The Devil Is in the Definitions

Abstract Problem: Traditional American zoning separates land uses, yet many urbanists and contemporary planners argue that bringing mixed use back to the American city is the key to restoring its vibrancy. Purpose: This article compares the American and the German approaches to regulating land use. Methods: I derive my conclusions from a review of German federal and local regulatory documents, and interviews I conducted in the German city of Stuttgart. Results and conclusions: The U.S. zoning approach assumes that each land use district is suitable for only a single type of human activity, such as residential, commercial, or industrial use; whereas in Germany the prevailing principle is that each land use district is suitable for multiple types of activity, and most districts end up in mixed uses. Thus, despite some nominal similarities in the land use categories employed in both countries, the zoning methods are in fact starkly different. Takeaway for practice: The German zoning system, which commonly mixes the land uses, challenges deeply engrained assumptions that underlie standard U.S. zoning, and it may offer useful alternatives for zoning reform.

[1]  P. Booth Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Development Control , 2003 .

[2]  M. Scott,et al.  American City Planning Since 1890 , 1972 .

[3]  Matthew Light Different Ideas of the City: Origins of Metropolitan Land-Use Regimes in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland , 1999 .

[4]  T. H. Logan The Americanization of German Zoning , 1976 .

[5]  E. Talen New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conflict of Cultures , 2005 .

[6]  Philip Langdon The Not-So-Secret Code , 2006 .

[7]  F. Huffman,et al.  Hierarchical Zoning, Incompatible Uses and Price Discounts , 1997 .

[8]  Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning. , 1985 .

[9]  J. Kunstler Home from nowhere : remaking our everyday world for the twenty-first century , 1996 .

[10]  Anthony Downs,et al.  What does 'smart growth' really mean? , 2001 .

[11]  S. Hirt Toward Postmodern Urbanism? , 2005 .

[12]  P. Calthorpe The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream , 1993 .

[13]  P. Newman,et al.  Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition, National Systems and Planning Projects , 1996 .

[14]  Raphaël Fischler The Metropolitan Dimension of Early Zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York City Ordinance , 1998 .

[15]  R. Ewing,et al.  MEASURING SPRAWL AND ITS IMPACT , 2002 .

[16]  T. Beatley Green Urbanism: Learning From European Cities , 1999 .

[17]  Raphaël Fischler Toward a genealogy of planning: zoning and the Welfare State , 1998 .

[18]  E. Talen Design That Enables Diversity: The Complications of a Planning Ideal , 2006 .

[19]  Emily Talen,et al.  Legalizing Smart Growth , 2003 .

[20]  Land Use and Society : Geography, Law, and Public Policy , 1995 .

[21]  R. Pendall,et al.  From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas , 2006 .

[22]  John Montgomery,et al.  Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design , 1998 .

[23]  Robert H. Nelson,et al.  Zoning and property rights: An analysis of the American system of land-use regulation , 1977 .

[24]  M. Foucault,et al.  The archeology of knowledge , 1995 .

[25]  John C. Reitz,et al.  How to Do Comparative Law , 1998 .

[26]  Robert Fishman,et al.  Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia , 1987 .

[27]  D. Appleyard,et al.  “Toward an Urban Design Manifesto” , 1987, The City Reader.

[28]  P. S. Nivola,et al.  Laws of the Landscape: How Policies Shape Cities in Europe and America , 1999 .

[29]  E. Talen,et al.  Making the Good Easy: The Smart Code Alternative , 2002 .

[30]  J. Wickersham Jane Jacob's Critique of Zoning: From Euclid to Portland and Beyond , 2001 .

[31]  R. Burchell,et al.  Conventional development versus managed growth: the costs of sprawl. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[32]  A. Downs Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It , 2005 .

[33]  J. Cullingworth The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective , 1993 .

[34]  Tom Daniels,et al.  Smart Growth: A New American Approach to Regional Planning , 2001 .

[35]  Rachelle Alterman,et al.  The Challenge of Farmland Preservation: Lessons from a Six-Nation Comparison , 1997 .

[36]  J. Grant Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle , 2002 .

[37]  T. Angotti,et al.  Problems and Prospects for Healthy Mixed-use Communities in New York City , 2001 .

[38]  J. Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities , 1962 .

[39]  W. J. Kamba,et al.  Comparative Law: A Theoretical Framework , 1974, International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

[40]  Rolf Joseph Pendall,et al.  Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl? , 1999 .