Ohio History Journal

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thority did not derive from, or superceded, city government, these units of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.

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.

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.

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.