| This study investigates the city government process of design review and provides recommendations to cities in search of an effective urban design review process. The urban design review process is analyzed by comparing four models of review presently in place in Boston, Minneapolis, New York City, and San Francisco. The framework of analysis is built around the approach, nature and elements of the design review process. Is the process formal or informal, discretionary or self-administering? Are functional or aesthetic elements, or both, emphasized? Is there room for creativity and innovation or are there limited or restrictive regulations? What financial or political support is given by the city, and what market pressures are present? Is citizen support and involvement encouraged?;These are but a few of the many questions explored within the analysis of approach, nature and elements of design review as a forerunner to evolving the common themes. The basic question remaining, however, is: How well does the urban design review process work in a given city, or to put it another way: Does the urban design review process under consideration bring amenities to the public and improve the quality of the urban physical environment?;To help answer this question, the study next moves to close examination of a case study in each of the four cities: Charlestown Savings Bank (Boston); the Crossing (Minneapolis); Olympic Tower (New York City); and One Market Plaza (San Francisco). The study seeks lessons to be learned from the case studies in order to identify environmental factors which will determine the specific characteristics of a model for use in a particular environment.;Conclusions are drawn in respect to improvements of the models as presently applied as well as to development of new models. |
