What do you think?
Rate this book
The Zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler
When the Cleveland suburb of Euclid first zoned its land in 1922, the Ambler Realty Company was left with a sizable tract it could no longer sell for industrial use-and so the company sued. What emerged was the seminal zoning case in American history, pitting reformers against private property advocates in the Supreme Court and raising the question of whether a municipality could deny property owners the right to use their land however they chose.
Reconstructing the case that made zoning a central element in urban planning for cities and towns throughout America, Michael Allan Wolf provides the first book-length study of the Supreme Court's landmark Euclid v. Ambler decision. Wolf describes how the ordinance, and the defense of it, burst onto the national stage and became the focus of litigation before moving all the way to the nation's highest court. He subsequently reveals how and why Justice George Sutherland broke from the Court's conservative bloc to support the urban reform movement eager to protect residential neighborhoods from disturbances created by rapidly expanding commercial, industrial, or multifamily uses of land. Following that decision, America saw the rapid proliferation of zoning ordinances, which greatly increased the power of local government to control and rationalize urban planning.
As Wolf attests, many of today's environmental and land use laws might not have been deemed legal had Euclid v. Ambler been decided differently. But he also points out the potential dangers that emerged from the decision, such as its anticompetitive impact on the real estate market, its catalyzing effect on suburban sprawl, and its establishment of a legal basis for excluding minority groups from neighborhoods.
Wolf's compelling account makes it clear that Euclid v. Ambler fundamentally altered how we think about the urban landscape, changed the way our cities and suburbs are organized, and left a long shadow over subsequent cases such as the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005).
Reconstructing the case that made zoning a central element in urban planning for cities and towns throughout America, Michael Allan Wolf provides the first book-length study of the Supreme Court's landmark Euclid v. Ambler decision. Wolf describes how the ordinance, and the defense of it, burst onto the national stage and became the focus of litigation before moving all the way to the nation's highest court. He subsequently reveals how and why Justice George Sutherland broke from the Court's conservative bloc to support the urban reform movement eager to protect residential neighborhoods from disturbances created by rapidly expanding commercial, industrial, or multifamily uses of land. Following that decision, America saw the rapid proliferation of zoning ordinances, which greatly increased the power of local government to control and rationalize urban planning.
As Wolf attests, many of today's environmental and land use laws might not have been deemed legal had Euclid v. Ambler been decided differently. But he also points out the potential dangers that emerged from the decision, such as its anticompetitive impact on the real estate market, its catalyzing effect on suburban sprawl, and its establishment of a legal basis for excluding minority groups from neighborhoods.
Wolf's compelling account makes it clear that Euclid v. Ambler fundamentally altered how we think about the urban landscape, changed the way our cities and suburbs are organized, and left a long shadow over subsequent cases such as the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London (2005).
204 pages, Paperback
First published July 17, 2008
2 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
March 23, 2025for class, powered through
July 4, 2010
A fairly straight-forward, functional description of the 1926 Euclid v. Amber case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutionality of comprehensive zoning for the first time.
There is a great cast of characters here that makes the case more interesting than one might expect. The lawyer for the developers (Ambler Realty) was Newton Baker, former mayor of Cleveland and former Secretary of War for Woodrow Wilson during World War I (also a committed pacifist!). The district court judge trying the case (without a jury, since Baker decided to go for an equity injunction) was D.C. Westenhauver, a friend of Baker's who became famous in 1919 for sentencing former Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs to prison for crimes under the new Espionage Act (leading to the 1919 Cleveland May Day riots). One of the attorneys prosecuting Debs in that case was Alfred Bettman, a powerful urban reformer who wrote an influential amicus curia brief to the Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler, arguing against Westhauver's anti-zoning ruling. And the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the majority 6-3 opinion in Euclid upholding the city's radical new zoning regulation was none other than Justice George Sutherland, an English-born Mormon Republican who later became famous as one of the "Four Horsemen" (conservative justices who overturned many of FDR's reforms). In this opinion, however, he argued for the "elasticity" of constitutional principles when considering modern urban circumstances, and he also cited the general and "increasing tendency" of state courts to uphold zoning and regulatory restrictions as a reason for upholding Euclid's particular ordinance. (Maybe less surprisingly, Sutherland described some apartments built in residential zones as "mere parasite[s:]" designed to take light and air away from other single-family homes).
The author does extend his analysis beyond the actual case to show that from then on, zoning received almost complete deference from state and federal courts. (The only real exception on a federal level was Nectow v. City of Cambridge in 1928. The Court required Cambridge to pay Nectow, a local landowner, compensation for its restrictive zoning rules after an independent special master stated that "no use" could be made of Nectow's property after the city's zoning ordinance was in place. The Supreme Court's deference in this case was exercised towards the local special master, instead of the city itself.) Future courts consistently ignored Judge Westhauver's original warning in the Euclid case that the true purpose of zoning was merely "to classify the population and segregate them according to their income or situation in life," and almost all attempts to overturn zoning as biased against the lower-classes failed (New Jersey's Mount Laurel decision in 1975 being a semi-exception).
The author also shows though that the City of Euclid's attempts to exclude Ambler's industrial development failed as well. Because of the zoning ordinance, the Ambler land laid fallow until World War II, when the federal government acquired the site to build an aircraft engine plant that was turned into a GM plant after the end of the war. That plant finally closed in 1993 and it currently houses some sport, showroom, and warehouse companies. It's a worthwhile reminder about the futility of long-term planning.
There are several big questions that the author of this book leaves unanswered though. If zoning had been around since New York's 1916 resolution, why was the small Cleveland suburb of Euclid the first to have its ordinance challenged in the Supreme Court, almost ten years later? It also seems that the lawyer for Ambler, Newton Baker, didn't even challenge the general constitutionality of zoning before the court, just its application in this particular case (in a personal letter though he claimed that zoning "surrendered private ownership of property into a sort of communistic ownership"). If zoning's constitutionality was not even argued, was there truly a strong chance that SCOTUS would have overturned it in 1926?
This is probably the only book to give a very detailed description of this seminal case, but I feel another author or another historian could have done it much better.
There is a great cast of characters here that makes the case more interesting than one might expect. The lawyer for the developers (Ambler Realty) was Newton Baker, former mayor of Cleveland and former Secretary of War for Woodrow Wilson during World War I (also a committed pacifist!). The district court judge trying the case (without a jury, since Baker decided to go for an equity injunction) was D.C. Westenhauver, a friend of Baker's who became famous in 1919 for sentencing former Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs to prison for crimes under the new Espionage Act (leading to the 1919 Cleveland May Day riots). One of the attorneys prosecuting Debs in that case was Alfred Bettman, a powerful urban reformer who wrote an influential amicus curia brief to the Supreme Court in Euclid v. Ambler, arguing against Westhauver's anti-zoning ruling. And the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the majority 6-3 opinion in Euclid upholding the city's radical new zoning regulation was none other than Justice George Sutherland, an English-born Mormon Republican who later became famous as one of the "Four Horsemen" (conservative justices who overturned many of FDR's reforms). In this opinion, however, he argued for the "elasticity" of constitutional principles when considering modern urban circumstances, and he also cited the general and "increasing tendency" of state courts to uphold zoning and regulatory restrictions as a reason for upholding Euclid's particular ordinance. (Maybe less surprisingly, Sutherland described some apartments built in residential zones as "mere parasite[s:]" designed to take light and air away from other single-family homes).
The author does extend his analysis beyond the actual case to show that from then on, zoning received almost complete deference from state and federal courts. (The only real exception on a federal level was Nectow v. City of Cambridge in 1928. The Court required Cambridge to pay Nectow, a local landowner, compensation for its restrictive zoning rules after an independent special master stated that "no use" could be made of Nectow's property after the city's zoning ordinance was in place. The Supreme Court's deference in this case was exercised towards the local special master, instead of the city itself.) Future courts consistently ignored Judge Westhauver's original warning in the Euclid case that the true purpose of zoning was merely "to classify the population and segregate them according to their income or situation in life," and almost all attempts to overturn zoning as biased against the lower-classes failed (New Jersey's Mount Laurel decision in 1975 being a semi-exception).
The author also shows though that the City of Euclid's attempts to exclude Ambler's industrial development failed as well. Because of the zoning ordinance, the Ambler land laid fallow until World War II, when the federal government acquired the site to build an aircraft engine plant that was turned into a GM plant after the end of the war. That plant finally closed in 1993 and it currently houses some sport, showroom, and warehouse companies. It's a worthwhile reminder about the futility of long-term planning.
There are several big questions that the author of this book leaves unanswered though. If zoning had been around since New York's 1916 resolution, why was the small Cleveland suburb of Euclid the first to have its ordinance challenged in the Supreme Court, almost ten years later? It also seems that the lawyer for Ambler, Newton Baker, didn't even challenge the general constitutionality of zoning before the court, just its application in this particular case (in a personal letter though he claimed that zoning "surrendered private ownership of property into a sort of communistic ownership"). If zoning's constitutionality was not even argued, was there truly a strong chance that SCOTUS would have overturned it in 1926?
This is probably the only book to give a very detailed description of this seminal case, but I feel another author or another historian could have done it much better.
April 28, 2022
For my first law read ever, this was really entertaining. I was conflicted because the story at time read like fiction: the lawyers and judges are real humans and there was humor, drama, and suspense. However, that is nice and all, but this is a paramount legal decision that shaped how we build in America. Should the decision have been up to the most cunning arguments and phrases? Is it really, really protected by the constitution as a POLICE POWER? I'm not so sure. This book helped me a lot with my research paper and I do NOT recommend it to anyone because it is just so dry.
May 2, 2009
I know that this makes me the biggest nerd ever, but I was so excited to have gotten this book for Christmas, and it totally lived up to its expectations! Basically a play-by-play recounting of the Euclid v. Ambler Supreme Court case, the first zoning case, which ultimately legalized zoning, the book mixes two of my favorite subjects, urban planning and law, woohoo! It does a pretty good job of presenting the history and arguments from both side and does so in a more "storytelling" way rather than a "textbook" way. More in-depth analysis of Sutherland's majority opinion and its historical context and ultimate consequences on the entire field of land use/urban planning come toward the end. This book was both informative and interesting.
June 30, 2018
A fascinating, highly readable book detailing the history of Euclid vs Ambler, the US Supreme Court case that really established the system of city zoning in the United States that we pretty much still today.
As such, the book provides insight into the real importance of the Supreme Court and their decisions; use regulations about the height of buildings, the area of lots, and what can be built off property are now part of our every day life but they were established in this case.
In addition, the book provides a look into how the Progressive Period in US history provided the push towards professionalism and experts in public life and the role of the Court at the beginning at the 20th century.
As such, the book provides insight into the real importance of the Supreme Court and their decisions; use regulations about the height of buildings, the area of lots, and what can be built off property are now part of our every day life but they were established in this case.
In addition, the book provides a look into how the Progressive Period in US history provided the push towards professionalism and experts in public life and the role of the Court at the beginning at the 20th century.
March 2, 2025
A competent legal history with a good eye for interesting side stories. It benefits from having an important topic almost alone to itself but it suffers two serious deficiencies. It takes the idea of ‘judicial philosophy’ far too seriously. The idea that Euclid v Ambler was the product of any sort of rigorous intellectual effort is just absurd and all the authors hand waving can’t make it so. Second it takes zoning itself too seriously. It’s just bigotry, hatred of newcomers, and protection of vested interests from start to finish. You can read that history between the lines of this book, but a better author would have written it in bolder print.
August 5, 2020
Was useful for getting details on a case that would affect Berkeley Zoning.
September 1, 2024
Impressive and exhaustive recounting of the case, context, and impact of a landmark Supreme Court case. Can be dry but I don’t think there’s a better single source out there.
February 12, 2015
This book will admittedly appeal to a rather narrow readership, but happily: that includes me. I'd recommend it to anyone that's interested in municipal planning and zoning, especially people serving on their own town's boards and commissions. It's certainly improve my understanding of the historical and the legal underpinnings of those matters, and their balance (or tension) with basic property rights.
August 12, 2016
It was a well written book, the subject matter was just dull. Couldn't expect anything better from a planning law class, though!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews