Stoyanoff & His Grotesque House

Euclidean Zoning is of course well known within the AEC community. The case Village of Euclid vs. Amber Realty, CO., held that zoning laws, moving forward, were presumptively valid. That the police powers of the state enabled legislative bodies to enact comprehensive zoning plans for reasons such as avoiding nuisances and promoting safety.

Digging through the dusty outlines from law school I happened upon the case State ex rel. Stoyanoff vs. Berkeley. Stoyanoff applied for a permit to build on a lot he owned. Pursuant to a city ordinance, the designs for his house had to be approved by the city architectural board. It must be noted that most, if not all, of the houses in the neighborhood were of traditional style. Stoyanoff’s design was anything but traditional and sparing not a shred of Stoyanoff’s feelings, the architectural board deemed his house “grotesque.”

Stoynoff filed suit and what followed was a contentious (and remains such) decision regarding aesthetics and the free exercise of design and construction.

The court held that the stabilizing of property values is one of the most cogent reasons behind zoning ordinances.

The court list three reasons justifying its decision:

• Property that offends sensibilities and debases property values affects not only adjoining property owners but also the general welfare.
• Aesthetic considerations are a matter of general welfare.
• The general standards used by the architectural board were sufficiently specific to guide the board. There was adequate protection against the exercise of arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion of the city council.

As I drive the streets of Seattle there is a proliferation of town homes. Tall structures, usually two or three to a lot, that stand where a single-family dwelling once was.

The modern design, while stylish either by its ubiquity or in fact, can clash with the traditional homes adjacent to the modern entrants.

So what is the point of this blog?

Where is the line between aesthetic overreach and genuine actions meant to protect property values and aesthetics? What happens when in 20 years the modern look of Seattle townhomes don’t seem so modern anymore?

Time will tell. What are your thoughts?