Conclusion, Implications, Related Paradigms, and Future Research

  • Joongsub KimEmail author


This chapter discusses key implications of the study—namely, the planning, urban design, policy, political, educational, and research implications of design review. Using relevant literature, this final chapter examines the impact of design review on, and its inter-relationships with, contemporary urbanisms or urban paradigms, conventional planning goals, and education and pedagogy in planning and urban design, and provides the lessons learned from this study and directions for future research.


  1. Abelson, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Planning Association. (2014). Investing in place for economic growth and competitiveness. Retrieved from:
  3. American Planning Association. (2008). Great places in America: Public spaces. Retrieved from:
  4. Abrams, R. F., Malizia, E., Wendel, A., Sallis, J., Millstein, R. A., Carlson, J. A.,… & Naumann, R. B. (2012). Making healthy places: Designing and building for health, well-being, and sustainability. Island Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aicher, J. (1998). Designing healthy cities: Prescriptions, principles, and practice. Krieger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Banerjee, T., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (Eds.). (2011). Companion to urban design. Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barton, H. (2005, Winter). A health map for urban planners: Towards a conceptual model for healthy, sustainable settlements. Built Environment, 31 (4), 339–355. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from ATypon Link.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauerly, M., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of symmetry and number of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(3), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronin, S. C. (2008). The quiet revolution revived: Sustainable design, land use regulation, and the states. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 231.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, L. J., Dixon, D., & Gillham, O. (2013). Urban design for an urban century: Shaping more livable, equitable, and resilient cities. Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Calthorpe, P. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. Calthorpe, P. (2010). Urbanism in the age of climate change. Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2007). The communication process. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 479–489). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Chirapiwat, T. (1999). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 456.Google Scholar
  15. Circo, C. J. (2007). Using mandates and incentives to promote sustainable construction and green building projects in the private sector: A call for more state land use policy initiatives. Penn State Law Review, 112, 731.Google Scholar
  16. Congress for New Urbanism. (2000). Charter of the New Urbanism. New York: McGraw Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corburn, J. (2009). Toward the healthy city: People, places, and the politics of urban planning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2003). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duany, A., Speck, J., & Lydon, M. (2004). The smart growth manual. McGraw Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  22. Duhl, L. (2005, Winter). Healthy cities and the built environment. Built Environment, 31(4), 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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:
  24. Dunston, P. S., Arns, L. L., Mcglothlin, J. D., Lasker, G. C., & Kushner, A. G. (2011). An immersive virtual reality mock-up for design review of hospital patient rooms. Collaborative design in virtual environments (pp. 167–176). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Durand, C. P., Andalib, M., Dunton, G. F., Wolch, J., & Pentz, M. A. (2011). A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: Implications for smart growth urban planning. Obesity Reviews, 12(5), e173–e182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farr, D. (2011). Sustainable urbanism: Urban design with nature. Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Forsyth, A., Slotterback, C. S., & Krizek, K. J. (2010). Health impact assessment in planning: Development of the design for health HIA tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Groat, L. (1994). Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: Lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 156–164). New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, H. (1999). Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.Google Scholar
  32. Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heath, S. et al. (2006). The effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1):S55–S76. DOI: Scholar
  34. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Kegler, M. C., Norton, B. L., & Aronson, R. (June 2008). Achieving organizational change: Findings from case studies of 20 California healthy cities and communities coalitions. Health Promotion International, 23(2), 109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelbaugh, D. (2002). Repairing the urban metropolis: Common place revisited. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  38. Knaap, G., & Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and smart growth: A few words from the academy. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: The American experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  40. Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2007). The urban design reader. Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2013). The urban design reader. Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Lawhon, L. L. (2003, Summer). Planners’ perceptions of their role in socially responsive neighborhood design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(2), 153–63.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macdonald, E. (2000). Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west-cost cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 94–95.Google Scholar
  45. Mair, C. F., Roux, A. V. D., & Galea, S. (2008). Are neighborhood characteristics associated with depressive symptoms? A critical review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, jech-2007.Google Scholar
  46. May, H. (1994). Discretionary design review: Shaping downtown Cincinnati. In B. Scheer & W. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 119–132). New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999). Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peiser, R. (1990). Who plans America? Planners or developers? American planning association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(4), 496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Porth, R. J. (Fall 2002). Access to opportunity: The biggest regional challenge. National Civic Review, 91(3), 257–67.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Punter, J., & Carmona, M. (1997). The design dimension of planning: theory, content and best practice for design policies. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  53. Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  59. 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 Research, 14(3), 209–225.Google Scholar
  60. Shen, Z., & Kawakami, M. (2010). An online visualization tool for internet-based local townscape design. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34(2), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sirianni, C. (2007, autumn). Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design: The case of seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 373–387. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from Wilson Web database.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sitkowski, R. J., & Ohm, B. W. (2006). Form-based land development regulations. The Urban Lawyer, 38, 163.Google Scholar
  63. Smart Growth America. (2007). Smart growth toolkit. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from:
  64. Southworth, M. (2003, September). New urbanism and the American metropolis. Built Environment, 29(3), 210–227. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from ATypon Link database.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism & American planning: The conflict of cultures. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2003, September). A new urbanist diffusion network: The Americo-European connection. Built Environment, 29(3), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. U.S. EPA/Office of Air & Radiation/Climate Protection Partnerships Division. (2004). Building design guidance checklist. Retrieved April 24, 2009, from:
  68. Webster, H. (2005). A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williamson, T. (Fall 2002). Sprawl, politics, and participation: A preliminary analysis. National Civic Review, 91(3), 233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and DesignLawrence Technological UniversitySouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations