Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emerging Themes in the Literature

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

  • 170 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter first highlights several important trends and themes running through the pertinent literature. The discussion focuses on five key topics: literature in regulation and design review; process and guidelines; the interrelationship of individuals involved in the process; design review as a larger social expression; and goals and implementation of design review in relation to the reviewer’s roles. Second, the chapter introduces background ideas and emerging concepts for the four hypothesized roles of design reviewers: educator, facilitator, therapist, and convener.

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

  • Abney, G. (1998). Florida’s local historic preservation ordinances: Maintaining flexibility while avoiding vagueness claims. Florida State University Law Review, Summer, 1017–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont, C. E. (1992). Making design review boards work. Architectural Record, 180(1) 34 (p. 154).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. (1997, Winter). Preserving a place for the past in our future: A survey of historic preservation in West Virginia. West Virginia Law Review, 423–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, B. J. (2012). Environmental aesthetics and free speech: Toward a consistent content neutrality standard for outdoor sign regulation. Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, 2, 185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costonis, J. (1989). Icons and aliens: Law, aesthetics and environmental change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cude, R. (1998). Beauty and the well-drawn ordinance: Avoiding vagueness and overbreadth challenges to municipal aesthetic regulations. Journal of Law and Policy, 853–913.

    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 

  • Decker, J. (1994). The validation of computer simulations for design guideline dispute resolution. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 421–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duerksen, C. (1986). Aesthetics and land-use controls: beyond ecology and economics (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 399). Chicago: American Planning Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duerksen, C., & Goebel, R. M. (1999). Aesthetics, community character, and the law (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 489/490). Chicago: American Planning Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Sirianni, C. D. (1993). Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1994). Lawrence susskind: Activist mediation and public disputes. In D. M. Kolb & Associates (Eds.), When talk works: Profiles of mediators. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1999.

    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 practioner: 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 

  • 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 

  • Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (Eds.). (1989). Making regulatory policy. University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006).Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinshaw, M. (1995). Design review (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 454). Chicago: American Planning Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2011). Architectural design and regulation. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. B. (1990). Design review and historic preservation. Inland Architect, 34(5), 104,99.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Anniversary Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelker, D. (1993). Land use law (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasar, J. L. (1999). Design by competition: Making design competition work. New York: Cambridge.

    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 

  • Nivala, J. (1996). Constitutional architecture: The first amendment and the single family house (pp. 291–347). Winter: San Diego Law Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onaran, K. S., & Sancar, F. H. (1998). Design review in small communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(4), 539–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinck, D. (1998). The ideal city: Learning by doing. Preservation: The magazine of the National Trust for Historic. Preservation, 50(1), 34–36, 82–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poindexter, G. (1998). Light, air, or manhattanization?: Communal aesthetics in zoning central city real estate development. Boston University Law Review, (April), 445–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, S. (1987). Architectural appearance review regulations and the first amendment: The good, the bad, and the consensus ugly. The Urban Lawyer, 19, 287–344.

    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. (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, 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 

  • Rancière, J. (2013). The politics of aesthetics. A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sancar, F. H. (1994). Paradigms of postmodernity and implications for planning and design review processes. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 312–337.

    Article  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 

  • Schmertz, M. F. (1993). Dictating design+design-review.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamps, A. E. I. I. I. (1997). Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 883–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Talen, E. (2012). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, P. (1994). Beyond design review: Implications for design practice, education, and research. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 363–376.

    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). Emerging Themes in the Literature. 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_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation