Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

What Do Design Reviewers Really Do

Understanding Roles Played by
Design Reviewers in Daily Practice

CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-
design-reviewers-really-do-understanding-
roles-played-by-design-reviewers-in-daily-
practice-joongsub-kim/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

What Do Philosophers Do?: Skepticism and the Practice

of Philosophy 1st Edition Penelope Maddy

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-philosophers-do-
skepticism-and-the-practice-of-philosophy-1st-edition-penelope-
maddy/

What Do We Know and What Should We Do About ... ? :

Inequality Mike Brewer

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-
we-do-about-inequality-mike-brewer/

A Designer s Research Manual Succeed in Design by

Knowing Your Clients and Understanding What They Really
Need 2nd Edition Jenn Visocky O’Grady

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-designer-s-research-manual-
succeed-in-design-by-knowing-your-clients-and-understanding-what-
they-really-need-2nd-edition-jenn-visocky-ogrady/

What Do We Know And What Should We Do About Internet

Privacy? Paul Bernal

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-
we-do-about-internet-privacy-paul-bernal/
Do we really understand quantum mechanics Second
Edition Laloë

https://textbookfull.com/product/do-we-really-understand-quantum-
mechanics-second-edition-laloe/

What Do We Know and What Should We Do About Social

Mobility Lee Elliot Major Stephen Machin

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-
we-do-about-social-mobility-lee-elliot-major-stephen-machin/

Why Do Banks Fail and What to Do About It 1st Edition

Abidi

https://textbookfull.com/product/why-do-banks-fail-and-what-to-
do-about-it-1st-edition-abidi/

Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics? 2nd Edition

Franck Laloe

https://textbookfull.com/product/do-we-really-understand-quantum-
mechanics-2nd-edition-franck-laloe/

Emergency Neurology What Do I Do Now 2nd Edition Sara C

Lahue Morris Levin

https://textbookfull.com/product/emergency-neurology-what-do-i-
do-now-2nd-edition-sara-c-lahue-morris-levin/
Joongsub Kim

What Do Design
Reviewers Really
Do? Understanding
Roles Played by
Design Reviewers
in Daily Practice
What Do Design Reviewers Really Do?
Understanding Roles Played by Design
Reviewers in Daily Practice
Joongsub Kim

What Do Design Reviewers

Really Do? Understanding
Roles Played by Design
Reviewers in Daily Practice

123
Joongsub Kim
College of Architecture and Design
Lawrence Technological University
Southfield, MI, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-05641-4 ISBN 978-3-030-05642-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05642-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018963997

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

In many architecture schools, it is not an exaggeration to state that key decisions

often evolve around “design.” In contrast, design review rarely receives attention.
When I interviewed a design reviewer in New York, she said that she often had to
play the multiple roles of consoler, convener, or facilitator to deal with emotionally
distressed residents or developers who are affected by design review decisions.
Architecture courses rarely touch on such emotional challenges. One may wonder
why understanding or studying emotional stresses, anger, frustration, fear, mistrust,
conflict, dispute, interaction, social cohesion, design governance, and politics in the
design review process is important. This book attempts to address that question—
and more importantly, to investigate the value of design review in the development
of a given built environment. This book is based primarily on stories (e.g., firsthand
accounts) told by many design reviewers across the USA.
This book is a culmination of the generous support, help, and advice of many
people. I am very grateful to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, for their generous financial support in my initial research for this book.
I wish to thank Lawrence Technological University, where I teach, for granting a
sabbatical leave that allowed me to write the first draft of the book. No word can
perfectly describe my gratitude for Professor John Forester at Cornell University for
his unwavering encouragement, support, and advice for my research from the
beginning until its publication as a book. His seminal works on deliberative practice,
collaborative planning, and micro-politics have had a profound impact on my
research. I would also like to thank Professors Vilma Santiago-Irizarry and Gary
Evans at Cornell University, and the late Professor J. Mark Schuster at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, for their thoughtful advice and useful feedback on this
research during its earlier phases. Special thanks to Rod Perkins and William Barnett
for their high-quality professional and reliable editing services. My former student
Christine Freundl did a superb job conducting additional literature reviews and helped
me with the initial surveys. She served as a dedicated, dependable, and intelligent
graduate student assistant and is now a successful urban designer in Austin, Texas.
A big thanks to Sallie Ilg, my former colleague and staff member at Lawrence
Technological University, for her kindness and assistance with my surveys while I

v
vi Preface

visited my parents abroad. She is the type of person who genuinely wants to help
anyone who needs anything, any time. Thanks to generous anonymous reviewers, I
received many useful comments on the draft of this book. I greatly appreciate Springer
for publishing this book. The professional help and guidance provided by their editors
and staff is unmatched by any other publisher. I want to thank my wife Kay Seo for
putting up with me all these years. I am very grateful for her unconditional support,
patience, and belief in me and my work. Last but not least, my utmost sincere gratitude
goes out to the nearly 140 design reviewers across the country who participated in my
long interviews and surveys. Their extensive experience, knowledge, and insights
have informed my research in many ways.

Detroit, Michigan Joongsub Kim

March 2018
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background Information and Significance of Study . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Chapter Organization . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . 4
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Goals of Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Methods and Processes Involved in Design Review . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Empirical Approaches to Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 A Brief History of Design Review in the United States,
and Comparison of Design Review in the United States
and Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 14
2.6 Successful Examples of Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 20
3 Emerging Themes in the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Literature in Regulation and Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 Design Review: Its Process and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Interrelationship of Interested Parties in Design Review . . . . . . 27
3.4 The Social Debate in Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5 Goals and Implementation of Design Review in Light
of Reviewer’s Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 32
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 35
4 Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Educator . . . . . . . .... 39
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 39
4.2 Managing Who Knows What (and When): The Design
Reviewer as Educator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 41
4.2.1 Providing Mechanisms for Learning About
and Learning from Design Review and Participants .... 41

vii
viii Contents

4.2.2 Providing Early Design Review Guidance Through

Informal and Formal Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.3 Changing the Worldview of Design Review
Participants Through Promoting Mutual Learning
Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5 Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Facilitator . . . . . ..... 57
5.1 Managing a Complex Process: The Design Reviewer
as Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 57
5.1.1 Referring, Nudging, Coordinating . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 58
5.1.2 Building a Collaborative Working Relationship,
Consensus-Building, Mediation, Negotiation,
Public Deliberation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 61
5.1.3 Constraint-Shaping, Problem-Solving, Stimulating
Design Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 64
5.1.4 Empowering, Provoking Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 69
6 Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Therapist . . . . . ...... 71
6.1 Managing Interpersonal Stresses: The Design Reviewer
as Therapist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 71
6.1.1 Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 72
6.1.2 Making Sense, Explaining, Working Through . . ...... 73
6.1.3 Individual Psychotherapy and Community
Psychotherapy in Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1.4 Land-Use Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.1.5 Therapeutic Training for a Design Reviewer . . . . . . . . . 82
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7 Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Convener . . . ........ 85
7.1 Managing Process and Promoting Social Encounters:
The Design Reviewer as Ritual Convener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
7.1.1 Bringing Parties Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.1.2 Informal One-on-One Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.1.3 Small-Group Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1.4 Large-Scale Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1.5 Encounters Between Experts and Non-experts . . . . . . . . 88
7.1.6 Community Celebrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Contents ix

8 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.1 Type of Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8.2 Design Review Board Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8.3 Reaction to the Four Hypothesized Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.4 The Four Roles in the Context of Difficult Challenges
Faced by Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8.4.1 Challenges that Require the Ability to Educate . . . . . . . 103
8.4.2 Challenges that Require Facilitating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
8.4.3 Challenges that Require the Ability to Console . . . . . . . 106
8.4.4 Challenges that Require the Ability to Convene . . . . . . . 106
8.4.5 Challenges that Require Effective
Reviewing/Regulating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
8.5 Successful Design Review Cases, What Design Reviewers
Want the Public to Know, and the Four Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.5.1 Successful Design Review Cases: What Makes
Them Successful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.5.2 What the Reviewers Want the Public Know . . . . . . . . . 118
8.6 Daily Tasks and the Four Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
9 Theoretical Underpinnings of the Four Hypothesized Roles . . . . . . 123
9.1 Relationship-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
9.2 Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
9.3 Managing Differences, Building Consensus, Negotiation,
Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
9.4 Learning and Incorporation of Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
9.5 Consoling: Dealing with Human Emotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
9.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
10 Conclusion, Implications, Related Paradigms,
and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
10.1 Pros (Strengths, Benefits, Opportunities) and Cons
(Weaknesses, Limitations, Liabilities, Challenges,
Unintended Consequences) of Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
10.2 Politics in Design Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
10.3 The Relationship Between Design Review and Contemporary
Influential Urban Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
x Contents

10.4 The Relationship Between Design Review and Key Goals

of Urban Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
10.5 The Impact of Design Review on the Disciplines of Urban
Design, Planning, and Architecture; Education
and Pedagogy; Areas of Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Abstract

In the actual work of “design review,” planners and architects do much more than
simply “review” proposals. They educate many players in the development process;
they facilitate governance; they respond to complex emotions. They also convene
carefully ritualized meetings so that parties can build long-term cooperative rela-
tionships. Through such efforts, design reviewers enable mutual learning between
different groups, along with promoting public recognition of shared community
values and the interdependence of the diverse stakeholders. As a result, design
reviewers foster public discourse, public imagination, and civic responsibility.
My analysis suggests that in addition to acting as regulators of design quality,
design review staff play four important practical roles: “educators,” “facilitators,”
“therapists,” and “ritual conveners.” They do all this while saving time and money
for those participating in the design review process. Drawing upon interviews with
design review staff in cities across the USA, this analysis presents extensive
interview quotes that richly illustrate not only the complexity of design review
practice, but significant aspects thereof that also deserve further research.

xi
Chapter 1
Introduction

Abstract This chapter provides a general description of the rationale for conducting
the study and for organizing the book. How did the study come about? What is
the overall approach to the study? What research question is asked? What is the
hypothesis? Why is the study timely? Why is design review important? What is the
purpose of the study? What is the rationale for data collection? What chapters are
included and why? These questions will be addressed more generally here, but details
will be provided in relevant chapters later.

1.1 Background Information and Significance of Study

Design review involves more skill, complexity and drama than anyone thought. This
book shows how. Furthermore, design review practices matter, but how do they work?
This study shows what design reviewers really do.
Studies in architecture and urban design have recently been investigating how
“rules” (e.g., regulations, codes) affect the physical characteristics and quality
of cities (e.g., Anderson, Brees & Reninger, 2008; Beer, 2014; Carmona, 2017;
Carmona, Magalhaes, & Natarajan, 2017, 2018; Imrie 2007; Imrie & Street, 2011;
Lemar, 2015; Meijer & Visscher, 2006; Talen, 2009, 2012). Yet there are few
sources that investigate what regulators actually do to administer such rules. This
book addresses several significant practical roles that design reviewers often play
but which the current design review literature largely neglects. Based on the initial
interviews with design reviewers in fifteen large cities in the United States that were
conducted several years ago to inform this study, these roles include “convener,”
“facilitator,” “therapist,” and “educator.” The interview findings show that studying
and refining these four roles makes it possible to examine design review more
thoroughly and subsequently improve the practice of this vital function. Follow-up
research was conducted to study the four hypothesized roles more comprehensively,
and to investigate how performing these roles can produce positive effects on the
process and outcomes of design review as well as participants, including the larger
community with a stake in design review decisions.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

J. Kim, What Do Design Reviewers Really Do? Understanding Roles Played by Design
Reviewers in Daily Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05642-1_1
2 1 Introduction

Scholars traditionally portray design reviewers in the more narrowly imagined

roles of “reviewer” and “regulator” (see, for example, Scheer’s 1994 study). These
roles are so closely related that I will hereafter refer to them as a single role, denoted
as “reviewer/regulator.” According to the first phase of interviews conducted for
this study, however, design reviewers often find themselves having to play one or
more of the four roles mentioned above. These roles are central to the activities of
design review; as the outcomes of both the first and second phases of interviews
show, these roles can be more influential than the limited reviewer/regulator role. If
these responsibilities are not handled well, though, design reviewers can create more
problems than they solve. The design reviewers I interviewed strongly agree that
an image limited to regulator/reviewer does not fully capture what design reviewers
normally do in practice.
The four roles complement the reviewer/regulator role. Yet succeeding in playing
the four roles involves diverse activities that can positively influence both design
review and the public. I assess the four roles by focusing on design reviewers’ daily
activities. First, as conveners, reviewers create social encounters in which design
review participants learn about one another, which then leads to improved, more
cooperative relationships with other stakeholders; this expedites the design review
process in a more amicable direction. Second, as facilitators, design reviewers refer
others to resources, nudge participants in the right direction, coordinate activities,
sensitize stakeholders to diverse design responses, build consensus, resolve conflicts,
and search for shared community values. Third, as “therapists,” design reviewers
comfort residents who are emotionally distressed due to a developer’s proposal or
decisions made following a design review. Additionally, a reviewer tries to identify
sources of anxiety and empower stakeholders to articulate their concerns. Finally, as
educators, design reviewers provide opportunities whereby all design review partic-
ipants as well as members of the general public learn new information and address
concerns related to potential problems with a development proposal. In addition,
when acting as an educator a design reviewer provides participants with opportuni-
ties to understand the public objectives of design review.
The idea that design reviewers play multiple roles and that the roles are not
described well by the term “regulation” enjoys academic and intellectual support
from a long tradition of studies of regulatory practice. In particular, Michael Lip-
sky’s seminal work on street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 2010), Fischer and Siri-
anni’s research on critical organization studies (Fischer & Sirianni, 1993), and Keith
Hawkins’s study of environmental reviewers (Hawkins & Thomas, 1989) all con-
sider individuals (e.g., social workers) who are reviewers of a sort and operate on the
front lines by providing various services while playing multiple roles. These seminal
studies are connected to my current work in design review, and they provide this
study with academic and intellectual foundations supporting its fresh claims related
to planning, urban design, and architecture as well as informing arguments pertaining
to the four roles mentioned above.
The results of the Phase 1 interviews strongly suggest that assessing the potential
contributions of these four roles could improve current design review practices. To
investigate these effects, comprehensive research was conducted through in-depth
1.1 Background Information and Significance of Study 3

interviews, supplemental surveys (including one that was completed by reviewers in

nearly all 50 states), and an extensive literature review. Through these data-collection
methods, this research has examined whether the four roles as practiced positively
affect the design review process (e.g., by developing increased public support for
high-quality design), its outcomes (e.g., by saving time and money), the learning
experience for design review participants and local residents (e.g., by educating
them about a community’s shared values), and quality of life (e.g., by improving the
quality of public spaces via urban design guidelines).
Through this research I was also able to investigate the positive effects that ful-
filling these four roles can have on design review practices. Even though the four
roles in practice have the potential to generate significant influence, they have been
neglected in the contemporary design review literature. This study is a rare attempt
to explore, in one research setting, all four roles that design reviewers often play.
The proposed hypotheses (pertaining respectively to the four hypothesized roles) are
exploratory: some concepts do overlap across the four roles and are not completely
defined at this stage. They should be investigated further. Nevertheless, the present
study is an important first step.
Virtually every city or town across the United States has a website it uses to
introduce governmental functions, programs, or policies. It would be difficult to find
a town or city of any size whose website does not include a design review function or
that does not link to a planning or building department that addresses design review
in some capacity, unless the town is too remote or has too few buildings. Sources
indicate that America housed nearly five million commercial buildings of various
types in 2011 (e.g., EIA, 2011). By 2035, commercial building floor space is expected
to reach 109.8 billion square feet—a 53% increase over 2003 levels (EIA, 2011).
These buildings will eventually need to be rebuilt, expanded, or renovated to address
deterioration or the changing needs or goals of the organizations that use them.
Design proposals will be subjected to design review processes. Moreover, there has
been growing concern among policymakers, community development organizations,
and residents across the country that current design review practices need evaluation
in the face of suburban sprawl, urban decay, economic downturns, climate change,
and the sustainability movement; all of these factors affect the physical environment
and design review (Brown, Dixon & Gillham, 2013; Talen, 2012). In this regard, the
study of design review is important. Now is a good time to assess its current status.
Studies (e.g., Scheer, 1994; Scheer & Preiser, 2012) suggest that design review
board membership in many cities includes ordinary people. The participation of
everyday citizens in planning and design processes is important because ultimately
they are the people who will live in the environment that is to be reviewed and
approved by a design review board. Despite the increase in the number of design
review boards and the growing level of public participation across the United States,
research on design review has been scarce, especially for the last ten years or so.
Although the recent literature on design review is limited, existing studies have been
focusing more attention on the goals, processes, regulations, and policies involved in
design review (e.g., Stamps, 2013). The specific roles that design reviewers play in
their daily practices have not received significant attention from scholars. Additional
4 1 Introduction

research on design review is therefore necessary and important. Additionally, design

review creates an increasingly significant influence on the physical environment and
its users (Dawson & Higgins, 2009; Talen, 2012). It deserves scholarly attention
more than ever.
The main goal of this research is, then, to investigate in depth the practical roles of
educator, convener, facilitator, and therapist. Evidence will be presented to support
the active presence of each of these roles and explain what each role entails. Also
discussed are the characteristics and activities of each role, the relationships between
the four roles, and their implications in terms of contemporary urbanisms, planning
practice goals, scholarship, and education in general.
To conduct this study, in-depth interviews and written questionnaires comple-
menting the interviews were used. Seventy-six interviews and 124 surveys were
conducted across the United States. The results obtained from 50 completed inter-
views (Phase 1: 15; Phase 2: 35) and 74 completed surveys have been used for this
book. Evidence from the outcomes of interviews and surveys supports the existence
of the four hypothesized roles and related arguments. Additionally, an extensive lit-
erature review was conducted to survey the current state of design review studies and
explore key themes running through the literature on design review; this literature
review lays the groundwork for the major remaining portion of this research. After
the interviews and surveys were finished, a more extensive literature review was con-
ducted to develop preliminary theoretical underpinnings that explain the concepts
behind the four hypothesized roles and to explore the implications of the outcomes
of this research, including the interviews and surveys, for several key topics.
This study is organized as follows.

1.2 Chapter Organization

Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter lays out in general the main research question, the research goal, the
research method, and the significance of the research as well as the book’s organi-
zation. More details on the research question, the research goal, and the research
method will be covered later in appropriate chapters.
Chapter 2: Overview of the Current Status of Design Review
This chapter introduces the field of design review as it relates to the purpose of this
study. It focuses in particular on goals, processes, and practices of design review,
primarily in the United States but also secondarily in Europe, and for illustrative
purposes includes several sample cases that scholars have considered successful.
Chapter 3: Emerging Themes in the Literature
This chapter presents the outcomes of a literature review focused on topics that I
identify as strong themes in the current design review literature. The chapter high-
1.2 Chapter Organization 5

lights key trends in the literature on design review in architecture, urban design,
urban planning, and other related disciplines.
Additionally, in presenting an extensive literature review, Chaps. 2 and 3 provide
readers with an initial rationale and background ideas underpinning the four hypoth-
esized roles and discusses why there is value in exploring these roles. This sets the
stage for later chapters.

Chapter 4: Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Educator

Managing Who Knows What (and When): The Design Reviewer as Educator

Chapter 5: Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Facilitator

Managing a Complex Process: The Design Reviewer as Facilitator

Chapter 6: Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Therapist

Managing Interpersonal Stresses: The Design Reviewer as Therapist

Chapter 7: Interview Results: The Design Reviewer as Convener

Managing Process and Promoting Social Encounters: The Design Reviewer as
Ritual Convener

Chapters 4 through 7 report the outcomes of interviews conducted in Phase 1 and

Phase 2. The findings are organized by reference to the four hypothesized roles, with
extensive quotes from the interviews.

Chapter 8: Survey Results

This chapter reports the outcomes of the questionnaire survey. The chapter focuses
on several key themes that run across the survey outcomes. The chapter will also
discuss the results of the survey as they pertain to the four hypothesized roles.
Chapter 9: Theoretical Underpinnings of the Four Hypothesized Roles

This chapter explores the implications of the interview and survey outcomes, and
explains how such outcomes are supported theoretically or conceptually by the liter-
ature in planning and allied fields. The main objective is to investigate how the four
hypothesized design review roles are supported by lessons or ideas from the literature
not only in design and planning but also in other social science fields. Additionally
this research hopes to explore the findings, data, and perspectives from various fields
to refine the concepts underlying the four hypothesized roles, to show what such
learning tells us about design review, and to indicate what kind of multi-disciplinary
approach would benefit this research.
The chapter also reviews findings from the literature in architecture, urban plan-
ning, urban design, sociology, psychology, environmental psychology, community
psychology, philosophy, education, law, and other social science fields used to
explain concepts that facilitate understanding the four proposed roles.
6 1 Introduction

Chapter 10: Conclusion, Implications, Related Paradigms, and Future Research

This chapter discusses the key implications of the study, namely the planning, policy,
political, educational, and research implications of design review. This chapter draws
conclusions based on this study’s research and wraps up the research by discussing
the implications of study outcomes in terms of planning practice, education, politics,
research, and scholarship. In addition, the lessons from this study and directions for
future research are discussed.

References

Anderson, J. L., Brees, A. E., & Reninger, E. C. (2008). A study of American zoning board com-
position and public attitudes toward zoning issues. The Urban Lawyer, 40(4), 689–745.
Beer, C. (2014). The contingent public value of ‘good design’: Regulating the aesthetics of the
Australian urban built environment. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(2), 282–290.
Brown, L. J., Dixon, D., & Gillham, O. (2013). Urban design for an urban century: Shaping more
livable, equitable, and resilient cities. Wiley.
Carmona, M. (2017). The formal and informal tools of design governance. Journal of Urban Design,
22(1), 1–36.
Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C., & Natarajan, L. (2017). Design governance: The CABE experi-
ment. Routledge.
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), 1–23.
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.
Eia, U. (2011). Annual energy outlook 2011 with projections to 2035. Washington, D.C: Energy
Information Administration, United States Department of Energy.
Fischer, F. & Sirianni, C., D (1993). Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Hawkins, K., & Thomas, J. M. (Eds.). (1989). Making regulatory policy. University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Imrie, R. (2007). The interrelationships between building regulations and architects’ practices.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(5), 925–943.
Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2011). Architectural design and regulation. Wiley.
Lemar, A. S. (2015). Zoning as taxidermy: Neighborhood conservation districts and the regulation
of aesthetics. Indiana Law Journal, 90, 1525.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th
anniversary expanded edition). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Meijer, F., & Visscher, H. (2006). Deregulation and privatisation of European building-control
systems? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 491–501.
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.
Scheer, B., & Preiser, W. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Stamps, A. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Talen, E. (2009). Design by the rules: The historical underpinnings of form-based codes. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 144–160.
Talen, E. (2012). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Chapter 2
Overview of the Current Status of Design
Review

Abstract 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.

2.1 Background

By definition design review generally includes architectural review, site review, his-
toric district review, and urban design review. The terms used to denote such reviews
differ across the United States. “The term ‘design review’ refers to a governmental
process, the purpose of which is to determine if a development project complies
with community design standards” (Stamps, 1994, p. 403, 2013). Some cities have a
design review board while others have a planning board that performs design review.
Such boards include several review members. Some reviewers are planners and others
are architects, economists, lawyers, or laypeople (e.g., local business owners).
“(Urban) aesthetic control,” “appearance review,” and the like are terms used to
refer to design review. Aesthetic controls are often determined by residents’ opinions
about visual images associated with their localities (Stamps, 1994, p. 404).
In general, the members of a design review board review applicants’ (e.g., prop-
erty owners’ or developers’) building design proposals or site design proposals to
determine whether such proposals meet local design review guidelines and policies
(as well as zoning constraints, land-use requirements, and building codes).
Some cities have both informal and formal review processes while others have only
formal processes. An informal process is often called pre-design review, and is useful
for developers or property owners who wish to hear early feedback from their cities’
review boards on their initial design proposals prior to submitting formal applications.
Applicants incorporate an informal review board’s input into final proposals for
formal design review.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 7

J. Kim, What Do Design Reviewers Really Do? Understanding Roles Played by Design
Reviewers in Daily Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05642-1_2
8 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

2.2 Goals of Design Review

The goals and motivations behind design review vary widely. The actual implementa-
tion of design review can be a community response to changes in a neighborhood that
cause residents to feel that the neighborhood no longer reflects a genuine or true com-
munity vision (Punter, 2007, 2010). In this case, design review is often implemented
in the form of design guidelines, adherence to which the design review process eval-
uates (Punter, 2007). Other motivations for design review can be attributed to design
professionals such as urban designers and planners. Many planners and designers
enter their professions to help implement changes in cities and neighborhoods and
to improve the appearance and functioning of cities (Preiser & Ostroff, 2001). In
this respect, the goal of design review can be to implement what a particular planner
views as positive change involving a city’s structure or neighborhood aesthetics.
Various definitions of design review have been offered by scholars, but they gen-
erally have several points in common. Design review involves: the preparation and
presentation of design work to a panel of third-party reviewers; public control of the
built environment; and engagement of design professionals with the public. Design
review also often concerns aesthetics and context. Within such a broad definition of
design review there exist various terminologies for evaluating proposals, including
“aesthetic control” and “design control.” The application of aesthetic control is more
specific than that of design control alone in terms of evaluating the appearance of
a building within its surroundings; design control may also include the “structural,
safety, and internal aspects of building design” (Delafons, 1994, p. 13). In gen-
eral, design review differs from most zoning, subdivision, and building regulations
because of its emphasis on appearance (Nasar & Grannis, 1999, p. 424).
George and Campbell contend that aesthetic controls are based on the belief that
there is a collective good in their application, which is greater than the sum of the costs
to each individual (George & Campbell, 2000, p. 163). In a similar vein, Carmona
(1998) observes that design review raises quality standards for development and
design decisions and considers public input to bridge the gap between laypeople
and professionals (as cited in Dawson & Higgins, 2009, p. 102). One objective of
design review is to direct a community’s orderly growth in a way that reflects its
future image of its city (Stamps, 1994, p. 404). To fulfill that goal, comparability is
promoted; Nasar and Grannis suggest that “compatibility does not necessarily require
one to mimic the surroundings. Rather it refers to the degree to which a proposal has
features that make it appear to fit with its surroundings” (Nasar & Grannis, 1999,
p. 425).
In addition to addressing the built environment context, design review also has a
social component through which it engages the public and those outside the design
profession. To that end Jones states:
Design review represents an increasingly important regulatory mechanism that purports
to provide a forum for public discussion and control over the aesthetic quality of the built
environment. It also can be viewed as an important means for design professionals to commu-
nicate about their projects with others interested in the development of the built environment.
(Jones, 2001, p. 23)
2.2 Goals of Design Review 9

Architects and urban designers are pushed beyond their typical roles when pre-
senting their designs to reviewers. Consequently, design review necessitates a level of
presentation, neighborhood involvement, and public relations that does not apply to
projects that are not subject to public review (Jones, 2001, p. 29). Some practitioners
object to devoting the extra time and resources required for reviewing submissions
and are leery of the restraint that design controls may place on their creativity. The
challenge is therefore to find a means of control that will serve the public inter-
est while affording creative designers the desired freedom of expression (Delafons,
1994, p. 13). Public interest is also addressed by Scheer (1994), who states that design
review is about “enhancing the quality of people’s lives, preserving the uniqueness of
a place, maintaining vitality, ensuring comfort and safety, and making new develop-
ment compatible with its surroundings” (as cited in Dawson & Higgins, 2009, p. 102).
According to the current understanding of design review in the United States, the
process involves defining contextually appropriate design aesthetics for the urban
domain that enhance quality of life, maintain historic character, build consensus on a
city image, and promote social interaction (Lemar 2015; Saxer 2009; Stamps 2013).

2.3 Methods and Processes Involved in Design Review

Design review processes employ several techniques. Historically the design review
process has followed a linear approach wherein the manager of the appropriate
department, usually the senior planner, sits at the head of the decision-making
process and oversees designs according to their adherence to aesthetic and zoning
controls (Juergensmeyer & Roberts 2013; Straus & Doyle, 1978). There has been
a shift in design review, however, requiring planners or architects representing the
review process to assume more dynamic roles. One early example of an alternative
to a top-down design review is the accordion approach, which has been used by
cities in the United States and Japan (Scheer & Preiser 2012; Straus & Doyle,
1978). Following this approach, all individuals or groups that are responsible for
final decisions, are affected by the decisions, or have the power to block decisions
are identified at the beginning of the review process. Design review staff members
identify and bring these parties together to identify other stakeholders who may
still be left out, and also to design and agree upon a collaborative planning process
(Straus & Doyle, 1978). This approach differs from using a mediator because the
person running the design review meetings does not get involved in decision-making
or evaluating participants. Instead, the person running the meeting helps assign the
tasks to be done and identify who will do them (Straus & Doyle, 1978).
To this extent the person leading the meeting takes on the role of a facilitator
(Straus & Doyle, 1978), which is congruent with the strategies suggested by Forester
(Forester, 1987, 1999a). Forester points out that the review and planning process is
deliberative (Forester, 1999b). This requires all parties to listen carefully and create
a forum for open discussion. Forester refers to this as practical planning theory,
10 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

which intertwines process and product, acting and learning, relationship-building and
world-shaping, reaching beyond deal-making to the creative practice of deliberative
planning and design in the public sphere (Forester, 1999b, 2009).
Various schools of thought define the scope and specifics of facilitation differently,
but the theory of collaborative conflict management suggested by Godschalk and
Paterson functions much like Forester’s practical planning scheme. In traditional
public participation processes, such as public hearings, community disputes are often
exacerbated rather than resolved, which can lead to impasses in negotiations and
even lawsuits (Godschalk & Paterson, 1999). In collaborative conflict management,
staff can use techniques such as negotiation, facilitation, and mediation to identify
tradeoffs between parties, address differences, and build consensus among opposing
groups (Forester, 2009; Susskind & Cruikshank, 2006). There are three generally
accepted phases in the process of conflict management:
1. Pre-negotiation: gathering stakeholders, securing a neutral party, setting ground rules,
and agreeing to agendas and the mechanism for fact-finding
2. Negotiation: devising options for mutual gain, packaging and writing agreements, bind-
ing parties to their commitments, and ratification.
3. Implementation: linking agreements to formal decision-making processes, monitoring
conformance, and renegotiating as necessary.
(Godschalk and Paterson, 1999)

Collaborative conflict management seeks to turn participation from negative and

obstructive channels into positive and constructive channels (Godschalk & Paterson,
1999).
The strategies listed above have involved mainly interactions between design
review participants. Design review strategies also vary in protocol and the strictness
of adherence to a rigid set of design standards (Kumar, 2002). Scholars often recog-
nize the Ontario (Canada) Municipal Board (OMB) as a very powerful administrative
body (Kumar, 2005). The OMB’s charge is to make a concerted attempt to recog-
nize urban design as an important part of the planning process. The OMB supports
less rigid design control measures despite focusing on the measurable impacts of a
design on a community (Kumar, 2005). Other variations in design review arise in the
strategy used to generate design review criteria. In the case of Senneville, Quebec,
the province approached academia to help it define its design guidelines (Friedman,
2007). Senneville hired a group of consultants who were scholars in the field of
design review and design guidelines. The consultants used research collected in the
community to generate a set of design guidelines to be used as the basis for the design
review process.
Design review typically follows a progression from design development to pre-
design review to submission of a proposal to design review. Informal design review
includes a pre-design review submission as opposed to what occurs in more formal
design review processes where the only outcome is the final design review. Design
control procedures differ from what occurs in the creative process of design inso-
far as the tasks involved are generally organizational and paperwork-related (Punter
& Carmona, 1997, p. 83). Formal procedures include submission of materials and
2.3 Methods and Processes Involved in Design Review 11

consultation with the public, while informal procedures include seeking advice from
colleagues and specialists (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 83). In particular, design
control procedures consist of planning officer consultation (as early as possible),
obtaining skilled/specialist advice, design briefing (or guidance, design frameworks),
application presentation (drawings, context, photomontage, design statements), pub-
lic consultation (applications), and implementation (procedures, phasing, enforce-
ment) (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 84).
Two general approaches to design review are utilized by cities: the more subjec-
tive discretionary review process and the standardized administrative design review
process (Nasar, Evans-Cowley, & Mantero, 2007; Nasar & Grannis, 1999). Dis-
cretionary design review applies to ordinances in which a decision is at reviewers’
personal discretion. Administrative design review applies to ordinances that limit
personal discretion by requiring projects to satisfy clear standards (Nasar & Grannis,
1999, p. 425). Administrative review is procedural and is less reliant on reviewers’
opinions.
Discretionary review has been criticized as too subjective because of the lack of
empirical evidence or explicit criteria used to guide reviewers’ judgments. At their
worst, discretionary review procedures “completely lack demonstrable a priori links
to a public interest” (George & Campbell, 2000, p. 172). This situation is not unique to
the United States. Dawson and Higgins state that “Britain’s ‘discretionary’ planning
system means that the interpretation of design policies can be a complex process
resulting in risk and uncertainty for everyone involved in the development industry”
(Dawson & Higgins, 2009, p. 103). Nasar and Grannis contend that communities
reduce problems by improving discretionary review procedures through replacing
ambiguous or unstated criteria with clear, explicit criteria (Nasar & Grannis, 1999,
p. 433). Balancing the competing interests of decision-makers and the public while
linking aesthetic controls to the public interest is best achieved when controls are
applied early in the design or decision process. In that sense, aesthetic controls that
intervene earlier in the design process are both fairer and more likely to succeed
(George & Campbell, 2000, p. 173).
Another option for implementing discretionary design review is to include incen-
tives. George and Campbell (2000, p. 174) argue that, “to take advantage of incen-
tives, designers must submit themselves to a discretionary review. Because designers
could choose whether to subject themselves to review, this would be one situation
in which discretionary review would be acceptable.” This type of design control is
termed “design guidance” by Delafons. In a study conducted by Lightner, it was
found that “a large majority (81%) of jurisdictions that engaged in design guid-
ance reported that not all projects are subject to review, and that the process varies
according to circumstances” (as quoted in George & Campbell, 2000, p. 165).
12 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

2.4 Empirical Approaches to Design Review

We turn now to the application of empirical scientific approaches to design review. In

a study of the architectural design review for a single residence, Stamps used empiri-
cal methods to measure “whether [a] project will increase, maintain, or diminish the
aesthetic merit of [a] sampled area” (Stamps, 2000, p. 265). The homeowner submit-
ted a home renovation design for review and was required to make several changes
to the design. Design review was conducted using traditional methods, which were
based on the individual discretion of the design reviewers and committee meetings.
During the meetings, the design reviewers verbally exchanged their individual discre-
tionary judgments (Stamps, 2000, p. 266). Stamps sought to gauge the significance
of the changes by comparing the homeowner’s design to the review board’s design.
The study surveyed more than fifty randomly selected residents; individuals were
shown images of proposed changes to the house under design review, along with
images of various other houses in the neighborhood. All of the images portrayed
houses that were situated on corner lots. Seventeen images were shown on slides,
and respondents were asked to rate the slides on a scale of one to eight, with the
values representing the range from unpleasant to pleasant (Stamps, 2000, p. 268).
Pleasant ratings are associated with aesthetically favorable design elements, and they
were therefore considered to be worthwhile changes, as suggested by design review.
The results of the ratings that compared the homeowner’s desired changes to his
particular house with the changes required by the design review board produced little
variation in the public perception of aesthetic merit. According to survey findings,
the addition of street trees had the same impact on “pleasantness” responses that
the design review changes evoked. Stamps concluded that traditional design review
was a waste of time and effort since there was no significant finding of an improved
design aesthetic. In this case, the recommendations of the reviewers were voiced
verbally; this method has disadvantages in terms of the lack of evidence to support
their claims and the potential for confusion due to the use of design jargon. Problems
with a traditional design review are most often caused by a reviewer’s use of “vague
terms and discussion instead of clear concepts and explicit testing of hypotheses”
(Stamps, 2000, p. 266). An alternative means of resolving confusion in design review
is offered by Stamps; he recommends that reviewers utilize scientific protocols to
support their claims (Stamps, 2000, 2013):
If and when disputes arise regarding the possible aesthetic effects of a physical intervention
in the environment, resolve those disputes with empirical evidence rather than with indi-
vidual discretion of design reviewers or rhetorical discussions. Use of scientific protocols
will enable design reviewers to distinguish major beneficial interventions from interven-
tions which literally have the effects of molehills. The consequences will be (a) far greater
accuracy, (b) much more efficient design review processes, and (c) most likely, much better
environments. (Stamps, 2000, p. 270)

In mentioning scientific protocol, Stamps is referring to the “standard empir-

ical science with random sampling and inferences justified by probability theory”
(Stamps, 1994, p. 404). Empirical evidence is obtained through data-collection meth-
ods such as surveying residents, as was used in the case of the residential design
2.4 Empirical Approaches to Design Review 13

discussed above. Responses to survey questions were analyzed and compiled into
tables for presentation. Reviewers wishing to use this method to bolster support for
their recommendations would present data at a design review meeting.
To gain perspective on feelings in relation to physical design elements of archi-
tecture, Stamps researched aesthetic controls from a scientific perspective (Stamps,
2013). Psychological scaling focuses on the study of psychological responses to
physical stimuli (Stamps, 1994, p. 404). This approach may involve asking questions
about respondents’ preference between several choices, comparison of the appropri-
ateness of proposed projects within the aesthetics of a site context, and preferences
for specific design elements (Stamps, 1994, p. 404). Urban designers find evaluation
based on specific elements of a design to be the most effective means for enforc-
ing or verifying urban design guidelines (Stamps, 1994, p. 404). This approach is
preferable because the empirical evidence is immediately applicable to the problem
at hand; responses that point to strong preferences for or against a design element
direct reviewers toward the questions they need to ask in the design review. Psycho-
logical scaling requires a visual presentation of design proposals to a group of public
respondents.
Design reviewers may find it challenging to ensure the high quality of presentation
graphics. Findings from an extensive literature review and survey conducted by
Stamps indicate that color photographs and drawings closely resembling buildings
(rather than conceptual renderings or photo montages) are the most effective and
most preferred media for submission to design review, and that reviewers are more
concerned with the actual design than with presentation media. Finally, due to the
varying preferences for various forms of visual media, the use of a standardized
format for submissions is recommended (Stamps, 1994, p. 406). This finding was
also applied to the 1999 study by Nasar and Grannis in which color photographs
were used to garner accurate responses to their survey in a similar study. Obtaining a
broader range of inputs allows design reviewers to confirm that their design guidelines
match public preferences for particular architectural aesthetics.
Design competition may occur as one element or method utilized in a design
review. In an analysis of high-rise building proposals in San Francisco, the process
follows a traditional design jury format, with the added element of the professional
opinion of an architectural critic and a psychological scaling component (Stamps,
1994, p. 408). Scaling found that roof lines, massing, and architectural details all con-
tributed to respondents’ preferences, while the review board was limited to responses
in one of four categories based on visual quality. This mixed-method approach in
evaluating competition entries makes it possible to achieve a more detailed under-
standing of aesthetic preferences through triangulation of data between the findings
of psychological, jury, and expert opinions.
Could this approach work in a typical design review process? In a similar vein,
what happens when neighbors (non-expert citizens) have strong views about partic-
ular design issues or design review decisions? What is the relationship between the
objectives of design review and popularity? If neighbors or citizen stakeholders like
a design, does that solve the design review problem or fulfill design review goals?
When does it happen or not happen? The current literature does not fully address these
14 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

issues. Nevertheless, the abovementioned studies by Stamps and Nasar and Grannis
are significant in that they researched aesthetic controls from a scientific perspective.
In particular, their approaches suggest ways in which design reviewers can improve
review processes by validating their design guidelines with empirical evidence, or
using scientific protocols to support their claims. Despite these contributions, how-
ever, research on design review from an empirical scientific perspective remains rare.
More diverse empirically based studies are needed to address the questions raised
above and other related issues.

2.5 A Brief History of Design Review in the United States,

and Comparison of Design Review in the United States
and Europe

Historically, design review has functioned through informal relationships between

those who commission buildings and the architects and craftsmen that execute
them according to their design requests (Sheer, 1994, p. xv). This is no longer an
adequate system since those close relationships rarely exist in the design process, and
more often committees rather than clients or end-users make the aesthetic control
decisions (Sheer, 1994, p. xv). In the late 1920s, zoning ordinances spread across
the United States as one of the first means of controlling the built environment.
Objectives of early zoning, outlined in the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act,
included promoting the general health, safety, and welfare of residents, facilitating
the provision of basic services, providing adequate light and air, securing safety
from fire, avoiding overcrowding of land, and avoiding undue concentration of
populations (Cullingworth & Caves, 2003, p. 71). Ordinances tended to promote
risk prevention and organization of like uses, while design review and aesthetic
controls sought visual cohesiveness in the built environment.
Formal design review procedures emerged in the United States in the 1950s. In
New York, Robert Wagner established informal community design review boards for
Manhattan, and when he became mayor he included formal review boards in 1961
city charter revisions (Faga, 2006, p. x). Today New York maintains this practice of
formal review. Faga (2006, p. x) notes that “every land-use decision acted upon by
the city council is preceded by the local public hearings and an advisory opinion from
the relevant 50-member community board, as well as by citywide public hearings
and a vote of the 13-member city planning commission.” Design review operates
similarly in most states across the United States today.
Design review emerged in the United Kingdom through a series of events begin-
ning with a progression that was similar to what occurred in the development of
the procedure in the United States. The first guidelines, which appeared in 1909,
established controls for housing to promote beautiful, pleasant, healthy, suburban
developments that provided proper sanitary conditions and other necessary ameni-
ties (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 16; Scheer & Preiser, 1994, 2012). Amenities
2.5 A Brief History of Design Review in the United States … 15

involved primarily issues related to environmental quality. Town planning schemes

were developed in the 1930s under the auspices of the 1925 Planning Act that autho-
rized local officials to act for the preservation of neighborhood character. Later the
Bath Corporation Act permitted localities to approve design elements such as mate-
rials or building elevations (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 16). Influence was limited
to preventing architectural “outrages” that would blatantly contrast with local com-
munity character (Punter, 1994, p. 52).
In the middle of the twentieth century, development regulations in England empha-
sized preservation of natural and historical elements and the segregation of land-uses.
Environmental issues emerged in conservation legislation in the 1950s and 1960s,
and in the early 1960s “clean-sweep planning” called for the retention of local con-
text, while high-rise development occurred in central cities in the 1970s (Punter
& Carmona, 1997, p. 16). The British Royal Fine Arts Commission, an aesthetics
advisory board, began to suggest formal implementation of design control in the
1980s (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 16). “Circular 22/80” is a document that out-
lined detailed criteria for design review and the rejection of poor designs (Punter,
1994, p. 54). The new rules were not well liked by the public, so they increasingly
exercised their right to submit applications to appeal design review decisions with
their local authorities (Punter, 1994, p. 54).
Significant differences exist between design review processes in the United States
and those in the United Kingdom. One difference pertains to the ruling structure,
which in the United States lies in the hands of local municipalities. In general, there
is no design control across much of the United States, although many cities are
responsive to the call for historic preservation (Cullingworth & Caves, 2003, p. 136).
The central government in Britain maintains control over local planning legislation
and policy, and also hears appeals from developers (Punter, 1994, p. 51).
A second difference between the American and British systems is that adminis-
trative design review is common in the United States, while Britain practices discre-
tionary design review. Compared with Western Europe and America, where confor-
mity to a development/zoning plan guarantees planning permission, the British treat
each application for planning permission on its own merits (Punter, 1994, p. 51). Fol-
lowing this model, local authorities implementing design review consider specifics
such as “external appearance, layout, surroundings, physical impact, circulation,
access, traffic, and so on, but also more strategic considerations of location, coordi-
nation, and phasing, and desirable precedent” (Punter, 1994, p. 51). Delafons char-
acterized the American experience of design review in contrast to the British system
in his 1983 Draft Circular; he argued that “ad hockery was the bane of the British
planning system, and … planning authorities needed established design policies for
an area” (Delafons, as quoted by Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 30). Delafons and
other scholars concluded that some of the best American design policies were far
less concerned with design details and far more interested in the overall character
and appearance of an area or a community as well as the enhancement of the public
realm than were those in Britain (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 30). Design review
is conducted by elected councils or committee members who are advised by pro-
fessional planners employed by local authorities; when issuing rulings they consult
16 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

various sources including residents and utilities (Punter, 1994, p. 51). In the United
States, cities that follow administrative review use panels appointed by local planning
authorities to judge applications.

2.6 Successful Examples of Design Review

In the article “Developing Urban Design as Public Policy: Best Practice Principles
for Design Review and Development Management” (Punter, 2007; also discussed
in Punter, 2003), Punter offers twelve design principles for effective urban design
implementation in the design review process (see below).
Principles for Progressive Urban Design Review
(Punter, 2003, P. xxvii)

Community Vision:

1. Committing to a comprehensive and coordinated vision of environmental beauty and

design (Brennan’s Law) (Lai, 1988, p. 426).
2. Developing and monitoring an urban design plan with community and development
industry support and periodic review (Lai, 1988, p. 429).

Design, Planning, and Zoning:

3. Harnessing the broadest range of actors and instruments (i.e., taxes, subsidies, land
acquisition) to promote better design (Lai, 1988, p. 430–431).
4. Mitigating the exclusionary effects of control strategies and urban design regulations
(Lai, 1988, p. 430).
5. Integrating zoning into planning and addressing the limitations of zoning (Lai, 1988,
pp. 431–432).

Broad, Substantive Design Principles:

6. Maintaining a commitment to urban design that goes well beyond elevations and aes-
thetics to embrace amenity, accessibility, community, vitality, and sustainability (Scheer,
1994, p. 9).
7. Basing guidelines on generic design principles and contextual analysis and articulating
desired and mandatory outcomes (Blaesser, 1994, p. 50).
8. Accommodating organic spontaneity, vitality, innovation, and pluralism, and not attempt-
ing to control all aspects of community design (Blaesser, 1994, p. 50; Lai, 1988, p. 428).

Due Process:

9. Identifying clear a priori roles for urban design intervention (Lai 1988, 425; Scheer
1994, pp. 6–7).
10. Establishing proper administrative procedures with written opinions to manage admin-
istrative discretion, and with appropriate appeal mechanisms (Lai 1988, 427; Scheer
1994, pp. 3–4).
2.6 Successful Examples of Design Review 17

11. Implementing an efficient, constructive, and effective permitting process (Scheer 1994,
pp. 5–7).
12. Providing appropriate design skills and expertise to support the review process (Scheer
1994, pp. 5–7).

The first two principles fall under the heading of Community Vision, which
acknowledges the need for design regulations to be based on a coherent, community-
derived vision of what is meant by good design or suitable future form for urban
development (Punter, 2007). The three examples Punter offers as successes are Port-
land (Oregon), Barcelona, and Vancouver (Canada). Portland and Barcelona excelled
at participatory urban design and policies that engaged their communities (Punter,
2007). Punter also uses the Portland example to point out the importance of clearly
written urban design policies based on careful analysis of local conditions, and that
of understanding that good municipal urban design must be long-term, comprehen-
sive, and coordinated. Vancouver was offered as an excellent example of the use of
consultants and collaborative planning (Punter, 2007). Punter explains:
Vancouver’s city-wide plan, neighborhood visions, and sub-area development plans provide
the vision, while its cooperative planning, development levies and discretionary zoning
system and guidelines support the pursuit of quality design. Its practices are based on generic
and contextual design principles, while its processes are transparent, participative, backed
by peer review, predictable, and effective. (Punter, 2007, p. 169)

In addition to Punter, a number of other scholars (e.g., Sandeep, Stamps, Nasar,

Scheer, and Preiser) have cited design review in Portland, Vancouver, Columbus
(Ohio), and several other cities (e.g., Seattle) as some of the most successful examples
in the United States.
Insofar as Portland, Vancouver, and Columbus are frequently mentioned in the
design review literature, below I provide additional details on design review in these
three cities as well as some of the commonalities in design review they share.

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Vancouver is highly regarded due to its natural setting, well-maintained residential

and public areas, access to pedestrian trails, and steady population growth. Punter
evaluates urban design as public policy in the City of Vancouver according to twelve
principles that are grouped under four headings: (i) community vision; (ii) the rela-
tionship between design, planning, and zoning; (iii) substantive design principles;
and (iv) due process (Punter, 2002, p. 265, 2003, p. xxvii). These principles are based
on critiques of design review in cities across America. Community vision calls for a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to obtain input from the public and devel-
opers in a report that is reviewed regularly to best reflect current opinions (Punter,
2002, p. 268).
Creating a relationship between design, planning, and zoning requires adopting an
approach to design review that includes incentives for good design as well as rewards
in the form of “fiscal devices, public funds, and land acquisitions to raise design and
environmental quality” (Punter, 2002, p. 268). Zoning and planning are related to
18 2 Overview of the Current Status of Design Review

shared objectives that involve making changes in land-use and form. Moreover, mea-
sures are taken to prevent gentrification (Cullingworth & Caves, 2003; Punter, 2002,
p. 268). Substantive design principles and guidelines incorporate widely accepted
generic design principles modified to fit local contexts, with clear statements of
preferable uses (Punter, 2002, p. 270; Scheer & Preiser, 1994, 2012). Design review
based on due process follows “clear rules for intervention, proper administrative pro-
cedures to manage discretion, clear records of decisions, and appeal mechanisms”
(Dawson & Higgins, 2009; Punter, 2002, p. 270). As a whole these principles are
administered by individuals with expertise and design skills (Punter, 2002, p. 270,
2003). Vancouver has a successful design review process that is based on lessons
learned from the positive and negative aspects of major American cities’ procedures.
Success is evidenced by the sustained growth of the region and recognition of it as
one of the best-planned cities.

Portland, Oregon

The City of Portland has adopted a flexible strategy for design control that is first
built up from the downtown context, then modified and applied to inner city neigh-
borhoods, mature suburban areas, and the urban fringe (Punter & Carmona, 1997,
p. 146). Taking advantage of a flexible metropolitan design control framework, it pro-
vides a vision for the public to discuss and debate, and forms a link between proposals
and design control policies (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 146). Hearings for design
proposals involve a city staff member presenting a proposal and the criteria by which
it will be judged, a slide show illustrating the design, and hearing testimony given
by the applicant, the neighborhood, and other interested parties (Portland Bureau of
Planning, 1992, p. 142). The review board is then given a chance to ask questions,
the review officer drafts a written resolution, and the rest of the board votes (Portland
Bureau of Planning, 1992, p. 142).
Corporations, developers, and investors are also addressed by Portland’s strategy,
through the establishment of public objectives and actions regarding changes to
urban form, the townscape, and the public realm (Punter & Carmona, 1997, p. 146).
Objectives are outlined in Portland’s Developer’s Handbook, which incorporates
zoning, design guidelines, and review principles. Included in this handbook are a
flow-chart of the review process, checklists of design fundamentals relating to the
image of the City of Portland, and maps of central city sub-districts (Portland Bureau
of Planning, 1992). Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall envisioned the heart
of the city based on the open spaces of the European piazza; his vision has been
translated into what is now referred to as “Portland’s living room.” Courthouse Square
functions as a light rail and bus transfer point, a site for outdoor concerts, and an
open space for social interaction (Duhl & Sanchez, 1999, p. 28). The World Health
Organization declared Portland’s urban design successful because it incorporates
principles of pedestrian-centered development, encourages the use of alternative
forms of transportation, and features open spaces. Courthouse Square was honored
by the American Planning Association as one of America’s Ten Great Public Spaces
in 2008 (APA, 2008).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER IV.

A nd the cities of the Ionians in the islands were Samos near

Mycale, and Chios opposite Mimas. The Samian Asius, the son
of Amphiptolemus, has written in his poems that Phœnix had by
Perimede (the daughter of Œneus) Astypalæa and Europe, and that
Poseidon had by Astypalæa a son Ancæus, who was king over the
Leleges, and married the daughter of the river-god Mæander, her
name was Samia, and their children were Perilaus and Enudus and
Samos and Alitherses and one daughter Parthenope, who bare
Lycomedes to Apollo. Such is the account of Asius in his poems.
Those who inhabited Samos at this time received the Ionian
colonists rather of necessity than goodwill. The Ionian leader was
Procles the son of Pityreus, an Epidaurian as also was a large
number of his men, they had been banished from Epidauria by
Deiphontes and the Argives, and Procles himself was a descendant
of Ion the son of Xuthus. And Androclus and the Ephesians marched
against Leogorus the son of Procles, who succeeded his father as
king of Samos, and having defeated him in battle drove the Samians
out of the island, on the pretext that they had joined the Carians in a
plot against the Ionians. Of the Samians that were thus driven out of
Samos some took a colony to the island near Thrace, which had
been previously known as Dardania, but was henceforth called
Samothrace; others under Leogorus built a fort on the mainland
opposite at Anæa, and ten years afterwards crossed into Samos,
drove out the Ephesians and recovered the island.
The temple of Hera in Samos was according to the tradition of some
built by the Argonauts, who brought the statue of the goddess from
Argos. But the Samians themselves think that the goddess was born
in their island on the banks of the river Imbrasus, and under the
willow-tree that still grows in the temple of Hera. That this temple
could not have been very ancient one naturally infers from the
statue, which is by the Æginetan Smilis, the son of Euclides, who
was a contemporary of Dædalus, but has not acquired equal
renown. For Dædalus, an Athenian of the royal stock called
Metionidæ, was most remarkable of all men for his art and
misfortunes. For having killed his sister’s son, and knowing the
vengeance that awaited him in his country, he became a voluntary
exile and fled to Minos and Crete, and made works of art for Minos
and his daughters, as Homer has described in the Iliad. But being
condemned for treason against Minos, and thrown into prison with
his son, he escaped from Crete and went to Inycus, a city of Sicily, to
the court of Cocalus, and caused a war between the Sicilians and
Cretans, because Cocalus would not give him up at the request of
Minos. And so much beloved was he by the daughters of Cocalus for
his art, that these ladies entered into a plot against the life of Minos
out of favour to Dædalus. And it is plain that his fame extended over
all Sicily, and most of Italy. While Smilis, except among the Samians
and at Elea, had no fame whatever out of his own country; but he
went to Samos, and there he made the statue of Hera.
About Chios Ion the Tragedian has recorded that Poseidon went to
that island when it was unoccupied, and had an intrigue there with a
Nymph, and when she was in labour some snow fell, and so
Poseidon called the boy Chios.[4] By another Nymph he had Agelus
and Melas. And in process of time Œnopion sailed to Chios from
Crete with his sons Talus and Euanthes and Melas and Salagus and
Athamas. And during the reign of Œnopion some Carians came to
the island, and the Abantes from Eubœa. And Œnopion and his sons
were succeeded by Amphiclus, who came to Chios from Histiæa in
Eubœa in accordance with the oracle at Delphi. And Hector the
fourth in descent from Amphiclus, (for he too was king of Chios),
fought against the Abantes and Carians that were still in the island,
and slew some in various battles, and compelled others to leave the
island upon conditions of war. And after the Chians had finished the
war, then Hector bethought him that he and the Ionians ought to
jointly sacrifice to the welfare of the Pan-Ionic league. And Ion says
he received the present of a tripod from the community of the Ionians
for his prowess. But Ion has not told us how it was the Chians got
ranked as Ionians.
[4] The Greek for snow is chion. Hence the paronomasia.
 CHAPTER V.

A nd Smyrna, which was one of the 12 cities of the Æolians, on

the site of what they now call the old city, was taken from the
Æolians by the Ionians who came from Colophon, but some time
afterwards the Ionians admitted its inhabitants to the Pan-Ionic
league. But Alexander the son of Philip built the modern Smyrna in
consequence of a dream he had. For on his return from hunting on
Mount Pagus he went they say to the temple of Nemesis, and there
found a well, and a plane-tree in front of the temple growing in the
water. And they say he slept under this plane-tree and the
goddesses of Nemesis appeared to him and bade him build a town
on that site, and remove the people of Smyrna there from the old
Smyrna. And the people of Smyrna sent envoys to Claros to consult
the oracle in the present conjuncture, and the god gave the following
oracular response,
“Thrice happy yea four times happy shall those men be,
who shall dwell near Mount Pagus across the sacred
Meles.”
So they willingly removed, and they worship two Nemeses instead of
one, and they say their mother was Night, but the Athenians who
worship Nemesis at Rhamnus say that she was the daughter of
Oceanus.
The Ionians have a most magnificent country for the fruits of the
earth, and temples such as there are nowhere else, the finest that of
Ephesian Artemis for size and opulence, and next two to Apollo not
quite finished, one at Branchidæ in Milesia, the other at Claros in
Colophonia. Two temples in Ionia were burnt down by the Persians,
one of Hera in Samos, and one of Athene in Phocæa. They are still
wonderful though the fire has passed upon them. And you would be
delighted with the temple of Hercules at Erythræ, and with the
temple of Athene at Priene, the latter for the statue of the goddess,
the former for its great antiquity. And at Erythræ is a work of art
unlike the most ancient of Æginetan or Attic workmanship: its design
is perfect Egyptian. It is the wooden raft on which the god sailed from
Tyre in Phœnicia, why the people of Erythræ do not say. But to prove
that it came into the Ionian sea they say it was moored at the
promontory called Mid, which is on the mainland about half-way from
the harbour of Erythræ to the island of Chios. And when this raft was
at the promontory, the people of Erythræ and the Chians too had no
small trouble in trying to get it on shore. At last a native of Erythræ,
who got his living from the sea by catching fish, but had lost his
eyesight through some disease, Phormio by name, dreamed that the
women of Erythræ were to cut off their hair, and that the men making
a rope out of this hair were to drag the raft ashore. The women who
were citizens wouldn’t hear of it: but all the women who were slaves
of Thracian race, or who being free had yet to earn their own living,
allowed their hair to be cut off, and so at last the people of Erythræ
got the raft to shore. So Thracian women alone are allowed to enter
the temple of Hercules, and the rope made of hair is still kept by the
people of Erythræ. They also say that the fisherman recovered his
sight, and saw for the rest of his life. At Erythræ there is also a
temple of Athene Polias, and a huge wooden statue of the goddess
seated on a throne, in one hand a distaff in the other a globe. We
conjecture it to be by Endœus from several circumstances,
especially looking at the workmanship of the statue inside, and the
Graces and Seasons in white marble, which used to stand in the
open air. The people of Smyrna also had in my time a temple of
Æsculapius between the mountain Coryphe and the sea which is
unmixed with any other water.
Ionia besides the temples and the salubrity of the air has several
other things worthy of record. Near Ephesus is the river Cenchrius,
and the fertile Mount Pion, and the well Halitæa. And in Milesia is the
well Biblis: of the love passages of Biblis they still sing. And in
Colophonia is the grove of Apollo, consisting of ash trees, and not far
from the grove the river Ales, the coldest river in Ionia. And the
people of Lebedus have baths which are both wonderful and useful
to men. The people of Teos also have baths at the promontory
Macria, some natural consisting of sea-water that bursts in at a
crevice of the rock, others built at wonderful cost. The people of
Clazomenæ also have baths. Agamemnon is honoured there. And
there is a grotto called the grotto of Pyrrhus’ mother, and they have a
tradition about Pyrrhus as a shepherd. The people of Erythræ have
also a place called Chalcis, from which the third of their tribes takes
its name, where there is a promontory extending to the sea, and
some sea baths, which of all the baths in Ionia are most beneficial to
men. And the people of Smyrna have the most beautiful river Meles
and a cave near its springs, where they say Homer wrote his Poems.
The Chians also have a notable sight in the tomb of Œnopion, about
whose deeds they have several legends. The Samians too on the
way to the temple of Hera have the tomb of Rhadine and Leontichus,
which those are accustomed to visit who are melancholy through
love. The wonderful things indeed in Ionia are not far short of those
in Greece altogether.
 CHAPTER VI.

A fter the departure of the Ionians the Achæans divided their land
and lived in their towns, which were 12 in number, and well
known throughout Greece. Dyme first near Elis, and then Olenus,
and Pharæ, and Tritea, and Rhypes, and Ægium, and Cerynea, and
Bura, and Helice, and Ægæ and Ægira, and last Pellene near
Sicyonia. In these towns, which had formerly been inhabited by the
Ionians, the Achæans and their kings dwelt. And those who had the
greatest power among the Achæans were the sons of Tisamenus,
Däimenes and Sparton and Tellis and Leontomenes. Cometes, the
eldest of Tisamenus’ sons, had previously crossed over into Asia
Minor. These ruled over the Achæans as also Damasias (the son of
Penthilus, the son of Orestes), the brother of Tisamenus. Equal
authority to them had Preugenes and his son Patreus from
Lacedæmon; who were allowed by the Achæans to build a city in
their territory, which was called Patræ after Patreus.
The following were the wars of the Achæans. In the expedition of
Agamemnon against Ilium, as they inhabited both Lacedæmon and
Argos, they were the largest contingent from Greece. But when
Xerxes and the Medes invaded Greece, the Achæans as far as we
know did not join Leonidas at the pass of Thermopylæ, nor did they
fight under Themistocles and the Athenians in the sea-fights off
Eubœa and Salamis, nor were they in either the Lacedæmonian or
Athenian list of allies. They were also behind at Platæa: for
otherwise they would certainly have been mentioned among the
other Greeks on the basement of the statue of Zeus at Olympia.[5] I
cannot but think they stayed behind on each of these occasions to
save their country, and also after the Trojan War they did not think it
befitting that the Lacedæmonians (who were Dorians) should lead
them. As they showed long afterwards. For when the
Lacedæmonians were at war with the Athenians, the Achæans
readily entered into an alliance with the people of Patræ, and were
equally friendly with the Athenians. And they took part in the wars
that were fought afterwards by Greece, as at Chæronea against
Philip and the Macedonians. But they admit that they did not go into
Thessaly or take part in the battle of Lamia, because they had not
yet recovered from their reverse in Bœotia. And the Custos
Rotulorum at Patræ says that the wrestler Chilon was the only
Achæan present at the action at Lamia. I know also myself that the
Lydian Adrastus fought privately (and not in any concert with the
Lydians) for the Greeks. This Adrastus had a brazen effigy erected to
him by the Lydians in front of the temple of Persian Artemis, and the
inscription they wrote upon it was that he died fighting for the Greeks
against Leonnatus. And the pass at Thermopylæ that admitted the
Galati was overlooked by all the Peloponnesians as well as by the
Achæans: for as the barbarians had no ships, they thought they had
nothing to fear from them, if they strongly fortified the Isthmus of
Corinth, from Lechæum on the one sea to Cenchreæ on the other.
This was the view at that time of all the Peloponnesians. And when
the Galati crossed over into Asia Minor in ships got somewhere or
other, then the Greeks were so situated that none of them were any
longer clearly the leading state. For as to the Lacedæmonians, their
reverse at Leuctra, and the gathering of the Arcadians at
Megalopolis, and the vicinity of the Messenians on their borders,
prevented their recovering their former prosperity. And the city of the
Thebans had been so laid waste by Alexander, that not many years
afterwards when they were reduced by Cassander, they were unable
to protect themselves at all. And the Athenians had indeed the good
will of all Greece for their famous actions, but that was no security to
them in their war with the Macedonians.
[5] See Book v. ch. 23.
 CHAPTER VII.

T he Achæans were most powerful in the days when the Greeks

were not banded together, but each looked after their own
personal interests. For none of their towns except Pellene had any
experience of tyrants at any time. And misfortunes from wars and the
plague did not so much touch the Achæans as all the other Greeks.
Accordingly what is called the Achæan League was by common
consent the design and act of the Achæans. And this League was
formed at Ægium because, next to Helice which had been swept
away by a flood, it had been the foremost town in Achaia in former
times, and was at this time the most powerful. And of the other
Greeks the Sicyonians first joined this Achæan League. And next to
the Sicyonians some of the other Peloponnesians joined it, some
immediately, some rather later: and outside the Isthmus what
brought people in was seeing that the Achæan League was
becoming more and more powerful. And the Lacedæmonians were
the only Greeks that were unfriendly to the Achæans and openly
took up arms against them. For Pellene an Achæan town was taken
by Agis, the son of Eudamidas, King of Sparta, though he was soon
driven out again by Aratus and the Sicyonians. And Cleomenes, the
son of Leonidas and grandson of Cleonymus, a king of the other
family, when Aratus and the Achæans were gathered together at
Dyme against him routed them badly in battle, though he afterwards
concluded peace with the Achæans and Antigonus. Antigonus was
at this time ruler of the Macedonians, being Regent for Philip, the
son of Demetrius, who was quite a boy; he was Philip’s uncle and
also stepfather. With him and the Achæans Cleomenes made peace,
but soon violated his engagements, and reduced to slavery
Megalopolis in Arcadia. And the reverse which the Lacedæmonians
met with at Sellasia at the hands of the Achæans and Antigonus was
in consequence of Cleomenes’ violation of his word. But Cleomenes
we shall mention again when we come to Arcadia. And Philip the son
of Demetrius, when he came to age, received the rule over the
Macedonians from his stepfather Antigonus, who was glad to
surrender it, and inspired great fear in all the Greeks by closely
imitating Philip the son of Amyntas, (who was no ancestor of his, but
a true despot), as in bribing people to betray their country. And at
banquets he would offer the cup of fellowship and kindness filled not
with wine but deadly poison, a thing which Philip the son of Amyntas
in my opinion never thought of, but to Philip the son of Demetrius
poisoning appeared a very trifling crime. And three towns he turned
into garrison-towns as points d’appui against Greece, and in his
insolence and haughty disregard of the Greeks he called these
towns the keys of Greece. One was Corinth in the Peloponnese, the
citadel of which he strongly fortified, and for Eubœa and Bœotia and
Phocis he had Chalcis near the Euripus, and for Thessaly and Ætolia
he garrisoned Magnesia under Mount Pelion. And by perpetual raids
and plundering incursions he harassed the Athenians and Ætolians
especially. I have mentioned before in my account of Attica the
Greeks or barbarians who assisted the Athenians against Philip, and
how in consequence of the weakness of their allies the Athenians
were obliged to rely on an alliance with Rome. The Romans had sent
some soldiers not long before nominally to assist the Ætolians
against Philip, but really to spy out what the Macedonians were
aiming at. But now they sent an army under the command of Otilius,
that was his best known name, for the Romans are not called like the
Greeks merely after their father’s name, but have 3 names at least
and sometimes more. This Otilius had orders from the Romans to
protect the Athenians and Ætolians against Philip. Otilius in all other
respects obeyed his orders, but did one thing that the Romans were
not pleased at. For he captured and rased to the ground Hestiæa (a
town in Eubœa) and Anticyra in Phocis, places which had submitted
to Philip simply from necessity. This was I think the reason why the
Senate when they heard of it superseded him by Flaminius.
 CHAPTER VIII.

F laminius on his arrival immediately defeated the Macedonian

garrison at Eretria and plundered the town, and next marched to
Corinth which was occupied by Philip’s garrison, and sat down to a
regular siege, and sent to the Achæans urging them to come to
Corinth with an army, so as to be reckoned the allies of the Romans,
and in friendship to the Greeks generally. But the Achæans took it ill
that Flaminius and still earlier Otilius had handled so savagely old
Greek cities, that had committed no offence against Rome, and were
under the Macedonians against their wish. They foresaw also that
instead of Philip and the Macedonians they would merely have the
Romans as dictators in Greece. But after many speeches from
different points of view had been delivered in the council, at last the
party friendly to the Romans prevailed, and the Achæans joined
Flaminius in the siege of Corinth. And the Corinthians, being thus
freed from the Macedonian yoke, at once joined the Achæan
League, which indeed they had formerly joined, when Aratus and the
Sicyonians drove out the garrison from the citadel of Corinth and
slew Persæus, who had been put in command of the garrison by
Antigonus. And from that time forward the Achæans were called the
allies of the Romans, and were devoted to them at all times, and
followed them into Macedonia against Philip, and joined them in an
expedition against the Ætolians, and fought on their side against
Antiochus and the Syrians.
In fighting against the Macedonians and Syrians the Achæans were
animated only by friendship to the Romans: but in fighting against
the Ætolians they were satisfying a long-standing grudge. And when
the power at Sparta of Nabis, a man of the most unrelenting cruelty,
had been overthrown, the Lacedæmonians became their own
masters again, and as time went on the Achæans got them into their
League, and were very severe with them, and rased to the ground
the fortifications of Sparta, which had been formerly run up hastily at
the time of the invasion of Demetrius and afterwards of Pyrrhus and
the Epirotes, but during the power of Nabis had been very strongly
fortified. And not only did the Achæans rase the walls of Sparta, but
they prevented their youths from training as Lycurgus had ordained,
and made them train in the Achæan way. I shall enter into all this in
more detail in my account about Arcadia. And the Lacedæmonians,
being sorely vexed with these harassing decrees of the Achæans,
threw themselves into the arms of Metellus and his colleagues, who
had come on an embassy from Rome, not to try and stir up war
against Philip and the Macedonians, for a peace had been
previously solemnly concluded between Philip and the Romans, but
to try the charges made against Philip either by the Thessalians or
the Epirotes. Philip himself indeed and the Macedonian supremacy
had actually received a fatal blow from the Romans. For fighting
against Flaminius and the Romans on the range of hills called
Cynoscephalæ Philip got the worst of it, and having put forth all his
strength in the battle got so badly beaten that he lost the greater part
of his army, and was obliged by the Roman terms to remove his
garrisons from all the Greek towns which he had seized and reduced
during the war. The peace indeed with the Romans which he
obtained sounded specious, but was only procured by various
entreaties and at great expenditure of money. The Sibyl had indeed
foretold not without the god the power which the Macedonians would
attain to in the days of Philip the son of Amyntas, and how all this
would crumble away in the days of another Philip. These are the
very words of her oracle—
“Ye Macedonians, that boast in the Argeadæ as your
kings, to you Philip as ruler shall be both a blessing and a
curse. The first Philip shall make you ruler over cities and
people, the last shall lose you all your honour, conquered
by men both from the West and East.”
The Romans that overthrew the Macedonian Empire lived in the
West of Europe, and Attalus and the Mysian force that cooperated
with them may be said to have been Eastern Nations.
 CHAPTER IX.

B ut now Metellus and his colleagues resolved not to neglect the

quarrels of the Lacedæmonians and Achæans, so they
convened before their council-board the most prominent Achæans,
that they might publicly advise them to treat the Lacedæmonians in a
kindlier spirit. And the Achæans returned answer that they would
give no hearing to them or anyone else, who should approach them
on any subject whatever, except they were armed with a decree from
the Roman Senate. And Metellus and his colleagues, thinking they
were treated by the Achæans with rather too much hauteur, on their
return to Rome told the Senate many things against the Achæans
which were not all true. And further charges still were brought
against the Achæans by Areus and Alcibiades, who were held in
great repute at Sparta, but who did not act well to the Achæans: for
when they were exiled by Nabis the Achæans had kindly received
them, and after the death of Nabis had restored them to Sparta
contrary to the wish of the Lacedæmonian people. But now being
admitted before the Roman Senate they inveighed against the
Achæans with the greatest zeal. And the Achæans on their return
from Rome sentenced them to death in their Council. And the
Roman Senate sent Appius and some others to put the differences
between the Achæans and Lacedæmonians on a just footing. But
this embassy was not likely to please the Achæans, inasmuch as in
Appius’ suite were Areus and Alcibiades, whom the Achæans
detested at this time. And when they came into the council chamber
they endeavoured by their words to stir up rather the animosity of the
Achæans than to win them over by persuasion. Lycortas of
Megalopolis, a man in merit behind none of the Arcadians, and who
had friendly relations with Philopœmen upon whom he relied, put
forward in his speech the just claims of the Achæans, and at the
same time covertly blamed the Romans. But Appius and his suite
jeered at Lycortas’ speech, and passed a vote that Areus and
Alcibiades had committed no crime against the Achæans, and
allowed the Lacedæmonians to send envoys to Rome, thus
contravening the previous convention between the Romans and
Achæans. For it had been publicly agreed that envoys of the
Achæans might go to the Roman Senate, but those states which
were in the Achæan League were forbidden to send envoys
privately. And when the Achæans sent a counter-embassy to that of
the Lacedæmonians, and the speeches on both sides were heard in
the Senate, then the Romans despatched Appius and all his former
suite as plenipotentiaries between the Lacedæmonians and
Achæans. And they restored to Sparta those that had been exiled by
the Achæans, and they remitted the fines of those who had
absconded before judgment, and had been condemned in their
absence. And they did not remove the Lacedæmonians from the
Achæan League, but they ordered that foreign[6] courts were to try
capital cases, but all other cases they could themselves try, or
submit them to the Achæan League. And the Spartans again built
walls all round their city from the foundation. And those
Lacedæmonians who were restored from exile meditated all sorts of
contrivances against the Achæans, hoping to injure them most in the
following way. The Messenians who were concerned in the death of
Philopœmen, and who were banished it was thought on that account
by the Achæans, these and other exiles of the Achæans they
persuaded to go and take their case to Rome. And they went with
them and intrigued for their return from exile. And as Appius greatly
favoured the Lacedæmonians, and on all occasions went against the
Achæans, whatever the Messenian or Achæan exiles wished was
sure to come off without any difficulty, and letters were sent by the
Senate to Athens and Ætolia, ordering them to restore the
Messenians and Achæans to their rights. This seemed the unkindest
cut of all to the Achæans, who upon various occasions were treated
with great injustice by the Romans, and who saw that all their past
services went for nothing, for after having fought against Philip and
the Ætolians and Antiochus simply to oblige the Romans, they were
neglected for exiles whose lives were far from pure. Still they thought
they had better submit. Such was the state of affairs up to this point.
[6] Meaning Roman I take it.
 CHAPTER X.

B ut the most impious of all crimes, the betrayal of one’s country

and fellow citizens for gain, was destined to bring about the
destruction of the Achæans, a crime that has ever troubled Greece.
For in the days of Darius (the son of Hystaspes) king of the Persians
the Ionian affairs were ruined by all the Samian captains but eleven
treacherously surrendering their ships. And after the subjugation of
the Ionians the Medes enslaved Eretria; when those held in highest
repute in Eretria played the traitor, as Philagras, the son of Cyneus,
and Euphorbus, the son of Alcimachus. And when Xerxes went on
his expedition to Greece, Thessaly was betrayed by the Aleuadæ,
and Thebes was betrayed by Attaginus and Timegenidas, its
foremost men. And during the Peloponnesian war Xenias, a native of
Elis, endeavoured to betray Elis to the Lacedæmonians and Agis.
And those who were called Lysander’s friends never ceased the
attempt to betray their countries to Lysander. And in the reign of
Philip, the son of Amyntas, one will find that Lacedæmon was not the
only one of the Greek cities that were betrayed: the cities of Greece
were more ruined through treason than they had been formerly by
the plague. But Alexander the son of Philip had very little success
indeed by treason. And after the reverse to the Greeks at Lamia
Antipater, wishing to cross over with all despatch to the war in Asia
Minor, was content to patch up a peace speedily, as it mattered
nothing to him whether he left Athens or indeed all Greece free. But
Demades and other traitors at Athens persuaded Antipater not to act
friendly to the Greeks, and, by frightening the commonalty of the
Athenians, they were the means of the introduction into Athens and
most other towns of the Macedonian garrisons. What confirms my
account is that the Athenians after the reverse in Bœotia did not
become subject to Philip, though 1,000 were killed in the action, and
2,000 taken prisoners after: but at Lamia, although only 200 fell, they
became slaves of the Macedonians. Thus at no time were wanting to
Greece people afflicted with this itch for treason. And the Achæans
at this time were made subject to the Romans entirely through the
Achæan Callicrates. But the beginning of their troubles was the
overthrow of Perseus and the Macedonian Empire by the Romans.
Perseus the son of Philip was originally at peace with the Romans
according to the terms of agreement between them and his father
Philip, but he violated these conditions when he led an army against
Abrupolis, the king of the Sapæans, (who are mentioned by
Archilochus in one of his Iambic verses) and dispossessed them,
though they were allies of the Romans. And Perseus and the
Macedonians having been beaten in war on account of this outrage
upon the Sapæans, ten Roman Senators were sent to settle affairs
in Macedonia according to the interests of the Romans. And when
they came to Greece Callicrates insinuated himself among them,
letting slip no occasion of flattering them either in word or deed. And
one of them, who was by no means remarkable for justice, was so
won over by Callicrates that he was persuaded by him to enter the
Achæan League. And he went to one of their general meetings, and
said that when Perseus was at war with the Romans the most
influential Achæans had furnished him with money, and assisted him
in other respects. He bade the Achæans therefore pass a sentence
of death against these men: and he said if they would do so, then he
would give them their names. This seemed an altogether unfair way
of putting it, and those present at the general meeting said that, if
any of the Achæans had acted with Perseus, their names must be
mentioned first, for it was not fair to condemn them before. And
when the Roman was thus confuted, he was so confident as to affirm
that all the Achæan Generals were implicated in the charge, for all
were friendly to Perseus and the Macedonians. This he said at the
instigation of Callicrates. And Xeno rose up next, a man of no small
renown among the Achæans, and spoke as follows. “As to this
charge, I am a General of the Achæans, and have neither acted
against the Romans, nor shewn any good will to Perseus. And I am
ready to be tried on this charge before either the Achæan League or
the Romans.” This he said in the boldness of a good conscience. But
the Roman Senator at once seized the opportunity his words
suggested, and sent all whom Callicrates accused of being friendly
to Perseus to stand their trial at Rome. Nothing of the kind had ever
previously happened to the Greeks. For the Macedonians in the
zenith of their power, as under Philip, the son of Amyntas, and
Alexander, had never forced any Greeks who opposed them to be
sent into Macedonia, but had allowed them to be tried by the
Amphictyonic Council. But now every Achæan, however innocent,
who was accused by Callicrates, had to go to Rome, so it was
decreed, and more than 1,000 so went. And the Romans, treating
them as if they had been already condemned by the Achæans,
imprisoned them in various towns in Etruria, and, although the
Achæans sent various embassies and supplications about them,
returned no answer. But 17 years afterwards they released some
300 or even fewer, (who were all that remained in Italy of the 1,000
and more Achæans), thinking they had been punished sufficiently.
And all those who escaped either on the journey to Rome in the first
instance, or afterwards from the towns to which they had been sent
by the Romans, were, if captured, capitally punished at once and no
excuse received.
 CHAPTER XI.

A nd the Romans sent another Senator to Greece, Gallus by

name, who was sent to arbitrate on the disputes between the
Lacedæmonians and the Argives. This Gallus both spoke and acted
with much hauteur to the Greeks, and treated the Lacedæmonians
and Argives with the greatest contempt possible. For he disdained
himself to arbitrate for cities which had attained such great renown,
and had fought for their fatherland bravely and lavishly, and had
previously submitted their claims to no less an arbitrator than Philip
the son of Amyntas, and submitted the decision to Callicrates, the
plague of all Greece. And when the Ætolians who inhabit Pleuron
came to Gallus, desiring release from the Achæan League, they
were allowed by him to send a private embassy to Rome, and the
Romans gave their consent to what they asked. The Roman Senate
also despatched to Gallus a decree, that he was at liberty to release
from the Achæan League as many towns as he liked.
And he carried out his orders, and meantime the Athenian people
from necessity rather than choice plundered Oropus which was a
town subject to them, for the Athenians had been reduced to a
greater state of poverty than any of the Greeks by the war with the
Macedonians. The Oropians appealed to the Senate at Rome, and
they, thinking they had not been treated well, ordered the Sicyonians
to levy upon the Athenians a fine proportionate to the harm they had
done to the Oropians. The Sicyonians, as the Athenians did not
come into court at the time of trial, fined them in their absence 500
talents, but the Roman Senate at the request of the Athenians
remitted all the fine but 100 talents. And the Athenians did not pay
even this, but by promises and gifts prevailed upon the Oropians to
agree, that an Athenian garrison should occupy Oropus, and that the
Athenians should have hostages from the Oropians, and if the
Oropians should bring any further charges against the Athenians,
then the Athenians were to withdraw their garrison, and return their
hostages. And no long time elapsed when some of the garrison
insulted some of the townsmen of Oropus. They sent therefore
envoys to Athens to demand back their hostages, and at the same
time to ask the Athenians to take away their garrison according to
their agreement. But the Athenians flatly refused, on the plea that the
outrage was committed by the garrison and not the Athenian people,
they promised however that those in fault should be punished. And
the Oropians appealed to the Achæans to help them, but the
Achæans refused out of friendship and respect to the Athenians.
Then the Oropians promised ten talents to Menalcidas, a
Lacedæmonian by birth but serving at this time as General of the
Achæans, if he would make the Achæans help them. And he
promised half the money to Callicrates, who because of his
friendship with the Romans had the greatest influence over the
Achæans. And Callicrates responding to the wishes of Menalcidas, it
was determined to help the Oropians against the Athenians. And
some one announced news of this to the Athenians, and they with all
speed went to Oropus, and after plundering whatever they had
spared in former raids, withdrew their garrison. And Menalcidas and
Callicrates tried to persuade the Achæans who came up too late for
help, to make an inroad into Attica: but as they were against it,
especially those who had come from Lacedæmon, the army went
back again.
 CHAPTER XII.

A nd the Oropians, though no help had come from the Achæans,

yet had to pay the money promised to Menalcidas. And he,
when he had received his bribe, thought it a misfortune that he would
have to share any part of it with Callicrates. So at first he practised
putting off the payment of the gift and other wiles, but soon
afterwards he was so bold as to deprive him of it altogether. My
statement is confirmed by the proverb, “One fire burns fiercer than
another fire, and one wolf is fiercer than other wolves, and one hawk
flies swifter than another hawk, since the most unscrupulous of all
men, Callicrates, is outdone in treachery by Menalcidas.” And
Callicrates, who was never superior to any bribe, and had got
nothing out of his hatred to Athens, was so vexed with Menalcidas
that he deprived him of his office, and prosecuted him on a capital
charge before the Achæans, viz. that he had tried to undermine the
Achæans on his embassy to Rome, and that he had endeavoured to
withdraw Sparta from the Achæan league. Menalcidas in this crisis
gave 3 of the talents from Oropus to Diæus of Megalopolis, who had
been his successor as General of the Achæans, and now, being
zealous in his interest on account of his bribe, was bent on saving
Menalcidas in spite of the Achæans. But the Achæans both privately
and publicly were vexed with Diæus for the acquittal of Menalcidas.
But Diæus turned away their charges against him to the hope of
greater gain, by using the following wile as a pretext. The
Lacedæmonians had gone to the Senate at Rome about some
debateable land, and the Senate had told them to try all but capital
cases before the Achæan League. Such was their answer. But
Diæus told the Achæans what was not the truth, and deluded them
by saying that the Roman Senate allowed them to pass sentence of
death upon a Spartan. They therefore thought the Lacedæmonians
could also pass sentence of life and death on themselves: but the
Lacedæmonians did not believe that Diæus was speaking the truth,
and wished to refer the matter to the Senate at Rome. But the
Achæans objected to this, that the cities in the Achæan League had
no right without common consent to send an embassy privately to
Rome. In consequence of these disputes war broke out between the
Achæans and the Lacedæmonians, and the Lacedæmonians,
knowing they were not able to fight the Achæans, sent embassies to
their cities and spoke privately to Diæus. All the cities returned the
same answer, that if their general ordered them to take the field they
could not disobey. For Diæus was in command, and he said that he
intended to fight not against Sparta but against all that troubled her.
And when the Spartan Senate asked who he thought were the
criminals, he gave them a list of 24 men who were prominent in
Sparta. Thereupon the opinion of Agasisthenes prevailed, a man
previously held in good repute, and who for the following advice got
still more highly thought of. He persuaded all those men whose
names were mentioned to exile themselves from Lacedæmon, and
not by remaining there to bring on a war on Sparta, and if they fled to
Rome he said they would be soon restored by the Romans. So they
departed and were nominally tried in their absence in the Spartan
law-courts and condemned to death: but Callicrates and Diæus were
sent by the Achæans to Rome to plead against these Spartan exiles
before the Senate. And Callicrates died on the road of some illness,
nor do I know whether if he had gone on to Rome he would have
done the Achæans any good, or been to them the source of greater
evils. But Diæus carried on a bitter controversy with Menalcidas
before the Senate, not in the most decorous manner. And the Senate
returned answer that they would send Ambassadors, who should
arbitrate upon the differences between the Lacedæmonians and
Achæans. And the journey of these ambassadors from Rome was
somehow taken so leisurely, that Diæus had full time to deceive the
Achæans, and Menalcidas the Lacedæmonians. The Achæans were
persuaded by Diæus that the Lacedæmonians were directed by the
Roman Senate to obey them in all things. While Menalcidas
deceived the Lacedæmonians altogether, saying that they had been
put by the Romans out of the jurisdiction of the Achæan League
altogether.