Emerging Themes in the Literature

  • Joongsub KimEmail author


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.


  1. 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
  2. Beaumont, C. E. (1992). Making design review boards work. Architectural Record, 180(1) 34 (p. 154).Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Costonis, J. (1989). Icons and aliens: Law, aesthetics and environmental change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decker, J. (1994). The validation of computer simulations for design guideline dispute resolution. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duerksen, C. (1986). Aesthetics and land-use controls: beyond ecology and economics (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 399). Chicago: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Fischer, F., & Sirianni, C. D. (1993). Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Forester, J. (1999b). The deliberative practioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000). Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (Eds.). (1989). Making regulatory policy. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  18. Healey, P. (2006).Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Hinshaw, M. (1995). Design review (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 454). Chicago: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  20. Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2011). Architectural design and regulation. Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, M. B. (1990). Design review and historic preservation. Inland Architect, 34(5), 104,99.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Mandelker, D. (1993). Land use law (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.Google Scholar
  27. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nasar, J. L. (1999). Design by competition: Making design competition work. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999, Autumn). Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nivala, J. (1996). Constitutional architecture: The first amendment and the single family house (pp. 291–347). Winter: San Diego Law Review.Google Scholar
  31. Onaran, K. S., & Sancar, F. H. (1998). Design review in small communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(4), 539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Punter, J. (2002). Urban design as public policy: Evaluating the design dimension of Vancouver’s planning system. International Planning Studies, 7(4), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rancière, J. (2013). The politics of aesthetics. A&C Black.Google Scholar
  39. Sancar, F. H. (1994). Paradigms of postmodernity and implications for planning and design review processes. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 312–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  43. Schmertz, M. F. (1993). Dictating design+design-review.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Stamps, A. E. I. I. I. (1997). Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 883–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Talen, E. (2012). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  49. Thiel, P. (1994). Beyond design review: Implications for design practice, education, and research. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and DesignLawrence Technological UniversitySouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations