ROBERT A. BURNHAM
Obstacles to Plan Implementation in the
Age of Comprehensive City Planning:
Cincinnati's Experience
During the period from roughly 1915 to
1945, when city planning became
institutionalized in the United States,
efforts to rationalize the city through
comprehensive city planning often met
with only measured success.1 This
stemmed, in part, from the nature of
planning itself in that planning, at one
level, was just that, planning, a vision
to guide the future development of the
city. Realizing the city plan
represented a very different matter, one that ne-
cessitated overcoming an often
mind-boggling array of obstacles: city council
members or administrators who lacked a
strong commitment to planning,
competing interest groups that viewed
planning from the perspective of their
own special concerns, and budgets that
did not match the aspirations of city
planners. Although troublesome, these
problems were not what one might
call structural, as were those presented
by non-municipal governing bodies,
which included the county, state, and
federal governments. Because their au-
thority did not derive from, or
superceded, city government, these units of
government could ignore the
recommendations of local city planning com-
missions when making decisions about the
design or location of county,
state, or federal improvement projects.
This created special difficulties for
city planning commissions trying to
uphold the basic principles of
comprehensive city planning, which sought to
secure the welfare of the city as a
whole while simultaneously viewing it as a
pluralistic entity composed of separate
but equal and interdependent parts,
groups, and systems. This perceived
interdependence meant that planning for
one aspect of the city's physical
development would necessitate a thorough
consideration of its relationship to all
others, or what planners called
"coordination," a key concept
in comprehensive city planning. Having
adopted such notions, city planners were
made uneasy by the thought of the
federal government or a county or state
government going forward with a pro-
ject affecting a particular city without
the advice of the local city planning
Robert A. Burnham is Assistant Professor
of History at Macon College.
1. For an assessment of the success of
city planning through the 1930s, see Robert A.
Walker, The Planning Function in
Urban Government (Chicago, 1941), ix, 133, 135-36, 153-
57.
158 OHIO
HISTORY
commission, which was supposed to
perform the function of coordination,
with guidance provided by a
comprehensive city plan prepared by "experts."
In a sense, the problems planners
confronted were made problems by the ide-
als and aspirations of comprehensive
city planning itself, which hoped to di-
rect the course of development to
achieve some sense of unity, coherence, and
order. These aims, however, conflicted
with the division of authority that ex-
isted between various governmental units
whose physical boundaries over-
lapped, a structural feature of
government within the United States.2
The city planning commission of
Cincinnati faced such problems during
the late 1920s and 1930s as it sought to
carry out the recommendations of the
city's comprehensive city plan, which
had been adopted in 1925. Prepared by
planners George B. Ford and Ernest
Goodrich of the Technical Advisory
Corporation, a firm based in New York
City, the Official City Plan of
Cincinnati surpassed most other city plans of the day in terms of
its scope
and won recognition as an important
achievement in the new field of compre-
hensive city planning.3 The
adoption of the plan also had the effect of be-
stowing important powers upon the city
planning commission. Under Ohio
law, once a plan had been officially
adopted by a city planning commission,
all proposals for public improvement
projects had to be submitted to the
commission for approval. If the
commission disapproved, its decision could
be overruled only by a two-thirds vote
of the city council.4 This made the
city planning commission more than a
mere advisory body whose recommen-
dations could be ignored by city administrators
or city council members.5
The state law, however, applied only to
public improvement projects under
the jurisdiction of the city government.
The law did not require city planning
2. In saying that "the problems
were made problems" by the "ideas and aspirations" associ-
ated with comprehensive city planning, I
am not saying that comprehensive city planning was
wrong, misguided, unrealistic or
anything else that might be construed as a criticism. I am
merely trying to point out that
"problems" are often products of the way we choose to view
things. Had planners adopted a different
set of ideas and aspirations, they probably would
have still encountered
"problems" but of a different sort.
3. Cincinnati City Planning Commission, Agreement:
The City Planning Commission of
Cincinnati and Technical Advisory
Corporation of New York City (Cincinnati,
1922), 1-9;
Harlean James, Land Planning in the
United States for the City, State and Nation (New York,
1926), 277: Mel Scott, American City
Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley, Calif., 1969), 229.
4. Laws of Ohio, (1914-1915), vol. 105-06: 455-56; City Planning
Commission, The Official
City Plan of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, 1925), 243.
5. Ohio law, it should be noted, was
unusual in this respect. Few other states adopted the
two-thirds vote requirement, even though
it was favored by leaders in the national city planning
movement and recommended in the model
city planning enabling act adopted by the U. S.
Department of Commerce in 1928. See,
Theodora Kimball Hubbard and Henry Vincent
Hubbard, Our Cities To-Day anrd
To-Morrow: A Survey of Planning and Zoning in the United
States (Cambridge, 1929), 36-38; Scott, American City Planning
Since 1890, 143-44, 231, 243-
45; Advisory Committee on City Planning
and Zoning, U. S. Department of Commerce, A
Standard Planning Enabling Act (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Commerce,
1928),
21.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 159
commission approval for state or county
projects slated for construction
within the corporate limits of a
municipality.6 And, of course, the state of
Ohio did not have the power to impose
any requirements on the federal gov-
ernment.
Owing to these limitations on its
authority, the city planning commission
of Cincinnati, like those of other Ohio
cities, had to rely on the willingness
of non-municipal governing bodies to
submit their plans for its scrutiny and
to heed its recommendations. The
facilitation of such intergovernmental co-
operation became one of the primary
functions of the commission. Indeed,
'cooperation," a word frequently on
the lips of municipal reformers during the
1920s and 1930s, represents a key
concept for understanding how the com-
mission hoped to achieve the goals of
comprehensive city planning in the
face of (intergovernmental,
intragovernmental, and political) division.7
Because of its voluntary nature,
cooperation, on its face, provided little insur-
ance that the recommendations of the
planning commission would be fol-
lowed. Yet, non-municipal governing
bodies did cooperate with the commis-
sion, at least to the extent of
consulting with it. This may have been an in-
dication of the general acceptance of
the value of city planning. It may, how-
ever, also have been a testament to the
diligence of the Cincinnati city plan-
ning commission and its most influential
member, Alfred Bettman, who was
an insistent voice for adhering to the
principles of comprehensive city plan-
ning.8
A lawyer by training, Bettman became a
well-recognized expert in the field
of city planning and zoning law. He
helped draft the Ohio law that authorized
the creation of city planning
commissions, and was a founding member of the
Ohio Planning Conference, a statewide
organization which drafted and pro-
moted planning legislation. He also
served on the special committee, ap-
pointed by United States Secretary of
Commerce Herbert Hoover, that pre-
pared the United States Department of
Commerce's model city planning and
zoning enabling act of 1928. He is
perhaps best known, however, for con-
vincing the United States Supreme Court
of the constitutionality of zoning in
the case of Village of Euclid v.
Ambler Realty Company (1926).9
6. Though it seems rather clear that the
legislature intended the provisions of the law to apply
only to city governments, ambiguous
wording within the text permitted one to interpret it as ap-
plying to the county and state
governments also.
7. For the planning commission's efforts
to promote intragovernmental cooperation among
the various administrative departments
of the city government, see Robert A. Burnham,
"Planning versus Administration:
The Independent City Planning Commission in Cincinnati,
1918-1940." Urban History, 19
(October, 1992), 231-32, 235, 241-45, 250.
8. Scott, American City Planning
Since 1890, 215, 352; Burnham, "Planning Versus
Administration," 243, 247-48.
9. Robert B. Fairbanks, Making Better
Citizens: Housing Reform and the Community
Development Strategy in Cincinnati,
1890-1960 (Urbana, Ill., 1988), 5-6;
Michael Simpson,
People and Planning: History of the
Ohio Planning Conference (n. p.: Ohio
Planning
160 OHIO
HISTORY
Under Bettman's leadership, the city
planning commission's first and most
successful effort to secure cooperation
among non-municipal governing bod-
ies resulted in the development of a
"Five-Year Improvement Program," or
"coordinated bond program,"
for capital improvements.10 The commission
called upon the Board of County
Commissioners of Hamilton County, the
Board of Education, and the Board of
Trustees of the Public Library to join
together for the purpose of preparing a
bond program that would include all
public improvement projects scheduled
for construction over a five-year pe-
riod. In the past, each of these boards
had put their respective bond issues be-
fore the voters individually, with
little or no consideration for what the others
were doing. The planning commission saw
this piecemeal approach as ineffi-
cient, divisive, and contrary to the
aims of comprehensive city planning,
which emphasized the need to focus on
the city as a whole. By proposing a
coordinated bond program, the commission
hoped to insure that the most im-
portant public improvement projects
identified in the city plan would receive
attention first. Moreover, the
commission argued that a coordinated bond
program would enable the various bond
issuing bodies to present the voters
with a carefully considered group of
improvement projects-a "city-wide pro-
gram"-as opposed to individual
projects.11
To develop such a program, the planning
commission initiated a series of
meetings with the various bond issuing
bodies during the summer of 1926.
These meetings led to the establishment
of the City Committee for Bond
Coordination, which consisted of representatives
from each of the bond issu-
ing bodies and the planning commission.
The committee spent about seven-
teen months preparing a comprehensive
bond program, which the voters ap-
proved in the fall of 1927.12
Though the bond program effort proved
successful, the city planning com-
mission experienced much more difficulty
persuading non-municipal govern-
ing bodies to cooperate when it came to
decisions about the location, design,
Conference, 1969), 15, 40-41; Alfred
Bettman, City and Regional Planning Papers, ed. Arthur
C. Comey, Harvard City Planning Studies,
v. 13 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), xi, xv-xvii; Scott,
American City Planning Since 1890, 164, 230-32, 238-40, 243-45, 304, 319-20, 325, 331.
10. Cincinnati, Municipal
Activities (1927), 167; City Planning
Commission, "Annual Report"
(1926), 4; City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 1 June 29, 1926, 531 (The repository for
the minutes of the city planning
commission is the office of the city planning commission,
Cincinnati City Hall.)
11. Alfred Bettman to the City Planning
Commission, June 29, 1926, 1-2, Alfred Bettman
Papers [hereafter cited as ABP], box 1,
folder 6 (University of Cincinnati Libraries, Archives
and Rare Books); City Planning
Commission, "Minutes," vol. 1, June 29, 1926, 531; Alfred
Bettman to John T. Faig, August 19,
1926, 1, ABP, box 1, folder 6; City Planning Commission,
The Official City Plan, 255.
12. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 1, July 13, 1926, 535; July 20, 1926, 537; July
27, 1926, 539; August 2, 1926, 541;
April 4, 1927, 593; May 31, 1927, 608; July 5, 1927, 616.
The voters approved public improvement
bonds in the amount of $8,686,000. See, Cincinnati,
Municipal Activities (1928), 12.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 161 |
or construction of public improvements. In 1927, for example, the commis- sion became embroiled in a bitter dispute over a state highway project involv- ing the reconstruction of the Eighth Street Viaduct, which connected Cincinnati's central business district to its west-side residential neighbor- hoods. Prepared by county officials working in conjunction with the State |
162 OHIO HISTORY
Highway Department, the plan for the
Eighth Street Viaduct met with the
disapproval of the city planning
commission, which determined that the pro-
posed project was too long and wide,
unnecessarily expensive, a threat to in-
dustrial interests, and likely to
increase traffic congestion.13 Despite the
commission's objections, the Cincinnati
City Council approved the project
by a five to four vote. This sparked a
debate as to whether the requirement of
a two-thirds council vote to overrule
the planning commission applied to
state projects, an issue which was not
entirely clear at the time. The Ohio
law authorizing the creation of city
planning commissions stipulated that
once a planning commission had voiced
its disapproval, "no public" im-
provement could be constructed without a
two-thirds vote of council. Because
the law made no distinction between
city, county, or state projects, a literal
reading of it would lead one to conclude
that it applied to all public projects.
But, despite its specific language, the
law's general intent made it clear that it
was legislation that pertained only to
municipalities.14
The matter ultimately came before the
Ohio Supreme Court, which rendered
a decision on June 1, 1927. The court
held that the Eighth Street Viaduct, as
part of a state highway project, fell
under the section of the Ohio General
Code that authorized a board of county
commissioners to build a road into,
within, or through a municipality after
obtaining the consent of the city
council. Furthermore, the General Code
stipulated that if the consent of
council had been secured, and no part of
the construction was being paid by
the city, as was the case with the
Eighth Street Viaduct, the project would be
treated as if it were being built wholly
outside a municipality.15 The court,
therefore, ruled that the Eighth Street
Viaduct "cannot be affected in any man-
ner by an action or proceeding of
municipal authorities further than clearly
and expressly delegated."16 As
for the two-thirds vote provision of the state
city planning law, the court ruled that
it applied only to the public improve-
ment projects of the city government.
Hence, the majority vote of the
Cincinnati city council had sufficed as
an expression of the city's consent.17
Although the decision of the court
pertained only to the project in question,
the city planning commission realized
that the same reasoning could be easily
applied to other state and county
projects in the future. Expressing such con-
cern in its annual report of 1927, the
commission asserted that if the court's
decision represented "the law of
Ohio, then that law should certainly be
amended at the very next session of the
General Assembly." In the view of
the commission, the exemption of county
and state projects from proper "city
13. City Planning Commission,
"Annual Report" (1927), insert at 5.
14. Laws of Ohio, (1914-1915),
vol. 105-06: 455.
15. Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio State
Reports, vol. 116: 665-66.
16. Ibid., 658.
17. Ibid., 661-62.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 163
planning procedure" promised to
"produce serious dislocations of the efficient
and orderly development of the
city" with "very detrimental effects upon the
welfare of the people of
Cincinnati."18 Worried that the court decision would
undermine the aims of comprehensive city
planning, Alfred Bettman launched
a campaign to amend the state law, a
campaign which he was well positioned
to lead. At the time, he not only sat on
the city planning commission of
Cincinnati but also chaired the
legislative committee of the Ohio Planning
Conference. In that capacity, he
functioned as the principle draftsperson of
bills that the organization sought to
get passed. In addition, he bore the ma-
jor responsibility for convincing
individual legislators to introduce the
bills.19
While Bettman worked on this legislative
problem, the city planning
commission became involved in another
jurisdictional dispute, this time with
the Board of Trustees of the Public
Library, over the selection of a site for a
new central library. Under Ohio law, the
Board of Trustees of the Public
Library existed as an independent body
which enjoyed sole authority over the
public library system of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County.20 In 1926, the li-
brary board secured the passage of a
bond issue to finance the construction of
a new central library building, the need
for which had been recognized for
some time.21 Indeed, the
planners who prepared the city plan of 1925 had
even recommended a specific location for
such a building, proposing the
block between Washington Park and
Central Parkway (see map 1).
The selection of this site, it should be
noted, attested to the planners' desire
to create a "civic center" by
grouping public and quasi-public buildings to-
gether near the western end of Central
Parkway, which extended east to west
along the northern rim of the central
business district before jutting northward
to link the downtown area with
residential neighborhoods to the north (see
map 1 and map 2).22 As suggested by the
views expressed by the planners,
the proposed civic center represented an
important part of the city plan. They
argued that such a grouping of public
buildings would not only "form an en-
semble that is . . . more impressive
than any one building by itself," but also
help foster a sense of "civic
pride" among citizens and provide a "focal point
for all civic interests, thereby tending
to consolidate the loosely jointed parts
of the city into a cooperating
whole." The planners even went so far as to
18. City Planning Commission,
"Annual Report" (1927), insert at 5.
19. Simpson, People and Planning, 15,
40-41.
20. Jana C. Morford, "Bond Issues,
Sites, Legislation, Court Cases: The Attempt to Construct
a New Central Library for Cincinnati and
Hamilton County, 1923-1933," (Laboratory in
American Civilization, University of
Cincinnati, 1983) 2, 26. Unpublished manuscript in pos-
session of the author.
21. The library board decided on the
bond issue in March of 1926, before the movement for
a coordinated bond program got underway.
22. City Planning Commission, The
Official City Plan, 204.
164 OHIO
HISTORY
assert that there "seems nothing a
city can do that tends so to head up civic
consciousness as the creation of a
central gathering point in a civic center."23
The planners also claimed that the
western elbow of Central Parkway repre-
sented the best location for a civic
center from the perspective of proximity to
existing public buildings, namely City
Hall and Music Hall; accessibility
from the various parts of the city; and
projections concerning the future
growth of the city. Emphasizing
accessibility first, the planners noted that at
no other point in the city did so many
thoroughfares and transit lines con-
verge. As for the issue of growth
trends, it was thought that continued
northward expansion would eventually put
the centerpoint of the central busi-
ness district, which in the mid 1920s
stood at about Sixth Street, very near to
Central Parkway.24
As the first public building slated for
construction since the adoption of the
city plan, the proposed central library
held special import for the city plan-
ning commission, which feared that a
failure to select the site recommended
in the plan would, from the outset,
jeopardize the city's chances of obtaining
a civic center.25 Nothing,
however, required the library board, as a non-mu-
nicipal governing body, to follow the
city plan or even to seek the advice of
the city planning commission.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation,26
the two bodies met in October of 1927 to
discuss the issue. As a result of
that meeting, the library board agreed
to hire an outside consultant to assess
seven proposed sites.27 The
chosen consultant, William Emerson, chair of
the architecture department at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
studied the strengths and weaknesses of
each site and then ranked them accord-
ing to preference, with first place
going to the site recommended in the city
plan.28 To say the least, the
planning commission welcomed Emerson's re-
port, which seemed to confirm the wisdom
of adhering to the city plan.29
The site favored by Emerson and the city
planning commission, however,
23. Ibid., 202.
24. Ibid., 16, 203-04; "Brief
relative to Site for the new Main Library Building," n.d., 2, ABP,
box 8, folder 4.
25. Ibid., 1.
26. To what extent this cooperation
indicated a commitment to city planning on the part of
the library board is not clear. The
Cincinnati city council, however, apparently felt that some
encouragement was necessary, as suggested
by a resolution it passed in July of 1927 requesting
that the library board "advise
with" the city planning commission on the selection of a library
site. See, City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 1, July 11, 1927, 617.
27. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 1, October 17, 1927, 634. Alfred Bettman,
working behind the scenes, attempted to
influence the selection of the outside consultant in fa-
vor of Edward Bennett, a Chicago
architect who had worked with Daniel Burnham on the
Chicago Plan of 1909. See, Alfred
Bettman to Edgar K. Ruth, October 27, 1927, ABP, box 1,
folder 8.
28. Public Library of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County, Annual Report (1928), 5: Morford,
"Bond Issues, Sites, Legislation,
Court Cases," 14, 16.
29. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, January 24, 1928, 19.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 165 |
|
had one significant drawback-its cost, which exceeded the amount that the library board had to spend. This factor ultimately proved crucial in determin- ing the decision of the library board, which opted instead for a site located on Central Parkway, three blocks east of the one proposed in the city plan (see map 1). In response, a disgruntled city planning commission passed a resolu- tion asserting its disapproval of the site. Moreover, the commission re- quested that the library board reconsider its decision on the grounds that it de- viated from the recommendations of its own consultant, who had ranked the |
166 OHIO HISTORY
chosen site fourth.30 The
library board, however, dismissed this suggestion,
claiming that its decision conformed
with the Emerson report.31
The library board's site selection upset
not only the city planning commis-
sion, but also the Cincinnatus
Association, one of the most influential civic
organizations in the city. Soon after
the library board announced its decision,
the Cincinnatus Association adopted a
report made by its city and regional
planning committee, which concluded that
the site recommended in the city
plan was the best. This report also
offered a possible solution to the sticky
matter of the cost of the site. It
suggested that the library board purchase a
portion of the land and then seek an
additional bond issue to acquire the re-
mainder.32 Boosted by this
show of support for adhering to the city plan, the
city planning commission decided that it
should "cooperate with civic organi-
zations" in order to prevent a
"great mistake in the selection of a site."33
Feeling the pressure, the library board
rescinded its decision on the building
site and called a public hearing to
allow all individuals and organizations to
express their views.34 The
public hearing, however, hardly indicated resound-
ing support for the site recommended in
the city plan. Some of those who at-
tended the hearing felt that the
utilitarian function of a library, as a place to
house books and do research, ought to
take precedent over any desire to create
a "beautiful monument."35
One wag suggested that the new library should be
built in Spring Grove Cemetery, which
would have placed it in a beautifully
landscaped, park-like setting, but one
created as a resting place for the dead.36
Other individuals, for their own
particular reasons, also favored sites other
than the one proposed by the city plan.
Some downtown office workers, for
example, wanted to erect the new
building on the site of the existing build-
ing, which was located on Vine Street,
between Sixth and Seventh streets (see
map 1). They argued that moving the
library farther north, as recommended
by the plan, would make it inconvenient
for them to use.37
In the face of many opposing interests
and opinions, the library board fi-
nally decided to place the new building
on Garfield Place between Race and
Elm streets, a site which the Emerson
report had dismissed as providing little
improvement over the existing location
(see map 1).38 Exactly why the
30. Ibid.
31. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, February 13, 1928, 26.
32. Committee on City and Regional
Planning, "Report on [the] New Library Site," n. d., but
ca, February 7, 1928, 3-4, ABP, box 8,
folder 4. The Cincinnati chapter of the American
Institute of Architects also favored the
site recommended in the city plan. See, Morford,
"Bond Issues, Sites, Legislation,
Court Cases," 18.
33. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, February 13, 1928, 26.
34. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, February 20, 1928, 27-28.
35. As quoted in, Morford, "Bond
Issues, Sites, Legislation, Court Cases," 18.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., 19.
38. Ibid., 20.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 167
board settled on this site remains
unclear, but there is reason to believe that it
represented an effort to find a
compromise between the various views that had
been expressed at the public hearing.
This explanation seems reasonable con-
sidering that the chosen site was
located about halfway between the
Washington Park site, favored by the
city planning commission, and the site
of the existing library building, favored
by downtown workers. The site also
faced Garfield Park, which would have
provided an attractive setting, similar
to that of the Washington Park area, but
without the high price tag. Yet, de-
spite these agreeable attributes, the
site would prevent the library from be-
coming part of a civic center along
Central Parkway, the primary concern of
the city planning commission, which
remained unhappy about the course
taken by the library board.
It seems that the site also displeased
some powerful downtown businesses,
in particular those which owned valuable
commercial real estate between
Fourth and Sixth streets, the heart of
the central business district. Fearing a
drop in the value of their property,
these businesses tended to oppose devel-
opment that might promote the northward
expansion of the business dis-
trict.39 Their position on
this, of course, was at odds with the city plan,
which had projected that future growth
would naturally move the heart of the
business district farther north,
providing a justification for locating the pro-
posed civic center on Central Parkway.40
With this concern about downtown
property values looming in the back-
ground, the Central Trust Company, a
major banking institution with head-
quarters on Fourth Street, challenged
the validity of the bond issue for the li-
brary building on the grounds that the
statute under which the library board
operated represented special class
legislation, a violation of the Ohio constitu-
tion, which prohibited any grant of corporate
privileges except through gen-
eral laws applicable throughout the
state. The law which had conferred pow-
ers upon the library board clearly
applied to Cincinnati and Hamilton County
only.41 This matter became
the subject of a legal dispute which reached the
39. Cincinnatus Association,
"Report on [the] Federal Building Site," December 12, 1933,
15-16 (Public Library of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County, Department of Rare Books and
Special Collections).
40. "Brief relative to Site for the
new Main Library Building," 2.
41. Morford, "Bond Issues, Sites,
Legislation, Court Cases," 21. The prohibition against
special legislation was included in the
Ohio constitution of 1851, reflecting the emergence of a
national movement in favor of general
incorporation laws. In accordance with this provision
of the constitution, Ohio lawmakers
repealed all special legislation pertaining to municipal cor-
porations and passed in 1852 a general
law that divided Ohio cities into two classes, on the ba-
sis of population, and prescribed the
form of organization and corporate powers for all cities in
each class. Thereafter, all legislation
pertaining to municipal corporations took the form of
general laws that applied to all cities
within a class, a practice which the state courts accepted
as complying with the constitutional
prohibitions against special legislation. Over time, how-
ever, the legislature periodically
modified the classification system by making further divisions
and subdivisions, so that, by the turn
of the century, single-city categories had been created for
168 OHIO
HISTORY
Ohio Supreme Court in March of 1929. The
court not only ruled that the
law was a piece of special legislation,
and thus unconstitutional, but also di-
vested the library board of its legal
authority and invalidated the bond issue for
the library building. This bombshell put
the whole question of obtaining a
new library building in limbo, and the
matter would remain unresolved
through the 1930s.42
In the meantime, Alfred Bettman, working
through the Ohio Planning
Conference, secured the passage of a
state law that gave local city planning
commissions some say over the public
improvement projects of the state and
county governments. Passed by the
legislature in 1931, this law required "the
state, school, county, district or
township official, [or the] board, commission
or [other] body" with jurisdiction
over a project to submit plans to the city
planning commission of any effected
municipality for approval. If the plan-
ning commission disapproved, its
decision could be overruled by the official
or body with jurisdiction. In the case
of a board, commission, or other multi-
member body, however, the law required a
two-thirds majority vote to over-
rule the planning commission.43
The state law, of course, could not bind
the federal government.44 This
posed a problem for the city planning
commission in 1931 when a federal in-
terdepartmental committee composed of
representatives of the United States
Post Office and the United States
Treasury Department began considering
possible sites for the location of a new
federal building in Cincinnati.45 After
the major cities of the state. Under
this system, Cincinnati was the only city in the first grade of
the first class; Cleveland was the only
city in the second grade of the first class; Toledo was the
only city in the third grade of the
first class, and so on. In practice, this meant that a general
law passed for cities in the first grade
of the first class applied to Cincinnati alone, which, as
one commentator put it, rendered the
term "general law" a "legal fiction," and was tantamount
to special legislation. In 1902, this
issue came before the Ohio Supreme Court, which declared
the classification system
unconstitutional. In that same year, the Ohio legislature adopted a
new municipal code to comply with the
court's ruling. The law that granted corporate powers
to the Board of Trustees of the Public
Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, however,
had been passed in 1898 under the old
system. It applied to counties which contained within
their boundaries any city of the first
grade of the first class. Since Cincinnati was the only city
in the first grade of the first class,
the law pertained solely to Hamilton County. See, Edward
Kibler, "Ohio Municipal Code
Commission," Municipal Affairs, 3 (September, 1899), 528-29;
Max B. May, "The New Ohio Municipal
Code," The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 21 (January, 1903), 126; Laws of Ohio (1898),
vol. 93, 192.
42. Morford, "Bond Issues, Sites,
Legislation, Court Cases," 21-23; Cincinnati Historical
Society, The Bicentennial Guide to
Greater Cincinnati: A Portrait of Two Hundred Years
(Cincinnati, 1988), 78.
43. Laws of Ohio (1931), vol.
114, 218; City Planning Commission, "Annual Report" (1932),
6.
44. Alfred Bettman lamented this fact in
a speech delivered in 1927 at the National
Conference on City Planning. He felt
that the federal government as well as the county and
state governments should be made to
comply with the city plan. See, "How One City Enforces
Its City Plan," American City (August,
1928), 94.
45. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, March 30, 1931, 259; May 25, 1931, 266.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 169
looking at a number of locations, the
committee expressed its preference for a
site on the east end of Central Parkway
near the County Court House (see
map 3).46 The planning commission
disapproved of this choice, however,
because the city plan recommended that
the federal building, like the proposed
library, be grouped with other public
and quasi-public buildings to form a
civic center along the western end of
Central Parkway. The commission ex-
pressed its position to Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury Ferry K. Heath and
Postmaster General Walter F. Brown,
claiming that the site proposed by the
federal government could "not be
justified by good city planning principles"
and would "handicap"
Cincinnati's efforts to carry out its comprehensive city
plan. The commission also asserted that
even though the federal government
could not be forced to submit its plans
to local planning bodies for approval,
it "should not disregard that
procedure." To drive home the point, the com-
mission also took the liberty of
reminding Heath and Brown that President
Herbert Hoover supported city planning
and recognized that the location of
public buildings, like all other public
improvements, ought to be determined
by a well conceived and comprehensive
city plan.47
The federal interdepartmental committee
showed a willingness to cooperate
by conferring with the planning
commission informally but chose not to
submit plans for its approval.48 To
officials in Washington the appeal of the
planning commission must have sounded
like just one of many opposing
voices emanating from Cincinnati.
Indeed, as in the case of the library, a
flurry of controversy developed over the
proposed federal building because var-
ious local interest groups favored
different sites. For different reasons, the
Cincinnati Bar Association, Chamber of
Commerce, and Cincinnatus
Association fought to maintain the site
of the existing federal building, which
was located in the heart of the central
business district on Fifth Street (see
map 3). The Cincinnati Bar Association
took this stance because it wanted to
insure that the federal building, which
housed the federal court, would remain
conveniently located for its members,
many of whom had offices in the area
around Fifth Street. The Chamber of
Commerce, however, seemed motivated
primarily by a concern for maintaining
the viability of the commercial core
against the forces of northward
expansion. Taking another bent, the
Cincinnatus Association favored not only
keeping the existing site, but the
existing building as well, claiming that
the erection of a new building would
be a wasteful expenditure at that particular
moment in time. Members of the
association said that they took this
position in opposition to increased gov-
46. Cincinnati Times Star, July
7, 1931; July 23, 1932; November 18, 1932.
47. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, November 7, 1932, 337-38. For an expres-
sion of Hoover's support for city
planning, see U. S. Department of Commerce, A Standard
Planning Enabling Act, III-IV.
48. Cincinnati Enquirer, January
20, 1934.
170 OHIO HISTORY
ernmental spending in the throes of the
Great Depression, even if the expendi-
ture meant an improvement for their own
city. Two other organizations, the
Central Parkway Association and the Main
Street Merchants Association,
weighed into the fight with the hope of
locating the federal building on
Central Parkway, presumably to enhance
their own property interests.
Rounding out the mix of concerned
interests, the Cincinnati Building Trades
Council and the American Federation of
Labor went on record as supporting
the construction of a new federal
building regardless of location. Viewing the
proposed building as a kind of work
relief measure, labor just wanted to make
sure that it got built.49
As if the differences between organized
groups were not enough, a number
of local realty firms, operating under
the profit motive, entered the fray, with
each one offering property for sale to
the federal government. Their actions
greatly complicated the selection
process by adding to the number of proposed
sites, which reached ten at one point.50
More important, however, the in-
tense private competition among
realtors-which yielded much "lobbying and
backstairs stuff'-worked to obscure the
important public question of how
best to plan for the city's future.51
This, unsurprisingly, deeply troubled
the city planning commission, which
attempted to separate itself from all of
the dissension and interest group bick-
ering by announcing its desire to remain
objective, which meant that it would
not endorse or reject any particular
site without subjecting it to thorough
study. Besides the site recommended in
the city plan, only one of the other
proposed sites, the one which the
federal government had tentatively endorsed,
had been studied by the commission.
Since none of the other proposed sites
had been thoroughly examined, the
commission refrained from expressing an
opinion on them. Instead, it reiterated
its position in favor of the site sug-
gested by the city plan, which
represented the product of detailed studies con-
ducted by experts. The commission,
however, refused to rule out other pos-
sible locations so long as they too
withstood careful study.52
After three years of local conflict over
this matter, the planning commis-
sion attempted to break the logjam and
strike a note for comprehensive city
planning by calling for the restudy of
the city plan as it pertained to the loca-
tion of a civic center. The lack of
local support for the recommendations of
the city plan, as indicated by the
diversity of opinion over where to locate the
federal building and the main branch
library, worried the commission. It
thought that a new study might help
"establish public confidence" in the idea
49. Cincinnati Times Star, October
5, 1931; October 8, 1931; November 30, 1931; Cincinnati
Enquirer, November 8, 1932; Cincinnati Times Star, December
6, 1932; December 21, 1932;
City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, November 13, 1933, 383.
50. Cincinnati Times Star, October
5, 1931.
51. Cincinnati Times Star, November
18, 1932.
52. Cincinnati Times Star, January
9, 1933; Cincinnati Post, January 20, 1934.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 171 |
|
of creating a civic center,52 and perhaps enable the city to speak with one voice on the matter.53 In other words, the commission felt that a new study might provide a basis for cooperation between the various interested groups. But the commission also advocated restudy because local conditions seemed to
52. Cincinnati Enquirer, February 6, 1934. 53. One might argue that the planning commission's desire to unify public opinion paralleled its aims for the physical development of the city. Through the activity of city planning, the commission sought to coordinate the various aspects of urban development in order to achieve some sense of unity. |
172 OHIO
HISTORY
suggest that some of the projections of
the city plan needed reconsideration.
In particular, the commission had begun
to doubt that the city would experi-
ence the kind of growth envisioned in
the early 1920s, which had been a key
factor in determining the location for a
civic center.55
To make the study, the commission hired
Harland Bartholomew, a promi-
nent city planner from St. Louis.56
After four months of work, Bartholomew
presented the commission with a rather
inconclusive report in the fall of
1934. As two possible locations for a
civic center, Bartholomew suggested
(1) Fifth Street, east of Sycamore
Street, or (2) the eastern end of Central
Parkway near the Court House. But he
also recommended that neither loca-
tion be selected until they were
subjected to further study.57 This left the is-
sue of where to locate the civic center
unresolved, and the city would continue
to debate the matter into the 1940s.58
In the meantime, the federal govern-
ment erected a new federal building,
which was completed in 1939, on the site
of its predecessor.59
As the Cincinnati experience suggests,
the obstacles to plan implementa-
tion presented by non-municipal governing
bodies and special interest groups
presented significant problems for city
planning commissions during the
1920s and 1930s. Recognizing this, the
city planning commission of
Cincinnati tried to secure the
cooperation of county, state, and federal officials
by emphasizing the value of planning
and, more specifically, the importance
of adhering to the principles of
comprehensive city planning, which were
based on the assumption that the various
facets of the city's development
were interdependent and therefore must
be considered in relation to each other
and to the city as a whole. The city
planning commission also stressed that
the city plan, as the product of careful
studies made by experts, should be ac-
cepted as the appropriate guide for the
future development of the city. The
limited success of the city planning
commission, in a city that was renowned
for its commitment to planning,
highlighted the weaknesses of this ap-
55. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 2, February 5, 1934, 392; vol. 3, September 8,
1937, 241; Cincinnati Post, February 5, 1934, 1; City Planning Commission,
"Annual Report"
(1932), 4-5.
56. Cincinnati Post, January 20,
1934; City Planning Commission, "Minutes," vol. 2, May 23,
1934, 405; Cincinnati Enquirer, May
24, 1934; City Planning Commission, "Minutes," vol. 4,
April 11, 1938, 36.
57. Cincinnati Times Star, September
4, 1934; Cincinnati Enquirer, November
22, 1934; City
Planning Commission,
"Minutes," vol. 3, December 3, 1934, 24; Harland Bartholomew, "A
Public Buildings Group, Cincinnati,
Ohio," (1934), 19, 24, ABP, box 2, folder 8.
58. City Planning Commission,
"Minutes," September 23, 1935, 74-75: April 21, 1937, 201a-
201b; September 8, 1937, 241-42;
September 20, 1937, 244; March 7, 1938, 22; April 11, 1938,
34-36; April 11, 1945, 31-32.
59. Cincinnati Enquirer, November
13, 1934; Cincinnati Post, January 14, 1939. It should be
noted that those who favored the site of
the old federal building never rallied around the idea
of making a new civic center study. See,
Cincinnati Enquirer, March 31, 1934.
Obstacles to Plan Implementation 173
proach.60
But we should not forget that the
problem of plan implementation was per-
ceived and defined as such because it
interfered with the aims of comprehen-
sive city planning, which dominated the
planning discourse during the second
quarter of the twentieth century. By the
1950s, however, comprehensive city
planning itself began to be identified
as a problem or potential problem by
critics, both inside and outside of the
planning profession, who questioned the
advisability of trying to direct almost
every aspect of city development on the
basis of "scientific" studies
made by experts, a concern that seemed to be
rooted in fears about the imposition of
uniformity and the loss of individual-
ity via the exercise of central
authority. As the president of the American
Institute of Planners, John T. Howard,
put it in 1955, "'comprehensive plan-
ning'-that is, looking at the entire
structure of society and seeking to coor-
dinate planned improvements in all the
parts that are not perfect... may well
be not only impossible, but dangerous to
attempt, because of the serious risk
of endangering that essential aim, the
dignity-which includes freedom-of
the individual."61
As a result of this shift in thinking,
the problem of plan implementation,
as it had manifested itself during the
1920s, 30s, and 40s, was superceded by a
new problem, the problem of plan
imposition, which yielded a discourse of
its own. Out of that discourse, critics
of comprehensive city planning began
to stress that planning ought to address
the desires and concerns of the com-
munity as determined, not by experts,
but by the individuals who lived and
worked in the city's various
neighborhoods and districts. This view, more-
over, ushered in a new mode of city
planning which tended to focus on indi-
vidual neighborhoods and districts, as
opposed to the city as a whole, and on
the facilitation of the maximum feasible
participation of all concerned parties
in the planning process.62
60. Hubbard and Hubbard, Our Cities
To-Day and To-Morrow, 37-32; Scott, American City
Planning Since 1890, 253-54.
61. John T. Howard, "The Planner in
a Democratic Society--A Credo," Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 21 (Spring-Summer, 1955), 53.
62. Howard W. Hallman, "Citizens
and Professionals Reconsider the Neighborhood,"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 25 (August 1959), 126-27;
Coleman Woodbury,
ed., The Future of Cities and Urban
Redevelopment (Chicago, 1953), 296-97, 427-38, 452;
Bettie B. Sarchet and Eugene D. Wheeler,
"Behind Neighborhood Plans: Citizens at Work,"
Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 24 (1958), 187-88, 193-95;
Scott, American City
Planning Since 1890, 525, 599 629-31; Zane L. Miller, "The Role and the
Concept of
Neighborhood in American Cities,"
in Robert Fisher and Peter Romanofsky, eds., Community
Organization for Urban Social Change (Westport, Conn., 1981), 21-24; John Clayton Thomas,
Between Citizen and City:
Neighborhood Organizations and Urban Politics in Cincinnati
(Lawrence, Kans., 1986), 28; Fairbanks, Making
Better Citizens, 176; Robert A. Burnham,
"The Divided Metropolis:
Subdivision Control and the Demise of Comprehensive Metropolitan
Planning in Hamilton County, Ohio,
1929-1953," Planning Perspectives, 6 (January, 1991),
59-60.
ROBERT A. BURNHAM
Obstacles to Plan Implementation in the
Age of Comprehensive City Planning:
Cincinnati's Experience
During the period from roughly 1915 to
1945, when city planning became
institutionalized in the United States,
efforts to rationalize the city through
comprehensive city planning often met
with only measured success.1 This
stemmed, in part, from the nature of
planning itself in that planning, at one
level, was just that, planning, a vision
to guide the future development of the
city. Realizing the city plan
represented a very different matter, one that ne-
cessitated overcoming an often
mind-boggling array of obstacles: city council
members or administrators who lacked a
strong commitment to planning,
competing interest groups that viewed
planning from the perspective of their
own special concerns, and budgets that
did not match the aspirations of city
planners. Although troublesome, these
problems were not what one might
call structural, as were those presented
by non-municipal governing bodies,
which included the county, state, and
federal governments. Because their au-
thority did not derive from, or
superceded, city government, these units of
government could ignore the
recommendations of local city planning com-
missions when making decisions about the
design or location of county,
state, or federal improvement projects.
This created special difficulties for
city planning commissions trying to
uphold the basic principles of
comprehensive city planning, which sought to
secure the welfare of the city as a
whole while simultaneously viewing it as a
pluralistic entity composed of separate
but equal and interdependent parts,
groups, and systems. This perceived
interdependence meant that planning for
one aspect of the city's physical
development would necessitate a thorough
consideration of its relationship to all
others, or what planners called
"coordination," a key concept
in comprehensive city planning. Having
adopted such notions, city planners were
made uneasy by the thought of the
federal government or a county or state
government going forward with a pro-
ject affecting a particular city without
the advice of the local city planning
Robert A. Burnham is Assistant Professor
of History at Macon College.
1. For an assessment of the success of
city planning through the 1930s, see Robert A.
Walker, The Planning Function in
Urban Government (Chicago, 1941), ix, 133, 135-36, 153-
57.