🗺️ How Cities Are Planned

What you’ll learn

1. Nobody Drew ThisSee the built environment as the output of shared rules rather than design, and adopt the course's central claim that planning is rule-writing plus negotiation.A suburban commercial strip is remarkably consistent across a continent despite having no author and being built by unrelated firms decades apart, which is the signature of everyone following the same code rather than the same plan. No rule says to put parking in front, but requiring lots of parking, mandating a setback, and capping height makes it the cheapest legal move — every time, for everyone. Planning is therefore the writing of rules and the negotiation of exceptions to them, which casts the planner as legislator and broker rather than author, and makes the city readable as evidence of its own code.
2. The Plan Is a Wish. The Code Has Teeth.Distinguish the comprehensive plan from the zoning ordinance, and understand why the gap between them is where much of planning politics lives.The comprehensive plan is a long-range policy document with a vision and a future land use map, adopted after extensive consultation and widely reported; the zoning ordinance is a map and a text that decides what anyone may actually build. The first describes what a city hopes will happen and the second controls what is permitted, and they routinely disagree — a plan may commit to transit-corridor housing that the zoning map makes illegal today. Whether the plan binds the zoning depends on jurisdiction-specific consistency requirements, so the only reliable test of whether a city has planned for something is whether it is legal to build it today, on that lot, without asking permission.
3. Zoning: the Master InstrumentUnderstand Euclid v. Ambler as the decision that made zoning constitutionally safe, and separate zoning's use rules from its far more consequential bulk rules.Decided 6-3 on 22 November 1926, Euclid held that restricting land use — destroying much of a property's value by announcement alone — was a valid exercise of the police power rather than a compensable taking, and Sutherland's 'pig in the parlor' formulation supplied the intellectual foundation: the problem is adjacency, so uses may be sorted in advance. The decision made zoning safe rather than inventing it, and use-based zoning is called Euclidean to this day. The instrument does two jobs: it separates uses, which is loud and publicly argued, and it controls bulk — height, setback, coverage, floor area, parking — which is invisible and does most of the physical shaping. Sutherland's opinion also recited the era's case that an apartment house is 'very often a mere parasite' in a house district, language that matters for later arguments about exclusion.
4. The Invisible Shape-MakersMaster FAR, setbacks, height and lot coverage as the invisible instruments that shape buildings, and learn to identify which constraint actually binds.The Equitable Building of 1915 packed 1.2 million square feet onto a 49,614 square foot lot — a floor area ratio around 24, roughly double what its own city would later permit — and cast a shadow more than six times its lot area and up to 320 m long, prompting the 1916 Zoning Resolution. That code imposed no height limit but required setbacks as buildings rose and restricted towers to 25% of the lot, so hundreds of developers independently maximising against it converged on the wedding-cake ziggurat that became the Art Deco skyline. FAR is a budget rather than a form, and it interacts with setbacks, height and coverage such that the binding constraint is often not the one being argued about — identifying which number actually bites is the professional skill.
5. Parking Minimums: the Rule That Ate the CityUnderstand parking minimums as a single line of code with outsized physical consequences, and hold both sides of a genuinely contested policy argument.Los Angeles has historically required one space per 300 sq ft of retail and one per 100 sq ft of restaurant dining, and since a space plus aisle takes 300-350 sq ft, the mandate can require three times more parking than restaurant — costs that run around $28,000 per surface space and $56,000 underground and land in rents, with one 2016 study finding garages added 17% to average rents and carless renters paying $440 million yearly for spaces they don't use. Shoup calls the requirements a pseudoscience built on minimal data, and estimates 700 million to 2 billion US spaces, 2.5 to 7 times the registered vehicles; over 35 cities have abolished minimums since 2015. Against that: on-street spillover is a real externality, transit-poor places genuinely differ, lenders may require parking anyway, and the asymmetry between immediate visible under-supply and diffuse over-supply explains decades of upward drift. The question is contested and this course does not adjudicate it.
6. Single-Family Zoning: the Other Contested OneUnderstand single-family zoning's scale, its documented origins, and both sides of the argument about it, without adjudicating.Across large US cities the majority of residential land permits only one detached house per lot — 94% in San Jose, 89% in Arlington TX, 84% in Charlotte, 81% in Seattle, down to 36% in Washington DC and 15% in New York — a spread showing these are different systems rather than different trade-offs, and a figure no market produces. The instrument traces to Berkeley in 1916, and its rise is entangled with Buchanan v. Warley (1917) striking down explicit racial zoning, after which regulating building type achieved part of the same effect in facially neutral language; Euclid (1926) recorded the era's 'mere parasite' argument against apartments. The case for rests on reliance, stability, democratic adoption and household wealth; the case against on supply caps, the outlawing of the housing middle, and sorting by affordability. Reforms in Minneapolis (2018), Oregon (2019) and California (2021) are too recent for settled conclusions.
7. How a Building Actually Gets PermissionUnderstand the entitlement process — by-right versus discretionary approval, variances, conditional uses, rezonings and PUDs — and see why by-right permission determines who can build at all.A compliant proposal going through the by-right door must be approved by a planner acting as checker rather than judge: no hearing, no discretion, no vote, and an outcome knowable in advance. Anything else needs a variance (requiring hardship from the land itself, not from the applicant's pro forma), a conditional use permit, a rezoning, or a PUD — all involving hearings, discretion and years. That difference filters for capital and staying power before anyone applies, screening out precisely the small incremental development everyone says they want, though discretion genuinely does let cities respond to specifics that crude codes cannot foresee. Environmental review attaches to discretionary decisions and both improves projects and enables litigation-driven delay that can function as refusal — which is why by-right permission removes the hook everything else hangs on.
8. Why Planning Is Mostly a NegotiationUnderstand negotiation as the actual mechanism of planning, know the instruments of the deal, and grasp both the Nollan/Dolan limits and the structural bias the system creates.Because anything interesting requires a discretionary approval, and an approval that can be refused is leverage, planning proceeds by trade: the city wants affordable units, parks and contributions, the developer wants height, units and uses, and every large building is the residue of a deal. The instruments — exactions, impact fees, inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, community benefits agreements — are mechanisms for converting the power to say no into public goods, with the density bonus stating it most plainly by selling development rights for payment in kind. Nollan (1987) requires an essential nexus and Dolan (1994) rough proportionality, fencing the trade without forbidding it, and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) extended the test to legislative impact fees. The uncomfortable consequence is structural: a city funding public goods this way has a permanent interest in a restrictive code, because by-right building generates no leverage.
9. The Street Is Regulated TooUnderstand subdivision regulation and street standards as the instrument governing the quarter to a third of city land that zoning ignores, and see how fire access requirements shape the suburb.Zoning governs what happens on lots, while subdivision regulation governs the carving of raw land into blocks and streets — block size, street width, corner radius, utilities — for the large fraction of a city that isn't lots at all. Those standards are frequently set by fire access requirements, and every step is reasonable: engines are large, must reach every building, turn every corner and avoid reversing. What falls out is wide streets that drivers read as permission to go fast, sweeping corners that let all traffic turn without slowing while lengthening pedestrian crossings, and cul-de-sac networks that are lovely individually but force every trip onto arterials that then congest and get widened. Nobody drew the suburb; it is the residue of rules applied thousands of times, and the honest reform question is measuring a rare severe risk against a constant diffuse one.
10. When Planners Did Draw the Whole ThingTest the course's argument against the rare cases of comprehensive master planning, and learn to read urban failures carefully rather than as proof of design ideas.Haussmann's Paris, Chandigarh, Brasília and Canberra are the cases where someone escaped both the rules and the negotiation, and they are famous because they are anomalies — Paris is among the most admired environments in the world and was produced by an authoritarian state demolishing at a scale no democratic process would allow. The honest finding is that these plans work at the scale they were drawn and are frequently criticised at the scale of a person, and decisively that Brasília's builders and servants needed housing the plan never accounted for, so satellite cities grew around it holding most of the metropolitan population: a plan can specify form but not life, and the negotiation relocates rather than disappears. Pruitt-Igoe belongs here as a warning about interpretation, since whether it shows a failure of design or of policy and maintenance funding is genuinely disputed.
11. Reading the Rules Off a BlockConsolidate the course into a repeatable method for reading a zoning code off a block, and land the argument that the city is the residue of rules and negotiations.Seven tells recover the code from a pavement: whether buildings touch reveals side setbacks, the distance to the front door reveals front setbacks and parking minimums, a uniform cornice reveals a height limit or binding FAR while stepped massing reveals a setback envelope, a hard mid-block use change reveals a district boundary, where the parking lives reveals the minimum and the land price, an anomalously large building reveals a negotiation with a public benefit somewhere nearby, and sweeping corners reveal a subdivision rulebook zoning never touched. Together they demonstrate the course's argument: nobody drew the strip, the skyline or the suburb, but everyone who wrote a rule was drawing. Because the city is the output of public, adopted, amendable documents rather than a design, it can be changed by anyone who understands them — which is exactly why the arguments over those rules are so fierce.

Questions this course answers

Grounded in trusted sources

• Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926): decided 22 November 1926, 6–3, Sutherland J.; zoning upheld as a valid exercise of the police power; 'A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard'; and, reciting the era's case against apartments in house districts, 'very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district' — https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365
• Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co.
• Equitable Building (Manhattan): completed 1 May 1915; 555 ft (169 m), 38 storeys; 1.2 million sq ft (110,000 m²) of floor space on a 49,614 sq ft (4,609 m²) lot, a floor area ratio of approximately 24; shadow more than six times the lot area and up to 0.2 miles (320 m) long, reported as a 7-acre (28,000 m²) shadow — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Building_(Manhattan)
• 1916 Zoning Resolution: adopted primarily to stop massive buildings preventing light and air from reaching the streets below; imposed no height limits but required setbacks and restricted towers to 25% of the lot size; the resulting setback skyscraper spread from Chicago to Shanghai — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution
• Single-family zoning: share of residential land zoned single-family — San Jose 94%, Arlington TX 89%, Charlotte 84%, Seattle 81%, Chicago 79%, Portland 77%, Los Angeles 75%, Washington DC 36%, New York City 15%; origins in Berkeley's Elmwood neighbourhood, 1916 (developer Duncan McDuffie); Buchanan v. Warley (1917) struck down explicit race-based zoning; Minneapolis (2018) first major US city to eliminate single-family zoning; Oregon HB 2001 (2 July 2019); California SB 9 (September 2021) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-family_zoning
• Othering & Belonging Institute, UC Berkeley, Single-Family Zoning in California: A Statewide Analysis — single-family-only zoning averages 77.82% of residential land across 519 jurisdictions, median 83.93% — https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-california-statewide-analysis
• Parking minimums / parking mandates: Los Angeles ratios of one space per 300 sq ft of retail and one per 100 sq ft of restaurant dining area; surface parking approximately $28,000 per space, underground approximately $56,000 per space excluding land, downtown Los Angeles typically over $50,000 per space; a 2016 study found parking garages added 17% to average rents and that renters without cars collectively paid $440 million yearly for spaces they did not use; Donald Shoup's 'pseudoscience' critique of ITE-derived ratios, and his estimate of 700 million to 2 billion US parking spaces — 2.5 to 7 times the number of registered vehicles; over 35 major US cities have eliminated minimums since 2015, including Austin, Minneapolis and San Jose (2022), with state-level reform in California and Oregon (2022), Colorado (2024), and Washington, Connecticut and Illinois (2025) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_minimums
• Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking (American Planning Association, 2005; updated edition 2011)

Every Wunder lesson is built from real, reputable sources — never invented.

Related Science courses