Zoning for Aesthetic Objectives: A Reappraisal

Abstract

Zoning for aesthetic objectives is a perplexing problem.According to traditional doctrine the community may not use the police power to accomplish primarily aesthetic objectives, but planners and lawyers have long had serious doubts whether in fact this doctrine describes what courts have done in the past in approving ordinances, whether it may be used to predict what they will do in the future, and whether it states a desirable norm for decision.The problem has been rather fully explored elsewhere along lines of traditional legal analysis, 1 and in view of the previous studies perhaps a more fruitful contribution can be made here by looking at the problem and the doctrine from a different perspective.The primary object of this article will be to examine contemporary doctrine as an instrument of community policy and to focus attention upon its adequacy as an implement of the sound judicial skepticism from which it emanates.As will appear, the dearth of good empirical studies in the field of aesthetics seriously impedes the full consideration of many facets of the problem of zoning for aesthetic objectives, and the ideas and conclusions expressed herein are not comprehensively developed.Many of the ideas and conclusions also are tentative and subject to exception, although expressed without qualification.It is hoped, however, that this article will stimulate more thinking about the types of aesthetic control rational land planning requires, which is the basic issue. THE ExIsrNG CONFUSIONThe usual statement of doctrine is that the police power cannot be used to accomplish purely aesthetic' objectives, but that aesthetic objectives may be taken