This article assesses the performance of U.S. planning programs relative to their administrative location in design versus nondesign units. We use both archival data to compare program rankings between design and nondesign units and a survey of a random sample of faculty (108 at 61 accredited programs). The archival data show a higher publication performance of programs in nondesign units. The survey finds that faculty respondents from nondesign locations have more favorable evaluations of their programs than do respondents from design locations. Administrators and faculty differ: while faculty in design units score their programs dramatically lower, administrators have a moderate difference in the reverse direction.
Altman, I.1973. Some perspectives on the study of man-environment phenomena . Representative Research in Social Psychology73: 109-126.
2.
American Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP).2008. ACSP Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban Planning. 14th ed. Tallahassee, FL: American Collegiate Schools of Planning .
3.
Bacon, E.N.1963. Urban design as a force in comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Planning Association29: 2-8.
4.
Becker, F.2005. Closing the research-design gap. InformeDesign: Where research informs design10: 1-5.
5.
Ben-Joseph, E.2005. The code of the city. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
6.
Blumenfeld, H.1967. The role of design. Journal of the American Planning Association33: 304-10.
7.
Bothwell, S., A. Duany, P. Hetzel, S. Hurtt, and D. Thadani.2004. Windsor forum on design education. Miami, FL: New Urban Press.
8.
Boyer, E., and L. Mitgang.1996. Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
9.
Collins, J.2005. Good to great and the social sectors: Why business thinking is not the answer. New York: Harper Collins.
10.
Crawford, M., P. Goldberger, A. Krieger, R. Machado, F. Moussavi, J. Czerniak, D. Pieprz, W. Saunders, and M. Urbanski.2007. Urban design now: A discussion. Harvard Design Magazine25: 1-13.
11.
Dagenhart, R., and D. Sawicki.1992. Architecture and planning: The divergence of two fields. Journal of Planning Education and Research12: 1-16.
12.
Dumbaugh, E., and R. Rae.2009. Safe urban form: Revisiting the relationship between community design and traffic safety. Journal of the American Planning Association75: 309-29.
13.
Digman, J.M.1989. Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality57: 195-214.
14.
Editors, Journal of the American Planning Association.1952. Editorial: Design in planning, Journal of the American Planning Association18: 152.
Fink, M.1993. Toward a sunbelt urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association59: 320-33.
17.
Forsyth, A., and K. Crewe.2006. Research in environmental design: Definitions and limits. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research23: 160-75.
18.
Garcia, R.B.1993. Changing paradigms of professional practice, education and research in academe: A history of planning education in the United States. Dissertation prepared at the University of Pennsylvania, Department of City and Regional Planning. Philadelphia .
19.
George, V.1997. A procedural explanation for contemporary urban design . Journal of Urban Design2: 141-63.
20.
Goldberg, L.R.1990. An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59: 1216-29.
21.
Greenberg, S.W., and W.M. Rohe.1984. Neighborhood design and crime: A test of two perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association50: 48-61.
Hoppenfeld, M.1960. The role of design in city planning: With reference to center-city Philadelphia. Journal of the American Planning Association26: 98-103.
24.
International City Management Association.1984. Facilitating economic development: Local government activities and organizational structures. Urban Data Service Report16: 11-12.
25.
Isenberg, D.J.1986. Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50: 1141-51.
26.
Jacobs, J.1961. Death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
27.
Jacobs, A.B., and D. Appleyard.1987. Towards an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association53: 329-34.
28.
Johnson, B.J.2009. Planning for place and plexus: Metropolitan land use and transport. Journal of the American Planning Association75: 496-97.
29.
Kuo, F.2002. Bridging the gap, how scientists can make a difference . In Handbook of environmental psychology, edited by B. Bechtel and A. Churchman , 335-46). New York: John Wiley.
30.
Lightner, B.S.1993. Survey of design review practices. Planning advisory service memo. Chicago: American Planning Association.
31.
Lund, H.2003. Testing the claims of new urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1939-013069: 414-29.
32.
Lynch, K.1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Nasar, J.L.1997. The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Nasar, J. L, W. F. E. Preiser, and T. Fisher, eds. 2007. Designing for designers: Lessons learned from schools of architecture. New York: Fairchild .
35.
Niebanck, P.1993. The shape of environmental planning education. Environment and Planning B20 (5): 511-18.
36.
Parolek, D.G., K. Parolek, and P.D. Crawford.2008. Form-based codes: A guide for planners, urban designers, municipalities and developers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37.
Planetizen.2009. Planetizen 2009 guide to graduate urban planning programs (urban planning schools). Los Angeles, CA: Planetizen Press.
38.
Planning Accreditation Board.2009. Faculty of accredited master’s programs by gender, race and ethnicity [Excel spreadsheet]. Chicago, IL: PAB.
39.
Preiser, W.F.E., and K.P. Rohane.1988. A survey of aesthetic controls in English-speaking countries. In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application, edited by J. Nasar, 422-33. New York: Cambridge.
40.
Project for Public Spaces Inc.2000. How to turn a place around. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
41.
Rodríguez, D.A., A.J. Khattak, and K.R. Evenson.2006. Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs . Journal of the American Planning Association72: 43-54.
42.
Rodwin, L., and B. Sanyal.2000. The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges, 1950-2000. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
43.
Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence. 2010. http://www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/index.php?page=Publications
44.
Ryan, B.D., and R. Weber.2007. Valuing new development in distressed urban neighborhoods: Does design matter? Journal of the American Planning Association73: 100-111.
45.
Rybczynski, Witold.2000. Where have all the planners gone? In The profession of city planning: Changes, successes, failures and challenges (1950-2000), edited by Lloyd Rodwin and Bish Sanyal, 210-16. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
46.
Seidel, A.1978. Our concern for research utilization continues: An introduction to this section of the EDRA10 proceedings and a proposal. In Environmental design: Research, theory and application. Proceedings of the tenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, edited by A. D. Seidel and S. Danford, 219-23. Washington, DC: EDRA.
47.
Silber, J.2007. Architecture of the absurd: How "genius" disfigured a practical art. Boston: Quantuck Lane.
48.
Stevens, G.1998. The favored circle: The social foundations of architectural distinction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Stiftel, B., R. Deden, and A. Bhuiyan.2004. Faculty quality at US graduate planning schools: A National Research Council-style study. Journal of Planning Education and Research24, 6-22.
50.
Suedfeld, P., and J. Russell , eds. 1976. The behavioral basis of design: Beyond the applicability gap. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
51.
Talen, E.2005. New urbanism and American planning: The conflict of cultures . London: Routledge.
52.
Talen, E.2009. Urban design reclaimed: Tools, techniques and strategies for planners. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association Press.
53.
Temple University.2009. School of Environmental Design (Department of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture and Department of Community and Regional Planning) tenure and promotion procedures and guidelines. http://www.temple.edu/ambler/crp/policies/documents/college_T_P_guidelines_000.pdf.
54.
Texas A.&M. University.2008. College of Architecture. Promotion and tenure guidelines. http://archone.tamu.edu/College/Intranet/Resources/Guidelines/2008-11-P_T_Guidelines.pdf.
55.
U.S. News and World Report.2009. Best national universities. 146: 84-88.
56.
University of Minnesota.2008. Standards for promotion and tenure, School of Architecture . http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/tenure/
