Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

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

  • 160 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to discuss salient results of a literature review in the field of design review for the purpose of this study. The discussion introduces readers to the field of design review by focusing on the field’s goals, participants, methods, procedures, practices, standards, policies, and rules. A brief history of design review and several successful sample cases in the United States are included for illustrative purposes.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
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

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

  • Blaesser, B. W. (1994). The abuse of discretionary power. In Design review (pp. 42–50). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M. (1998). Design control—bridging the professional divide, part 1: A new framework. Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 175–200.

    Article  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 

  • Delafons, J. (1994). Democracy and design. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 13–19). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Chapter  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/.

  • Faga, B. (2006). Designing public consensus. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. American Planning Association Journal, 53(3), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999a). Challenges of mediation and deliberation in the design professions: Practice stories from Israel and Norway. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 16(2), 116–132.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. (2007). A methodology for the preservation of the architectural heritage of Senneville, Quebec, Canada. Journal of Urban Design, 12(3), 359.

    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 

  • Godschalk, D. R., & Paterson, R. G. (1999). Collaborative conflict management comes of age. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16(2), 91–95.

    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 

  • Juergensmeyer, J., & Roberts, T. (2013). Land use planning and development regulation law 3D (Hornbook Series). West Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2002). Canadian urban design practice: A review of urban design regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(2), 239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S. (2005). Urban design decision-making: A study of Ontario municipal board decisions in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(2), 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, R. T. Y. (1988). Law in urban design and planing: The invisible web. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemar, A. S. (2015). Zoning as taxidermy: Neighborhood conservation districts and the regulation of aesthetics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasar, J. L., Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Mantero, V. (2007). McMansions: The extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design, 12(3), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portland Bureau of Planning. (July, 1992). Central city developer’s handbook. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from the Local & Regional Documents Archive through the University of Oregon Library: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/8125?show=full.

  • Preiser, W. F., & Ostroff, E. (2001). Universal design handbook. McGraw Hill Professional.

    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. (2002). Urban design as public policy: Evaluating the design dimension of Vancouver’s planning system. International Planning Studies, 7(4), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punter, P. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. Vancouver, BC, Canada: The University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. (2007). Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management. Journal of Urban Design, 12(2), 167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. (2010). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC 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 

  • Saxer, S. R. (2009). Assessing RLUIPA’s application to building codes and aesthetic land use regulation. Albany Government Law Review, 2.

    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 

  • Stamps, A. E. III. (1994). All buildings great and small: Design review from high rise to houses. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 402–420. Retrieved March 28, 2009 from Sage publications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps, A. E. III. (2000). Evaluating architectural design review. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(1), 265–271. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from ISI Web of Knowledge database.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, D., & Doyle, M. (1978). The architect as facilitator: A new role. Journal of Architectural Education, 31(4), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R., & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s Rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus and get results. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  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). Overview of the Current Status of Design Review. 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_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation