Design review: Lessons for Toronto

Plan Canada

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 32-35

  Agrawal, Sandeep Kumar ^a   Ladouceur, Emma ^a  

^a RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54749123631     PISSN: 00320544     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. Kumar S. Information in Design Review. Planning, Practice & Research 2003;18(4):243-63.
2. Kumar S. Canadian Urban Design Practice: A Review of Urban Design Regulations. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 2002; 11(2):239-63.
3. With private review, a private or quasi-public organization reviews its own projects. Some examples include master planned communities like Irvine in Orange County, California. See: Baab D. Private Design Review in Edge City. In: Preiser, Scheer B, eds. Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1994:187-96.
4. Punter J. From Design Advice to Peer Review: The Role of the Urban Design Panel in Vancouver. Journal of Urban Design 2003;8(2):113-35.
5. Hinshaw M. Transforming Suburbia: The Case Study of Bellevue, Washington. In: Preiser W, Scheer B, eds. Design Review. Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1994:111-18.
6. Moul H. Santa Fe Styles and Townscapes: The Search for Authenticity. In: Preiser W, Scheer B, eds. Design Review. Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1994:95-110.
7. Gammage G. Design Review Comes to Phoenix. In: Preiser W, Scheer B, eds. Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1994:85-94.
8. May H. Urban Design Review in Cincinnati. In: Preiser W, Scheer B, eds. Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1994:119-32.