Is Semi-Discretionary Design Review Wieldy? Evidence from Seattle’s Program

References

• Alden, J., & Morgan, R. (1974) Regional Planning: A Comprehensive View (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons).
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. (2009) Dilemmas in evaluating planning, or back to basics: What is planning for? Planning Theory & Practice, 10(2), pp. 233–244. doi:10.1080/14649350902884177
   Google Scholar
• Baab, D., & DeSelm, D. (1990) Design review: Public or private responsibility? Architecture California: August, 12, pp. 55.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Joseph, E., & Szold, T. (Eds) (2004) Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America (New York, NY: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Blaesser, B. W. (2005) Discretionary Land Use Controls: Avoiding Invitations to Abuse of Discretion (Deerfield, IL: Clark, Boardman, Callaghan).
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. (2016) The formal and informal tools of design governance, Journal of Urban Design, doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. (2017) The formal and informal tools of design governance, Journal of Urban Design, 22(1), pp. 1–36. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., de Magalhães, C., & Natarajan, L. (2018) Design governance the CABE way, its effectiveness and legitimacy, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 11(1), pp. 1–23. doi:10.1080/17549175.2017.1341425
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., Marshall, S., & Stevens, Q. (2006) Design codes: Their use and potential, Progress in Planning, 65, pp. 209–289. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2006.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• City of Seattle design review program improvements background report. Available at http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2277955.pdf (accessed 20 February 2016).
   Google Scholar
• 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), pp. 101–114. doi:10.1080/13574800802452930
   Google Scholar
• Gammage, G., Jr. (1994) Design review comes to Phoenix, in: B. C. Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds) Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, pp. 85–94 (New York: Chapman & Hall).
   Google Scholar
• George, R. V., & Campbell, M. C. (2000) Balancing different interests in aesthetic controls, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 163–175. doi:10.1177/0739456X0002000203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., & Forester, J. (2012) How design review staff do far more than regulate, Urban Design International, 17(3), pp. 239–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, S. (2002) Canadian urban design practice: A review of urban design regulations, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(2), pp. 239–264.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, S., & Ladouceur, E. (2007) Design review: Lessons for Toronto, Plan Canada, 47(1), pp. 32–35.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, J. (1996) Implementing urban design in America. Project types and methodological implications, Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), pp. 7–22. doi:10.1080/13574809608724368
   Google Scholar
• Lightner, B. C. (1992) Design review: A critical evaluation, Cities, 9(4), pp. 280–287. doi:10.1016/0264-2751(92)90028-4
   Google Scholar
• Linovski, O., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2013) Evolution of urban design plans in the United States and Canada what do the plans tell us about urban design practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(1), pp. 66–82. doi:10.1177/0739456X12454174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A. (2006) Roles and challenges of urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), pp. 173–193. doi:10.1080/13574800600644035
   Google Scholar
• May, H. (1994) Discretionary design review: Shaping downtown Cincinnati, in: B. Case Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds) Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, pp. 119–132 (New York: Chapman and Hall).
   Google Scholar
• Morris, M. (2009) Smart Codes (Chicago: Planners Press).
   Google Scholar
• Nasar, J., & Grannis, P. (1999) Design review reviewed: Administrative versus discretionary methods, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), pp. 424–433. doi:10.1080/01944369908976072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, E. (2011) Design review in the UK: Its role in town planning decision making, Urban Design International, 16(2), pp. 94–104. doi:10.1057/udi.2011.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (1999) Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west coast cities, Town Planning Review Special Study #2 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (2003) From design advice to peer review: The role of the urban design panel in Vancouver, Journal of Urban Design, 8(2), pp. 113–135. doi:10.1080/13574800306483
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. (2007) Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management, Journal of Urban Design, 12(2), pp. 167–202. doi:10.1080/13574800701306195
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J., Carmona, M., & Platts, A. (1994) The design content of development plans, Planning Practice and Research, 9(3), pp. 199–220. doi:10.1080/02697459408722930
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, B. C. (1994) Introduction: The debate on design review, in: B. C. Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds) Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, pp. 1–10 (New York: Chapman & Hall).
   Google Scholar
• Schuster, M., de Monchaux, J., & Riley, C. (Eds.) (1997) Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation (Hanover and London: University Press of New England).
   Google Scholar
• Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012) Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation, Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), pp. 22–42. doi:10.1177/0885412211413133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirvani, H. (1981) Urban Design Review: A Guide for Planners (Washington, DC: Planners Press, American Planning Association).
   Google Scholar
• Stamps, A. (2000) Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment (Amsterdam: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (2013) Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form-based codes, Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), pp. 175–200. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.772883
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, M. (1997) Fine art and good planning, Planning Practice and Research, 12(4), pp. 325–335. doi:10.1080/02697459716356
   Google Scholar
• Tiesdell, S., & Adams, D. (2011) Real estate development, urban design and the tools approach to public policy, in: S. Tiesdell & D. Adams (Eds) Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process, pp. 1–29 (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell).
   Google Scholar
• Tseng-ya Lai, R. (1998) Law in Urban Design and Planning: The Invisible Web (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
   Google Scholar
• Wadley, D., & Gore, H. (2016) Design intervention in architecture and planning: Practical explorations and applied outcomes, Architectural Science Review, 59, pp. 482–495. doi:10.1080/00038628.2016.1205180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J. (2015b) Pursuing design excellence: Urban design governance on Toronto’s waterfront, Progress in Planning, 110, pp. 1–41. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J. T. (2015a) Future directions in urban design as public policy: Reassessing best practice principles for design review and development management, Journal of Urban Design, 20(3), pp. 325–348. doi:10.1080/13574809.2015.1031212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar