Reading Reflection

profileamydangg
Week3.pdf

ZONING AND LAND USE: A TALE OF INCOMPATIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN EARLY PHOENIX

ABIGAIL YORK, JOSEPH TUCCILLO, CHRISTOPHER BOONE, BOB BOLIN, LAUREN GENTILE, BRIAR SCHOON, and KEVIN KANE

Arizona State University

ABSTRACT: Little attention has been paid to the role of early land use institutions in development pat- terns, the creation of disamenity zones of environmental injustice, and the promotion of space-consuming suburban development. This study uses historic Sanborn Fire Insurance maps and spatial analytic tech- niques to expose zoning’s tendency to spread disamenities and disperse incompatible land uses in early Phoenix. While on paper Euclidean zoning’s stratification of land uses in Phoenix promotes progressive ideals for reduction of blight and improvement of city health, analysis at a finer scale using Sanborn maps reveals that zoning decisions in Phoenix tended to promote the expansion of fragmented land uses, especially disamenity zones that targeted poor minority neighborhoods. Zoning encouraged the expansion of industry while attracting residents to newly developed suburbs with guaranteed protection from blight.

Booming cities founded largely on speculation, boosterism, and a zeal for growth emerged in the U.S. West during the late nineteenth century. Little attention has been paid to the role of early land use institutions in development patterns, the creation of disamenity zones of environmental injus- tice, and the promotion of space-consuming suburban development. Phoenix, Arizona, a prominent southwestern boom city, adopted Euclidian zoning as a means of beautification, protection of prop- erty values, removal of nuisance land uses, and encouragement of more efficient industry (Arizona Republican, 1922a, b; Larsen & Alameddin, 2007). In this study, we explore the differential impacts of early twentieth century zoning on a booming U.S. city. Using extant literature that highlights zoning regulations impacts on development, we focus on a historic case and the issues surrounding environmental inequalities and land use patterns.

Though the pattern zoning rules established affected many dimensions of urban life—access, connection, proximity, and so on—these effects were gradually lost sight of. Regulations were applied as if floating in space somewhere, with little thought about their overall arrangement or pattern, how one zone fits with another, how they collectively create patterns, and how, in aggregate, they can produce congested cores or peripheral wastelands. (Talen, 2011, pp. 57–58)

Drawing from Talen’s argument, we investigate the impact of zoning in Phoenix at its most seemingly organized, hierarchical state: from the city’s adoption of its first zoning ordinance in 1930 to the early stages of the post–World War II era. Rather than assess the spatial organization of zones themselves, we empirically analyze changes in land use heterogeneity and incompatibility at the sub-parcel scale. Using Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to examine land use coverage of early Phoenix pre-zoning (1915) and post-zoning (1949), we determine which zones were prone to land

Direct correspondence to: Abigail York, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, PO 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402. E-mail: [email protected].

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 36, Number 5, pages 833–853. Copyright C© 2014 Urban Affairs Association All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0735-2166. DOI: 10.1111/juaf.12076

834 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

use fragmentation and which were largely homogeneous. In order to better understand the impact of zoning, we also briefly highlight the experiences of two comparable cities that did not zone land use during the early wave of Euclidian zoning adoption: Houston and Albuquerque.

We couple spatial metrics with literature on environmental justice and city efforts at economic development (boosterism) to understand the aggregate land use patterns in historic Phoenix. Utilizing a fishnet approach adapted from physical geography (Liao & Tim, 1994; Wang & Cui, 2005), we generate the spatial metrics and then focus on four “hot spots” of land use heterogeneity and incompatibility to determine the processes that generate fragmented land use at a micro-level. Sanborn maps have been used in other studies to demonstrate the importance of “geographies of the past” at the street level (Sauder, 1980) and have provided block-level detail to better understand environmental justice issues (Kolodziej et al., 2004). We are unaware, however, of any previous use to analyze historic land use institutions. A methodological contribution of this study is the combination of qualitative literature analysis with spatial analysis of historic land use coverages using techniques developed in physical geography. Our study demonstrates that increases in heterogeneity and incompatibility of land use during the early twentieth century are fueled in part by zoning codes. These land use changes increased exposure to hazards in minority and low-income neighborhoods while decreasing these risks in the emerging affluent suburbs.

EXTANT LITERATURE

Our empirical analysis of early land use and zoning in Phoenix rests upon qualitative historical analysis of urban landscapes and environmental justice studies. Qualitative urban histories provide understanding of how and why specific land use practices occur and persist in urban space and reveal the ways institutional forms of racism—in the guises of residential segregation, deed restrictions, zoning and land use practices, housing codes, and the placement of urban infrastructure—produce persistent environmental inequalities (Bolin, Grineski, & Collins, 2005; Boone, 2002; Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2000; Harvey, 1996; Holifield, 2001; Pulido, 2000). Holifield (2001, p. 85) claims that these case studies “have been more successful than longitudinal studies in exposing the complex geographic processes that generate patterns of [environmental] inequality.”

Environmental justice studies, in turn, demonstrate how low-income and minority communities are often disproportionately burdened by hazardous and unhealthy environmental conditions (Bolin et al., 2002; Buzzelli, 2007; Grineski, Bolin, & Boone, 2007; Grineski, Staniswalis, & Peng, 2010; Mennis & Jordan, 2005; Sicotte, 2008). Race and class are deeply imbricated in the production of urban spaces: they confer environmental benefits on affluent suburban residents while burdening inner-city residents with environmental hazards (Pulido, 2000). While the first generation of environmental justice research focused largely on issues of distributional equity in cross-sectional studies (Walker, 2009), scholars soon turned their attention to, among other things, the historical production of spaces of injustice in cities (Bolin et al., 2005; Boone & Modarres, 1999; Pellow & Park, 2002; Pulido, 2000; Pulido, Sidawi, & Vos, 1996). We assess the history and impact of zoning in Phoenix as the intersection of these two literatures.

Zoning was established as a means of promoting urban order and healthfulness by policing nuisance and hazardous land uses. City governments and boosters alike embraced the ability to curb nuisance land uses in congested areas, prevent neighborhood blight, maximize commercial profit, and address hazards of urban industrial activities while simultaneously maintaining their functionality (Lord & Norquist, 2010; Pollard, 1931; Rudel, 1989; Talen, 2011). In 1916, New York City was the first to adopt a zoning ordinance in an attempt to address incompatible land use siting, factory pollution, congestion, overcrowding, and restricted sunlight from urban dwellings (Revell, 1999). Zoning quickly took hold throughout the country and by 1929 nearly 800 cities had developed their own zoning ordinances (Talen, 2011).

Zoning was driven by the need to protect people from incompatible land uses, but it had another powerful agenda—to protect residential property values through racial and class segregation. Prior to local legislation in the form of zoning ordinances, direct racial segregation of property ownership using racial zones had persisted in the United States until the 1916 Buchanan v. Warley Supreme

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 835

Court Case, in the wake of which it was quickly replaced by neighborhood associations’ racially restrictive deeds and covenants. Early adoption of Euclidean zoning—the most historically preva- lent zoning framework—permitted the neighborhood associations, and associated restrictive deeds and covenants, to thrive, limiting housing options for minorities in new residential districts while continuing to uphold expansion of new, sprawling neighborhoods throughout the 1920s and 1930s (Buckley & Boone, 2011).

Equating order and efficiency with the rigid separation of neighborhoods and land uses, Eu- clidean zoning initially partitioned cities into sets of single-use sectors. Early zoning ordinances focused largely on the promotion and expansion of racially restrictive single-family neighborhoods on the periphery, concentration of commercial activity in the city core, and development of industry in historically depressed or deteriorated areas (Hall, 2007). Protection of single-family neighbor- hoods through minimum lot sizes and building material codes, in addition to restricting multi-family residential development, established neighborhoods that limited not only social but also economic ac- cessibility (Hall, 2007; Hughes & Vandoren, 1990). Access to protected single-family neighborhoods was further limited through racially restrictive covenants, which remained legal and enforceable until Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).

Planning philosophies associated with the Euclidean zoning framework treated residential density—a common trait of cities’ older, less advantaged districts—as a social ill. The 1926 Supreme Court ruling in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. voiced the widespread belief that “the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district” (p. 394). Limited mobility and loose protection of low-income classes and minorities, legitimized by zoning ordinances, con- tributed to community fragmentation of typically multi-family residential districts near urban cores. Though neighboring commercial and residential zones in these areas appear to connect residents with urban amenities, permissiveness of nuisance land uses in commercial zones—among them au- tomotive services, warehousing, and wholesale—and the allowance of large car lots on commercial properties created a disconnect between urban residents and services (Hall, 2007; Ohm & Sitkowski, 2003; Talen, 2011). Zoning ordinances allowed low-income neighborhoods to persist near or within light industrial zones, continuing to expose citizens to environmental hazards as industries thrived (Lord & Norquist, 2010).

This study advances historical environmental justice research by examining spatial and institutional practices that created what is today a region of chronic underdevelopment, poverty, and minority neighborhoods in Phoenix, Arizona. We apply a mixed-methods approach that pairs analysis of land use in a geographic information systems (GIS) environment—utilizing spatial methods borrowed from physical geography applications—with qualitative histories of Phoenix to identify “hot spots” of disamenity and incongruent land uses and to understand how these patterns developed.

STUDY SITE

Unlike most southwestern cities, Phoenix was established as an Anglo settlement, displacing no existent Native American or Latino communities (Bolin et al., 2005). As such, early boosters envisioned Phoenix as an Anglo desert utopia, in spite of the fact that the early city was built with immigrant and minority labor and increasingly beckoned migrants from all races to the thriving settlement. As ethnic minorities began settling in Phoenix, residential segregation and unregulated environmental conditions in minority areas became common. In 1890 and 1891, flooding of the Salt River inundated settlements in the low-lying areas south of Phoenix, prompting the northward migration of Anglos to less flood prone areas increasing racial and ethnic segregation.

Phoenix’s racial divide grew as Anglo neighborhoods expanded north of downtown and a zone of mixed minority housing and industrial land uses developed to the south between central Phoenix and the Salt River (Bolin et al., 2005; Gober, 2004). Critical in the delineation of a racialized north-south divide in Phoenix was the establishment of an east-west railroad corridor south of downtown in 1887, later to become Phoenix’s transcontinental link with the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1926 (Bolin et al., 2005; Luckingham, 1989). By the early twentieth century, minorities were sequestered in an

836 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

FIGURE 1

Overview of Case Study Area With 1949 Phoenix Street Grid

area of mixed land uses south of the railroad corridor, an area known locally as South Phoenix. The railroad became critical for urban growth in Phoenix, providing access to markets for farm production and for a burgeoning tourism industry by the 1920s. The railroad anchored a region of industrial land uses and minority residences in an environment that was increasingly degraded by a lack of urban infrastructure and proliferation of mixed industrial and warehousing activities (Bolin et al., 2005; Luckingham, 1989). The establishment of a second rail connection in 1891, the Santa Fe Railroad, that followed 19th Avenue towards Grand Avenue (Figure 1) further promoted heterogeneous land uses west of the central business district (CBD) (Luckingham, 1989; Myrick, 1980).

In the early twentieth century, the small boomtown adopted a series of Progressive Era reforms, shifting power to more affluent, business interests. In 1913, Phoenix adopted a commission–city manager form of government and at-large districts. Previously, Phoenix had been “divided into four wards, the dividing lines being Central Avenue and Washington Street. . . . Wards 3 and 4 were located in South Phoenix, while the more affluent, more populous Wards 1 and 2 were located north of Washington Street” (Luckingham, 1989, p. 67). Supporters of the new charter believed that the new commission–city manager system would be more efficient and less factionalized and would “help take politics out of City Hall and improve the management of municipal affairs” (Luckingham, 1989, p. 68). According to the dominant interests of the time, another significant benefit to the new system was that more people would be elected from the north side of Phoenix (more affluent, more white) and put the government in the “right hands,” thus limiting the political power of the less affluent, less populous (less white) part of the city (Luckingham, 1989).

Shortly thereafter, Phoenix’s push towards a more efficient city government and management system reflected a new emphasis on city planning as a means to tailor progress through beautification of the physical environment. Influential City Beautiful proponent Frederick Law Olmsted believed that city planning stood for a “growing appreciation of a city’s organic unity, of the interdependence of its diverse elements, and of the profound and inexorable manner in which the future of this great organic unit is controlled by the actions and omissions of today” (Olmsted, 1916, p. 1). Phoenix’s

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 837

civic leaders wished to emulate eastern planning and City Beautification efforts. Beginning in 1920, Arizona Republican newspaper reports discuss the key elements of the resolution, which involve architecture, landscape, occupancy, and transit improvements (Arizona Republican, 1920a, p. 3). The Chamber of Commerce advocated for a city planning commission that would work alongside an expert city planner to develop and build Phoenix along “scientific lines,” developing a manufacturing district, landing field for aircraft, and organizing the streetcar system and roads. As might be expected, the Chamber prioritized industrial interests: “The basis of any city is its industry, the thing which provides a living for its people. The developing industries of Phoenix must be taken into vital consideration” (Arizona Republican, 1920b, p. 14).

The city of Phoenix hired acclaimed City Beautiful movement planner Edward F. Bennett, creator of Chicago’s famous 1909 Plan, to design a plan for Phoenix. On July 3, 1920, the Arizona Republi- can (1920c, p. 9) announced the tentative agreement between the City of Phoenix and Bennett (p. 9). Bennett’s City Beautiful plan included a series of elements: highways, streets, land use, beautification through park development, and occupancy zoning. Despite the comprehensive scope of Bennett’s plan, resource allocation decisions largely targeted development of water and transportation infras- tructure, and a revolving door of city managers prevented the plan from actually being executed. But the concerns and interests captured within the plan persisted, ultimately leading to the adoption of the 1930 Zoning Code.

As Phoenix’s homebuilding industry expanded in the 1920s, wealthy homeowners began to enthusi- astically embrace the concept of zoning, presenting a rhetoric that emphasized investment protection: “Alone, [zoning] is no universal panacea for all municipal ills, but as part of a larger program it pays the city and the citizens a quicker return than any other form of the civic improvement” (Arizona Republican, 1922a). Zoning was used as a means to prevent the spread of “blighted districts,” defined as areas where the encroachment of nuisances and hazards caused residents to lose confidence in the future of their neighborhoods. The most blighted districts were minority areas south of the railroad. The Arizona Republican (1922b) highlighted effects on property owners, claiming that flight from “blighted districts” caused enormous economic losses and taxpayer burdens.

Under Phoenix’s 1930 zoning ordinance, the highest protections were provided to single and two-family residential neighborhoods. General commercial and light industrial districts, separated from new suburbs that were exclusively residential, continued to incorporate all other higher order land uses, such as single-family and multi-family residences (Phoenix City Commission, 1939). Phoenix’s Euclidean zoning overlooked older neighborhoods surrounding the CBD, while providing protection to the city’s burgeoning homebuilding industry and preserving the homogeneity of newly constructed white suburbs (Bolin et al., 2005).

METHODS

To examine the impact of Euclidean zoning on land use incompatibility, we overlaid the 1930 zoning map with a land use coverage built from Sanborn maps and explored how the restrictiveness of particular zones protected some areas of the city while simultaneously increasing the vulnerability of others to environmental injustice. To assess the impact of zoning on land use, we classified land use at the parcel level using Sanborn maps for 1915 and 1949 (available from ProQuest Digital Sanborn Maps database). From this, we created a 1/40-mile resolution grid (a fishnet), determined the lowest and highest order land uses within each grid cell, and overlaid the results upon a map of zoning designations. We constrained our case study area to the extent of the 1915 Sanborn series, an area of approximately four square miles (10.4 km2), in order to isolate the development trends and land use transitions occurring in the urban core. We then derived land use classifications at the parcel scale for the years 1915 and 1949, building upon existing applications of Sanborn maps in GIS for landscape history assessments, in which building footprints and parcels are digitized and categorized by land use type to form sequential site histories (Berry, 2003; City of Fort Collins, 2002). We mapped parcels from the Sanborn maps and categorized them using sixteen unique land use types reflective of the 1930 zoning types in Phoenix (Table 1), an approach building upon Sauder’s (1980) block-by-block characterization of the Boston waterfront.

838 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

TABLE 1

Land Use Categories and Reclassification

Reclassification Original Classification Examples

Vacant/Parking Vacant Vacant parcels, parcels subdivided for residential use, parcels containing vacant or damaged structures

Parking Surface parking lots General Residential Single and two-Family dwellings Multifamily Apartments, boarding houses, lodgings,

tenements, shanties Residential Community Residential Churches, schools, parks, lodges/clubs

Domestic Livestock/Agriculture

Home stables, nurseries, gardens

Mixed (conforming) Mixed residential and restricted (non-nuisance) commercial uses

Commercial/ Institutional

Commercial Retail, restaurants, hotels/motels, offices, neighborhood groceries, health services

Institutional Government offices, public services, armories, hospitals

Livestock/Agriculture Livery and feed stables, corrals, breeding stables, veterinary hospitals

Intermediate Commercial

Paint shops, blacksmiths, laundry and dry cleaning, oil storage

Nuisance Light Industrial Warehouses, wholesale suppliers, lumberyards, scrap yards, transport distribution facilities, light manufacturing, repair, and maintenance facilities

Automotive Automotive services, sales lots, and standalone parking garages

Mixed (nonconforming) Mixed residential and nuisance uses Hazard Railroad Rail yards and railroad tracks occupying

dedicated parcels or street frontages Industrial Planing and flour mills, industrial steam

laundries, ice manufacturing and cold storage, chemical storage and manufacturing, steel manufacturing, electric power stations and transformer yards, iron works

Next, we grouped our original land use classifications into five scored categories, using a general- ized version of Phoenix’s original zoning designations: vacant/parking, residential, commercial and institutional, nuisance (light industrial and automotive), and hazard (heavy industrial and railroad) (Figures 2 and 3). Land uses were ranked according to the degree of detriment posed to residential communities, similar to the criteria employed in Kolodziej et al.’s (2004) Boston study, in which industrial sites identified on Sanborn maps were ranked ordinally by their toxins’ propensities to remain soil-bound. Light industrial land uses, for example, may increase the presence of heavy trucks (Pollard, 1931), while parking lots are directly related to nearby commercial uses.

Our aggregation of heterogeneous land use data by fishnets is a modification of methods employed in physical landscape studies. Studies in watershed management, in particular, have made significant use of fishnets as means of aggregating fine-resolution elevation data to model slopes, sediment loads, and soil erosion (Liao & Tim, 1994; Wang & Cui, 2005). Due to irregularities in Phoenix’s street grid, two 1/20-mile (80.5 meter) resolution fishnets were used to capture interaction effects both within blocks and along corridors, rather than capturing land use interactions with a block/corridor bias. These were intersected, resulting in a final 1/40-mile grid cell size.

For each 1/20-mile cell we determined the highest range interactions (Table 1); for exam- ple, cells containing institutional, commercial, nuisance, and hazard uses were categorized as

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 839

FIGURE 2

Reclassified Parcel-Level Land Use, 1915

“commercial/institutional-hazard.” We developed this method based on the logic of Euclidian zoning with its hierarchy of uses. The two fishnets for each metric were then intersected to create the final 1/40-mile resolution grid for each year. To populate each grid cell, we compared the interaction types from the two parent fishnets and selected the lower order interaction, which prevented overgeneral- ization of presumed risk from nuisances and hazards, particularly in cases of isolated nuisance/hazard parcels within majority residential districts. We calculated the cell counts and trends for land use interactions focusing on homogeneity, compatibility, nuisances, and hazards.

Next, we examined the trends of land use change and change in land use interactions. Generalized zoning maps were overlaid with the land use interaction maps to investigate the role of zoning policy in the development and change of land use and land use interactions during the study period. We calculated trends and counts for land use interactions among the five primary zoning classifications: general residential, multi-family residential, commercial/institutional, light industrial, and heavy industrial.

RESULTS

Euclidian zoning attempts to protect residential, particularly single-family residential, uses and separate these from other uses. Yet, during our study period, there was a 17.6% decrease of homoge- neous use. There was an increase in both the number of compatible—or what we might term mixed uses—by 379.2% and nuisance interactions by 121.8% (Table 2).

We did observe a substantial decrease in residential exposure to hazards; 104 cells with residential- hazard interactions indicated that zoning did facilitate protection of some neighborhoods. There was an increase in commercial-institutional and hazard interactions by 14 cells during the same time pe- riod. Predictably, a sharp loss of 495 vacant cells occurred between 1915 and 1949 as Phoenix

840 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

FIGURE 3

Reclassified Parcel-Level Land Use, 1949

TABLE 2

Change in Land Use Interactions and Disamenity Types

1915 1949 (% area) (% area) % Change Disamenity Type % Change

Homogeneous 77.30% 63.60% −17.60% Homogenous-compatible −1.00% Compatible 3.40% 16.20% 379.20% Commercial and

Institutional-Nuisance 0.80% 3.60% 377.40%

Residential-Nuisance 6.80% 13.10% 93.30% Nuisance 121.80% Commercial and

Institutional-Hazard 0.20% 0.40% 87.50%

Residential-Hazard 3.10% 1.60% −47.50% Hazard −38.30% Vacant 7.90% 0.80% 89.40% Excluded NA

expanded. The increased compatible, commercial/institutional-nuisance, and commercial/ institutional-hazard interactions during this time period suggest the expansion of commercial land use types throughout residential and disamenity zones alike. Likewise, the expansion of the residential zones in the vacant cells through the building of new suburbs concurrent with commercial develop- ment further fuels the growth of compatible cells via the development of vacant land (Figure 4).

For 1915, areas of high land use incompatibility are largely clustered around the CBD. The length of the Southern Pacific railroad route south of the CBD, in particular, features concentrations of residential-nuisance and residential-hazard interactions. To a similar effect, the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads create isolated hazard zones where they bisect neighborhoods south and west of the Arizona Capitol. Additional pockets of fragmented land use occur at the confluence

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 841

FIGURE 4

1915 Patterns of Compatibility/Incompatibility

of Grand Avenue, Van Buren Street, and 7th Avenue, near the Santa Fe Railroad line, and at the intersection of Van Buren and 7th Streets. Smaller pockets of incompatibility, marking isolated nuisances in residential neighborhoods, are scattered throughout the case study area but occur most frequently in neighborhoods south of the railroad, a finding consistent with other Phoenix studies (Bolin et al., 2005; Sicotte, 2008).

A dispersion of cells featuring land use incompatibility is visible in 1949 (Figure 5). Although still concentrated around the CBD, disamenity zones were pushed outward with the expansion of the commercial core, particularly along the Grand Avenue, Van Buren, Washington, and Jefferson Street corridors, each zoned general commercial. Additionally, fragmented land uses became concentrated north of the CBD along Central Avenue and in the light industrial district south of the Southern Pacific railroad. While the incidence of land use fragmentation had decreased somewhat along the primary Southern Pacific Railroad corridor since 1915, pockets of residential-hazard interactions persisted several blocks north and south of its route.

Next, we evaluated how land use interactions changed within particular 1930 zoning designations. We hypothesized that residential zoning would increase homogeneous land use interactions. This was supported by the data with an increase of 100 homogenous cells, an increase of 6.9%, between 1915 and 1949 within residential zones (Table 3). Because Euclidian zoning allows higher level uses within lower level zones, we had mixed expectations with the other zoning designations. With the multi-family and commercial zones we find decreases in homogenous uses by 10.9% and

842 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

FIGURE 5

1949 Patterns of Compatibility/Incompatibility

TABLE 3

Land Use Interaction Counts and Change by Zoning Type

Land Use Interaction Type

Zoning Type Homogenous Compatible Nuisance Hazard Vacant

Residential 100 80 33 1 − 214 6.9% 666.7% 330.0% 100.00% − 92.2%

Multi-family −221 290 87 8 −164 −10.9% 1074.1% 290.0% 100.00% − 70.7%

Commercial/Institutional −683 356 417 −8 −82 −50.7% 304.3% 117.5% − 19.5% − 91.1%

Light Industrial −158 160 105 −86 −21 −29.9% 242.4% 78.9% − 48.6% − 91.3%

Industrial 6 5 1 −4 −8 17.6% 35.7% – − 57.1% − 61.5%

There were no commercial-nuisance or residential-nuisance interactions in industrial zoning.

50.7%, respectively. Likewise, the light industrial zone also experienced a decrease in homogeneous interactions by 29.9%, whereas homogeneity increased by 17.6% in industrial zones.

During this same period, compatible uses increased in all zoning designations: 80 cells in residen- tial, 290 in multi-family, 356 in commercial/institutional, 160 in light industrial, and 5 in industrial. Since compatible uses include residential-commercial/institutional and nuisance-hazard interactions

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 843

FIGURE 6

Zoning and 1949 Patterns of Land Use Incompatibility

alike, the expansion of compatible land use within all zones indicates substantial increases of retail activities surrounding residential districts as well as light industrial activities, particularly warehouses and transport distribution centers, aligned with the Southern Pacific railroad.

Nuisance interactions, either commercial/institutional-nuisance or residential-nuisance, increase within all zoning designations during this period, but the land area and proportion of increase varies substantially among the zones. Residential zones witnessed an increase of 33 cells, a 330% increase. Multi-family and commercial experienced proportionally large increases: 290% (87 cells) and 117.5% (417 cells), respectively. Light industrial experienced a 78.9% increase with 105 new cells. In contrast, industrial zoning experienced an increase from zero nuisance cells to one. Hazardous interactions increased slightly in multi-family zones by 8 cells, but there were reductions in hazard interaction in the commercial/institutional, light industrial, and industrial zones by 19.5%, 48.6%, and 57.1%, respectively. Thus, there was a slight increase in hazardous exposure in multi-family zones, but substantial reductions in exposure among commercial/institutional and industrial zones. Hazard interactions did not proliferate nearly as widely as nuisances under zoning. Light industrial’s loss of 86 residential-hazard cells and increase in compatible cells signifies the conversion of residential neighborhoods to land use types serving the Southern Pacific railroad, particularly warehouses and wholesale (Figure 6); despite this, it still retained the highest makeup (91 cells) of any zoning district.

Vacant land use drives some of the compatibility story, as Phoenix developed rapidly dur- ing this period. All zoning designations witnessed a reduction in vacant land uses ranging from a 61.5% reduction in industrial zones to a 92.2% reduction in residential zones. We found that single-family residential districts alone (excluding smaller residential categories like parks, schools, and churches) contained no cells with commercial/institutional-nuisance, residential-hazard, or commercial/institutional-hazard interactions in either year observed. Despite some increased

844 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

exposure (18 cells) to nuisance uses between 1915 and 1949—most of them isolated automotive uses—single-family residential zones experienced the least interaction with disamenities. At the same time, multi-family zones experienced substantial reductions in homogeneity and expansion of both compatibility and nuisance exposure. Commercial and light industrial zones also experi- enced decreases in homogeneity and hazards and increases in both compatibility and nuisance. Thus land zoned single-family residential experienced a different development dynamic than that of multi-family, commercial/institutional, and light industrial districts.

COUNTERFACTUAL: WHAT IF PHOENIX DID NOT ADOPT ZONING IN 1930?

Although a qualitative, historical geographic approach does not enable us to test “what ifs” such as the development patterns in the absence of Phoenix’s zoning code, we can explore the trajectories of somewhat similar cities that opted not to zone during the same period. We will briefly discuss the experiences of Houston, where zoning efforts were defeated repeatedly in 1929, 1938, 1948, and 1962, and Albuquerque, which did not adopt zoning until 1959, as counterfactuals.

In Houston, anti-zoning movements consistently targeted government regulation of private property—particularly uneven taxation and restrictions on business location and operation—as well as the grandfathering of existing nonconforming land uses into proposed zoning districts. Into the postwar era, Houstonians’ concerns over zoning grew to encompass racial and economic segregation witnessed in southern cities like Atlanta, extending anti-zoning sentiments to city urban planning officials and low-income minority neighborhoods alike. Although Houston’s greatest support for zoning, as in Phoenix, stemmed from white upper-income suburbs aiming to preserve property val- ues, strong opposition persisted from the city’s business class and low-income minority communities, who blocked Houston’s 1962 comprehensive land use plan with a 57% vote. Soon after, in 1965, municipal enforcement of deed restrictions began, which served de facto zoning purposes such as reduction of negative externalities associated with nuisance land uses in residential areas (Bullard, 1987; Kaplan, 1980).

Despite Houston’s private means of land use regulation through deed restrictions, the city’s land use patterns and physical structure are overall quite similar to United States cities with zoning in place (Berry, 2001; Qian, 2010). Further, incompatible land uses have persisted in Houston’s aging lower- income and minority neighborhoods in patterns reminiscent of our observations of Phoenix. Bullard (1987, p. 65) notes the historical contrast in postwar Houston between the unwanted encroachment of high-rise offices in white neighborhoods and “garbage dumps, landfills, salvage yards, garages, sex shops, and a host of other nonresidential activities” in black and Hispanic communities, as well as increased industrial activity in these neighborhoods since the 1960s. In contemporary Houston, patterns of single-family residential adjacency to nuisance and hazard sites have persisted in low- income minority communities. The typical 20–30-year lifespans of deed restrictions, paired with limited means of renewal due to high residential turnover and absentee landlordism, have perpetuated this over time. Around 50%–60% of Houston’s deed restrictions were found to be valid in 1990, dwindling in 2007 to 30%—-the remainder of which fell in minority communities subject to further industrial encroachment (Berry, 2001; Bullard, 1987; Qian, 2010). Thus, the legal limitations of these deed restrictions may have exacerbated expansion of nuisance land uses into both white and minority neighborhoods, unlike the Phoenix experience that largely has focused light industrial and commercial expansion in former minority, low-income neighborhoods.

Albuquerque, New Mexico, another sunbelt city whose development trajectory resembles Phoenix, also lacked a zoning ordinance throughout our case study period. Although Albuquerque proposed its first zoning code in 1928—roughly at the same time as Phoenix’s was adopted—the city struggled to establish zoning through the 1950s, finally adopting its first valid zoning ordinance in 1959 (Conrad, 2009). During this period, central Albuquerque experienced postwar development problems similar to Phoenix—commercial strip fragmentation, residential segregation of Hispanic slum areas by the railroad, and automotive and industrial encroachment upon minority neighborhoods that have fueled contemporary environmental justice struggles (Luckingham, 1982; Meiklejohn et al., 2007; Price, 2003). Additionally, the unincorporated minority communities of South Valley and Mountain View,

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 845

unzoned until Albuquerque-Bernalillo County’s first comprehensive land use plan in the mid 1970s, historically suffered a variety of noxious industrial land uses. As with Houston’s municipally operated incinerators and landfills, among these was a City of Albuquerque sewage treatment plant (Lucero, 2004; Meiklejohn et al., 2007; Mohr, 2009). In Albuquerque after zoning, poorer, minority residential neighborhoods outside the city limits were more likely to be targeted for nuisance land uses than single-family neighborhoods within the zoned city; in Phoenix, the same pattern held for residential areas that were zoned industrial or commercial, which also were more likely to be poor and minority. Residential land use in Phoenix’s commercial and light industrial zones parallels the land use trajectories in Houston, especially those without valid deed restrictions, and Albuquerque prior to zoning. Thus, in the absence of zoning, the development trajectory within Phoenix’s poor and minority areas still might have shifted toward industrial and commercial land uses interspersed with residential, but this pattern would probably not have been limited to these neighborhoods.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study of Phoenix zoning indicate an overall decrease in land use homogeneity amid a substantial increase in land use compatibility and increases in disamenity zones. While compatibility spread among all districts, between 1915 and 1949 disamenity zones tended to develop within the multi-family, commercial/institutional, and light industrial zones while single-family residential largely preserved residential homogeneity. We found that Euclidian zoning in Phoenix did protect the highest order use, single-family residential, but other zones experienced increased land use fragmentation and exposure to nuisances.

Patterns of fragmented, incompatible land uses were well-established in Phoenix by 1915, un- derlying residents’ desire to promote quality of life by separating residences from nuisances and hazards. Paradoxically, Phoenix’s adoption of Euclidean zoning had exposed a great number of neighborhoods to nuisance risk by 1949 because these areas were zoned for lower order land uses, e.g., commercial or light industrial. The institutionalized encroachment of nuisances and hazards into Phoenix’s original neighborhoods through commercial and light industrial zoning led to increased fragmentation and nuisance exposure in and around the city’s historic core. This increase in “blighted districts” ran counter to the arguments used by zoning proponents (Arizona Republican, 1922b). Le- niency of uses permitted in these districts supported sporadic growth of commercial, nuisance, and hazard uses amid residences. As such, we find some historical support for Talen’s hypothesis that zoning fosters inconsistent patterns of land use rather than building internal compatibility within each district. Talen explains “randomness” of land use in terms of Phoenix’s historical permissibility of piecemeal rezoning and variances, but, even prior to the advent of “bottom-up” rezoning, our results reveal that this pattern was evident.

Nuisances within commercial zones, many providing automotive services, largely prevailed along major thoroughfares, creating barriers that isolated Phoenix’s homogeneous commercial/institutional CBD from compatible neighborhood residential/retail zones—particularly those along the intersec- tion of commercial and multi-family districts. The intersection of the US 60–70–89 corridor (Van Buren Street and Grand Avenue) at 7th Avenue serves as an example of this. By 1949, the formerly sparsely populated Grand Avenue corridor, under commercial zoning, encompassed high-density res- idential areas, truck salvage and auto body shops, and heavy industrial sites (Figure 7). Meanwhile, the Jefferson Street corridor just east of Phoenix’s CBD—a largely minority community resting on the boundary of Phoenix’s commercial and light industrial districts—was interspersed with scrap yards, automotive facilities, and wholesale, as well as more hazardous chemical storage warehouses (Figure 8).

The spread of nuisances within the light industrial zone, on the other hand, stemmed more heavily from interactions between decaying neighborhoods and the growth of services catering to the Southern Pacific railroad corridor. In the same way, environmental hazards continued to densify and expand near the railroad, driving land use compatibility as blighted neighborhoods were gradually demolished. On the 1949 Sanborn maps, we observed several examples of neighborhoods declining amid rapid industrial expansion. Near the intersection of Buchanan Street and 3rd Avenue,

846 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

FIGURE 7

Expansion of Nuisances and Hazards 1915–1949 at the Intersection of Grand Avenue/7th Avenue/Van Buren Street

a neighborhood partially destroyed by fire was replaced by warehousing, cold storage, meatpacking facilities, and an oxygen plant situated along the expanding railroad. The Central Arizona Light and Power Company (CALPCo) power station and open transformer yard, present since 1915, also expanded, converting former residential blocks into materials storage and transfer yards (Figure 9). Further east on Buchanan Street, another warehouse district and acetylene plant crowded out the multi-family and tenement districts observed in 1915. A spur of the Southern Pacific railroad cuts into a former alleyway, bounding the neighborhood by tracks on its north and east sides, demonstrating how industrial encroachment within poor, minority areas heightens physical barriers to Phoenix’s core and limits services available to these neighborhoods (Figure 10).

As a counterpart to growing “blighted districts,” the adoption of protective single-family residential zoning successfully detached more affluent neighborhoods from hazards, allowing for homogeneous, compatible areas to persist. As homebuilders throughout the 1920s began offering homes, lots, and utilities to new homeowners as a single package (Gammage, 1999), zoning and racial restrictions on land ensured “safe” investments. During the 1930s, suburbs spread further northward, enjoying automobile access to the CBD and padded from nuisances and hazards. Further, zoning and associated land use policies, such as deed restrictions, housing covenants, and lending practices, embedded with racism, restricted the mobility of low-income and minority communities and limited their abilities to relocate (Bolin et al., 2005).

CONCLUSION

Despite an overall decline in residential exposure to environmental hazards following the establish- ment of zoning in Phoenix, low-income residential areas experienced intense and persistent expan- sion of nearby nuisances, in spite of the protections promised by Euclidean zoning. Residents were not granted this protection because these neighborhoods were zoned multi-family, commercial, or

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 847

FIGURE 8

Expansion of Nuisances and Hazards 1915–1949 Along East Jefferson Street

industrial, which enabled development of nuisances and disamenity zones. Vulnerable neighborhoods within disamenity zones persisted as part of a mutually reinforcing mechanism under zoning that sacrificed residential protection of some for industrial growth, while protecting a privileged subset of Phoenix’s population. As depicted on zoning maps, early zoning in Phoenix appears to partition space to the benefit of homeowners and industries alike, promoting a more healthful, efficient city. How- ever, an investigation of the underlying land use and land use interaction patterns reveals heightened spatial segregation, a dichotomy of benefit and blight. Among single-family residential zones there is an expansion of homogeneity and compatibility, while multi-family and commercial zones face decreases in homogeneity and expansion of both compatibility and disamenities. Examination of the spatial patterns and related cases uncovers concentrated expansion of nuisances and hazards within

848 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

FIGURE 9

Expansion of Nuisances and Hazards 1915–1949 at Buchanan Street and 3rd Avenue

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 849

FIGURE 10

Expansion of Nuisances and Hazards 1915–1949 Along East Buchanan Street

850 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

poor, minority areas near major transportation corridors, both rail and automobile. Using fine-scale land use data, we have demonstrated the patterns and processes through which zoning affected land use in a rapidly developing southwestern boomtown.

By examining the experiences of comparable cities that did not adopt zoning, Houston and Al- buquerque, we highlight the relative impact of zoning on land use and environmental injustice. In Houston, we found that deed restrictions may have exacerbated expansion of nuisance land uses into both white and minority neighborhoods in contrast to the Phoenix experience that concentrated light industrial and commercial expansion in former minority, low-income neighborhoods. With- out the protection of residential zoning rules, poorer, minority residential neighborhoods outside Albuquerque’s city limits were targeted for nuisance development, while similar neighborhoods in Phoenix were vulnerable due to the limited protections of industrial or commercial zoning. These cases illustrate that in the absence of zoning Phoenix’s poor and minority neighborhoods would likely have experienced environmental injustice through industrial development, but that this pattern would not have been limited to these neighborhoods.

Our case study of Phoenix is not exhaustive. Because our study was largely limited to pattern analyses of parcel-level land use interactions and change within Phoenix’s boundaries, we plan to extend this work using aerial photography to assess land use outside the city’s boundaries; in addition, we will incorporate toxicity data to more directly model impacts of industrial, residential, and agricultural siting decisions. In future work, our research team plans to focus our attention on a larger time series, from the city’s incorporation to the 1960s. Although the Sanborn maps provide some information about the city’s residents, we also plan to incorporate sociodemographics, using historic spatially explicit U.S. Census and City Directory data to better understand the effects of land use change and environmental hazards on parcel-level and neighborhood-level demographic changes. Additionally, we plan comparative work to assess the generalizability of our findings beyond the Phoenix context, particularly with cities such as Albuquerque, that adopted zoning later, or Houston, that never adopted zoning.

By utilizing parcel-level land use data, we empirically examine the relationship between land use trends and zoning at the micro level. We find two seemingly oppositional forces of land development in Phoenix—careful protection of new suburbs vis-à-vis leniency in multi-family, commercial, and light industrial zones—that suggest a mechanism allowing boosterism to thrive. Zoning encouraged the expansion of industry while attracting residents to newly developed suburbs with guaranteed pro- tection from blight. The institutional imperative to commodify space outstripped a desire to account for social equity within Phoenix. As a result, the city continued to expand at the expense, rather than the inclusion, of low-income and minority residents. While on paper Euclidean zoning’s stratification of land uses in Phoenix promotes progressive ideals for reduction of blight and improvement of city health, analysis at a finer scale using Sanborn maps reveals that zoning decisions in Phoenix tended to promote the expansion of fragmented land uses, especially disamenity zones that targeted poor, minority neighborhoods.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This work was supported by the Arizona State University Presidential Strategic Initiative “Late Lessons in Early History: Change is Hard Project,” NSF Long-Term Ecological Research Network Workshop Grant, and NSF BCS-1026865 Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER). We greatly appreciate comments and support from Michelle Hegmon, Jameson Wetmore, Sander van der Leeuw, Michael Smith, Geoffrey Buckley, Morgan Grove, Elena Irwin, and Jeffrey Onsted. Thank you to the anonymous reviewers and editor for thoughtful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Arizona Republican (1920a). First definite steps are taken for beauty city. May 13, p. 3. Arizona Republican (1920b). City planning one of most forward steps Phoenix ever took. May 20, p. 14. Arizona Republican (1920c). City planning expert engaged for local work. July 3, p. 9. Arizona Republican (1922a). Zoning as means of protecting equities of home owners gains popularity throughout

nation. July 9, p. A1. Arizona Republican (1922b). Zoning protects property and health is claim of national realty members. July 16,

p. 8.

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 851

Berry, C. (2001). Land use regulation and residential segregation: Does zoning matter? American Law and Economics Review, 3(2), 251–274.

Berry, J. W., III. (2003). Historic Sanborn maps in the digital age: City of New Orleans. Journal of GIS in Archaeology, 1, 73–78.

Bolin, B., Grineski, S., & Collins, T. (2005). The geography of despair: Environmental racism and the making of South Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Research in Human Ecology, 12, 156–168.

Bolin, B., Nelson, A., Hackett, E., Pijawka, D., Smith, S., Sadalla, E., Sicotte, D., & O’Donnell, M. (2002). The ecology of technological risk in a sunbelt city. Environment and Planning A, 34, 317–339.

Boone, C., & Modarres, A. (1999). Creating a toxic neighborhood in Los Angeles County: A historical examination of environmental inequity. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 163–187.

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1916). Buckley, G. L., & Boone, C. G. (2011). “To promote the material and moral welfare of the community”: Neighborhood

Improvement Associations in Baltimore, Maryland, 1900–1945. In R. Rodger & G. Massard-Guilbaud (Eds.), Environmental and social justice in the city: Historical perspectives (pp. 43–65). Cambridge: White Horse Press.

Bullard, R. D. (1987). Invisible Houston: The black experience in boom and bust. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Bullard, R., Johnson, G., &Torres, A. (2000). Environmental costs and consequences of sprawl. In R. Bullard, G. Johnson, & A. Torres (Eds.), Sprawl city: Race, politics and planning in Atlanta (pp. 21–38). Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Buzzelli, M. (2007). Bourdieu does environmental justice? Probing the linkages between population health and air pollution epidemiology. Health and Place, 13(1), 3–13.

City of Fort Collins (2002). Historical development maps of the old fort site, 1886–2002. Available at: http://www. fcgov.com/historicpreservation/pdf/of-dev-maps.pdf, Accessed January 16, 2014.

Conrad, M. (2009). A zoning code overview for the general public. Albuquerque, NM: City of Albuquerque Planning Department Code Enforcement Division.

Gammage, G., Jr. (1999). Phoenix in perspective: Reflections on the developing desert. Tempe, AZ: Herberger Center for Design Excellence, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University.

Gober, P. (2004). Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Grineski, S., Bolin, B., & Boone, C. (2007). Criteria air pollution and marginalized populations: Environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 535–554.

Grineski, S., Staniswalis, J. G., & Peng, Y. L. (2010). Children’s asthma hospitalizations and relative risk due to nitrogen dioxide (NO2): Effect modification by race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Environmental Research, 110, 178–188.

Hall, E. (2007). Divide and sprawl, decline and fall: A comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 68, 915–951.

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Holifield, R. (2001). Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geography, 22, 78–90. Hughes, M. A., & Vandoren, P. M. (1990). Social policy through land reform: New Jersey’s Mount Laurel controversy.

Political Science Quarterly, 105, 97–111. Kaplan, B. J. (1980). Urban development, economic growth, and personal liberty: The rhetoric of the Houston anti-

zoning movements, 1947–1962. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 84(2), 133–168. Kolodziej, K., Lejano, R. P., Sassa, C., Maharjan, S., Ghaemghami, J., & Plant, T. (2004). Mapping the industrial

archaeology of Boston. Journal of the Urban and Regional Systems Association, 16, 5–13. Larsen, L., & Alameddin, D. (2007). The evolution of early Phoenix: Valley business elite, land speculation, and the

emergence of planning. Journal of Planning History, 6(2), 87–113. Liao, H., & Tim, U. S. (1994). Interactive water quality modeling within a GIS environment. Computer, Environmental,

and Urban Systems, 18, 343–363. Lord, C., & Norquist, K. (2010). Cities as emergent systems: Race as a rule of organized complexity. Environmental

Law, 40, 551–597. Lucero, L. A. (2004). Planning, politics, and city-county consolidation: Connecting the dots in Albuquerque. Planning

& Environmental Law, 56(8), 3–9. Luckingham, B. (1982). The urban southwest: A profile history of Albuquerque, El Paso, Phoenix, Tucson. El Paso,

TX: Texas Western Press. Luckingham, B. (1989). Phoenix: The history of a southwestern metropolis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Meiklejohn, D., Padilla, P., & Jantz, E. (March 2007). Environmental justice in New Mexico: Efforts and

successes in litigation, the legislature, and administrative rule-making. Paper presented at the State

852 II JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS II Vol. 36/No. 5/2014

of Environmental Justice in America Conference. March 30, 2007. Paper #112206-6. Available at: http://www.ejconference.net/images/Meiklejohn_Jantz.pdf, accessed December 11, 2013.

Mennis, J., & Jordan, L. (2005). The distribution of environmental equity: Exploring the spatial nonstationarity in multivariate models of air toxic releases. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 249–268.

Mohr, B. A. (2009). Feeling blue in the south valley: A case study of nitrate contamination in Albuquerque’s south valley. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 29, 408–420.

Myrick, D. F. (1980). Railroads of Arizona, volume II. San Diego, CA: Howell-North Books. Olmsted, F. L., Jr. (1916). Basic principles of city planning. In J. Nolen (Ed.), City planning: A series of papers

presenting the essential elements of a city plan (pp. 1–18). New York: D. Appleton. Ohm, B., & Sitkowski, R. (2003). The influence of new urbanism on local ordinances: The twilight of zoning? The

Urban Lawyer, 35, 783–794. Pellow, D., & Park, L. (2002). The Silicon Valley of dreams: Environmental injustice, immigrant workers and the

high-tech global economy. New York: NewYork University Press. Phoenix City Commission (1939). Phoenix municipal code. Phoenix: Author. Pollard, W. (1931). Outline of the law of zoning in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, 155(15), 15–33. Price, V. B. (2003). Albuquerque: City at the end of the world (2nd ed.). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico

Press. Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in southern California.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 12–40. Pulido, L., Sidawi, S., & Vos, R. (1996). An archaeology of environmental racism in Los Angeles. Urban Geography,

17, 419–439. Qian, Z. (2010). Without zoning: Urban development and land use controls in Houston. Cities, 27, 31–41. Revell, K. D. (1999). Euclid v. Ambler: City planning, state-building, and the changing scope of police power. Studies

in American Political Development, 13, 50–145. Rudel, T. K. (1989). Situations and strategies in American land-use planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Sauder, R. A. (1980). The use of Sanborn maps in reconstructing “geographies of the past”: Boston’s waterfront from

1867 to 1972. Journal of Geography, 79(6), 204–213. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Sicotte, D. (2008). Dealing in toxins on the wrong side of the tracks: Lessons from a hazardous waste controversy in

Phoenix. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 1136–1152. Talen, E. (2011). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington, DC: Island Press. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Walker, G. (2009). Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice.

Antipode, 41, 614–636. Wang, X., & Cui, P. (2005). Support soil conservation practices by identifying critical erosion areas within an

American watershed using the GIS-AGNPS model. Journal of Spatial Hydrology, 5(2), 31–44.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Abigail M. York is an Associate Professor of Governance and Public Policy in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University. She contributes to ongoing discussions of collective action and governance of urban and urbanizing areas. In addition, she examines institu- tional dynamics within social-ecological systems focusing on critical sustainability issues such as maintenance of biodiversity, forests and open space, and water security in the face of global change and disturbances. York received her PhD in public policy from Indiana University in 2005.

Joseph Tuccillo is a Master of Arts student in Geography at University of Colorado-Boulder. Following completion of his Bachelor of Arts in Geography from Arizona State University in 2011, he worked as a GIS/Research Analyst for the Arizona State University School of Human Evolution & Social Change’s Late Lessons from Early History research initiative. His research interests include land-use change science, urban institutions and sustainable urban development, urban spatial structure and demography, GIScience and geovisualization.

II Incompatibility and Environmental Injustice in Early Phoenix II 853

Christopher G. Boone is Professor and Associate Dean in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. His research contributes to ongoing debates in sustainable urbanization, environ- mental justice, vulnerability, and global environmental change. He is a co-PI for the urban Long Term Ecological Research projects based in Baltimore and Phoenix, both supported by the National Science Foundation. For the past three years he has served on the scientific steering committee for the Urbanization and Global Environmental Change project, a core initiative of the International Human Dimensions program. He received his PhD in Geography from the University of Toronto in 1994.

Bob Bolin is a professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and directs the Doctoral Program in Environmental Social Science. His primary research areas are environmental hazards, vulnerability, and environmental justice. His recent work has focused on the urban political ecology of the Phoenix metro area, covering topics ranging from water resources and climate change to the historical geography of the urban heat island in the central city. He has also published extensively on disasters and vulnerable populations, his most recent work being on the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

Lauren E. Gentile is a PhD student in Environmental Social Science at ASU. She has a Masters of Environmental Law and Policy from Vermont Law School and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Miami. Her research interests include environmental and marine policy, environmental justice, and institutional analysis. In particular, she seeks to understand the sociocultural dynamics of natural resource extraction in the context of sustainable management of environmental resources. Further interest lies in the sociocultural institutions and contexts in which behaviors and values are shaped, decisions are made, and risks are perceived and how a failure to understand such leads to resistance and injustices from one of more segments of society.

Briar Schoon is a Sustainability Analyst at Portland Community College. Her research interests are the intersection of sustainability and environmental justice. Currently she is analyzing the effective- ness of sustainability programs using sustainability indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions. She received her Masters in Sustainability from Arizona State University in 2012.

Kevin Kane is a PhD student at Arizona State University’s School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, specializing in Economic Geography. He is interested in empirical analysis of urban growth and development patterns, specifically the role of government and institutions in promoting and financing development. His research, which includes parcel-level projects in Phoenix and Chicago, attempts to bridge the gap between quantitative geographical tools and application to specific examples of urban growth and development.