Design governance: theorizing an urban design sub-field

Abstract

This paper introduces and theorizes the practices of design governance: the process of state-sanctioned intervention in the means and processes of designing the built environment in order to shape both processes and outcomes in a defined public interest. The paper is in three parts. The first briefly addresses 'why' the public sector should seek to intervene in design, in other words the motivations behind design governance. The second and third parts address respectively the 'what' and 'how' questions; what is design governance and how does it occur? They do this by dissecting the concept and investigating a number of recurring debates in the literature that reveal key conceptual threads and problematics running through these practices. The result, and the key contribution of this paper, is a new set of concepts through which to understand the governance of design as a distinct and important sub-field of urban design. Why the public sector intervenes in designDefining the field Put simply, this paper focuses on the role of the state (public sector) in how we design the built environment. We can christen this activity 'design governance' and define it as: 'The process of state-sanctioned intervention in the means and processes of designing the built environment in order to shape both processes and outcomes in a defined public interest' (Carmona 2013a).This activity is nothing new. Since ancient times human beliefs and philosophies have been reflected in a diverse range of local codes that dictate the form and layout of buildings, monuments and settlements, whether related to natural phenomenon (on Earth or in the stars) or to superstitions, creeds and practices of human and / or spiritual origin. The use of Feng Shui from 4000 BC onwards in China; the layout of ritual landscapes such as Stonehenge in England from 3000 BC; the design of religious buildings across today's Christian, Islamic and Hindu worlds; and the layout of sacred sites in the great civilizations of the past, in ancient Egypt, Greece or the Andean civilizations, for example, each share in common the use of prescribed design codes to give meaning and narrative to devotional practices, whether of monarch or deity. Beyond the laws of religious authorities, design has also long been a subject for governmental activity, and societies through the ages have regulated aspects of design for many reasons. In ancient China, for example, the colour yellow was associated with imperial dignity and for many centuries its use on buildings was restricted to the emperors. In Medieval England, the right to use crenellations on a building was controlled by the king because of their association with the building of fortifications, and those wishing to use crenellations had to obtain a licence to crenellate from the twelfth century onwards. From the thirteenth century the development of Siena was regulated by controls on building heights, materials, window shape and building line established by the then nova Government of the republic of Siena. Following the ...

The formal and informal tools of design governance

“…With regard to the distinction between tools and administration briefly referred to above, administration represents the other side of the tools coin in that an administrative infrastructure, appropriate procedures, and the full range of human, financial and skills resources are required to operationalize any sort of tool (Carmona 2016). In this respect it is not just the tools that are increasingly indirect, but also their administration.…”

“…In a related article the nature of design governance was unpacked and four key conceptual distinctions were made (Carmona 2016). The first, between tools and administration, will be returned to below; the other three can usefully form the skeleton for such a typology.…”

Improving the Quality of the Built Environment using Urban Design Review Panels: An Appraisal of Practices in Australia and New Zealand

“…As argued by Carmona (2016), attempting to regulate for "good" design does not necessarily achieve the desired outcome, and imposing specific design criteria may stifle design innovation and eliminate good potential solutions. It also raises questions about the role of the urban authorities in regulating urban development, especially in the context of resistance from the development sector.…”

“…Given the claim that "Design Review is becoming increasingly influential in shaping the design of major new development" (Paterson, 2011, 103), this paper offers an appraisal of the extent to which the CABE (2013) aim to "improve the quality of buildings and places for the benefit of the public" is being achieved in Australia and New Zealand. The idea of public authorities promoting and regulating for better design reflects what Jonathan Barnett (1974) called "urban design as public policy", theorised by Carmona (2016) as "design governance", and defined as: …the process of state-sanctioned interventions in the means and processes of designing the built environment in order to shape both the processes and outcomes in a defined public interest. (Carmona, 2016, 705).…”

“…Consequently, any costs ascribed to the promotion of good design aimed at promoting quality built environments needs to be balanced against the value of benefits to individuals, wider communities and stakeholders. Carmona (2016) suggests that rather than imposing policy or regulation for good design, design governance should seek to bring together public and private stakeholders, as a process that has: …at its heart the idea of complex shared responsibilities for delivery that transcends the simple public/private binary and the limitations of the state"s statutory responsibilities as an inclusive process, led by the state, but reaching out to all parties with a stake in shaping places for the better. (Carmona, 2016, 726) This also reflects the reality that while public authorities promote good design as a public benefit, the greater part of building development is undertaken by the private sector where goals can be very different (Gunder, 2010).…”