1922: Atlanta releases it defiantly explicit racial zoning plan five years after the Supreme Court bans candor. Robert Whitten, consultant, leads the charge babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.… 
Racial zoning is being sold by fears of “destruction” by less clearly racial threats like grocery stores and medical care
Here is the full roster, Mayor Key presides. He is finishing his second term and this effort, which includes the creation of Atlanta’s Planning Commission is the only project of his I can quickly find from this period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._…
But why are we burning all this time and money to challenge Buchanan v. Warley? They have prepared five reasons, one for each finger on your hand. Let's count them together.
Ooh, some nice zoning gore right on the first page. This is bad. This is supposed to scare you.
ONE. Imagine a fictional male mechanic, a gardening enthusiast, with little savings and a hatred for grocery stores. DOOM. A grocery store opens next door so "all the homes in the block are depreciated in value". "This nice quiet home section has been ruined"
TWO. Mr. Smith buys a home next to an empty lot and has strange ideas about children and plants. DOOM. An apartment building opens next door so "the value of Mr. Smith's home is practically destroyed" and the "quiet and comfort of the entire block...has been largely destroyed"
THREE. A wealthy man builds many apartment buildings around an empty lot he doesn't own. DOOM. The owner builds a "public garage" there and the storage of motor vehicles "makes the entire block undesirable for residential purposes...an enormous loss to the owners"
FOUR. Imagine a large area with many small homes and one empty lot in the center. DOOM. Noisy ice plant! "Property values fall...the area becomes blighted...spoiled for residence use"
FIVE. A ten story building is allowed in the city. You're not scared yet. DOOM. A taller building is allowed next door, making it "darkened" and requiring "artificial light throughout the entire day" so the first building is "rentable only at a fraction of the former amounts".
Don't you want to be "substantial looking"? Talk to your neighbors about zoning for height limits today.
Interesting, a lot of material here is borrowed from Whitten's previous work in Cleveland, OH. I really need to read that, I'm guessing it's pretty awful.
I like that St. Louis is called out by Atlanta as an especially bad example of planning and the need for zoning. St. Louis had one of the oldest zoning ordinances in the country and the first comprehensive exclusionary zoning under Harland Bartholomew.
Nice acknowledgement of the influence of restrictive real estate covenants on the development of racial zoning here
Remember kids, the best time to ban all apartments, all private motor vehicle storage, and all stores of any kind from cities is before they are built. The threat must be exterminated proactively. This is war.
Nice quote from the New York City zoning plan to make the case for racial zoning here.
More zoning gore from Atlanta. The destruction is total.
There will be two residence districts to maintain Atlanta as "a city of homes". The much larger U1 district will allow single family and duplex homes. The smaller U2 district allows apartment houses which "drive out the private homes"
Not until page ten do we get this section. I'm surprised by Whitten's restraint, I was expecting him to be much more aggressive.
Here we meet some familiar characters. R1 zoning is whites only. Today R1 zoning is by far the most popular and successful zoning category in the US, synonymous with privilege, prestige, and high cost.
But why is explicit racial zoning necessary in the United States in 1922, five years after it was banned by the Supreme Court? "public peace, order, and security". Don't worry, these segregationists will "prevent discrimination", there's plenty of space "without encroaching"
There is a (presumably much smaller) zoning category that does allow stores to exist, but this still bans the storage of private motor vehicles since that land use is so injurious to commercial property values, producing noise and congestion that harm business.
I'm surprised to see the industrial zoning category's discussion of "industrial housing" and the "industrial population". I believe this is worker housing, what would be called tenements. Today this is often the only zoning where more affordable developments are permitted.
Cemeteries are allowed by right nowhere in Atlanta, presumably to manage ghost nuisances.
Like Charlottesville, most of Atlanta is capped at 35 feet in height. Why 35? They refuse to say, but I have Google and I know it is because "The number 35 is a number of motivation, creativity and imagination, adventure, vision and opportunity." sacredscribesangelnumbers.blogspot.com/2011/06/angel-….
I'm kidding of course, there's no reason. It's just a magic placeholder number with no logical basis or legal merit, rounded to five because we have five fingers.
There is some explanation of why no building over 150 feet should be allowed in Atlanta again, since the seven buildings already there over that height cause "absolutely disastrous" street congestion. This would make a much better Eiffel Tower, someone should tell Paris.
In addition to the obvious benefits to traffic management from banning tall buildings, this is also a way of creating real estate scarcity, driving commercial rates up and forcing "high grade shopping" to expand out of central areas. We'll be rich!
More zoning propaganda from Cleveland
Again we are copying from NYC, which has proven that no more high buildings should be allowed in cities, since they force the use of costly "artificial light" which creates "enormous economic loss"
In addition to explicit racial zoning, they're also stacking on more exclusionary zoning to backstop it, mandating 5000 square foot minimum lot sizes per family in A1 floating zones to raise housing costs.
This is one of the four key tools Whitten proposed in 1918 as replacements to maintain racial segregation after explicit racial zoning was banned. Atlanta got the best consultant they could for this task.
I find it refreshing how frank Whitten is about banning the classic shopfront with homes above we idolize today. He hates it, it's banned. I'm guessing the concern here is that allowing mixed use stores will promote race mixing in otherwise segregated areas.
Interesting, Whitten is using minimum lot sizes to ensure building homes in the heaviest industrial areas is "uneconomic". He understands the purpose and uses of minimum lot sizes to manipulate housing costs because it's his idea.
More zoning gore. The value of these apartments is destroyed by private vehicle storage, which should have been banned.
There's some discussion of side setbacks, the empty space mandated between buildings by the government. The intent here is to ensure access to light and ventilation, which are costly to provide artificially in 1922
