Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.
December 23, 2008
As an outspoken critic of suburban sprawl and someone born and raised in Euclid, Ohio, I am frankly surprised that I am only now learning about this historic 1926 US Supreme Court case. Euclid v. Ambler, more or less, is responsible for legalizing the worst and most sprawl-inducing form of zoning. From Wikipedia:
Euclidean zoning codes are by far the most prevalent in the United States, used extensively in small towns and large cities alike. Also known as "Building Block" zoning, Euclidean zoning is characterized by the segregation of land uses into specified geographic districts and dimensional standards stipulating limitations on the magnitude of development activity that is allowed to take place on lots within each type of district. Typical types of land-use districts in Euclidean zoning are: residential (single-family), residential (multi-family), commercial, and industrial. Uses within each district are usually heavily prescribed to exclude other types of uses (residential districts typically disallow commercial or industrial uses).Granted, the Supreme Court case was probably inevitable and Euclid isn't necessarily the worst suburb in existence; but isn't it ironic that I grew up in the place that started it all?
I don't think that's surprising at all. Subconscious observations made you more aware of sprawl. It's easier to notice and realize problems when you've been exposed to them for many years.
Maybe?
Further irony. Perhaps I'm misreading the abstract, but I saw suburban sprawl as an unintended consequence of the ruling; the village wanted to stay in character, it was the developers who wanted to build on the green belt. The zoning laws were supposed to prevent the sprawl by restricting industry to existing urban areas, instead these laws have been used to homogenize suburbia?
Lisa, could be? It would be an interesting psychological experiment to find out.
RNB, I don't think that "suburban sprawl" was a term that was typically thrown around in the 1920s. I agree that the issue was that residents wanted to protect their neighborhoods against industry throwing up a plant or a factory and essentially turning the neighborhood into a slum. 80+ years later, there aren't many new industrial facilities going up in urban (or suburban) America, but the same zoning codes prevent mixed use (residential + commercial + office space) from going up where it could really be beneficial to communities.
Heh, I was wondering if you knew about that decision. My understanding of it, though, is that it's the basis of all land use regulation in the US, period. The zoning Euclid came up with may have in the end been destructive, but it's probably better than having the government lack any ability to control land use at all.
Euclid isn't necessarily the worst suburb in existence..
As suburbs go, Euclid's residential development is pretty dense, I think, and that's more in line with your ideals than a lot of other places. I don't think it's as well set up for transit usage as, for instance, Lakewood.
80+ years later, there aren't many new industrial facilities going up in urban (or suburban) America,
Well, they don't get built in NE Ohio, anyway. You hear about new industrial facilities (car plants, steel mini mills etc) being built in the south, though, and it's my impression that zoning is on the whole weaker there, plus a lot of those new plants seem to be built in previously rural areas. Perhaps zoning succeeds all too well in keeping out industrial development, so in that sense maybe the Euclid code worked. On the other hand there's a lot of things that people really don't want to live next to.
Having said that, I can't understand the single family/multi-family residence segregation in terms of anything but ... social class segregation, and the commercial/residential separation doesn't make any sense to me at all. I do wonder what people were thinking at the time, or maybe they just got carried away with the scheme.
B. P. Beckley, Euclid is better than some suburbs in the sense that housing is more dense and not segregated by closed-off culd-e-sacs. You are correct that it is poorly set-up for transit, and a major issue is that for a lot of residents, basic services are outside of a half mile radius (typically the extent to which people will walk), thus requiring a car for to go to a grocery store, get a hair cut, buy a cup of coffee, etc.
I agree that government should have some control over land use. The problem is that too many places are relying on an 80 year-old zoning code designed for an entirely different context than today. Some municipalities have figured it out and moved forward with mixed-used development (primarily the commercial/residential variety). Others haven't and are stuck in the dark ages of zoning.