The birth of land use planning in American urban planning

Planning Perspectives Vol. 24, No. 4, October 2009, 457–483 The birth of ‘land use planning’ in American urban planning Fukuo Akimoto* Department of ...
Author: Julianna Small
1 downloads 2 Views 10MB Size
Planning Perspectives Vol. 24, No. 4, October 2009, 457–483

The birth of ‘land use planning’ in American urban planning Fukuo Akimoto* Department of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Kyushu University, Moto-Oka, Nishi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka-Ken, Japan (Received 15 June 2007; final version received 13 September 2008 ) Taylor and Francis RPPE_A_414743.sgm

Planning 10.1080/02665430903145705 0266-5433 Original Taylor 402009 24 Professor [email protected] 000002009 &Article Perspectives Francis FukuoAkimoto (print)/1466-4518 (online)

Although the concept of ‘land use planning’ is now firmly enmeshed in American urban planning, its meaning still remains vague. This paper aims to clarify the meaning by examining the historical development of land use planning in the USA. At the beginning of the twentieth century, city planners viewed a city as an organic unit of public facilities. While city planning thereafter provided potential elements of land use planning, such as zoning, zoning surveys and land use classification systems, the idea of land use planning itself was actually derived from rural county planning and was initially utilized in urban county planning as a guide for zoning in the 1930s. After bringing about a change in the way cities were viewed, that is, as a pattern of land use and population density, land use planning was further employed as a guide for urban redevelopment policies in the 1940s, and finally reaching full integration into city planning in the 1950s and 1960s. Keywords: zoning survey; land utilization; land use survey; land use planning; Hugh R. Pomeroy

Introduction Albert Guttenberg once emphasized the importance of a common language for planners,1 because ‘[t]oo many planners use their language unreflectively’.2 He attached significance to planning terminology and terminological history as offering planners ‘an opportunity to shed light on the nature of the American planning movement and to help bring greater order to planning discourse’.3 He endeavoured to clarify the meanings of planning terms including ‘planning’ and ‘region’,4 while he noteworthily examined the individual components of the term ‘land use’ and eventually established a new ‘Multiple Land Use Classification System’ which embraces three classification modes: the analytical or referential mode, the evaluative or appraisive mode and the controlling or prescriptive mode.5 Yet we still have ‘so many hazy terms’ among key words in the language of city planning as Guttenberg once admitted.6 Although the term ‘land use planning’ is a major element of city planning, its meaning still remains vague. In order to define the meanings of land use planning clearly, the development of a conceptual and methodological innovation of the term ‘land use planning’ in urban planning must be studied. While the term ‘land use planning’ is now an integral part of American urban planning, it did not exist in the ‘City Beautiful’ era of the 1890s and 1900s or the ‘City Efficient’ era of the 1910s and 1920s. As revealed by Mel Scott in American City Planning Since 1890, the term only became popular after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the National Land Use Planning Committee in 1931.7 *Email: [email protected] ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online © 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02665430903145705 http://www.informaworld.com

458

F. Akimoto

This paper undertakes to examine the idea of ‘land use planning’ historically, to analyse what meaning was involved and to show how a conceptual evolution of land use planning has occurred in American planning history. First, the naissance stage of city planning and zoning in the 1910s and 1920s, the early phase of regional, county, state and national planning in the 1920s and 1930s, and the planning field expansions that comprised the elements of land use planning are examined. Next, the land use planning movements in rural counties of the 1930s are described and discussed in terms of their effects on ideas of land use and land use planning in agricultural policy. Thirdly, the development of the concept of land use planning in the 1930s and 1940s, as influenced by rural planning, and the introduction and establishment of this concept in American city planning in subsequent decades are discussed. Finally, remaining problems of land use planning in the USA are considered. The birth of city planning and zoning in the 1910s The idea of city planning was introduced from outside of the USA by social welfare reformers. In 1907, the term ‘city planning’ first appeared in print in the USA, as a translation of a German term, ‘städtebau’.8 The Committee on Congestion of Population (CCP), a group of housing activists in New York City, discovered zoning and town extension planning in Germany as new tools to prevent the direful congestion, maladjustment and land speculation for the benefit of working people in Manhattan, and advocated the idea of ‘city planning (städtebau)’. After Benjamin Marsh, executive secretary of the Committee, published An Introduction to City Planning in 1908 and organized the first National Conference on City Planning the following year (1909), the term ‘city planning’ became widely used. However, as John A. Peterson demonstrates, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. soon took the initiative away from Marsh and CCP by organizing civil engineers, architects, landscape architects and lawyers, and emerged as the leader of the American city planning movement by 1910.9 Olmsted Jr. emphasized that the new term, ‘city planning’, stood for ‘a growing appreciation of a city’s organic unity, of the interdependence of its diverse elements’.10 The National Conference on City Planning defined advancing comprehensive city planning, rather than social justice, as its main objective.11 Planners continued to discuss the definition of ‘city planning’ well into the 1910s. Nelson P. Lewis, in Planning the Modern City, paid attention to the fact that the urban population was increasing at a rate more than three times that of the rural population from 1900 to 1910, and defined city planning as ‘the exercise of such foresight as will promote the orderly and sightly development of a city and its environs along rational lines’.12 Lewis also defined the elements of comprehensive city plan as the transportation system, the street system, the park and recreation facilities and the location of public buildings.13 City planners in the early 1910s viewed a city as a growing organism being made up of public facilities, and did not refer to zoning, a tool of land use regulations, as a major element of comprehensive city plans. At this time, there were no potential elements of land use planning in city planning. Zoning, or districting, emerged as a separate idea from city planning. In 1908, the Los Angeles City Council adopted district ordinances, the first use-zoning laws.14 In 1916, the New York Board of Estimates adopted a comprehensive zoning resolution. Thereafter, city planners began to introduce zoning as a major element of city plans. In 1928, the Standard City Planning Enabling Act granted planning powers to cities and decreed, in Note 31, that a city master plan covered (1) streets, (2) other types of public grounds, (3) public buildings, (4)

Planning Perspectives

459

public utilities, and (5) development of private property (zoning). Thus, zoning was officially included as a major element of comprehensive city plans. Meanwhile, Harland Bartholomew, the planning consultant who produced the largest number of city plans in the 1920s, decided to seek a scientific way of preparing zoning plans. Early in 1920, he conducted a zoning survey, a detailed study of urban land uses, that included the entire city of Washington, DC, and developed an urban land classification system.15 Thereafter, he launched a number of zoning surveys around the country. Bartholomew had also discovered the relationship between land use and population in the late 1920s, and conducted numerous analyses to aid the development of a scientific zoning practice.16 He published his findings in Urban Land Use: Amounts of Land Used and Needed for Various Purposes by Typical American Cities, An Aid to Scientific Zoning in 1932,17 which was followed by Land Uses in American Cities in 1955.18 In the latter book, he proposed a scientific way of preparing zoning plans: (1) planners first estimate future population, then (2) extrapolate future land uses by applying the population-land use areas ratios to the future population, and (3) prepare a zoning plan for the city. His purpose in preparing zoning plans was to provide the orderly development of a city for population increase, which was the same as that of city planners in the 1910s. The former book adopted the term ‘land classification’, while the latter introduced ‘land use survey’, ‘land use classification’ and ‘land use analyses’. Although Bartholomew contributed a great deal to the advancement of city planning by developing the potential elements of land use planning, he could not conceive of ‘land use planning’ within the confines of city planning. Interestingly enough, Bartholomew did not seem to feel the necessity of ‘land use plan’ as a guide for zoning plans as far as dealing with urban zoning, even after these terms became widely used in the USA. The emergence of regional planning in the 1920s The term ‘regional planning’ also came from outside of the US. In 1918 Patrick Abercrombie coined the term as a device to combine a regional survey and town planning schemes in Britain.19 In 1919, Thomas Adams, a British planner, introduced the term ‘regional planning’ to the USA.20 He proposed ‘the classification of land for industries, for residences, for agriculture, for park areas or for special reserves’ as one major element of the regional plan, but only few American planners drew attention to this proposal. In the 1920s, American city planners began to acknowledge the necessity of regional planning in the face of motorization and suburbanization. Regional planning movements subsequently gained momentum in large metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco. The Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928 defined the elements of a regional plan as follows: (1) ‘the general location, extent and character of streets, parks, grounds and open spaces, public buildings and properties and public utilities’; (2) ‘the general location of forests, agricultural and open development areas for purposes of conservation, food and water supply, sanitary and drainage facilities or the protection of future urban development’; and (3) ‘a zoning plan for the control of the height and area, or bulk, location and use of buildings and premises and of the density of population’. In consequence, regional planning combined public facilities and zoning as master plan elements from city planning with ‘the general location of forests, agricultural and open development areas for conservation’ from the conservation movement in rural policy. These zoning

460

F. Akimoto

and conservation elements of regional master plans could also be called potential elements of land use planning. However, these two elements were separated in the Act, while Tomas Adams had proposed to unify these two elements under the name of the land classification in 1919. This was because the 1909 British Town Planning Act empowered local authorities to prepare town planning schemes for surrounding areas in the process of being developed,21 while American zoning regulations in the 1920s were only applied to urban land: the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court’s Euclid v. Ambler decision, though establishing the constitutionality of urban zoning, warned that ‘[a] regulated zoning ordinance … might be clearly invalid as applied to rural community’. While the elements of a regional plan were defined in the 1928 Standard Act and at least 30 regional planning organizations existed in the USA in 1932, their main function was mostly limited to area-wide planning and the coordination of highway and park systems, not preparing a comprehensive regional plan.22 Only one group completed a comprehensive regional plan in the 1920s:23 the 1929 Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, led by Thomas Adams. Naturally, this plan reflected Adams’ personal view of regional planning rather than those of the Standard City Planning Enabling Act. Early in 1924, Adams had defined the two main purposes of regional planning. The first was ‘to promote the best development of the uses of land within a region’, and the second was ‘to make the means of communication serve these uses with the highest practical degree of efficiency’.24 While he did not use the term itself, Adams substantially created the concept of ‘land use plan’ in regional planning by 1924. He proposed the four principal uses of land in a region as business, residence, recreation and agriculture.25 The major elements of the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs were means of communication and land uses. Although these elements apparently reflected his 1924 definition, he lowered the priority of land uses from the first to the second. The land classification of the plan was similar to Adams’ 1924 categorization, although it did not include agricultural land. Later, the land use element of the Regional Plan was used as a guide for municipalities in preparing zoning ordinances.26 This is undoubtedly the first master plan at the regional level developed in the USA that included land use as a major element. However, Adams’ American colleagues did not follow his vision, and the idea of land use planning failed to take root in regional planning in the 1930s. State and national planning in the 1930s State planning in the early 1930s Early in 1915, Arthur C. Comey, a member of the Massachusetts Homestead Commission, proposed a state plan as a guide for city planning,27 while in 1916, Thomas Adams stressed the importance of state planning for city planning by declaring, ‘The first thing you have to do, is not plan Cleveland, but to plan Ohio’.28 However, only few discussions of state planning occurred in the 1920s. Regrettably, even the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act failed to make any reference to state planning or a comprehensive state plan.29 However, in the early 1930s, state planning began to revive in the mid-western and eastern states. The leading states were Illinois and Iowa. Jacob L. Crane Jr., planning consultant for both states, declared that:

Planning Perspectives

461

State planning will help us enormously with our local planning work. It tends to establish a larger conception of our physical environment and of the city in that greater area; it gives us new methods of studying and forecasting and perhaps guiding population distribution and concentration; it can determine the desirable utilization of major land divisions, and the effect of that upon all elements of local planning.30

When city planning expanded into state planning, the ideas of guiding population distribution and land utilization were thus introduced as a background for city and regional planning. State planning, borrowing the term ‘land utilization’ from agricultural policy of the 1920s, could embrace both urban and rural areas under the name of ‘desirable utilization of major land divisions’ for the first time in American planning history. However, Crane did not complete a comprehensive state plan including the desirable utilization of major land divisions for either state. In a special Illinois State Planning Committee created in 1931, Crane studied population drifts, land use changes and industrial migration, and proposed the necessity of a state planning programme (Figure 1).31 However, the project in Illinois was more in the nature of continuous state planning than of the preparation of a specific, fixed state plan.32 He only prepared a sketch of a plan for parkways and riverways. In Iowa, Crane prepared a different plan for the State Conservation Commission in 1933.33 However, as the focus was primarily conservatory, it cannot be called a comprehensive state plan.

Figure 1. Changes in land uses during a century of growth in Illinois. Source: Crane (1932), 92.

462

F. Akimoto

National planning in the 1930s During the first year of his presidency, Franklin D. Roosevelt established the National Planning Board in July 1933 to survey the distribution and trends of population, land uses, industry, housing and natural resources, to formulate ‘the comprehensive plan’ and to advise the Administration of Public Works.34 The chairman of the National Planning Board was Frederick A. Delano, the President’s uncle, who had been deeply involved in Burnham Plan of Chicago of 1909 and in the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs of 1929. Delano was also the chairman of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Executive Director Charles Eliot II was a landscape architect, the nephew of the founding father of the Boston Park System, and the planning director of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Eliot defined national planning as an expansion of city planning. He recalled that: Figure 1.Crane Source: Changes (1932), in92. land uses during a century of growth in Illinois.

I decided that I wanted to expand and get into the field of national planning. I felt that a lot of the principles of planning that we had been working with were applicable in a much bigger field. 35

Eliot and Delano had originally proposed the idea of national planning to Harold L. Ickes, the Secretary of Interior, who promptly established the National Planning Board. National planning thus became the ‘policy buzzword’ of 1933. Eliot was supported by colleagues who also defined national planning as an extension of city planning. For example, Alfred Bettman, President of the National Conference on City Planning, described the process as, ‘the making of a national plan, that is, a sort of master plan of the whole area of the nation, which would indicate the location and extent of the major physical development of a national scope’.36 Arthur C. Comey, from Harvard University’s School of City Planning, also emphasized that national planning was the largest type of regional planning and proposed three major elements of national planning: land and resources, population patterns, and the various means of transportation.37 These three elements were closer to the objectives of state planning rather than regional planning. However, no national plan was ever enacted in the USA, as Congress abolished the National Resources Planning Board, the successor to the National Planning Board, in 1943. State planning boards in the 1930s In December 1933, the National Planning Board directed governors to appoint state planning boards. On the condition that the governors sponsored legislation to make the state planning board permanent, the National Planning Board sent planning consultants from the Public Works Administration, as well as staff members recruited from the Civil Works Administration, to support state planning board activities. In 1935, 46 state planning boards were appointed, and leading city planners including John Nolen and Ladislas Segoe were assigned by the National Resources Board as planning consultants. The Board concluded by reporting that ‘the method or technique of planning as developed by the State planning boards has been an extension and expansion of the survey and planning work utilized in city and regional planning programs’.38 However, while the planning process of state planning had a kind of similarity with that of city planning, the elements of state planning were different from those of city planning. In April 1935, Eliot described the elements of state and national planning as (1) conservation and utilization of land and water resources, (2)

Planning Perspectives

463

population planning, and (3) transportation. However, due to tight state budgets for state planning and the lack of maps and geological data, the work of state planning boards were ultimately limited to the collection of basic data, although noteworthy progress was made in land use surveys.39 Thus, leading city planning experts in state planning boards began to deal with the state planning elements including conservation and utilization of land for the first time in American planning history and became familiar with land use surveys conducted by land-planning consultants in the mid-1930s. Noting that, ‘State planning boards through their land-use committees and with the assistance of both their general consultants and landplanning consultants, have made extensive land-use surveys’,40 the National Resources Board added that: The North Dakota State Planning Board has stated that one of the first objectives in a comprehensive planned land use survey must be the ‘determination and establishment of the major land uses best suited to the conditions, the location, and extent of the various classes, with the purpose that the greatest benefits from right use may accrue to individuals and groups as a whole’. 41

However, in 1940, with the USA assuming a war footing, federal assistance to state planning boards was reallocated, and most state planning boards were abolished. No state plan was ever completed. Land use planning in agricultural counties in the 1930s National Land Use Planning Committee In the late nineteenth century, a movement to conserve natural resources emerged in the US Conservation policy became an important issue under the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft. In 1905, Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the Forest Service, declared ‘all land is to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people; and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies’.42 While Pinchot expressed land use concern, his focus was mostly on forests. With Pinchot as chairman of the executive committee, the National Conservation Commission was appointed in 1908 to prepare the first inventory of America’s natural resources. The term ‘conservation’ was defined as ‘the use of foresight and restrain in exploitation of the physical sources of wealth as necessary for the perpetuity of civilization, and the welfare of future and present generation’.43 They launched the classification and mapping of national forest lands and devised a new precision in the classification of agricultural and non-agricultural lands.44 On the basis of this inventory, Pinchot succeeded in reserving 160 million acres of land as national forests and national parks.45 In the 1910s, the USDA turned its attention to farmland. With agricultural prices in Europe soaring during WWI, vast areas of forest in the USA were reclaimed; however, when peace returned to Europe after the 1919 ceasefire, the American farming industry fell into a depression. Removing ‘submarginal’ land from crop production emerged as a major issue in USA agricultural policy. ‘Submarginal land’ was underproductive land, unsuited for the production of farm crops or incapable of profitable cultivation.46 In 1918, the annual meeting of the American Economic Association founded by Richard T. Ely, professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, discussed this issue under a new term ‘land utilization’.

464

F. Akimoto

In 1922, at the National Agricultural Conference, Ely addressed ‘a national policy for land utilization means planning for desired ends with respect to the use of the land’.47 The USDA, led by its Bureau of Agricultural Economics, drew up a new land policy for the most effective use of land, including farmland. Its central figure was Lewis C. Gray, principal agricultural economist at the Division of Land Economics, one of Ely’s students. Gray defined ‘land utilization’ as: that branch of land economics which comprises the study of the land resources of a nation or other geographical unit from the stand point of their economic significance with a view to determining for what and how they may be most effectively employed. 48

In the same year, a separate department committee on land utilization was appointed in the USDA, and made its first report in the Year Book of the USDA for 1923, which emphasized (1) ‘the importance of a wise and discriminating use of resources’; (2) ‘the need for economic and social adjustments in the use of land’; and (3) ‘land inventory and land classification as an essential foundation’ for adjustments.49 Later, Gray proposed the Land Utilization Program, involving the federal purchase of 75 million acres of submarginal land for $675 million over 15 years.50 Michigan became the laboratory for land utilization policies.51 Early in 1919, the Michigan Academy of Science discovered the excessive agricultural lands and recommended in 1920 to conduct statewide surveys, and to provide an inventory of the great areas of idle land as a prerequisite to classification and planning. In 1922, the Michigan Land-Economic Survey was inaugurated (Figure 2). In 1925, the chief theorist of the Michigan Land-Economic Survey, P.S. Lovejoy, proudly wrote as below: The new period in our land affairs is now well opened…. A land inventory is one thing, land classification and planning for use is another thing…. Putting the plans into practice – the political science or engineering of land utilization – is still a different thing …. In the present phase of our land affairs we have not clearly distinguished these three essentially different bulk them all under the term, ‘classification’.52

Lovejoy presented a new term ‘land planning’ and emphasized the differences of three elements of land utilization process. As early as the 1920s, he had distinguished the differences among three modes of land classification: the referential, apprasive and prescriptive modes as later Guttenberg defined in the 1960s. In 1926, Harlean James published a book titled Land Planning in the United States for the City, State, and Nation in which she defined the term ‘land planning’ as ‘the public control, through planning in advance, of the physical treatment of public and private land and its resources in the interests of the country, state or region as a whole’.53 Although James emphasized that land planning covers the nation, state or region as a whole, she assumed ‘the principles of city planning may be applied to the planning of land uses’ because the principles of land planning are similar to those of city panning.54 Furthermore, in the preface of the James’ book, Ely stressed the necessity of a synthesis of land planning for urban and rural areas as a whole for the first time in American planning history; thus: Figure 2.Lovejoy Source: Michigan (1925), land163. economic survey.

City planning is now making way of regional planning…. But many yet do not see that agricultural prosperity … depends upon the planned out utilization of agricultural land. Moreover, the utilization

Planning Perspectives

465

Figure 2. Michigan land economic survey. Source: Lovejoy (1925), 163. of agricultural land cannot be well planned unless agriculture is considered in its relations to utilization of land for forests, for recreational purposes, for urban uses and all other possible uses. … It is only as we make a synthesis … that we can have the foundation of the highest attainable economic prosperity.55

In 1931, Arthur Hyde, Herbert Hoover’s secretary of agriculture, called a national conference on land utilization in conjunction with the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities held in Chicago. Attendees included approximately 300 representatives from organizations interested in land and rural problems, but no city planners. At the close of the conference, the National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use were established. While the former was to do research on technicality of land use problems, the latter was to educate public opinion and Congress; thus, the term ‘land use planning’ was officially introduced at the national level.

466

F. Akimoto

The ‘land’ aspect of land utilization was defined as a ‘primary factor of production’, including ‘not only the land surface but also super-surface resources and the minerals beneath the surface’.56 ‘Land utilization’ itself was defined as ‘the science and art of achieving the most effective use of land’.57 The difference between conservation and land utilization was also described as follows: The concept of efficient utilization includes the concept of conservation of natural resources. The emphasis in land utilization is on the mode of use and the essential adjustments involved; but the conservation … is a basic consideration in the determination of effective present use. 58

Similarly, ‘land use planning’ was defined as (1) classification of land based on physical, economic and social factors, and the subsequent creation of land inventories, (2) determination of the best effective use of land, and (3) the economic and social adjustments resulting from land use.59 As the social and economic aspects as well as the actual physical use of land were described, Gray naturally emphasized that land use planning was ‘an instance of social planning’,60 assuming that ‘planning’ was defined as ‘a preliminary clarification of public objectives and a formulation of policies’.61 The Committee also referred to city and regional planning by emphasizing that ‘in the long run the determination of most effective use becomes a matter of regional or local planning’.62 The First Annual Report of the National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use further referred to ‘Relation of Rural and Urban Planning’ in 1933 as below: In considering the problems of the region, city and regional planners have necessarily had to take into account the present and prospective use of land in the rural territory. The Land-Use Planning Committee, on the other hand, in its studies realizes the necessity of considering urban influences and the broader field of the development of a region as whole. This growing realization on the part of both groups … led to a meeting of representatives of each in Washington …. … the representatives concluded that the field of land planning as it affects any region is a unit …. Cooperative effort between the workers in the two fields is, therefore, essential. The need for developing programs of regional land planning was stressed.63

Around the same time Gray commented that ‘urban planning, which, under the unfortunate name of regional planning, has gradually expanded into the environs of the city, but with the city still the focus of planning’.64 Moreover, city and regional planning in the 1930s could not be considered types of social planning. In 1939, Gray confirmed that urban planning was ‘confined’ to the physical layout of cities.65 In the meantime, agricultural economists began introducing the term ‘land use planning’ to address the need to effect social and economic land use adjustments. ‘Land use planning’ and ‘land use plan’ both appeared in the policies of agricultural counties in Michigan in 1932. As mentioned earlier, beginning 1922, the Michigan Department of Conservation conducted land economic surveys in 15 of its northern counties and prepared an inventory of the physical character of 7,500,000 acres in order to review the utilization of state-owned lands acquired primarily through tax delinquency. Lee Roy A. Schoenmann described land use planning in Michigan as follows: The first step in the preparation of the utilization plan consists in making a thorough study and digest of the full detail of the inventory data. Correlation of these facts with the history of past use,

Planning Perspectives

467

present status of use, and the position of existing use (or lack of use) in its normal trend of progression will identify certain combinations of character and environment as having proved either suitable or unsuitable for particular types of utilization …. 66 The intent-in-ownership classification is then compared with the mapping of the natural features and the established land use.… Next all possible types of land use suited to the region are listed. The problem is to allocate the most promising acreage demanding uses over the area. 67

While Schoenmann had first used the term ‘land planning’ and ‘land utilization plan’ in 1931, he adopted the terms ‘land use planning’ and ‘land use plan’ in 1932, after the establishment of the National Land Use Planning Committee. The Ogemaw County Land Utilization Plan of 1931, later the 1932 Land Use Plan, proposed that most of lands under a speculative intent-in-ownership were turned to be the National Forest, State Forest, State Game Refuge and Hunting and Fishing Club (Table 1). Thus, from 1932, land use plans appeared in rural counties as guidelines for the adjustment of submarginal farmland. In July 1933, the First Annual Report of the National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use referred to several methods for adjustments in submarginal areas.68 While first method, public acquisition, had previously been utilized, a new method, rural zoning, was invented under the influence of urban zoning in city planning. Early in 1929, Wisconsin legislature passed a law, the first of its kind, permitting county boards to ‘regulate, restrict and determine the areas within which agriculture, forestry and recreation may be conducted’ as well as to determine ‘the location of roads, schools and trade industries’.69 In May 1933, with the support of the State Conservation Department and agricultural experts at University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin’s Oneida County introduced the idea of zoning from city planning and adopted the first rural zoning ordinance in the USA. It designated two kinds of use districts: forestry and unrestricted (Figure 3). Figure 3.G.S.Rural Source: Wehrwein, county ‘Zoning zoning ininWisconsin. Marginal Areas’, City Planning 4, no. 9 (1933): 154–63, 154.

Table 1.

The Ogemaw County Land Use Plan.

Declared intent of ownership in 1923 Farming Ranching USA and state lands

Recreation

Speculation and others

Source: Schoenmann (1932), 51

Percent of county area

Percent of county area

34.0 5.0 5.0

38.5 6.4 7.20 24.10 2.60 10.11 0.76 0.05 0.08 0.48 1.85 7.77

1.0

55.0

Assigned use by Plan 1932 General farming Ranching National forest State forests State game refuge Hunting and fishing club Cottages and resorts Golf course County parks Business, residence and Industry Water power Oil and gas speculation

468

F. Akimoto

Figure 3. Rural county zoning in Wisconsin. Source: G.S. Wehrwein, ‘Zoning in Marginal Areas’, City Planning 4, no. 9 (1933): 154–63, 154.

In forestry districts, farming and all-year residence were restricted.70 The National Land Use Planning Committee identified rural zoning as an implemental measure for land use planning.71 Thus, the relationship between zoning and land use plan appears to have first been recognized in US agricultural policy rather than city planning. With the launch of the New Deal Administration in 1933, the National Land Use Planning Committee was abolished on November the same year. The National Conference on City Planning extended invitations to the leaders of the Land Use Planning movement for the first time in American planning history, including Lewis Gray in October 1933. Alfred Bettman, president of the conference, praised the committee as one that ‘represents a national movement which is of the highest importance’.72 However, Bettman regarded agricultural land use planning as ‘simply extensions’ of city and regional planning methods to rural areas,73 without consideration to the fact that the former, focusing upon removing huge amount of submarginal farmland and involving economic and social adjustments, was considered an extension of social planning, while the latter, focusing on population increase and orderly expansion of urban area and involving urban zoning but not economic and social adjustments, was confined to the physical layout of the city and region. City planning and rural land use planning was not yet synthesized at regional level. County land use planning programme In March 1933, Frederick A. Delano, Chairman of the National Planning Board, having learned from the achievements of the National Land Use Planning Committee, appointed the

Planning Perspectives

469

Land Planning Committee a special joint committee representing both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to prepare the Land Report. Many members had already worked together on the National Land Use Planning Committee. In order to provide the committee with data and resources, the National Planning Board also sent a land-planning consultant to each state to conduct land use surveys, focusing on the areas requiring the greatest adjustments in land use. The Report, submitted at the end of August that same year,74 called for the federal government to launch a 15-year programme to buy approximately 75 million acres of submarginal farmland.75 From 1934 to 1937, Lewis Gray, now Director of the Submarginal Land Program, purchased more than 9 million acres of farmland in 44 states. Most of this land was located in the Great Plains, and was reforested or converted into grazing areas and parks, along with a number of wildlife refuges.76 Although Congress ultimately terminated the acquisition programme in 1937,77 Gray recalled the five years of federal agricultural land policy from 1934 to 1938 as being truly ‘revolutionary’.78 In 1938, the USDA began another county planning programme based on its Mountain Weather Agreement with the land-grant colleges (this programme has been described in great detail by Jess Gilbert79). Secretary Henry Wallace established a democratic procedure for rural participation in agricultural policy formulation in line with the participatory emphasis of the agreement.80 Wallace reorganized the USDA and expanded the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which eventually employed 768 social scientists. Several new divisions were created, including the Division of State and Local Planning that led the new county land use planning programme. Local farmers and professional experts were instructed to work together at the county level to integrate the federal programmes for land use, soil conservation, agricultural adjustment and farm rehabilitation into a single unified county programme. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in conjunction with the land-grant colleges, organized land use planning committees across the country at three levels: state, county and community.81 The county and community land use planning committees were at the core of the programme.82 Community committee members comprised farmers only, while county committees consisted of 10–15 farmers, the local Extension Service agent, county administrators of federal programmes and a land-grant specialist. State committees comprised state scientists, public administrators and private citizens.83 County land use planning committees’ plans involved three stages. The initial stage included organization and discussion of the philosophy of democratic planning. The second stage was intensive land use planning, which had four phases: (1) dividing the county map into local land-use areas, each with similar physical, social and economic patterns and land use problems; (2) classifying the present and proposed uses of land in each area; (3) determining the required land use and agricultural adjustments for each area; and (4) preparing summary maps and reports. The third and final stage was the unified programme phase, in which the committee would unify and coordinate all federal agricultural programmes within a county, and established immediate and long-term goals.84 In total, 1195 counties were selected for planning for the fiscal year 1939–1940: 384 at the preparatory stage, 765 at the intensive planning stage and 46 at the unified programme stage (Figure 4). Of the 765 counties at the intensive planning stage, 566 completed area mapping and classification work.85 In Teton County, Montana, community committees and the county committee decided in July 1939 that 20,000 acres of plowland were unsuitable for crops and

470

F. Akimoto

Figure 4. Counties selected for intensive land-use planning and for unified county programme. Source: National Resources Planning Board, Land Classification in the United States (Washington, DC: National Resources Planning Board, 1941), 144.

should be used for grazing, and completed a unified agricultural programme in January 1940 (Figure 5).86 The fruits of the county land use planning programme were immediately apparent. In 1941, 27,000 community land use planning meetings were held, more than 8000 of which were open to all interested farmers; in 1942, two-thirds of all US counties (approximately 2200) had planning committees. The average planning meeting attendance was 35, and approximately 280,000 farmers attended local planning meetings in 1941.87 At the National Conference of Planning in 1941, J.F. Criswell, from North Carolina State College, declared that ‘the planning process to date has progressed more rapidly and perhaps further on the county level than has the planning process at the state or even the national level’.88 Melville Branch Jr., planner at the National Resources Planning Board, praised the county land use planning programme thus: Source:5. Figure Best Department land use and of Planning Agriculture, type-of-farming Land areas, Use Classification Planning Teton County, Under Way (Washington, DC: USDA, DC: 1940), 24. Resources Planning Board, 1941), 144. 4.U.S. National Counties Resources selected for intensive Board, land-use Land planning and for inMontana. the unified United county States programme. (Washington, National

Urban zoning has not been a truly instrument of planning…There are only one-tenth as many ‘comprehensive plans’ in the U.S. as there are zoning ordinances…In rural areas, zoning has met with greater success, because the extensive and thorough research of the Department of Agriculture has presaged the zoning which it has inspired.89

However, while counties began to focus on their land-tenure problems, larger and wealthier farmers, most notably the American Farm Bureau Federation, opposed the programme. With the formal entry of the USA in World War II at the end of 1941, Congress soon abolished the programme,90 and land use planning committees across the country were suddenly and quietly disbanded.

Planning Perspectives

471

Figure 5. Best land use and type-of-farming areas, Teton County, Montana. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Land Use Planning Under Way (Washington, DC: USDA, 1940), 24.

Land use planning in metropolitan counties in the 1930s In 1932, Theodora Kimball Hubbard, Honorable Librarian of the American City Planning Institute, reported that among 70 official regional planning organizations, 40 were county commissions. She thus considered that this indicated that ‘the eligibility and convenience of the county as a unit for planning purpose are thus being demonstrated in many parts of the country’.91 In the previous decade, California had emerged as one of the pioneering states in county planning. Los Angeles County had established the first official county planning commission in the USA under a county charter in 1922. In 1927, Los Angeles County adopted the first county zoning ordinance in the USA (Figure 6). Although the California State Zoning Enabling Act of 1917 (Chapter 734) gave zoning authority only to municipalities, not counties, Los Angeles County adopted a county zoning ordinance as a charter county based upon Article XI of the California State Constitution,92 and the ordinance was limited to the unincorporated fringes of cities. When the State Planning Law of 1929 (Chapter 838) obliged all counties to establish a county planning commission, and included zoning as a master plan element following the Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928,93 the concept of zoning was first introduced into county planning in California. Thereafter, California counties began to establish county planning commissions and adopting county zoning ordinances for the urbanized and unincorporated fringes of the cities, scenic areas and highway frontage. County planners began to conduct land use surveys to consider where and how the vast area of county should be zoned. In 1931, Hugh R. Pomeroy,94 a California county planning advisor, proudly reported ‘interesting first steps in zoning by counties have taken in California’, explaining that: Figure 6.Zoning Source: Location Section; of Zoned Los Angeles DistrictsCounty in the unincorporated Regional Planning Portion Commission, of Los Angeles EighthCounty AnnualinReport, 1933. 1933 (Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, 1934), 14–5.

472

F. Akimoto

Figure 6. Location of Zoned Districts in the unincorporated Portion of Los Angeles County in 1933. Source: Zoning Section; Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, Eighth Annual Report, 1933 (Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, 1934), 14–5. Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties have valuable studies to this end …. Such studies regard the county as a functional composite …. Not only must existing land uses areas be ascertained, but tendencies must be studied and the potentialities of each use must be determined. Thus is provided a complete functional analysis of the county …. In such consideration a comprehensive land use plan is invaluable ….95

This was the first reference made by an urban planner to a ‘land use plan’. Planners in the metropolitan counties introduced the term as a guide to county zoning in 1931, around the same time the National Land Use Conference was established and the first county land use plan, as a guide to economic and social and adjustment of submarginal land, had been prepared in Michigan. In 1934, Pomeroy acknowledged the influence of rural planning as follows: [Land Use Planning] has not come as an outgrowth of urban planning but primarily from the search for construction policies in agriculture and forestry. Such county planning and regional planning … has been essentially an amplification of urban planning and has largely limited itself to the methods and scope of the latter. There has thus been a reaching out from planning which has dealt with the problems of concentrated populations and a reaching down from the development of policies for dealing with the broad problems of the utilization of land and natural resources in national and regional terms. The field of rural planning is the meeting ground of these forces … [and] fundamental land use planning will be found to be basic to all planning, both urban and non-urban.96

Unlike Alfred Bettman, Pomeroy declared for the first time in American planning history that land use planning developed, not from urban planning, but from agricultural and forestall

Planning Perspectives

473

policies, and that ‘city zoning’ should be defined as ‘a detailed form of land use planning’.97 However, just like Bettman, Pomeroy did not clearly refer to the fundamental differences between rural county land use planning and urban county land use planning: the former aimed to remove submarginal farm land through economic and social adjustments, while the latter designed to provide orderly expansion of urban area in preparation for population increase. Meanwhile, the introduction of land use plans into county planning created a conflict at the heart of the 1929 State Planning Law, which had admitted zoning as an integral part of master plans. Pomeroy and other California planners thus considered how to define the difference between zoning and land use plans. They began to work on amendments to the California State Planning Act to create a clear legal separation between the two systems. They drew upon the 1935 Indiana State Planning Act (Chapter 239),98 which charged counties seeking to create a planning commission with: … drawing up master plans for the physical development of the county, showing the Commission’s recommendations for the development of the county, and including, among other things ‘general location and extent of existing and proposed forests, agricultural areas and other development areas … and a land utilization programme, including the general classification and allocation of the land within the county’.99

The California State Planning Act of 1937 separated the master plan into a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of cities and counties, the preparation of which was the function and duty of the planning commission, and official plans, which are more precise than master plans and are adopted by the legislative body to control development and growth by legal force. The Act also introduced the land use plan as an element of the master plan. Thus, the term ‘land use plan’ was introduced to county planning as well as city planning as a fundamental element of the master plan in 1937 in California. In December 1937, in a newsletter of American Society of Planning Officials, Pomeroy wrote that ‘the Act previously in force included zoning among a limited list of urban subjects constituting the master plan, overlooking the fact that the other subjects of the master plan consisted of the designation of the general character and extent of various proposed public improvements … while zoning is a precise regulatory enactment’.100 Pomeroy referred to the distinction between master plan and zoning plan almost a quarter of a century before it was authoritatively described by T.J. Kent Jr. in his landmark work, The Urban General Plan (1964). However, the definition of land use plan was still unclear. The Act stated that it included (1) ‘an inventory and classification of natural land types and of existing land cover and uses’, and (2) ‘comprehensive plans for the most desirable utilization of land’. While this phrasing reflected the definition of the rural land use plan, it gave no clear vision of land use plans for urban counties and cities. California counties soon began to prepare land use plans for the entire county area in response to the 1937 State Planning Act, as completing land use plans would enable them to adopt zoning ordinances as official plans. Although the first plans were completed in the early 1940s, the contents were still too vague to act as guides for zoning. For example, from 1936 to 1940, funded by the Federal Public Works Administration, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, led by Bryant Hall, Research Engineer, developed a land classification system, conducted a vast and detailed land use survey on over 1200 square miles, and produced nearly 600 land use map sheets.

474

F. Akimoto

They analysed relationships between population and land use, estimated future urban land use requirements for future ultimate populations, and prepared a Master Plan of Land Use in 1941. William J. Fox, Chief Engineer at the Commission, proudly reported that ‘[s]ome of the methods of adjusting and interpreting field data are entirely new to this type of analysis and constitute an important contribution to the technique of planning research’.101 However, their methodology was quite similar to that of Harland Bartholomew’s scientific way of preparing zoning plans which provided for the orderly city expansion, rather than that of agricultural county land use planning which aimed to remove submarginal farmland, although the term ‘land use plan’ was introduced from the latter. Los Angeles County was divided into urban areas, agricultural areas, industrial areas, major airports and open and mountainous areas (Figure 7). Figure 7.LosThe Source: Angeles land use County plan Regional of Los Angeles Planning County. Commission (1941), 95.

Figure 7. The land use plan of Los Angeles County. Source: Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission (1941), 95.

Planning Perspectives

475

And a study of the land use pattern of the urban areas showed suggested uses including open development, agricultural, low density residence, mixed urban and industry. However, no further policies for zoning classifications were proposed. The county’s land use plan at this stage was simply a very rough future land use patterns that lacked guidance for defining the basic standard for county zoning ordinances. The birth of land use planning in city planning in the 1940s and 1950s As the economic climate of America began to improve in 1938, planners and policy-makers began to realize that many urban zoning ordinances, usually prepared 10 or 15 years earlier, were seldom based on factual information. The American Society of Planning Officials reported in the same year that several hundred zoning ordinances were in the process of being modernized.102 In 1940, Pomeroy, then national city planning advisor, drafted a planning manual for zoning as requested by the American Society of Planning Officials. In this manual, he emphasized that ‘zoning should not be regarded as a master plan for a city, but as one of the means of attaining the objectives of a master plan’.103 Pomeroy proposed land use and population density patterns as the first element of a master plan, stressing that ‘The pattern of landuse and population distribution is determinative in the design of all the physical facilities of the community, controlling locations, types, and sizes’.104 John T. Howard, a planner at the Regional Association of Cleveland, wrote in support of Pomeroy: [The] fundamental structure of a city is its pattern of private land use—not alone the kind, but the intensity of use as well …. All the other physical facilities of an urban community – the minor functions, you might say – exist only to serve these land uses … Clearly, the control of private land use and population densities is essential to bring this order out of the chaos of our cities. 105

While city planners in the 1910s had defined a city as an organic whole of public facilities, planners in the 1940s defined a city as a pattern of land use and population density. Meanwhile, cities began to prepare land use plans not merely as a guide for zoning revisions but also for the rehabilitation of deteriorating and blighted areas in inner city districts. The 1940 Census showed that 62 cities, including Cleveland and Philadelphia, suffered population declines. Redevelopment emerged as an important issue in city planning. Just like agricultural economists of the 1930s, focusing on submarginal land, proposed land use planning with economic and social adjustments, city planners of the 1940s, by paying attention to blighted areas, opened the way for social land use adjustments. State legislatures prepared redevelopment laws enabling municipalities to rebuild in blighted areas through the power of eminent domain. The 1945 California Community Redevelopment Act (Chapter 1326), for example, awarded eminent domain to redevelopment agencies. However, this act also required cities or counties, prior to proceeding with redevelopment projects, to prepare a master plan that included (1) a transportation plan, (2) ‘a land use plan’, (3) ‘a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended … together with estimates of future population growth … all correlated with the land-use plan’, and (4) maps showing blighted areas. Land use plan was defined, with urban areas in mind, in a quite different way from the State Planning Act of 1937, as ‘the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and

476

F. Akimoto

private uses of lands’. This must be an earlier example of the definition of a land use plan for urban areas. City planners conducted housing surveys in order to select blighted areas, and prepared urban city land use plans as a guide for redevelopment. However, few cities had completed land use plans by the 1940s. The Master Plan of San Francisco of 1945, led by L.D. Tilton, Director of Planning at the San Francisco City Planning Commission, and the Master Plan of Residential Land Use of Chicago of 1943, prepared by Homer Hoyt, Director of Research at the Chicago Plan Commission, are two exceptions.106 However, at this stage, a unified view of land use plan for city planning had not yet been formulated. Bryant Hall, now Senior City Planner of San Francisco, on the basis of the land use survey of San Francisco that was completed by WPA workers in 1937, studied present and prospective uses of land and published Budgeting The Land in 1944.107 Hall completed the San Francisco Land Use Plan of 1945, which described (1) the general distribution and extent of future land uses (Figure 8), (2) the general distribution of proposed public lands, and (3) the standards of population density and building intensity. Since the San Francisco Master Plan was composed

Figure 8. General plan of private land uses of San Francisco. Source: San Francisco City Planning Commission, The Land Use Plan (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco City Planning Commission, 1945), Figure 27.

Planning Perspectives

477

of (1) transportation and utilities plan, (2) land use plan, and (3) an action programme for the Redevelopment of Blighted Areas, the land use plan was prepared separately from the redevelopment programme, which showed blighted areas. While the 1945 San Francisco Land Use Plan’s method was naturally similar to that of the 1941 Los Angeles County Master Plan of Land Use, it could not provide a method for selecting blighted areas. In contrast with Hall, Homer Hoyt analysed and diagnosed the condition of Chicago’s residential areas, on the basis of a real property inventory that was provided by the Chicago Land Use Survey, for each of the 75 communities, showing the number of dwelling units, the condition, age and type of residential structures, and the nature of the heating, lighting and other equipment in each unit.108 Then he determined types of planning areas for every neighbourhood, while he invented eight types of planning areas: blighted areas, near blighted areas, conservation areas, stable areas, arrested development areas, progressive development areas, new growth areas and vacant areas (Figure 9). The Chicago Plan showed 20-year future population density, planned changes of population density, future types of residential structures, future planning areas and proposed plans for blighted areas. Hoyt advanced urban land use classification system further by proposing a new land classification system embracing not only ‘referential mode’, but also ‘appraisal and prescriptive modes’ as later Guttenberg defined.109 Following World War II, the Federal Housing Act of 1949 began to grant federal financial assistance for local slum clearance and urban redevelopment projects, on the condition that ‘the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole’ (Title 1, Section 105). In 1950, the Housing and Home Financing Agency defined a general plan as one including a land use plan. It also required that ‘the land use plan indicates the location and amount of land to be used for residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and public purposes’, and ‘the slum and blighted areas and the general uses for which these areas should be redeveloped’.110 When Section 701 of the 1954 Housing Act launched the new urban planning assistance programme ‘to facilitate urban planning for smaller communities lacking adequate planning resources’, numerous cities prepared master plans that included a land use plan as a major element. Detroit emerged as the model city of the 1950s with the approval of the 1951 Detroit Master Plan. The City of Detroit had retained Ladislas Segoe as planning consultant from 1941–1948 to assist in the creation of the Plan, the first element of which (the ‘Land Use’ section) described policies for industrial, commercial, residential areas, neighbourhood unit patterns, and community patterns. A generalized land use plan displayed the following items on a mapping sheet: (1) onefamily and two-family home areas; (2) low-density multiple dwelling areas; (3) mediumdensity multiple dwelling areas; (4) high multiple dwelling areas; (5) major business districts; (6) general commercial districts; (7) governmental centres; (8) major public recreation areas; (9) open spaces, institutions, public buildings; (10) light industrial areas; (11) heavy industrial areas; (12) railroads; (13) expressways; and (14) major thoroughfares. State planning acts were eventually amended to introduce a land use plan as the first element of master plan. In California, the Planning Act of 1955 (Chapter 1644) defined mandatory master plan elements as (1) a land use element; (2) a circulation element; and (3) a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity. Land use plans were thus intended to ‘designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, recreation, education, public buildings and Figure 9.Chicago Source: FuturePlan planning Commission areas of(1943), Chicago. 127.

478

F. Akimoto

Figure 9. Future planning areas of Chicago. Source: Chicago Plan Commission (1943), 127.

Planning Perspectives

479

grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of land’. The Planning and Zoning Law of 1965 redefined mandatory master plan elements as (1) a land use element and (2) a circulation element, and recommended the inclusion of a statement of the standards for population and building intensities. The priority and definition of a land use plan in California state planning law has been basically unmodified since. Conclusion In conclusion, while city planning provided potential elements of land use planning, such as zoning surveys and land use classification systems in the 1920s, the concept of land use planning did not arise from within city planning. The element of conservation was introduced from forestry policy when city planning expanded into regional planning in the 1920s, while land utilization issue was introduced from agricultural policy when state planning concerns were addressed in the early 1930s. The idea of land use planning itself was derived from rural county planning, while the latter introduced survey techniques and zoning ordinances as its tools from city planning in the 1930s. Land use planning was initially utilized in urban county planning as a guide for zoning in the 1930s, was employed further as a guide for urban redevelopment policies in the 1940s, and finally reached full integration into city planning in the 1950s and 1960s. In retrospect, the irony of American land use planning history is this: while regional planning and state planning had introduced land use element as backgrounds of city planning far earlier than city planning, neither regional planning nor state planning have become firmly rooted in American planning system. As noted earlier, in the field urban planning, Thomas Adams proposed the classification of land both for urban and agricultural areas as a major element of the regional plan in 1919, while Jacob L. Crane Jr. presented utilization of major land divisions as a main element of the state plan in 1932. In the field of agricultural planning, Richard T. Ely stressed the necessity of a synthesis of rural and urban land planning as a whole in 1926, while the National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use urged city planners and agricultural economists to cooperate to merge urban and rural land planning into regional land planning in 1933. The movements for synthesizing city planning and rural planning at regional level seemed to gather momentum in the 1930s. In 1934, Hugh R. Pomeroy optimistically predicted that fundamental land use planning to be basic to both urban and non-urban would be found. However, the synthesis has not yet been completed. Although the present Smart Growth movement seems to revive regional and state planning efforts in the USA, it still focuses on urban form to control urban sprawl. The quest for fundamental land use planning both for urban and non-urban at regional level on the basis of cooperation between city planning and rural planning, in consideration of new issues like sustainability, is still a challenge for American planning movement in the twenty-first century. Notes on contributor Professor Fukuo Akimoto is in the Department of Urban and Environmental Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering at Kyushu University, Japan. He specialises in city and regional planning.

480

F. Akimoto

Notes 1. A.Z. Guttenberg, ‘A Multiple Land Use Classification System’, Journal of the American Institute

of Planners 25, no. 3 (1959): 143–50.

2. A.Z. Guttenberg, The Language of Planning (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993), 1. 3. A.Z. Guttenberg, ‘Multidimensional Land Use Classification and How It Evolved’, Journal of

Planning History 1, no. 4 (2002): 311–24, 311.

4. Guttenberg, The Language of Planning. 5. A.Z. Guttenberg, New Directions in Land Use Classification: American Society of Planning Officials

(Chicago, IL: American Society of Planning Officials, 1965).

6. Guttenberg, ‘Multiple Land Use’, 143. 7. M. Scott, American City Planning since 1890 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969). 8. Incorporated Society of Architects and Engineers of Germany, ‘Planning Towns and Cities: Principles

Advocated by German Authorities’. Municipal Journal and Engineer 22, no. 10 (1907): 224–7.

9. J.A. Peterson. The Birth of City Planning in the United States, 1840–1917 (Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 2003).

10. F.L. Olmsted Jr., ‘Introduction (Basic Principles of City Planning)’, in City Planning, ed. John

Nolen (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916), 1–18, 1.

11. J.A. Peterson, ‘By Misdirection Finding Directions’ (paper presented at the 13th international 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Planning History Society Conference, Chicago, IL, July 10–13, 2008). N.P. Lewis, The Planning of the Modern City (New York: Wiley, 1916), 9–11. Ibid. A. Garvin, The American City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995). Scott, American City Planning. E. Lovelace, Harland Bartholomew: His Contributions to American Planning (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1993). H. Bartholomew, Urban Land Uses (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932). H. Bartholomew and J. Wood, Land Uses in American Cities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955). H.J. Fleure, ‘The Regional Survey Preparatory to Town Planning’, Journal of the Town Planning Institute 4, no. 3 (1918): 31–43. T. Adams, ‘Regional and Town Planning’ (paper presented at the national conference on City Planning, Niagara Falls and Buffalo, New York, May 26–28, 1919), 78. A. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981). T.K. Hubbard, ‘Brief Survey of City and Regional Planning in the United States, 1931’, City Planning 8, no. 2 (1932): 113–20. T.K. Hubbard, ‘Brief Survey of City and Regional Planning in the United States, 1929’, City Planning 6, no. 4 (1930): 197–224. T. Adams, ‘Regional Planning Location of Commercial, Industrial and Housing Areas’, in International Town Planning Conference Amsterdam 1924: Part I (London: International Federation for Town and Country Planning and Garden Cities, 1924), 51–72. Ibid, 51. M. Simpson, Thomas Adams and the Modern Planning Movement (London: Mansell, 1985). Scott, American City Planning. T. Adams, ‘State, City and Town Planning’, in Proceedings of the 8th national conference on City Planning (New York: National Conference on City Planning, 1916), 119–39, 121. Scott, American City Planning. J.L. Crane Jr., ‘Whither State Planning?’, in Proceedings of the 24th National Conference on City Planning (Philadelphia, PA: Wm. F. Fell Co., 1932), 143. Scott, American City Planning, 296. J.L. Crane Jr., ‘State Planning in Illinois and Iowa’, City Planning 8, no. 2 (1932): 89–98. Ibid. Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, Circular 1, ‘The Purposes, Policies, Functioning and Organization of the Emergency Administration’, July 31 (Washington, DC, 1933); The National Planning Board was reorganized as the National Resources Board in 1934, the

Planning Perspectives

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

481

National Resources Committee in 1935 and the National Resources Planning Board in 1939. The organization was finally abolished by Congressional decree in 1943. D.A. Krueckeberg, ‘From the Backyard Garden to the Whole USA: A Conversation with Charles W. Eliot, 2nd’, in The American Planner, ed. Donald A. Krueckeberg (New York: Methuen, 1983), 350–65, 355. A. Bettman, ‘City and Regional Planning in Depression and Recovery’ (paper presented at the 25th National Conference on City Planning, Baltimore, MD, October 15, 1933), 9–11. A.C. Comey. ‘What Is National Planning?’ (paper presented at the 25th national conference on City Planning, Baltimore, MD, October 9–11, 1933). National Resources Board, State Planning: A Review of Activities and Progress (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935), vi. Ibid. Ibid, 137. Ibid, 149. D. Roth and G.W. Williams, ‘The Forest Service in 1905’, U.S. Forest Service (2003), 2, http://www. fs.fed.us/newcentury/1905%20Renaming%20the%20Forest%20Service.doc (accessed October 15, 2007). J.L.R. Gorostiza, Ethics and Economics (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2002), 3. P.S. Lovejoy, ‘Theory and Practice in Land Classification’, The Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics 1, no. 2 (1925): 161–75. H.A. Wallace, ‘Toward a Unified Land Policy’ (paper presented at the 26th national conference on City Planning, St. Louis, MO, October 22–24, 1934). L.C. Gray, ‘The Social and Economic Implications of the National Land Program’ (a paper read before the American Sociological Society, New York, December 28, 1935). National Agricultural Conference, Report of National Agricultural Conference, January 23–27 (New Willard Auditorium, Washington, DC: Governmental Printing Office, 1922). H. James, Land Planning in the United States for the City, State and Nation (New York: McMillan, 1926), 323. L.C. Gray, The Evolution of the Land Program of the United States Department of Agriculture: An Address before the Bureau of Agricultural Economics Conference on Agricultural Planning, March 22, 1938 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the United States Department of Agriculture, 1939); Later Guttenberg wrote that nothing that was said at the National Land Utilization Conference convened in Chicago in 1931, or in the subsequent New Deal period, ever exceeded the 1923 report in its reach (A.Z. Guttenberg, ‘The Land Utilization Movement of the 1920s’, Agricultural History 50, no. 3 (1976): 477–90, 481). B. Wallach, At Odds with Progress (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1991). Lovejoy, ‘Theory and Practice’. Lovejoy, ‘Theory and Practice’, 166. James, Land Planning in the United States, 320–1. James, Land Planning in the United States, 320–1. James, Land Planning in the United States, vii–viii. J. Illick, ‘Land Use and Forestry’ (paper presented at the Land Use Symposium, Summer Meeting, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, June 21, 1932), 1823. National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use, Organization and Objectives of the National Land-Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on Land Use, Washington DC, October 1, 1932, 2. Ibid, 2. L.C. Gray, ‘The Social and Economic Implications of the National Land Program’ (a paper read before the American Sociological Society, New York, December 28, 1935). L.C. Gray, ‘Land Planning’, in Public Policy Pamphlet, ed. Harry D. Gideonse, vol. 19 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1936). National Land Use Planning Committee, Organization and Objectives, 3. National Land Use Planning Committee, Organization and Objectives, 3.

482

F. Akimoto

63. National Land Use Planning Committee and the National Advisory and Legislative Committee on 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78. 79.

80.

81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

Land Use, First Annual Report, July, 1933: From Date of Organization to June, Washington DC, 1933, 15. L.C. Gray, ‘Large-Scale Regional and Rural Land Planning, Problems and Objectives–National Phases’ (paper presented at the 25th national conference on City Planning, Baltimore, MD, October 9–11, 1933), 68. Gray, ‘Regional and Rural Land Planning’, 16. L.R.A. Schoenmann, ‘Land Inventory for Rural Planning in Alger County, Michigan’, Papers on the Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters 16 (1932): 329–61, 336–338. L.R.A. Schoenmann, ‘Planned Land Use’ (paper presented at the Land Use Symposium, Summer Meeting, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, June 21, 1932), 50. National Land Use Planning Committee, Organization and Objectives. Guttenberg, ‘The Land Utilization Movement’. J.M. Albers, ‘Rural Zoning in Wisconsin’ (paper presented at the national conference on Planning, Detroit, MI, June 1–3, 1937). Rural zoning was enacted in 25 counties in Wisconsin, 3 in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan (V.W. Johnson, ‘Land-Use Zoning’ [paper presented at the national conference on Planning, Philadelphia, PA, May 12–14, 1941]). Bettman, ‘City and Regional Planning’, 15. Bettman, ‘City and Regional Planning’, 15. Gray, Evolution of the Land Program; R.G. Tugwell, The Diary of Rexford G. Tugwell: The New Deal, 1932–135, ed. Michael Vincent Namorato (New York: Greenwood Press), 1992. Franklin D. Roosevelt had interest in a national land use policy. As New York governor, he presided over a programme that classified the land in Tompkins County, New York, according to economic utilization, and purchased and reforested submarginal areas (Wallace, Unified Land Policy). Resettlement Administration, First Annual Report (Washington, DC: Resettlement Administration, 1936). Wallach, At Odds with Progress. Gray, Evolution of the Land Program. J. Gilbert, ‘Democratic Planning in Agricultural Policy’, Agricultural History 70, no. 2 (1996): 233–50; J. Gilbert and A. O’Connor, ‘Leaving the Land Behind: Struggles for Land Reform in US Federal Policy, 1933–1965’, in Who Ows America? Social Conflict over Property Rights, ed. Harvey M. Jacobs (Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 114–30. Secretary Wallace stated that ‘the name, land use planning programme, was chosen with this in mind, for it was believed that land use considerations were the one point that all farm problems have in common. From this common point, therefore, it is possible to establish and preserve effective unity and coordination between all programmes dealing with the welfare of farmers’(Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and Extension Service, USDA, A Study Guide: Foundations of Land Use Planning, Washington DC, 1940, 7). Gilbert, ‘Planning in Agricultural Policy’. Gilbert and O’Connor, Leaving the Land Behind. Gilbert, ‘Planning in Agricultural Policy’. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and Extension Service, USDA. Report on the Progress of LandUse Planning During 1939 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1940). Ibid. Ibid. Gilbert, ‘Planning in Agricultural Policy’. J.F. Criswell, ‘Discussion’ at the National Conference on Planning, Philadelphia, PA, May 12–14, 1941, 136. M. Branch Jr., ‘Discussion’ at the National Conference on Planning, Philadelphia, PA, May 12–14, 1941. Gilbert, ‘Planning in Agricultural Policy’; Gilbert, and O’Connor, Leaving the Land Behind. Hubbard, ‘Brief Survey of City’, 114.

Planning Perspectives

483

92. The California State Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, stipulates that: ‘Any county, city, town, 93. 94.

95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110.

or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws’. The Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928 gave power of planning to cities but not to counties (Note 2). However, the California State Planning Law of 1929 obliged all counties to create a planning commission. Hugh R. Pomeroy (1899–1961) was born in Burbank, California. His career included: state representative, first secretary and member of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission (1923–1927); executive secretary of the Citizens’ Committee on Parks; Playgrounds and Beach, Los Angeles County; city and county planning advisor in California (1929–1938); chief of field service of the National Association of Housing Officials and the American Society of Planning Officials (1938); chief of field service of American Society of Planning Officials (1939); director of the Virginia State Planning Board (1939–1942); director of the National Association of Housing Officials (1942–1946); and director of the Westchester County Department of Planning, New York (1946–1961). In 1941, he became the chair of the zoning round table of the American Society of Planning Officials, succeeding Edward Bassett, the ‘Father of Zoning’. H.R. Pomeroy, ‘County Zoning under the California Planning Act’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Zoning in the United States 155, no. 2 (1931): 47–59, 56– 8. H.R. Pomeroy, ‘Land Use Planning’ (paper delivered at the annual meeting of the California Planners’ Institute, Bakersfield, June 2, 1934), 1. Ibid, 7. H.R. Pomeroy, ‘Planning and Housing’ (paper presented at the 1st Annual Indiana State-Wide Planning Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, February 16–17, 1938). H. Walker Jr., Problems and Suggestions in the Drafting of Rural Zoning Enabling Legislation, Land-Use Planning Publication No. 10. (Washington, DC: Resettlement Administration, Land Utilization Division, Land-Use Planning Section, 1936), 56. H.R. Pomeroy, ‘California Planning and Zoning’, American Society of Planning Officials Newsletter 3, no. 12 (1937): 99. Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, Master Plan of Land Use Inventory and Classification (Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, 1941). Scott, American City Planning. H.R. Pomeroy, A Planning Manual for Zoning: Preliminary Draft, 2 vols., vol. I (Chicago, IL: American Society of Planning Officials, 1940), 13. Ibid, 53. J.T. Howard, ‘The Land Use and Population Density Plan as a Basis for Zoning’ (paper presented at the national conference on Planning, Philadelphia, PA, May 12–14, 1941), 281–3. In the 1940s, several metropolitan master plans that included land use plans were proposed. In 1948, for example, Ladislas Segoe drafted the Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan, and Charles Chapin Jr. prepared the Land Use Plan of Greensboro Metropolitan Area in North Carolina. W.E. Finley, A Study of the Proposed Land Use Section of the San Francisco Master Plan (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1951), 55. Chicago Plan Commission, Master Plan of Residential Land Use of Chicago (Chicago, IL: The Chicago Plan Commission, 1943). A.Z. Guttenberg, ‘The Land Utilization Movement’. Office of Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency Slum Clearance and Urban Redevelopment Program, the General Community Plan—A Preliminary Statement (Washington DC: Office of Administrator, Housing and Home Financing Agency, 1950), 3.

Copyright of Planning Perspectives is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Suggest Documents