Zoning is such a cornerstone of the US planning system that for US planners it may be hard to imagine that one can regulate development without it. But is zoning a widely shared institution? Is it as integral to the planning systems of other “developed” nations as it is in the United States? Based on a review of literature and planning documents, this article contrasts land-use regulation in five European countries (England, France, Germany, Sweden, and Russia) to that in the United States. It argues that far from being universal, zoning (at least the type of land-use zoning routinely applied in the United States) is not practiced in Europe. The comparison allows us to appreciate the uniqueness of US institutions and speculate on the cultural underpinnings of the European–American differences.
AbelesP.1989. “Planning and Zoning.” In Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep, edited by HaarC.KaydenJ., 122-53. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
2.
AltermanR.1997. “The Challenge of Farmland Preservation: Lessons from a Six-nation Comparison.”Journal of the American Planning Association63:220–43.
3.
AltermanR.2001. National-Level Planning in Democratic Countries: An International Comparison of City and Regional Policy-making. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University.
4.
ArcherJ.2005. Architecture and Suburbia: From English villa to American Dream House, 1690-2000. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
BeatleyT.2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, DC: Island.
8.
Ben-JosephE.2005. The Code of the City: Standards and the Hidden Language of Place Making. Cambridge: MIT.
9.
BoothP.2000. “Nationalizing Development Rights: The Feudal Origins of the British Planning System.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design29:129–39.
10.
BoothP.2002. “From Property Rights to Public Control: The Quest for Public Interest in the Control of Urban Development.”Town Planning Review73:153–69.
11.
BoothP.2003. Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Development Control. London, England: Routledge.
12.
BoothP.BreuillardM.FraserC.ParisD., eds. 2007. Spatial Planning Systems of Britain and France: A Comparative Analysis. London, England: Routledge.
DüwellJ.GutschowN.2001. Städtebau in Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart, Germany: Teuben.
35.
ElliottD.2008. A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Livable Cities. Washington, DC: Island.
36.
European Commission. 1999. The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: Germany. Luxemburg: European Commission.
37.
European Commission. 2000. The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies: Sweden. Luxemburg: European Commission.
38.
FischelW.1999. “Does the American Way of Zoning Cause the Suburbs of Metropolitan Areas to be too Spread out?” In Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, edited by AltshulerA.MorillM.WolmanH.MitchellF., 151-91. Washington, DC: National Academy.
39.
FischlerR.1998. “The Metropolitan Dimension of Early Zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York Ordinance.”Journal of the American Planning Association64:170–88.
40.
FishmanR.1987. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
41.
FrenchR.HamiltonF.1979. The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
42.
FrugJ.1996. “The Geography of Community.”Stanford Law Review48:1047–1108.
43.
GarvinA.1996. The American City: What Works and What Doesn’t. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
GolubchikovO.2004. “Urban Planning in Russia: Towards the Market.”European Planning Studies12:229–47.
46.
GrantJ.2002. “Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience in Implementing a Planning Principle.”Journal of the American Planning Association68:71–84.
47.
GrantJ.2006. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London, England: Routledge.
48.
GutkindE.1972. International History of City Development (Volume VIII): Urban Development in Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, Romania and the USSR. New York, NY: Free Press.
49.
HallE.2007. “Divide and Sprawl, Decline and Fall: A Comparative Critique of Euclidean Zoning.”University of Pittsburgh Law Review68:915–52.
50.
HallP.2002. Urban and Regional Planning. London, England: Routledge.
51.
HaarC.KaydenJ.1989. Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
52.
HirtS.2007a. “The Devil is in the Definitions: Contrasting American and German approaches to Zoning.”Journal of the American Planning Association73:436–50.
53.
HirtS.2007b. “The Mixed-Use Trend: Planning Attitudes and Practices in Northeast Ohio.”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 24:224–44.
54.
HirtS.StanilovK.2009. Twenty Years of Transition: The Evolution of Urban Planning in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 1989-2009. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
55.
HomeR.1992. “The Evolution of the use Classes Order.”Town Planning Review63:187–200.
56.
JacobsJ.1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House.
57.
KellyE.2010. Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Washington, DC: Island.
KleppelG.2002. “Urbanization and Environmental Quality: Implications for Alternative Development Scenarios.”Albany Law Environmental Outlook37:37–64.
60.
KopfK.1996. “An Alternative Approach to Zoning in France: Typology, Historical Character and Development Control.”European Planning Studies4:717–37.
61.
KwartlerM.1989. “Legislating Aesthetics.” In Zoning and the American Dream: Promises still to keep, edited by HaarC.KaydenJ., 187-20. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
LightM.1999. “Different Ideas of the City: Origins of Metropolitan Land-use Regimes in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland.”The Yale Journal of International Law24:577–612.
69.
LoewS.1998. Modern Architecture in Historic Cities: Policy Planning and Building in Contemporary France. London, England: Routledge.
70.
LoganT.1976. “The Americanization of German Zoning.”Journal of the American Institute of Planners42:377–85.
71.
MagnussonL.2000. An Economic History of Sweden. London, England: Routledge.
MarcouG.2001. “National-level Planning Institutions and Decision-making in France.” In National-level Planning in Democratic Countries: An International Comparison of City and Regional Policy-making, edited by AltermanR., 168-96. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University.
74.
MarshallS., ed. 2011. Urban Coding and Planning. London, England: Routledge.
75.
MarwedelJ.1998. Opting for Performance: An Alternative to Conventional Zoning for Land Use Regulation. Journal of Planning Literature13:220–31.
76.
McKenzieE.1994. Privatopia: Homeowners Association and the Rise of Residential Private Government. Binghamton, NY: Yale University.
77.
MorrisA.1979. History of Urban Form Before the Industrial Revolution. New York, NY: Wiley.
78.
NadinV.SteadD.2008. “European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning.”DISP172:35–47.
79.
NasarJ.GrannisP.1999. “Design Review Reviewed: Administrative versus Discretionary Methods.”Journal of the American Planning Association65:424–34.
PendallR.PuentesR.MartinJ.2006. From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land use Regulations in the Nation's Largest Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
88.
PerinC.1977. Everything in its Place: Social Order and Land use in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
SchmidtR.BuehlerR.2007. “The Planning Process in the US and Germany: A Comparative Analysis.”International Planning Studies12:55–75.
92.
ScottM.1971. American City Planning since 1890. Berkeley: University of California.
93.
SilverC.1997. “The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities.” In Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows, edited by Manning ThomasJ.RitzdorfM., 23-42. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
94.
Schmidt-EichstaedtG.2001. “National-level Planning Institutions and Decisions in the Federal Republic of Germany.” In National-level Planning in Democratic Countries: An International Comparison of City and Regional Policy-making, edited by AltermanR.Liverpool127-47. England: Liverpool University.
TalenE.2005. New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conflict of Cultures. London, England: Routledge.
97.
TalenE.2009. “Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes.”Journal of Planning Literature75:144–160.
98.
TalenE.KnaapG.2003. “Legalizing Smart Growth: An Empirical Study of Land Use Regulation in Illinois.”Journal of Planning Education and Research22:345–59.
99.
TrutnevE.BandorinL.2010. Azbuka zemlepolzvaniya i zastroiki: Glavnoe o Pravila zemlepolzvaniya i zastroiki v populyarno izlojenii. Moscow: Institute for Urban Economics (in Russian).
100.
WickershamJ.2001. “Jane Jacobs’s Critique of Zoning: From Euclid to Portland and beyond.”Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review28:547–63.
101.
WiegandtC.2000. Urban Development and Urban Policy in Germany: An Overview. Bonn, Germany: Federal Office for Regional Planning and Building.
102.
WilliamsF.1922. The Law of City Planning and Zoning. New York, NY: McMillan.
103.
WolfM.2008. The Zoning of America: Euclid vs. Ambler. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
104.
ZweigertK.KötzH.WeirT.1998. An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University.
