Beauty in the eye of the design reviewer: the contested nature of UK design review

References

• Allmendinger, P. 2002. “Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory.” Planning Theory 1 (1): 77–99. doi:10.1177/147309520200100105.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, P. 2011. The Bishop Review, the Future of Design in the Built Environment. London: Design Council.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R., D. W. Durning, and G. Seldon. 1998. “Q-Methodology.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, edited by G. J. Miller and M. L. Whicker, 599–638. New York: Marcel Dekker.
   Google Scholar
• CABE. 2002. Design Review: Guidance on How CABE Evaluates Quality in Architecture and Urban Design. London: CABE.
   Google Scholar
• CABE. 2006. Design Review: How CABE Evaluates Quality in Architecture and Urban Design. London: CABE.
   Google Scholar
• CABE. 2009. Design Review: Principles and Practice. London: CABE.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 1998. “Design Control-Bridging the Professional Divide, Part 1: A New Framework.” Journal of Urban Design 3 (2): 175–200. doi:10.1080/13574809808724424.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2009. “Good Design – It’s the Law!” Town and Country Planning 78 (2): 98–99.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2014. “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 2–36. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.854695.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2016a. “Design Review: Past, Present and Future”. August. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1544279/1/Carmona_51.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M. 2016b. “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., C. De Magalhaes, and M. Edwards. 2002. “Stakeholder Views on Value and Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 7 (2): 145–169. doi:10.1080/1357480022000012212.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., C. De Magalhaes, and L. Natarajan. 2017. Design Governance: The CABE Experiment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., and L. Sieh. 2004. Measuring Quality in Planning: Managing the Performance Process. Oxon: Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Case Scheer, B. 1994. “Introduction: The Debate on Design Review.” In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, edited by B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser, 1–12. New York: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Conway, H., and R. Roenisch. 2005. Understanding Architecture: An Introduction to Architecture and Architectural History. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, H. W. E. 1980. “The Relevance of Development Control.” Town Planning Review 51: 5–17.
   Web of Science ®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
• DCAL. 2006. Architecture and the Built Environment for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• DCLG. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• DCLG. 2014. Guidance: Design. Accessed 6 March 2014. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design
   Google Scholar
• Dear, M. J., and A. I. Moos. 1986. “Structuration Theory in Urban Analysis: 1. Theoretical Exegesis.” Environment and Planning A 18: 231–252. doi:10.1068/a180351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delafons, J. 1994. “Democracy and Design.” In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, edited by B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser, 13–19. New York: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Design Council CABE. 2013. Design Review: Principles and Practice. London: Design Council.
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, K. 1990. “An Examination of Architectural Interpretation: Architects versus Non Architects.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 7: 235–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., and J. Berejikian. 1993. “Reconstructive Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 8 (1): 48–60. doi:10.2307/2938955.
   Google Scholar
• DTLR. 2000. By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice. London: DTLR.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson. 2007. “Many Ways to Say ‘No’, Different Ways to Say ‘Yes’: Applying Q-Methodology to Understand Public Acceptance of Wind Farm Proposals.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 20 (4): 517–551. doi:10.1080/09640560701402075.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. 2014. The Farrell Review of Architecture + the Built Environment, Our Future in Place. London. http://www.farrellreview.co.uk/download
   Google Scholar
• Gilford, R., D. W. Hine, W. Muller-Clemm, and K. T. Shaw. 2000. “Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons.” Environment and Behaviour 32: 163–187. doi:10.1177/00139160021972487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, B. 2006. The National Economy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hassell. 2011. Design Review Research. Prepared for Green Building Council of Australia, August 2011. Melbourne: Hassell Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, M., and A. Karski. 2000. “The Built Environment and Design.” In Introduction to Planning Practice, edited by P. Allmendinger, A. Prior, and J. Raemaekers. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Hinshaw, M. L. 1995. “Design Review.” Planning Advisory Service Report Number 454. Chicago: American Planning Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkirk, E. 2012. “Design Council CABE Appoints New Director.” Accessed 19 January 2012. https://www.bdonline.co.uk/design-council-cabe-appoints-new-director/5030745.article
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords. 2016. Building Better Places, House of Lords Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment. London: House of Lords.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, P. 1996. “Conflicting Interpretations of Architecture: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 16: 75–92. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnstone, P. 2014. “Planning Reform, Rescaling, and the Construction of the Postpolitical: The Case of the Planning Act 2008 and Nuclear Power Consultation in the UK.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (4): 697–713. doi:10.1068/c1225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lock, D. 2009. “Rules for the Design Police.” Town & Country Planning, July/August, 308–309.
   Google Scholar
• McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q-Methodology. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, B. K., and H. Altan. 2011. “Comparative Review of Five Sustainability Rating Systems.” Procedia Engineering 21: 376–386. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029.
   Google Scholar
• Onaran, K. S., and F. H. Sancur. 1998. “Design Review in Small Communities.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25: 539–557. doi:10.1068/b250539.
   Google Scholar
• Place Alliance. 2018. Reviewing Design Review in London. London. https://indd.adobe.com/view/6b092a16-9991-4abf-a4ee-9da8719afec5
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. 1984. “A History of Aesthetic Control 1: The Control of External Appearance of Development in England and Wales 1909-1947.” Working Papers in Land Management and Development, No.2, University of Reading, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. 1999. “Improving the Instruments, Processes and Products of Aesthetic Control in Europe.” Urban Design International 4 (1+2): 79–99. doi:10.1057/udi.1999.15.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. 2006. “The Planning System and the Delivery of Design Quality.” In Urban Design Futures, edited by M. Moor and J. Rowland, 50–56. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J. 2010. “Centenary Paper – Planning and Good Design: Indivisible or Invisible? A Century of Design Regulation in English Town and Country Planning.” Town Planning Review 81 (4): 343–380. doi:10.3828/tpr.2010.14.
   Google Scholar
• Punter, J., and M. Carmona. 1997. The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory, Policy and Best Practice. London: Spon.
   Google Scholar
• Rönn, M. 2011. “Quality in Architecture and Urban Design – A Disputed Concept.” Design Research Journal 2 (10): 46–54.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffman, I. 1989. Alternate Techniques for Managing Growth. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher, A. 2011. Is Architectural Quality Ineffable? London: Contribution to RIBA futures debate, Business Design Centre.
   Google Scholar
• SE, (Scottish Executive). 2005. SPP20: The Role of Architecture and Design Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Development Department.
   Google Scholar
• Stamps, A. E. 2000. Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw, E. 2009. “The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33: 601–620. doi:10.1111/ijur.2009.33.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TfL (Transport for London). 2013. “Design Review: 2013 Programme Report.” http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Design-Review-Report-2012-13-EXTERNAL-short-draft.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Urban Design London. 2015. “UDL’s Design Review Survey Report January 2015.” http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/UDLs-Design-Review-Survey-2014-2-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Exel, N. J. A., and G. de Graaf 2005. “Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview.” http://www.jobvanexel.nl
   Google Scholar