While earlier years were spent in beautifying Honolulu streets as they existed, this work has today been turned over to the Outdoor Circle, and the Planning Commission is confining its attention to more definite constructive work based on engineering surveys.

Since 1920 the Commission has gone far toward the preparation of a City Plan. As a first step toward this goal, and after two years of intensive work and study, a combination Building and Zoning Ordinance was established in 1922, followed by a mapping of street layouts for various parts of the city. It was not until 1924, however, following the appointment of Charles R. Welsh as City Planning Engineer and a staff of workers, that actual field and survey work have been undertaken on any large scale. To date, two large and interesting drainage problems of distinctive types have grown out of this survey, and are undoubtedly the forerunners of other important undertakings. Twenty-seven private subdivision plans have been passed upon during the year and made to fit into the larger general plan.

The future is bright in prospect. To be sure Honolulu has inherited some very congested districts and many narrow streets and crooked lanes, but to offset these handicaps it has some very large undeveloped areas which offer untold opportunities for constructive city planning. Its topographical features and natural beauties are unsurpassed, and with the foundation of a well balanced city plan Honolulu is destined to fill a unique place among the cities of America.

MRS. GRACE BARTLETT,
Secretary, Honolulu City Planning Commission.

THE ST. LOUIS MUNICIPAL PLAZA

The St. Louis municipal plaza and public building group plan was approved by the voters in 1923 presumably including the building of a new courthouse at Twelfth Street. The old courthouse is at Fourth Street. Following the passage of the bond issue in February, 1923, a powerful group of property interests in the vicinity of Fourth Street organized to keep the new courts building in the vicinity of the old courthouse. Practically the entire business community, including all the banks, retail merchants association and downtown improvement association united to support a movement to build the new courthouse on Fourth Street. The Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance to place the new courthouse on Twelfth Street and the downtown interests submitted a referendum petition, bringing the matter to an issue at the November election, 1924.

The downtown group are reputed to have raised $100,000 and conducted a vigorous campaign, including full-page newspaper advertisements, advertising on the street cars, circulars accompanying each package delivered by the department stores, and large circularization in the mail. The banking and commercial interests being so strongly organized, it was difficult to present the city planning point of view.

Representatives of certain civic organizations met and formed what was known as the Plaza Courthouse Committee. Membership in this committee was open to all individuals and organizations who supported the Public Building Group Plan and particularly the Twelfth Street location for the new courthouse. An executive committee was formed, composed of representatives from the American Legion, Central Trades and Labor Union, League of Women Voters, Women's Chamber of Commerce and numerous district improvement associations. Hon. Charles W. Rutledge, ex-judge of the Circuit Court, was elected chairman of the committee. Sub-committees were appointed on finance, publicity, and speakers. An active chairman was appointed for each committee and given ample authority to act. A publicity firm was engaged to manage the campaign and office space donated in one of the large office buildings. With the exception of this campaign manager and a stenographer, all services rendered by numerous individuals were gratuitous. Judge Rutledge gave up practically six weeks of his time, made forty speeches and engaged in fifteen debates with Mr. Remmers, the attorney engaged to manage the campaign for the Fourth Street group. Endorsements of the Twelfth Street location for the new courthouse were secured from fifty-six organizations.

The morning newspaper, the Globe-Democrat, supported the downtown site; the two leading afternoon newspapers strongly supported the plaza site. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch made a two-page spread of a drawing illustrating how the new buildings would look, ran bold headlines for several days across the top of the first page of its second section "VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 10 IF YOU WANT THE COURTHOUSE ON THE PLAZA-SCRATCH NO", published numerous editorials, cartoons, and several valuable front page stories. The actual wording of the referendum necessitated a YES vote for the plaza site and a NO vote to defeat the ordinance. The psychology was considerably against the plaza site, as there were nine other referendum votes, to many of which there was bitter opposition. During the campaign the Mayor switched to the downtown group. The Committee raised $3,000. Instead of attempting to send out enormous amounts of literature, the headquarters checked over the registration lists, containing over 300,000 names, and eliminated those persons where there were more than one in a family. In this way there was one member of every family receiving the arguments, which were sent out the day before the election. About 100,000 pieces of literature were mailed. The total expense of the campaign was $4,400.

By a decisive majority in excess of 35,000 the electorate supported the ordinance previously passed by the Board of Aldermen. The courthouse referendum committee of the downtown interests have publicly announced their acceptance of the people's vote and a commission of architects to supervise the design of buildings and improvements within the plaza has now been appointed. The complete execution of the plaza and group plan as prepared by the City Plan Commission is thus assured.

The success of the campaign can be attributed chiefly to the fact that the voters having expressed themselves in favor of the grouping of public buildings when the question was decided at the election in February, 1923, were not to be misled by any last-minute scheme put forward by private property interests.

Having created for the plaza scheme a favorable view and understanding in the minds of our citizens more than a year previous to the referendum election on the courthouse, it can be seen that the proponents of the plaza were in a much better position than its opponents, who offered no objection to the plan at the 1923 election

We were also fortunate in having a good campaign committee, formed by representatives from approximately fifty civic and business organizations, located in all sections of the city. It was also most opportune to have the referendum during a general election, as meetings were being held every evening and speakers could through this medium reach more people than would ordinarily be the case. HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW. City Planning Consultant.

26,000,000 PEOPLE LIVE IN ZONED CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES

There has been an increase of more than 130 percent in the number of people living in zoned cities and towns in the United States during the past four years. By the first of July of this year more than 26,000,000 people were living in 366 zoned municipalities as against the less than 11,000,000 people in 48 cities and towns in September 1921. The number of zoned municipalities thus increased more than seven times during the four year period. The above statistics have been compiled by the Division of Building and Housing of the Department of Commerce.

Twenty-seven of the 33 largest cities in the United States, having populations of over 200,000 inhabitants, have now adopted zoning ordinances, the latest being Denver. The advantages afforded by zoning ordinances have resulted in the rapid spread of the zoning movement, shown by a comparison of the number of zoned municipalities at different dates. The 48 cities and towns zoned in September 1921 were increased to 159 municipalities on January 1, 1923, while on January 1, 1925, there were 320 municipalities zoned.

An analysis of the 46 places reported zoned during the first six months of 1925 shows three cities having more than 100,000 population each, namely: Denver, Colorado; Hartford, Connecticut; and New Bedford, Massachusetts. There are also ten cities having less than 100,000 but more than 25,000 population; and 33 cities, towns and villages having less than 25,000 inhabitants.

During the first six months of this year zoning legislation was enacted by Arizona, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Utah, which heretofore had been without zoning laws. Four of these five states used the Department of Commerce "Standard Act" wholly or in large part in drafting their laws. In addition a number of other states made use of the "Standard Act" in legislation supplementing, and broadening the application of their existing zoning laws.

The list of state laws and zoning ordinances enacted reported during the first six months of 1925 may be had by writing to the Division of Building and Housing Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

THE ZONING SITUATION IN BALTIMORE

A comprehensive zoning ordinance was passed by Baltimore in May 1923. It was an ordinance not unlike many others, in fact, similar to those of New York and Milwaukee, and very similar to at least one hundred other ordinances now in force and some of which have already been declared constitutional in other states. The Baltimore ordinance and maps were given great publicity. A most intensive educational campaign was carried on for over a year and a city council of forty-two members passed the law unanimously. Exhaustive studies were made of existing uses of land and buildings, heights of buildings and areas of land occupied. Density of population and its trends were charted. Major streets, traffic highways, street widths, grades, alignment, etc., were all considered.

Kind and quantity of traffic and its regulation formed an important factor in determining the district boundaries. Studies were made of sizes and location of water mains (including high pressure water service) for domestic consumption and fire protection, sizes and location of sanitary and storm water sewers, and finally the use, height and area districts were selected, not for esthetic reasons, but in accord with good engineering practice. A topographic map costing about two hundred thousand dollars was rushed to completion as a guide and foundation.

Railroad lines, terminals and street railway services were analyzed in relation to the general plan and incorporated in it. Parks and playgrounds had their appropriate place. Land values had their proper bearing on the whole. Density of population was regulated in a reasonable way to prevent slums and tenement districts in the future. Studies were made of death rates throughout the city and of other health considerations including light, air, sunshine, dust, noise, injurious odors, gases, and vapors. Open spaces between buildings on front side and rear were charted and appropriate regulations were made to require open spaces for admission of light and air in buildings, accessibility for fire fighting, and to permit a fairly accurate determination of sizes of storm water sewers.

Locations of schools, police stations, fire houses and all public and private utilities were weighed carefully in the location of districts and in their regulations.

Notwithstanding so exhaustive and technically accurate a piece of work, the incalculable millions of dollars the people of the city would save, and the health, safety, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare accruing to them, the Court of Appeals of Maryland in February 1925 declared the use provisions of the ordinance unconstitutional. Notwithstanding the fact that the locations of districts were based on all of the things which normally come within the purview of the police power, they were nullified because, the court said, that there was apparently nothing in the language of the ordinance which showed that it related to health, safety and general welfare. There was an able dissenting opinion by two of the judges of the court which favored the constitutionality of the ordinance.

An emergency ordinance was passed by the city council several days later which permits the Inspector of Buildings, at his discretion, to approve or disapprove permits for all uses all over the city (dwellings excepted). Anyone dissatisfied