Overview of the Current Status of Design Review
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.
- American Planning Association. (2008). Great places in America: Public spaces. Retrieved from: http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/2008/.
- Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2003). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. New York: Routledge.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. (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
- 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
- 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, P. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. Vancouver, BC, Canada: The University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press).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., & 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. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar