Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion, Implications, Related Paradigms, and Future Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What Do Design Reviewers Really Do? Understanding Roles Played by Design Reviewers in Daily Practice

  • 146 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses key implications of the study—namely, the planning, urban design, policy, political, educational, and research implications of design review. Using relevant literature, this final chapter examines the impact of design review on, and its inter-relationships with, contemporary urbanisms or urban paradigms, conventional planning goals, and education and pedagogy in planning and urban design, and provides the lessons learned from this study and directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Planning Association. (2014). Investing in place for economic growth and competitiveness. Retrieved from: https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/policy/polls/investing/pdf/pollinvestingreport.pdf.

  • American Planning Association. (2008). Great places in America: Public spaces. Retrieved from: http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/2008/.

  • Abrams, R. F., Malizia, E., Wendel, A., Sallis, J., Millstein, R. A., Carlson, J. A.,… & Naumann, R. B. (2012). Making healthy places: Designing and building for health, well-being, and sustainability. Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aicher, J. (1998). Designing healthy cities: Prescriptions, principles, and practice. Krieger Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, T., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (Eds.). (2011). Companion to urban design. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, H. (2005, Winter). A health map for urban planners: Towards a conceptual model for healthy, sustainable settlements. Built Environment, 31 (4), 339–355. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from ATypon Link.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of symmetry and number of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(3), 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronin, S. C. (2008). The quiet revolution revived: Sustainable design, land use regulation, and the states. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. J., Dixon, D., & Gillham, O. (2013). Urban design for an urban century: Shaping more livable, equitable, and resilient cities. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calthorpe, P. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calthorpe, P. (2010). Urbanism in the age of climate change. Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2007). The communication process. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 479–489). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirapiwat, T. (1999). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Circo, C. J. (2007). Using mandates and incentives to promote sustainable construction and green building projects in the private sector: A call for more state land use policy initiatives. Penn State Law Review, 112, 731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congress for New Urbanism. (2000). Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corburn, J. (2009). Toward the healthy city: People, places, and the politics of urban planning. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2003). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, E., & Higgins, M. (2009). How planning authorities can improve quality through the design review process: Lessons from Edinburgh. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duany, A., Speck, J., & Lydon, M. (2004). The smart growth manual. McGraw Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhl, L. (2005, Winter). Healthy cities and the built environment. Built Environment, 31(4), 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhl, L. & Sanchez, A. (1999). Healthy cities and the planning process: A background document on links between health and urban planning. World Health Organization (WHO) Regional office for Europe, Copenhagen, 1–36. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from: http://www.euro.who.int/.

  • Dunston, P. S., Arns, L. L., Mcglothlin, J. D., Lasker, G. C., & Kushner, A. G. (2011). An immersive virtual reality mock-up for design review of hospital patient rooms. Collaborative design in virtual environments (pp. 167–176). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, C. P., Andalib, M., Dunton, G. F., Wolch, J., & Pentz, M. A. (2011). A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: Implications for smart growth urban planning. Obesity Reviews, 12(5), e173–e182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, D. (2011). Sustainable urbanism: Urban design with nature. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, A., Slotterback, C. S., & Krizek, K. J. (2010). Health impact assessment in planning: Development of the design for health HIA tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000). Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groat, L. (1994). Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: Lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 156–164). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H. (1999). Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. et al. (2006). The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1):S55–S76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. A. (2001, Spring). Design communication and aesthetic control: Architects, planners, and design review. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegler, M. C., Norton, B. L., & Aronson, R. (June 2008). Achieving organizational change: Findings from case studies of 20 California healthy cities and communities coalitions. Health Promotion International, 23(2), 109–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelbaugh, D. (2002). Repairing the urban metropolis: Common place revisited. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaap, G., & Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and smart growth: A few words from the academy. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: The American experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2007). The urban design reader. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2013). The urban design reader. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawhon, L. L. (2003, Summer). Planners’ perceptions of their role in socially responsive neighborhood design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(2), 153–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, E. (2000). Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west-cost cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 94–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, C. F., Roux, A. V. D., & Galea, S. (2008). Are neighborhood characteristics associated with depressive symptoms? A critical review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, jech-2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, H. (1994). Discretionary design review: Shaping downtown Cincinnati. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 119–132). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999). Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peiser, R. (1990). Who plans America? Planners or developers? American planning association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(4), 496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porth, R. J. (Fall 2002). Access to opportunity: The biggest regional challenge. National Civic Review, 91(3), 257–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. (1994). Design review and conservation in England: Historical development and contemporary relationships. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 51–61). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. (1999). Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west cost cities. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J., & Carmona, M. (1997). The design dimension of planning: theory, content and best practice for design policies. London: E & FN Spon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, B. C. (1994). Introduction: The debate on design review. In B. C. Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic controls (pp. 1–10). New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. M. D. (1997, autumn). The role of design review in affecting the quality of urban design: The architect’s point of view. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14(3), 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Z., & Kawakami, M. (2010). An online visualization tool for internet-based local townscape design. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34(2), 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirianni, C. (2007, autumn). Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design: The case of seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 373–387. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Wilson Web database.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitkowski, R. J., & Ohm, B. W. (2006). Form-based land development regulations. The Urban Lawyer, 38, 163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart Growth America. (2007). Smart growth toolkit. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/.

  • Southworth, M. (2003, September). New urbanism and the American metropolis. Built Environment, 29(3), 210–227. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from ATypon Link database.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism & American planning: The conflict of cultures. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2003, September). A new urbanist diffusion network: The Americo-European connection. Built Environment, 29(3), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA/Office of Air & Radiation/Climate Protection Partnerships Division. (2004). Building design guidance checklist. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/tools_resources/new_bldg_design/BuildingDesignGuidanceChecklist_101904.pdf.

  • Webster, H. (2005). A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (Fall 2002). Sprawl, politics, and participation: A preliminary analysis. National Civic Review, 91(3), 233–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Architecture and Design, Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, MI, USA

    Joongsub Kim

Authors
  1. Joongsub Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joongsub Kim .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kim, J. (2019). Conclusion, Implications, Related Paradigms, and Future Research. In: What Do Design Reviewers Really Do? Understanding Roles Played by Design Reviewers in Daily Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05642-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation