Design review is a procedure, like zoning, used by cities and towns to control the aesthetics and design of development projects. Although it is a new phenomena, its adoption by local jurisdictions is growing at a rate that compares to the rapid adoption of zoning in the 1930s. I have recently completed a national survey of planning agencies in more than 370 cities and towns on the topic of their design review processes; 83 percent of the towns surveyed had some form of design review. My initial assumption-that aesthetic review was primarily restricted to historic districts and structures-proved to be wrong. Only twelve respondents reserved design review exclusively for historic structures or districts. Therefore, we can conclude that more than 85 percent of the cities and towns in this country have moved into the arena of design review of ordinary, nonhistoric development projects. This widespread use of design review is also new: 60 percent of the respondents with design review have introduced it in the last twelve years, 10 percent in the last two years.Design review is a difficult and controversial process that needs thoroughgoing, professional criticism before it is introduced on a wide scale. In spite of the astonishing growth in the adoption of design review, it was very difficult to find resources about design review that did not paint it as a rosy picture, a no-lose situation for planners , designers, and citizens alike. Most planners who answered my survey are satisfied with their design review process; the fine-tuning of guidelines was seen as the major improvement to be made, along with giving themselves more autonomy to make design decisions without board interference. Citizens appear in favor, too, as they survey the results of thirty years of McDonald wastelands and trash spec office buildings, and hope that design review will solve the problem. Architects, on the other hand, are curmudgeons of a sort, being somewhat reluctant to throw themselves in with design review fans. Architects who responded to our survey for the AlA consider design review "petty, meddling, and useless" (25 percent), while the largest group said they thought it was a "good concept, but had serious flaws" (50 percent) (Gordon, 1992).I first became interested in design review while working as a planner in Boston, reviewing and approving storefront and housing projects. Like many planner/architects, I was unhappy with the simpleminded projects being proposed, and like many, I insisted on many changes I felt were more responsive to the context of the city of Boston. As the leader of my staff, I went through a series of developmental phases in my attitude toward the review process. We went from a casual review process, which mitigated the really mediocre and senseless proposals, to a more stringent one, which received criticism for arbitrariness. We wrote guidelines to counter this, but the guidelines were loose, general ones. Review became more
No abstract
Type of Report and Period CoveredFinal Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Supplementary Notes AbstractTransit-oriented development (TOD) has gained popularity worldwide as a sustainable form of urbanism; it concentrates development near a transit station so as to reduce auto-dependency and increase ridership. Existing travel behavior studies in the context of TOD, however, are limited in terms of small sample size, inconsistent TOD classification methods, and failure to control for residential self-selection. Thus, this study has three research questions. First, how can we distinguish between Transit-oriented development (TOD) and Transit-adjacent development (TAD)? Second, how do travel behaviors vary between TODs and TADs? Third, how does transportation affordability vary between TODs and TADs? This study utilizes cluster analysis to classify station area types and propensity score matching to control residential self-selection. From cluster analysis with built-environment factors-density, diversity, and walkability-in a half-mile buffer, this study classifies existing station areas as TOD, TAD or Hybrid types. After controlling for residential self-selection, it shows that a TOD motivates its residents to walk more and take transit more while using personal vehicles less. The significant difference between TOD and TAD in both VMT and the number of auto trips demonstrates that TODs make the personal vehicle trips shorter and fewer. Travel behavior in the Hybrid type demonstrates the possibility of gradual and practical change. Finally, the percentage of household income spent on transportation is lower in TOD households than TAD households. This shows that a TOD household is likely to save enough money on vehicle ownership and use that, while it likely spends more on transit, the final result is a significantly lower financial burden from transportation.17.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.