Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
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:
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. CrossRef
Carmona, M. (1998). Design control—bridging the professional divide, part 1: A new framework. Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 175–200. CrossRef
Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2003). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. New York: Routledge.
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
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. CrossRef
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.
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. CrossRef
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 practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, A. (2007). A methodology for the preservation of the architectural heritage of Senneville, Quebec, Canada. Journal of Urban Design, 12(3), 359. CrossRef
George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000). Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 163–175. CrossRef
Godschalk, D. R., & Paterson, R. G. (1999). Collaborative conflict management comes of age. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16(2), 91–95.
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.
Juergensmeyer, J., & Roberts, T. (2013). Land use planning and development regulation law 3D (Hornbook Series). West Academic.
Kumar, S. (2002). Canadian urban design practice: A review of urban design regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(2), 239.
Kumar, S. (2005). Urban design decision-making: A study of Ontario municipal board decisions in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(2), 209.
Lai, R. T. Y. (1988). Law in urban design and planing: The invisible web. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Lemar, A. S. (2015). Zoning as taxidermy: Neighborhood conservation districts and the regulation of aesthetics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1525.
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. CrossRef
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
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.
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. CrossRef
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, P. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. Vancouver, BC, Canada: The University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press).
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
Punter, J. (2010). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC Press.
Punter, J., & Carmona, M. (1997). The design dimension of planning: Theory, content and best practice for design policies. London: E & FN Spon.
Saxer, S. R. (2009). Assessing RLUIPA’s application to building codes and aesthetic land use regulation. Albany Government Law Review, 2.
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.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.
Straus, D., & Doyle, M. (1978). The architect as facilitator: A new role. Journal of Architectural Education, 31(4), 13–17. CrossRef
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
- Overview of the Current Status of Design Review
- Chapter 2