Urban design decision-making: A study of Ontario Municipal Board decisions in Toronto

Canadian Journal of Urban Research

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 209-236

  Kumar, Sandeep ^a  

^a RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Ontario Municipal Board; Toronto; Urban design

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN PLANNING;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; ONTARIO; TORONTO;

EID: 33645773214     PISSN: 11883774     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Barber, John. November 27, 2001. Paternalism runs amok at the OMB. The Globe and Mail.
2. Barber, John. February 21, 2002a. Court Slaps OMIB, and does it with style. The Globe and Mail.
3. Barber, John. February 26, 2002b. OMB an evil we've ensured is necessary. The Globe and Mail.
4. Chipman, John. 2002. A Law unto itself. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
5. Delafons, John. 1990. Aesthetic Control. Monograph 41, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley, December.
6. Etobicoke Official Plan AmendmentNo. C-65-86. 1992. O.M.B.D. No. 656.
7. Hough, Michael. 1994. Place Making and Design Review. In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ed. W. Preiser and B. Scheer, 147-155. New York: Chapman and Hall.
8. Hume, Christopher. 2003a. Jan10. People of Toronto lose in this tale of two cities. The Toronto Star.
9. Hume, Christopher. 2003b. June 21. Lessons from Lotus Land. The Toronto Star.
10. Kumar, Sandeep. 2002. Canadian Urban Design Practice: A Review of Urban Design Regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 11 (2): 239-263.
11. Kumar, Sandeep and George Varkki. 2002. Fallacious Argumentation in Design Review. Urban design International 7 (2): 83-95.
12. Kumar, Sandeep. 2003. Information in Design Review. Planning Practice and Research 18 (4): 243-263.
13. Lai, Richard. 1994. Can the Process of Architectural Design Review Withstand Legal Scrutiny? hi Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ed. W. Preiser and B. Scheer, 31-41. New York: Chapman and Hall.
14. Poole, Samuel E., III. 1987. Architectural Appearance Review Regulations and the First Amendment: The good, the bad and the consensus ugly. The Urban Lawyer 19:287-344.
15. Punter, John. 1994. Design Review and Conservation in England: Historical Development and Contemporary Relationships. In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ed. W. Preiser and B. Scheer, 51-61. New York: Chapman and Hall.
16. Lightner, Brenda. 1993. Survey of Design Review Practices. Planning Advisory Services Memo. American Planning Association. January.
17. Scheer, Brenda.C. 1994. Introduction: The Debate on Design Review. In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ed. W. Preiser and B. Scheer, 1-12. New York: Chapman and Hall.
18. Stamps, Arthur and J. Nasar. 1997. Design review and public preferences: effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17: 11-32.
19. Stamps, Arthur E. 1997. Meta-analysis in environmental research. In Place Design and Management of Place Making, ed. M.S. Amiel and J.C. Vischer, 114-124. Edmond, OK: Environmental Design and Research Association.
20. Stamps, Arthur E. 1994. All buildings great and small. Environment & Behavior. 26 (3): 402-421.
21. Wallis, A. D. 1994. The New England Life: Design review in Boston. In Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ed. W. Preiser and B. Scheer, 133-146. New York: Chapman and Hall.
22. Warson, Albert. July 24, 2002. Vancouver designed by consensus. The Globe and Mail.
23. Williams, S.F. 1977. Subjectivity, Expression and Privacy: Problems of Aesthetics Regulation. Minnesota Law Review. pp. 1-58.
24. Zotti, Ed. 1987. Design by Committee. Planning. May, pp. 22-27.