Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1937-05-09
Protection for Civic
Esthetic Values
BY FREDERIC J. HASKIN.

protection to esthetic values. With
scanty exceptions existing laws &C not
recognize such values as having any
legal standing, and it has been only by
varying laws pertaining to police power
and public health to fit particular cases
that protection has been accorded
against unsightly structures or unde-
sirable uses Of property.
Americans cling to the old idea OF
English law that a mans house is his
castle and that the land he owns is his
peculiar domain to do with as he pleases.
The result has been that, over most of
the country, esthetic values have been
ignored. One may find an unscreened
junk yard next to a handsome church
and there has been little to do about it.
The attitude OF the legislatures and,
for the most part, OF the courts has been
that such problems should be attacked
through education, civic pride, voluntary
organization work and similar effort,
but not through the medium of law.
That may be all very well so far as some
people are concerned-indeed,p probably,
so far as most people Of given COM
munities are concerned-but, 1t appears,
there nearly always is some non-co-opera-
tive, recalcitrant property owner who
insists upon maintaining what is an
esthetic nuisance to the detriment of
an entire neighborhood.
1t may be cited that most cities OF
any size now have coming ordinances.
But these are only partially effective.
They declare that certain sections shall
be confined to residential use, that GER
tain types Of trade or business can be
carried on in certain sections and that
manufacturing shall be carried on only
in certain locations. This is a long step,
but it falls far short of covering the
case. Even in these Zoning ordinances,
the esthetic values are not controlling.
While it may be stated that a certain
section shall be wholly residential, there
often is nothing to govern what kind
Of residences shall be erected. Nothing
can control the size Of the house, what
color it is painted, what material is
employed or the manner of the landscap-
ing about it. Theoretically, a man could
erect a residential tent of unsightly APP
pearance on lot in residential district
and still be within the ordinance.
1t is true that, in laying out suburban
subdivisions of land, the exploiting
owners have sought to restrict the cost OF
houses to minimum which would not
permit huts or novels to be built. Some
attempts have been made to provide that
designs shall conform to a general type
as, for example, in an English village or
. Colonial village. There has always
been some doubt about the validity Of
these restrictions. When a man has
bought and paid for parcel of land
and it is decided to him in fee simple,
it has proved difficult to get the courts
to narrow the use to which he can put
what is his land. In the case of long
term lease, the matter is altered-the
title has not passed. This difficulty is
probably the chief reason why there
now is pressure for legislation which
would make restrictions binding.
In Washington the Federal Govern
ment has established the National Com
mission Of Fine Arts. No public edifce
can be erected until the location and
design have been passed upon by this
commission. The jurisdiction extends
even to small monuments, fountains,
public garden ornaments and, to con.
siderable extent, to landscaping. In
practice, private builders of Office build
lngs, stores. hotels and auditoriums have
bespoken the good Offices Of the Fine
Arts Commission in guiding their pro-
posed designs, to the end that there
shall be no conflict with the harmony
of nearby public structures
1t is the belief of the proponents Of
the plan for legislation that it is entirely
feasible for municipalities or other local
governments to delegate definite, en-
forcible powers to similar commissions.
Where junk yards, lumber yards or other
unsightly places already are in existence,
it might be possible to resort to con-
demnation proceedings, not necessarily
against the property itself, but against
the current use of the property
One cannot discuss such program
without reference to two great admin
istrators who, by unusual force of char
acter, pushed through their civic beauti-
f1cation schemes in the face of popular
clamor. In 1854 Congress gave authority
for the carrying out of the original
plans Of Major l'Enfant for the city of
Washington. When Alexander R. Shop
herd became Governor OF the District
of Columbia he determined that the
work should be done. While the streets
had been fully charted by lEnfant,
citizens had ignored the plan. Houses
had been built on sites which were in
the middle of projected streets. The
streets themselves meandered like COW
paths. The Governor condemned right
and left and became SO unpopular that
he was mobbed and hung in effgy. But
he accomplished the task and later
generation erected monument to him,
At almost exactly the same time the
Baron Haussmann became project of
the Seine and undertook to improve
Paris. His experience was similar to
that OF Governor Shepherd. He laid
out the Bots de Boulogne. He cut
through the gardens behind the Luxem-
bourg to build the Boulevard de Sepas-
topol and the Boulevard St. Michel He
drove q street right through a convent
and an ancient cemetery. He RACED
houses and aroused fury But when the
work was done he had a monument in
the shape of the Boulevard Haussmann.
In both cases the ruthless programs
resulted in the creation of two of the
most beautiful cities in the world.
An example of how other laws are
warped to meet the need of laws for
the protection of beauty is found in
suit against the New York Highways
Department brought by an outdoor bill
board company. The department had
just completed q highway through scenic
country. The billboard company had
erected 4 huge sign at point where it
obscured An unusually fne view. The
sign was on private property and nothing