Attitudes, functions, and interactions in design review: Regulation cultures in Wisconsin

摘要

This study is aimed at exploring how the broader paradigmatic changes in social discourse, as exemplified by the postmodernism debate, are reflected in the practical world of local land use regulations, specifically in the design review processes. The paradigmatic themes of postmodernism are identified as "place," "sustainability," and "participative democracy." Objectives of the study are: (a) providing an inventory of planning and design mechanisms in small communities of Wisconsin, (b) identifying official attitudes about design review, and (c) studying the role of argumentation in design review processes. A questionnaire survey was sent to a random sample of 177 communities, followed by a series of interviews with selected officials. The survey asked what should be regulated by design review, and how. The analysis of the responses identified four attitudes towards regulation: (1) hands-off, (2) technocratic modernist, (3) technocratic postmodernist, and (4) critical postmodernist. The survey also asked about existing planning and design review functions. In the interviews, the reviewers were asked to give specific examples about the review process, the rules that are applied, and how the reviewers and applicants interact and communicate during the review process.;The results of the study led to the following conclusions: (1) Constructs such as "place," "sustainability," and "participation" have begun to affect our assumptions about successful control mechanisms. These assumptions are reflected in the trends towards informalization of regulatory controls. (2) Informalization in design review is desirable because discretion and communication is necessary in providing representativeness and responsiveness in design. (3) Abuse of discretionary power is the main impediment against adopting informal controls. Public participation has a crucial role in achieving accountability in discretionary systems. (4) Public participation in planning presents many challenges and does not in itself guarantee successful outcomes. Designerly argumentation has the potential to overcome difficulties that public participation may create in design review.