Evaluating the Planning Method in the U.S. Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/1vv9gf74Keywords:
U.S. Urban Planning, Regulatory Planning, Zoning Approach, Discretionary ElementsAbstract
This paper examines the strengths and limitations of regulatory planning approaches, particularly traditional zoning methods, in U.S. urban planning. It highlights that zoning provides predictability and stability for developers and decision-makers by specifying land uses, physical requirements for properties, and spatial constraints on development. However, its rigidity may hinder responsiveness to dynamic future development needs and exacerbate issues related to social inclusivity and environmental sustainability. The article also explores efforts to incorporate discretionary elements into U.S. zoning practices to address these challenges, particularly in promoting affordable housing and protecting critical assets.
Downloads
References
[1] Booth, P. (1995) ‘Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), pp. 103–112. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400203.
[2] Bratt, R.G. and Vladeck, A. (2014) ‘Addressing Restrictive Zoning for Affordable Housing: Experiences in Four States’, Housing Policy Debate, 24(3), pp. 594– 636. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2014.886279.
[3] Hamidi, S. et al. (2015) ‘Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts: An Update’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35 (1), pp. 35–50. Available at: https://doi. org/10. 1177/ 07394 56X14565247.
[4] Hirt, S. (2010). ‘To Zone or Not to Zone? Comparing European and American Land-use Regulation’, PNDonline II, pp.1-14. [Online]. Available at: https://www. researchgate. net/ publication/ 262223629_To_Zone or Not to Zo ne_ Comparing_ European_and_American_Land-use_Regulation (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[5] Hirt, S. (2013). 'Home, Sweet Home: American Residential Zoning in Comparative Perspective', Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(3), pp. 292- 309. Available at: https:// journals. sagepub. com/doi/ epub / 10.1177/ 0739 456 X13494242 (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[6] Hirt, S. (2014) Zoned in the USA: the origins and implications of American land- use regulation. Ithaca London: Cornell university press.
[7] Kayden, J.S. (2004) ‘Reconsidering Zoning’, Zoning Practice, pp. 2-15. [Online]. Available at: https: // planning-org-uploaded- media.s3. amazonaws. com/ document/Zoning-Practice-2004-01.pdf (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[8] Levy, J.M. (2016) ‘The Tools of Land-Use Planning’, in Contemporary Urban Planning. 11th edn. Routledge.
[9] Maantay, J. (2001) ‘Zoning, Equity, and Public Health’, American Journal of Public Health, 91(7), pp. 1033-1041. [Online]. Availabe at: https:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pmc/ articles/ PMC1446712/pdf/11441726.pdf. (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[10] Marantz, N.J. and Zheng, H. (2022) ‘Exclusionary Zoning and the Limits of Judicial Impact’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(3), pp. 280– 293. Available at: https:// doi. org/ 10.1177/0739456X18814924.
[11] Mulryan, E. (2015) ‘Strengths and Weaknesses of Sustainable Land Use Policy in Greensburg, Kansas’ , publicINreview, 1(4), pp.51-57. Available at: https://journals. iupui.edu/ index. php/ spea/article/view/18523/18542 (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[12] Omer, K. (2017). ' The Rise and Fall of International Planning Systems; The dilemma of flexibility and certainty', pp. 1-11. [Online]. Available at: https://www. researchgate. net/ publication/317590936_The_Rise_and_Fall of International_ Planning_ Systems_The_dilemma of flexibility_ and_ certainty (Accessed: 13 December 2023).
[13] Shlay, A.B. and Rossi, P.H. (1981) ‘Keeping up the Neighborhood: Estimating Net Effects of Zoning’, American Sociological Review, 46(6), pp. 703–719. Available at: https:// doi. org/10.2307/2095075.
[14] Steele, W. and Ruming, K.J. (2012) ‘Flexibility versus Certainty: Unsettling the Land-use Planning Shibboleth in Australia’, Planning Practice and Research, 27(2), pp. 155–176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.662670.
[15] Tang, B., Choy, L.H.T. and Wat, J.K.F. (2000) ‘Certainty and Discretion in Planning Control: A Case Study of Office Development in Hong Kong’, Urban Studies, 37(13), pp. 2465–2483. Available at: https://doi. org/10. 1080/ 004209 80020080641.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
