Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Abney, G. (1998). Florida’s local historic preservation ordinances: Maintaining flexibility while avoiding vagueness claims. Florida State University Law Review, Summer, 1017–1042.
Beaumont, C. E. (1992). Making design review boards work. Architectural Record, 180(1) 34 (p. 154).
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.
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.
Costonis, J. (1989). Icons and aliens: Law, aesthetics and environmental change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
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.
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. CrossRef
Decker, J. (1994). The validation of computer simulations for design guideline dispute resolution. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 421–443. CrossRef
Duerksen, C. (1986). Aesthetics and land-use controls: beyond ecology and economics (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 399). Chicago: American Planning Association.
Duerksen, C., & Goebel, R. M. (1999). Aesthetics, community character, and the law (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 489/490). Chicago: American Planning Association.
Fischer, F., & Sirianni, C. D. (1993). Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
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.
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.
Forester, J. (1999b). The deliberative practioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.
George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000). Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 163–175. CrossRef
Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (Eds.). (1989). Making regulatory policy. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Healey, P. (2006).Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.
Hinshaw, M. (1995). Design review (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 454). Chicago: American Planning Association.
Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2011). Architectural design and regulation. Wiley.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
Jackson, M. B. (1990). Design review and historic preservation. Inland Architect, 34(5), 104,99.
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.
Kumar, S. (2005). Urban design decision-making: A study of Ontario municipal board decisions in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(2), 209.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Anniversary Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mandelker, D. (1993). Land use law (3rd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. CrossRef
Nasar, J. L. (1999). Design by competition: Making design competition work. New York: Cambridge.
Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999, Autumn). Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424–433. CrossRef
Nivala, J. (1996). Constitutional architecture: The first amendment and the single family house (pp. 291–347). Winter: San Diego Law Review.
Onaran, K. S., & Sancar, F. H. (1998). Design review in small communities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(4), 539–557. CrossRef
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.
Poindexter, G. (1998). Light, air, or manhattanization?: Communal aesthetics in zoning central city real estate development. Boston University Law Review, (April), 445–506.
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.
Punter, J. (1999). Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west cost cities. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Punter, J. (2002). Urban design as public policy: Evaluating the design dimension of Vancouver’s planning system. International Planning Studies, 7(4), 265–282. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Rancière, J. (2013). The politics of aesthetics. A&C Black.
Sancar, F. H. (1994). Paradigms of postmodernity and implications for planning and design review processes. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 312–337. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer Science & Business Media.
Schmertz, M. F. (1993). Dictating design+design-review.
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.
Stamps, A. E. I. I. I. (1997). Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 883–896. CrossRef
Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.
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. CrossRef
Talen, E. (2012). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Thiel, P. (1994). Beyond design review: Implications for design practice, education, and research. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 363–376. CrossRef
- Emerging Themes in the Literature
- Chapter 3