IntroductionThis is the second report resulting from my tenure of a Nuffield and Leverhulme Travelling Fellowship in 1989-90. Both reports are published by IURD at Berkeley. They are written from the perspective of a British visitor to the US, and one who has spent most of his career at the Department of the Environment and in the fields of land-use planning policy and administration. Thirty years ago I had a similar Fellowship, in 1959-60 at Harvard, that led to the publication of my book Land Use Controls in the USA (MIT Press, Second Edition 1969).My first report, Development Impact Fees and Other Devices, deals with the methods used in the USA for reallocating the costs of development infrastructure (roads, water, sewerage, parks, and other community facilities) between the public and private sectors. The present report on Aesthetic Control reviews the methods used in America to control the design of buildings. Originally I saw these as two quite distinct topics, but in fact they both bear on the same theme -- the relationship between private and public interests in development. In both cases we are concerned with the extent to which the process of private development should be guided, conditioned or controlled for the public benefit. Both countries attempt to do this, but the motivation is different. In Britain it seems often to be assumed that new development is inherently detrimental and to be prevented or restricted so far as possible. In America development is generally recognized as potentially beneficial, and public policy is directed at mitigating its costs and enhancing its benefits. I prefer the more positive approach. Both of my reports are intended to illustrate it.For most people in our country, "planning" has two functions. One is to decide where development should or should not take place; and the other is to control its design or appearance. It is therefore perhaps surprising that the word "design" is not to be found in the Planning Acts.* Nor are the terms "aesthetic control," "design," or "external appearance" included in the index to Butterworth's 760-page Planning Law Handbook or in Malcolm Grant's 728-page tome Urban Planning Law. Perhaps the whole thing is an illusion, despite the fact that teh Department of the Environment and its predecessors from the 1930s onwards have issued copious policy advice on the subject? But that cannot be so, since it has been estimated that about a third of all planning appeals involve matters of design, as either a primary or secondary consideration.Research by the Centre for Environmental Research at Sheffield (1981) found that at least 50 percent of planning permissions included conditions relating to design (that report defines "design" rather widely to include landscaping and site layout as well as architectural treatment). In practice, aesthetic control evidently forms a large part of the planning process. Indeed, planning is often blessed for falling to prevent poor design and architects criticize planning for attempting to do so. HRH the Prince of Wales, in A Vision of Britain, blames both planners and architects for what he dislikes.So far as I know, there is no book, American or British, that deals with the subject in a comprehensive manner. Indeed, I found that very little has been written on the subject, and this accounts for the lack of footnotes or bibliography in this report, although I include a few references in the text. John Punter's three-volume research study The Control of External Appearance of Development in England and Wales provided a detailed history from 1909 to 1984, and I draw on it freely in Chapter 8. But it is concerned with policy rather than methods, and does not touch the American scene. In considering how to approach this elusive topic, I decided to look for raw material in the form of controls, regulations, or "codes," This was partly because, as an ancient administrator, I take the view that there is no policy unless it can be written down. Also because the American planning system relies almost entirely on written rules or regulations that are in the public domain. And thirdly because the Prince of Wales has told us that "a civilized and harmonious existence depends upon the observance of sensitive rules. Without them there is chaos." If that is the message, one should examine the media.I now summarize the structure and content of this report. Chapter 1 explains briefly the constitutional and legal context that governs aesthetic control in the US. While the American Supreme Court has ruled that such controls need not infringe the constitutional provisions regarding freedom of speech, the fact that the question has been raised should give pause for thought. Chapter 2 takes a close look at Seaside, the coastal development in Florida that is held out to us in A Vision of Britain as a model of what can be achieved by the adoption of an "Urban Code," I confess that I went to Seaside in a skeptical frame of mind but was left with something to think about, which I followed up in later stages of our itinerary.Chapters 3 to 7 deal with various methods and examples of aesthetic control, from the prescriptive form found in zoning ordinances and restrictive covenants to the much more creative style of what I have called "mandatory guidelines." Chapter 6 is in many ways the core of the report and consists of short case studies of aesthetic control in three American cities -- San Francisco and San Diego in California, and Portland, Oregon. Somewhat contrary to my expectations, I found a good deal to admire here.Chapter 8 reviews the course of aesthetic control in Britain from the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1909 to 1990. For reasons that I explain, I entitle this "The Enduring Ambivalence."Finally, Chapter 9 offers my assessment and conclusions. It was not until I was completing this final chapter that I learnt of the important statement on design that the Secretary of State had made on 6 March 1990 and of his initial response of 5 June to the publication by the Royal Fine Art Commission of the booklet by Judy Hillman on Planning for Beauty. I take account of those comments, but I also venture to offer some suggestions for future developments in policy and practice.A great difficulty in dealing with questions of design and aesthetic control is the poverty of language (English or American) in which to express such values or objectives. The best American examples overcome this to some extent by very careful and sensitive analysis of the qualities and characteristics that distinguish particular districts or neighborhoods and by relating any specific objectives or controls to those distinctive features. In the course of my work I assembled a large collection of plans, regulations, and guidelines that illustrate these methods. Obviously it is not practical to reproduce them in full, although I quote extensively from them in the course of the report. I have deposited these materials in the Doe library.In conclusion I must express my thanks once again to the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the University of California at Berkeley, and to the Department of City and Regional Planning at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, where much of my work was done, and tot he City Planning Directors, developers, and others who helped me in the course of our travels. The subject of this report is one that cannot be studied except by travelling to see for oneself. It is an enlightened institution that I hope will always continue to afford that opportunity to civil servants at various stages in their career, including those (like myself) who are nearing retirement and who can join their knowledge of policy and administration to the inestimable benefits of new experience.J.D.Department of Land Economy19 Silver StreetCambridgeEnglandNovember 1990Note: The contents of this report are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Environment. It is published with the Department's permission as a contribution to debate on the subject
