Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

  • Joongsub KimEmail author


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.


  1. American Planning Association. (2008). Great places in America: Public spaces. Retrieved from:
  2. Blaesser, B. W. (1994). The abuse of discretionary power. In Design review (pp. 42–50). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carmona, M. (1998). Design control—bridging the professional divide, part 1: A new framework. Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2003). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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:
  8. Faga, B. (2006). Designing public consensus. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Forester, J. (1999b). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, A. (2007). A methodology for the preservation of the architectural heritage of Senneville, Quebec, Canada. Journal of Urban Design, 12(3), 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Godschalk, D. R., & Paterson, R. G. (1999). Collaborative conflict management comes of age. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16(2), 91–95.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Juergensmeyer, J., & Roberts, T. (2013). Land use planning and development regulation law 3D (Hornbook Series). West Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Kumar, S. (2002). Canadian urban design practice: A review of urban design regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(2), 239.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Lai, R. T. Y. (1988). Law in urban design and planing: The invisible web. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Google Scholar
  21. Lemar, A. S. (2015). Zoning as taxidermy: Neighborhood conservation districts and the regulation of aesthetics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1525.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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:
  25. Preiser, W. F., & Ostroff, E. (2001). Universal design handbook. McGraw Hill Professional.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Punter, P. (2003). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. Vancouver, BC, Canada: The University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press).Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Punter, J. (2010). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC Press.Google Scholar
  31. Punter, J., & Carmona, M. (1997). The design dimension of planning: Theory, content and best practice for design policies. London: E & FN Spon.Google Scholar
  32. Saxer, S. R. (2009). Assessing RLUIPA’s application to building codes and aesthetic land use regulation. Albany Government Law Review, 2.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  39. Straus, D., & Doyle, M. (1978). The architect as facilitator: A new role. Journal of Architectural Education, 31(4), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and DesignLawrence Technological UniversitySouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations