wish to liberalize land-use regulations…
MarketUrbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:47 amUltimately, progressivism seems to lack any coherent consistency, other than some elitist notion that he/she knows what’s best for everyone. This seems to make progressivism vulnerable to criticism by thinking persons.
Progressivism once stood for moving people out of cities, but now progressives looks disgust at the suburbs their philisophy had a hand in creating.
Moses, Mumford, and Jacobs would each be considered progressive by some, but disdained by others. I just can’t find any consistent moral or pragmatic philosophy behind progressivism.
Market Urbanism says
February 13, 2009 at 4:47 amUltimately, progressivism seems to lack any coherent consistency, other than some elitist notion that he/she knows what’s best for everyone. This seems to make progressivism vulnerable to criticism by thinking persons.
Progressivism once stood for moving people out of cities, but now progressives looks disgust at the suburbs their philisophy had a hand in creating.
Moses, Mumford, and Jacobs would each be considered progressive by some, but disdained by others. I just can’t find any consistent moral or pragmatic philosophy behind progressivism.
Robert says
February 23, 2009 at 6:42 amGreat article, the idea that progressive or popular doctrine lacks a moral or consistent backbone is essential and missing in most political discussions. What interested me the most is the idea of code based zoning and working away from zoning. As a planner working in the public sector and a student of planning at a liberal university there is a dangerous and common assumption that we can fix sprawl and urban issues by using more conventional methods such as zoning and regulation. Currently I am at the point that I disagree with that idea but I have found applied alternatives. This article has inspired me to research into how coding or other deregulated land use methods work. If any of the contributers have any information that would make a great post.
Robert says
February 23, 2009 at 6:42 amGreat article, the idea that progressive or popular doctrine lacks a moral or consistent backbone is essential and missing in most political discussions. What interested me the most is the idea of code based zoning and working away from zoning. As a planner working in the public sector and a student of planning at a liberal university there is a dangerous and common assumption that we can fix sprawl and urban issues by using more conventional methods such as zoning and regulation. Currently I am at the point that I disagree with that idea but I have found applied alternatives. This article has inspired me to research into how coding or other deregulated land use methods work. If any of the contributers have any information that would make a great post.
MarketUrbanism says
February 24, 2009 at 4:56 amThanks Robert. I’d consider coding a lesser-evil to zoning, but a step in the right direction. It’s good that people are talking about the downsides of zoning, even if they do to promote a less-evil alternative…
Market Urbanism says
February 24, 2009 at 4:56 amThanks Robert. I’d consider coding a lesser-evil to zoning, but a step in the right direction. It’s good that people are talking about the downsides of zoning, even if they do to promote a less-evil alternative…
John Morris says
March 20, 2016 at 11:24 amGreat article, but the zoning movement dates to the turn of the 20th century.
Baltimore passed the first citywide zoning law in 1910- followed by many Southern cities. The explicit goal of these laws was segregation.
“Mayor J. Barry Mahool, a nationally recognized member of the “social justice” wing of the Progressive movement, gave unequivocal support to the city’s pioneering racial zoning ordinance and signed it into law on December 20, 1910. Like many reformers in Baltimore, Mahool subscribed to the position that “Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidents of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the nearby White neighborhoods, and to protect property values among the White majority.””
After these laws were deemed illegal, consulting firms often redid the same maps using less obvious codes. See: THE RACIAL ORIGINS OF ZONING IN AMERICAN CITIES by Christopher Silver.