Aesthetic controls present a specific instance of a general problem faced by planners: balancing the interests of an individual (in altering the physical environments they in-habit) against the interests of the collective (in protecting the visual quality of cities). In this article, the authors discuss the use of aesthetic controls in the United States and review the case for and against restricting architectural expression. The authors then examine two questions: what is the rationale for protecting such expression, and to what extent is this protection warranted? They find two very strong but conflicting interests—one in controlling design expression and the other in not doing so. How might this conflict be resolved? The authors propose a middle ground that is characterized by four criteria: a clearly articulated and demonstrable public interest, demonstrable links to the stated intent, application early in the design or decision process, and allowing and encouraging a variety of acceptable decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baum, Andrew , Jerome E. Singer, and Carlene S. Baum. 1982. Stress and the environment. In Environmental stress, edited by Gary Evans. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bork, Robert . 1971. Neutral principles: Some First Amendment problems. Indiana Law Journal47: 1-20.
3.
Bross, James L.1979. Taking design review beyond the beauty part: Aesthetics in perspective. Environmental Law9: 211-240.
4.
City of Urbana . 1993. Urbana zoning ordinance. Urbana, IL: Author.
5.
Coletta, Raymond R.1987. The case for aesthetic nuisance: Rethinking traditional judicial attitudes. Ohio State Lw Journal48: 244-289.
6.
Costonis, John J.1982. Law and aesthetics: A critique and a reformulation of the dilemmas. Michigan Law Review80: 355-461.
7.
Costonis, John J.1989. Icons and aliens: Law, aesthetics, and environmental change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
8.
Delafons, John . 1992. Democracy and design. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, October, Cincinnati, OH.
9.
Evans, Gary . 1982. Environmental stress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Fields, Lori E.1984. Aesthetic regulation and the First Amendment. Virginia Journal of Natural Resources Law3: 237-261.
11.
Fisher, Bonnie S. , and Jack L. Nasar. 1992. Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape (design of the Wexner Center for the Visual Arts, The Ohio State University). Environment and Behavior24: 35-65.
12.
George, R. Varkki . 1997. A procedural explanation for contemporary urban design. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
13.
Hillman, Judy . 1990. Planning for beauty: The case for design guidelines. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
14.
Hough, Michael . 1992. Place-making and design review. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, October, Cincinnati, OH.
15.
Kaplan, Rachel , and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Lai, Richard Tseng-yu . 1988. Law in urban design and planning: The invisible web. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
17.
Lai, Richard Tseng-yu . 1992. Can the process of architectural design review with-stand legal scrutiny?Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, October, Cincinnati, OH.
18.
Lang, Jon . 1987. Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
19.
Lassar, Terry Jill . 1989. Carrots and sticks: New zoning downtown. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
20.
Lightner, Brenda C. 1992a. Setting the stage for debate. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, October, Cincinnati, OH.
21.
Lightner, Brenda C.1992b. A survey of design review practice in local government. School of Planning, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
22.
Mandelker, Daniel R.1988. Land use law. 2d ed.Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
23.
Mandelker, Daniel R.1992. Land use law. 2d ed., cumulative suppl. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
24.
Mandelker, Daniel R. , and Roger A. Cunningham. 1990. Planning and control of land development: Cases and materials. 3d ed.Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
25.
May, Hayden . 1992. Urban design review in Cincinnati. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, October, Cincinnati, OH.
26.
Meiklejohn, Alexander . 1960. Political freedom: The constitutional powers of the people. New York: Harper.
27.
Nasar, Jack L.1988. The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, edited by Jack L. Nasar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Nasar, Jack L.1997. New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In Advances in environment, behavior, and design, vol. 4, edited by Gary T. Moore and Robert W. Marans. New York: Plenum.
29.
Nasar, Jack L. , and Peg Grannis. 1998. Evaluating the performance of a design review board. City and Regional Planning Program, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
30.
Poole, Samuel E. III . 1987. Architectural appearance review regulations and the First Amendment: The good, the bad, and the consensus ugly. Urban Lawyer19: 287-344.
31.
Pouler, Patrick J. 1992. Disciplinary society and the myth of aesthetic justice: The ideology of architectural review. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review, 8-11 October, University of Cincinnati.
32.
Proshansky, Harold M. , and Abbe K. Fabian. 1986. Psychological aspects of the quality of urban life. In The quality of urban life: Social, psychological, and physical conditions, edited by Dieter Frick. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
33.
Rapoport, Amos . 1986. The use and design of open spaces in urban neighborhoods. In The quality of urban life: Social, psychological, and physical conditions, edited by Dieter Frick. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
34.
Regan, Kenneth . 1990. You can’t build that here: The constitution-ality of aesthetic zoning and architectural review. Fordham Law Review58: 1013-1031.
35.
Rowe, Peter G.1987. Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Rubin, Bruce A.1975. Architecture, aesthetic zoning, and the First Amendment. Stanford Law Review28: 179-201.
37.
Scanlon, Thomas M., Jr.1979. Freedom of expression and categories of expression. University of Pittsburgh Law Review40: 519-550.
38.
Schuster, J. Mark . 1997. The role of design review in affecting the quality of urban design: The architect’s point of view. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research14 (3): 209-225.
39.
Shirvani, Hamid . 1985. The urban design process. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
40.
Shirvani, Hamid . 1990. Beyond public architecture: Strategies for design evaluations. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
41.
Stamps, Arthur E. III , and Jack L. Nasar. 1997. Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographic location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology17: 11-32.
42.
Taylor, Ralph B.1982. Neighborhood physical environment and stress. In Environmental stress, edited by Gary Evans. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Ventre, Francis T.1989. The policy environment for environment-behavior research. In Advances in environment, behavior, and design, vol. 2, edited by Ervin H. Zube and Gary T. Moore. New York: Plenum.
44.
Whittaker, Carol L. 1989. Design guidelines and the law: History and analysis of design guidelines in zoning ordinances. Master’s thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
45.
Williams, Stephen F.1977. Subjectivity, expression, and privacy: Problems of aesthetic regulation. Minnesota Law Review62: 1-58.
46.
Zimring, Craig . 1982. The built environment as a source of psychological stress: Impacts of buildings and cities on satisfaction and behavior. In Environmental stress, edited by Gary Evans. New York: Cambridge University Press.
