North-American Zoning: Real-Estate Regulation—Past, Present and Future

  • Raphaël FischlerEmail author


In the United States and Canada, zoning is primarily a tool for the regulation of real-estate development and only secondarily an element of city planning. This is so historically speaking—zoning was adopted primarily as a means of controlling nuisances that could lessen property values—and it is so in contemporary planning practice. As a regulatory tool, zoning is necessarily a local affair; but as a planning tool, it must necessarily become a supra-municipal one. Historical and contemporary material from Canada and from the United States buttress a critical argument on the past, present and likely future of zoning in these countries.


  1. Abbott, C. (2001). Greater Portland: Urban life and landscape in the Pacific Northwest. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  2. Advisory Committee on Zoning. (1926). A standard state zoning enabling act (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, for the Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  3. Advisory Committee on Zoning. (1928). A city planning primer. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, for the Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, S. E. (2012). The city’s wealth and the city’s limits: Progressive housing policy in Berkeley, California, 1976–2011. Journal of Planning History, 11(2), 160–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Been, V. (2010). Community benefits agreements: A new local government tool or another variation on the exactions theme? The University of Chicago Law Review, 77(1), 5–35.Google Scholar
  6. Bérubé, H. (2014). Des sociétés distinctes. Gouverner les banlieues bourgeoises de Montréal, 1880–1939. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, P. (1996). Controlling development: Certainty and discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Booth, P. (1999). From regulation to discretion: The evolution of development control in the British planning system 1909–1947. Planning Perspectives, 14(3), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyce, M. (2001). Visual art/public art and urban development: A case study of Montréal (1967–1992). Doctoral dissertation, School of Urban Planning, McGill University.Google Scholar
  10. Boyer, M. C. (1983). Dreaming the rational city. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bryce, S. (1990). The making of Westmount, Quebec 1870–1929: A study of landscape and community construction. Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography, McGill University.Google Scholar
  12. Burnham, D. H., & Bennett, E. H. (1909). Plan of Chicago. Chicago: The Commercial Club.Google Scholar
  13. City of New York. (2017). City planning history. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from
  14. City of Westmount. (2016). Planning programme, September 2, 2014 (Amended February 1, 2016). Retrieved May 16, 2017, from
  15. Costonis, J. J. (1974). Space adrift: Landmark preservation and the marketplace. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cox, W. (2006). War on the dream: How anti-sprawl policy threatens the quality of life. Bloomington: iUniverse.Google Scholar
  17. Fischel, W. A. (2015). Zoning rules! The economics of land use regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  18. Fischler, R. (1993). Standards of development. Doctoral dissertation, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  19. Fischler, R. (1998a). The metropolitan dimension of early zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York City ordinance. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischler, R. (1998b). Health, safety, and the general welfare: Markets, politics and social science in early land-use regulation and community design. Journal of Urban History, 24(6), 675–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischler, R. (1998c). For a genealogy of planning. Planning Perspectives, 13(4), 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischler, R. (2000a). Linking planning theory and history: The case of development control. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischler, R. (2000b). Planning for social betterment: From standard of living to quality of life. In R. Freestone (Ed.), Urban planning in a changing world: The twentieth century experience (pp. 139–157). London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  24. Fischler, R. (2007). Development control in Toronto in the nineteenth century. Urban History Review, 36(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischler, R. (2014). Émergence du zonage à Montréal, 1840–1914. In Les Cahiers de l’Institut du patrimoine (“La gouvernance montréalaise: de la ville-frontière à la métropole”) L. Robichaud, H. Bérubé, & D. Fyson (Eds.), pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  26. Fischler, R. (2016). Justifying zoning without planning: The Germanification of American zoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Portland, OR, November 2–6, 2016.Google Scholar
  27. Fischler, R., & Wolfe, J. (2012). Planning for sustainable development in Montréal: A ‘qualified success’. In I. Vojnovic (Ed.), Sustainability: A global urban context (pp. 531–559). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fishman, R. (1989). Bourgeois Utopias: The rise and fall of suburbia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Fogelson, R. M. (2007). Bourgeois nightmares: Suburbia, 1870-1930. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fogleson, R. E. (1986). Planning the capitalist city: The colonial era to the 1920s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glaeser, E. (2012). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes US richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Government of Canada. (2016). Westmount district. Retrieved May 24, 2017, from
  33. Gubbay, A. (1985). Montreal’s little mountain: A portrait of Westmount. Montréal: Optimum Publishing International.Google Scholar
  34. Gubbay, A. (1998). A room of their own: The story of Westmount. Montreal: Price-Patterson.Google Scholar
  35. Hirt, S. (2014). Zoned in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hodge, G., & Gordon, D. L. A. (2014). Planning Canadian communities (6th ed.). Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
  37. Howard, E. (1965 [1898]). Garden cities of tomorrow. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jin, C. (2017, May 18). Panel talks housing development strategies. The Daily Californian, Thursday, 2017, p. 1.Google Scholar
  39. Kantor, H. A. (1983). Benjamin C. Marsh and the fight over population congestion. In D. A. Krueckeberg (Ed.), The American planner: Biographies and recollections (pp. 58–74). New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  40. Katz, P. (Ed.). (1994). The new urbanism : Toward an architecture of community. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Kayden, J. S. (1978). Incentive zoning in New York City: A cost-benefit analysis. Lincoln Policy Roundtable, Policy Analysis Series Number 201. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  42. Kayden, J. S. (1991). Zoning for dollars: New rules for an old game? Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nollan cases. Journal of Urban & Contemporary Law, 39(3), 3–51.Google Scholar
  43. Kendig, L. (1980). Performance zoning. Washington, DC: Planners Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kiefer, M. (2017). It’s the end of urban planning as we know it (and we feel fine). The Boston Globe, March 16, 2017. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from
  45. Kolko, G. (1963). The triumph of conservatism: A reinterpretation of American history, 1900–1916. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kolnik, K. A. (1998). Early zoning in Los Angeles: Imported from Germany or locally inspired? Influences on the development of districting in Los Angeles 1900–1909. Unpublished paper written for Seminar in Twentieth Century United States History, UCLA.Google Scholar
  47. Kolnik, K. A. (2008). Order before zoning: Land Use regulations in Los Angeles, 1880-1915. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  48. Ladd, B. (1990). Urban planning and Civic order in Germany, 1860–1914. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  49. Lassar, T. J. (1989). Carrots & sticks: New zoning downtown. Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Linteau, P.-A. (2013). The history of Montreal: The story of great North American City (P. McC=ambridge, Trans.). Montreal: Baraka.Google Scholar
  51. Logan, T. H. (1976). The Americanization of German zoning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(4), 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lortie, A. (2004). Montreal 1960: The singularities of a Metropolitan archetype. In A. Lortie (Ed.), The 60s: Montreal thinks big (pp. 75–115). Montréal; Vancouver/Toronto: Canadian Centre for Architecture; Douglas & McIntyre.Google Scholar
  53. M’Bala, J. (2001). Prévenir l’exurbanisation: le Plan Gréber de 1950 pour Montréal. Urban History Review, 29(2), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Makielski, S. J., Jr. (1966). The politics of zoning: The New York experience. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Marcuse, P. (1980). Housing policy and city planning: The puzzling split in the United States, 1893–1931. In G. E. Cherry (Ed.), Shaping an urban world (pp. 23–58). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  56. Marsan, J.-C. (1990). Montreal in evolution: Historical analysis of the development of Montreal’s architecture and urban environment. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Marsh, B. C. (1909). An introduction to city planning: Democracy’s challenge to the American City. New York: Published by the Author.Google Scholar
  58. Marsh, B. C. (1908). City planning in justice to the working population. Charities and the Commons, 19, 1514–1518.Google Scholar
  59. Morris, M. (2000). Incentive zoning: Meeting urban design and affordable housing objectives. Chicago: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 494.Google Scholar
  60. Moore, P. W. (1978). Zoning and Neighborhood Change in the Annex in Toronto, 1900–1970. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  61. Mullin, J. (1976). American perceptions of German City planning at the turn of the century. Urbanism Past and Present, 1(3), 5–15.Google Scholar
  62. Perry, C. A.. (1974 [1929]). The neighborhood unit. In Regional plan of New York and its environs, Vol. VII, Neighborhood and community planning (pp. 22–140). New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
  63. Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reps, J. W. (1964). Requiem for zoning, planning 1964 (pp. 56–67). Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.Google Scholar
  65. Revell, K. D. (1992). Regulating the landscape: Real estate values, city planning, and the 1916 zoning ordinance. In D. Ward & O. Zunz (Eds.), Landscape of modernity: Essays on New York City, 1900–1940 (pp. 19–45). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  66. Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A Forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York: W.W. Norton, Liveright Books.Google Scholar
  67. Roweis, S. (1983). Urban planning as professional mediation of territorial politics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1(2), 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scott, M. (1971). American city planning since 1890. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  69. Selmi, D. P. (2009). Land use regulation by contract. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Legal Studies Paper No. 2009-51. Retrieved May 26, 2017, from Scholar
  70. Sitte, C. (1965 [1889]). City planning according to artistic principles (G. R. Collins & C. C. Collins, Trans.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, B. (1988). California development agreements and British planning agreements: The struggle of the public land use planner. The Town Planning Review, 59(3), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stelter, G. (2000). Rethinking the significance of the city beautiful idea. In R. Freestone (Ed.), Urban planning in a changing world: The Twentieth Century experience (pp. 98–117). London: Spon.Google Scholar
  73. Sutcliffe, A. (1981). Towards the planned city: Germany, Britain, the United States, France, 1780–1914. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  74. Simpson, M. (1985). Thomas Adams and the Modern Planning Movement: Britain, Canada and the United States, 1900–1940. London: Alexandrine Press.Google Scholar
  75. Toll, S. I. (1969). Zoned American. New York: Grossman Publishers.Google Scholar
  76. Van Nus, W. (1977). The fate of city beautiful thought in Canada, 1893–1930. In G. A. Stelter & A. F. J. Artibise (Eds.), The Canadian city: Essays in urban history (pp. 162–185). Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
  77. Van Nus, W. (1979). Towards the city efficient: The theory and practice of zoning, 1919-1939. In A. F. J. Artibise & G. A. Stelter (Eds.), The usable urban past: Planning and politics in the modern Canadian city (pp. 226–246). Toronto: MacMillan of Canada in association with Carleton University.Google Scholar
  78. Veiller, L. (1910). Housing reform: A hand-book for practical use in American cities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  79. Ville de Montréal. (2006). Strategy for the inclusion of affordable housing in new residential projects. Montreal: Ville de Montréal, Service de la mise en valeur du territoire et du patrimoine.Google Scholar
  80. Weiss, M. A. (1987). The rise of the community builders: The American real estate industry and urban land planning. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Weiss, M. A. (1988). The real estate industry and the politics of zoning in San Francisco, 1914–1928. Planning Perspectives, 3(3), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weiss, M. A. (1992). Skyscraper zoning: New York’s pioneering role. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. White, R. (2016). Planning Toronto: The planners, the plans, their legacies, 1940–1980. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  84. Whyte, W. (1988). City: Rediscovering the center. New York, Doubleday: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  85. Williams, S., Carlton, I., Juntunen, L., Picha, E., & Wilkerson, M. (2016). The economics of inclusionary development. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.Google Scholar
  86. Williamson, C. J. S. (1931). Mechanics of zoning adjustments. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 155(II), 15–33.Google Scholar
  87. Wilson, W. H. (1994). The city beautiful movement. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Wolfe, J. M. (1982). Yesterday’s tomorrows: Some early plans for Montreal. The Fifth Column, 2(2), 6–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Urban PlanningMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations