Design guidelines for wieldier discretionary review: evidence from Portland

References

• Black, P. 2019. “Beauty in the Eye of the Design Reviewer: The Contested Nature of UK Design Review.” Journal of Urban Design 24 (4): 556–574. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1511973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, R., and K. Cowan. 2002. Re: Urbanism: Challenge to the Urban Summit. London: Urban Exchange.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2016. “Design Governance: Theorizing an Urban Design Sub-field.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (6): 705–730. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2017. “The Formal and Informal Tools of Design Governance.” Journal of Urban Design 22 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2019. “Marketizing the Governance of Design: Design Review in England.” Journal of Urban Design 24 (4): 523–555. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1533373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., S. Tiesdell, T. Heath, and T. Oc. 2010. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cervero, R., and M. Duncan. 2003. “Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area.” American Journal of Public Health 93 (9): 1478–1483. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. 1997. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2 (3): 199–219. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• City of Seattle. 2008. “City of Seattle Design Guidelines Update.” https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/Vault/CitywideDesignGuidelinesUpdate/DesignGuideliensUpdateFindingsandAlternativesReportPhase1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• City of Seattle. 2015. Design Review Program Improvements Online Open House Survey Questions Summary. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDCI/Codes/ChangesToCodes/DesignReviewImprovements/AppendixCOnlineOpenHouseSummarySurvey2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• City of Seattle. 2019. Design Review: General Information, Application Instructions, and Submittal Requirements http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/cam238.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, E., and M. Higgins. 2009. “How Planning Authorities Can Improve Quality through the Design Review Process: Lessons from Edinburgh.” Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 101–114. doi:10.1080/13574800802452930.
   Google Scholar
• Deng, Z. 2009. “Design Control in Post-reform China: A Case Study of Shenzhen’s Commercial Office Development.” Urban Design International 14 (2): 118–136. doi:10.1057/udi.2009.13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunteman, G. 1984. Introduction to Multivariate Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Durmaz-Drinkwater, B., and S. Platt. 2018. “Better Quality Built Environments: Design Review Panels as Applied in Cambridge, England.” Journal of Urban Design 24 (4): 575–596. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1533372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhat, R. 2012. “Beyond Regulation: Special Improvement Districts, Design Review, and Place-making in New Jersey.” Journal of Urban Design 16 (3): 353–370. doi:10.1080/13574809.2012.683402.
   Google Scholar
• Farhat, R. 2018. “Is Semi-Discretionary Design Review Wieldy? Evidence from Seattle’s Program.” Planning Practice and Research 34 (1): 103–119. doi:10.1080/02697459.2018.1548213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, R., and M. Campbell. 2000. “Balancing Different Interests in Aesthetic Controls.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (2): 163–175. doi:10.1177/0739456X0002000203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamidi, S., and R. Ewing. 2014. “A Longitudinal Study of Changes in Urban Sprawl between 2000 and 2010 in the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 128: 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imrie, R., and E. Street. 2009. “Regulating Design: The Practices of Architecture, Governance and Control.” Urban Studies 46 (12): 2507–2518. doi:10.1177/0042098009346068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., and J. Forester. 2012. “How Design Review Staff Do Far More than Regulate.” Urban Design International 17 (3): 239–252. doi:10.1057/udi.2012.11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, R. 1988. Law in Urban Design and Planning: The Invisible Web. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, J. 1996. “Implementing Urban Design in America. Project Types and Methodological Implications.” Journal of Urban Design 1 (1): 7–22. doi:10.1080/13574809608724368.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, M. 2009. Smart Codes. Chicago: Planners Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nasar, J., and P. Grannis. 1999. “Design Review Reviewed: Administrative Versus Discretionary Methods.” Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (4): 424–433. doi:10.1080/01944369908976072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plater-Zyberk, E. 1994. “Forward.” In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, edited by B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser. Chapman & Hall: New York.
   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): 167–202. doi:10.1080/13574800701306195.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. 2019. “Design Review in Wales: The Role of the Design Commission for Wales.” Journal of Urban Design 24 (4): 605–612. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1557514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punter, J., and M. Carmona. 2011. The Design Dimension of Local Plans: Theory, Content, and Best Practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Reade, E. 1987. British Town and Country Planning. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, B. 1994. “Introduction: The Debate on Design Review.” In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, edited by B. Scheer and W. Preiser. New York: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Schuster, J., J. de Monchaux, and C. Riley. 1997. Preserving the Built Heritage: Tools for Implementation. Hanover and London: University Press of New England.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. 2013. “Zoning for and against Sprawl: The Case for Form-Based Codes.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (2): 175–200. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.772883.
   Google Scholar
• Tiesdell, S., and D. Adams. 2011. “Real Estate Development, Urban Design and the Tools Approach to Public Policy.” In Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process, edited by S. Tiesdell and D. Adams. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wadley, D., and H. Gore. 2016. “Design Intervention in Architecture and Planning: Practical Explorations and Applied Outcomes.” Architectural Science Review 29 (6): 482–495. doi:10.1080/00038628.2016.1205180.
   Google Scholar
• White, J. 2016. “Pursuing Design Excellence: Urban Design Governance on Toronto’s Waterfront.” Progress in Planning 110: 1–41. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J., and H. Chapple. 2019. “Beyond Design Review: Collaborating to Create Well-designed Places in Scotland.” Journal of Urban Design 24 (4): 597–604. doi:10.1080/13574809.2018.1529537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J., and J. Punter. 2017. “Toronto’s ‘Vancouverism’: Developer Adaptation, Planning Responses and the Challenge of Design Quality.” Town Planning Review 88 (2): 173–200. doi:10.3828/tpr.2016.45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, E. 2007. “American Cities, Urban Planning, and Place-Based Crime Prevention.” The Urban Lawyer 39 (4): 859–875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar