UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Legislating for urban aesthetics : a case study of the civic design panel Vancouver , B.C Vanin, Daniel 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 V35.pdf [ 9.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101715.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101715-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101715-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101715-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101715-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101715-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101715-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101715-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101715.ris

Full Text

L E G I S L A T I N G F O R U R B A N A E S T H E T I C S : A C A S E S T U D Y O F T H E C I V I C D E S I G N P A N E L V A N C O U V E R , B . C . by DANIEL VANIN B . I . D . , U n i v e r s i t y of Mani toba , 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s tandard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1972 In presenting t h i s thesis in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date APr i l 2 8» 1 9 7 2 - i -ABSTRACT I n the past s e v e r a l years many authors and c r i t i c s of the urban scene have denounced the v i s u a l chaos tha t i s now many Nor th American c i t i e s . Th i s c o n d i t i o n has been a t t r i b u t e d to s e v e r a l h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s as w e l l as to some present n e g a t i v e p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s by governments which a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of the urban environment. Desp i t e t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l l a c k of concern , c u r r e n t t rends p o i n t to a new and e n l i g h t e n e d i n t e r e s t i n the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of our c i t i e s . V a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e ac t s have been passed by s e n i o r governments to enable c e r t a i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to adopt l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s and ordinances based on a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t i v e s i n order to c o n t r o l the v i s u a l , c h a r a c t e r of both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e development. The h i s t o r i c a l e v o l u t i o n of t h i s type of l e g i s l a t i o n i s o u t l i n e d , as w e l l as the j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e a f f e c t i n g i t s l e g a l i t y i n the face of t r a d i t i o n a l c o n f l i c t s between i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s and the i n h e r e n t r e g u l a t o r y power of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i s g i v e n to the a d m i n i s -t r a t i o n of t h i s type of l e g i s l a t i o n , n o r m a l l y e f f e c t e d by an a r c h i t e c t -u r a l board of r ev iew. sy s tem which i s empowered to assess the a e s t h e t i c m e r i t s of a p r o j e c t ' s des ign before approva l to b u i l d i s g r a n t e d . The author a f f i r m s , however, tha t c o n t r a r y to t r a d i t i o n a l concepts urban a e s t h e t i c s i n the a r c h i t e c t u r e - u r b a n f i e l d s today are based on broader - i i -and more comprehensive des ign c r i t e r i a than merely the arrangement of an i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g ' s form or a r c h i t e c t u r a l " s t y l e " . He f u r t h e r hypothes ize s that the r o l e of a r c h i t e c t u r a l review boards must be broadened to i n c l u d e the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of des ign rev iew i n order to improve the c i t y ' s t o t a l p h y s i c a l environment. A case study of the Vancouver C i v i c . D e s i g n P a n e l i s used to t e s t the v a l i d i t y o f the hypothes i s as w e l l as to assess the m e r i t s of the de s ign p a n e l system i n p r i n c i p l e . W i t h i n the context of the case s tudy , the c o n c l u s i o n s reached g e n e r a l l y c o n f i r m the a u t h o r ' s o r i g i n a l a f f i r m a t i o n and h y p o t h e s i s . - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A b s t r a c t i Table of Contents i i i Acknowledgements » i x Chapter I . A e s t h e t i c s and the Urban Environment 1 The Problem 1 E a r l y A t t i t u d e s and the C i t y 4 Changing A t t i t u d e s 6 O b j e c t i v e of the Study 8 Assumptions 8 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Thes i s 9 Hypothes i s of the Study 11 Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 12 P l a n n i n g P e r s p e c t i v e 13 A e s t h e t i c s and Beauty 14 A e s t h e t i c P e r c e p t i o n 17 A e s t h e t i c s and Behaviour 17 A e s t h e t i c s and C i v i c Des ign 18 Summary 22 - i v -Chapter " PAGE I I . The R e g u l a t i o n of P r i v a t e Development 30 I n t r o d u c t i o n 30 The Regula tory Power of the M u n i c i p a l i t y . . . . . . 31 U n i t e d S ta tes 32 Canada 32 The Laws of Nuisance 33 Land and B u i l d i n g R e g u l a t i o n s 33 B u i l d i n g Codes 33 S u b d i v i s i o n Regu la t ions 34 ,'• B u i l d i n g L i n e Setbacks 35 R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants 36 Zoning 37 Nor th America 37 The Purpose of Zoning 38 The L e g a l Ba s i s f o r Zoning 39 Summary 40 I I I . C o n t r o l s Based On A e s t h e t i c O b j e c t i v e s 45 I n t r o d u c t i o n 45 The A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l Ordinance 45 D e f i n i t i o n 46 Purpose 47 - v -Chapter PAGE A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 48 A l t e r n a t i v e C o n t r o l s 48 A e s t h e t i c C o n t r o l i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas 49 L o o k - A l i k e Regu la t ions 49 No L o o k - A l i k e Regu la t ions . . . 50 H i s t o r i c Area C o n t r o l s 52 U n i t e d S ta tes 52 Canada 55 B r i t i s h Columbia 55 England 56 A e s t h e t i c L e g i s l a t i o n A f f e c t i n g S p e c i a l Areas . . . . 57 Highway A e s t h e t i c s . . . . . . . 57 S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t s 59 . S p e c i a l Amenity Zones 59 Entrance D i s t r i c t s . 60 France 60 A e s t h e t i c s and the J u d i c i a l A t t i t u d e 61 Overview 61 Laws of Nuisance 6 1 S ign C o n t r o l 62 H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t C o n t r o l 64 Zoning and A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l s 64 - v i -Chapter PAGE Summary 67 I V . The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review System 74 I n t r o d u c t i o n 74 H i s t o r i c a l 74 P r a c t i c e and Procedures 77 Terms of Reference 77 Purpose 80 Composi t ion 80 D i f f i c u l t i e s A s s o c i a t e d With Des ign C o n t r o l 82 The Case A g a i n s t C o n t r o l s 83 The Case For C o n t r o l s 85 Des ign C o n t r o l s i n England and Europe 86 England 86 Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t 87 Composi t ion of Panels 88 Procedures . 89 E f f e c t i v e n e s s 91 U . S . S . R 92 The'Use of F i n e A r t Commissions 93 U n i t e d S ta tes 93 England 94 - v i i -Chapter PAGE S p e c i a l Des ign Commissions 96 Summary 99 V . The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of L e g i s l a t i o n Based on A e s t h e t i c O b j e c t i v e s : A Case Study of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l , Vancouver, B.C 105 I n t r o d u c t i o n 105 The O b j e c t i v e s of the Case Study 106 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Case Study . 107 C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Background 108 B . N . A . A c t 108 The Vancouver Char te r 109 Zoning and Development By-law 109 T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board 110 Opera t ion of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l I l l F u n c t i o n . 112 Teems of Reference 112 Composi t ion 115 Powers 117 Procedures 117 Summary 122 V I . An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of C o n f l i c t s E x i s t i n g W i t h i n The C i v i c Des ign P a n e l 127 I n t r o d u c t i o n 127 - v i i i -Chapter PAGE Method of I n v e s t i g a t i o n - P a r t I 128 P a r t I - In format ion C o l l e c t e d From A l l L i t e r a t u r e Relevant to the Design P a n e l ' s Opera t ion 129 P l a n n i n g Department Response 147 Summary of P a r t I I n v e s t i g a t i o n 152 Method o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n - P a r t I I 153 R e s u l t s of In te rv i ews With Respondents From A l l F o u r t C a t e g o r i e s Under the S i x B a s i c Headings 155 Summary o f P a r t I I I n v e s t i g a t i o n 172 Observat ions on A l l I n f o r m a t i o n C o l l e c t e d . 176 Conc lus ions 180 V I I . Ep i logue 188 Summary Review of the Case Study 188 Recommendations For Improvements i n the Opera t ion of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l 190 E v a l u a t i o n of the Hypothes i s 195 An E v a l u a t i o n of the Design' Pane l System i n P r i n c i p l e . . . 200 Relevance of the Study to Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g 203 Recommendations For F u r t h e r Research 205 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 207 APPENDIX " A " 215 APPENDIX " B " . . . . . . . . . 218 APPENDIX " C " 222 APPENDIX " D " . 227 - i x -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express h i s g r a t i t u d e to P r o f e s s o r s Jonas Lehrman and Brahm Wiesman f o r t h e i r guidance i n complet ing t h i s t h e s i s . A d d i t i o n a l thanks are a l s o due to M r . W.R. G i b s o n , P r o f e s s o r B. F r e s c h i , M r . P . Mees, and M r . M. Cross f o r t h e i r v a l u a b l e time and a s s i s t a n c e . Very s p e c i a l g r a t i t u d e i s a l s o due to h i s w i f e Susan whose encouraging s p i r i t pervades t h i s work i n every way, as w e l l as to h i s t y p i s t , Mi s s J a n i c e D o y l e , who undoubtedly r e l i n q u i s h e d many en joyab le evenings i n order to h e l p complete t h i s work. CHAPTER I AESTHETICS AND THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT The Problem The q u a l i t y o f our l i v i n g p laces determines the q u a l i t y of our l i f e . And i f we now d i s c o v e r tha t d e s p i t e our h i g h s tandard of l i v i n g our s tandard of l i f e leaves much to be d e s i r e d , i t i s p r e c i s e l y . . . because our p laces to l i v e - i s l a r g e l y a m e s s . l In the past s e v e r a l y e a r s , the sub jec t of environmenta l q u a l i t y has assumed i n c r e a s i n g importance to a l l l e v e l s o f governments and 2 concerned c i t i z e n s a l i k e i n North Amer i ca . The i n i t i a l envi ronmenta l and e c o l o g i c a l concerns were preoccupied w i t h the d e s t r u c t i o n of our w i l d l i f e , the p o l l u t i o n of our a i r and water r e s o u r c e s , and the desecra-t i o n of our l andscapes . Al though these concerns are s t i l l extremely impor tan t , many c r i t i c s of the urban scene have a l s o become e q u a l l y concerned w i t h the q u a l i t y of the urban environmentaas w e l l . In a s o c i e t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d l a r g e l y by i t s advanced i n d u s t r i a l technology, , the q u a l i t y of the environment has s t e a d i l y d e c l i n e d as i t s m a t e r i a l w e a l t h and p o p u l a t i o n s have i n c r e a s e d . To Ian McHarg, t h i s represent s a great f a i l u r e on the p a r t of s o c i e t y : The f a i l u r e i s the more i n e x p l i c a b l e as the product of a s o c i e t y d i s t i n g u i s h e d by i t s concern f o r s o c i a l j u s t i c e ; f o r s u r e l y the p h y s i c a l environment i s an important component of w e a l t h and s o c i a l j u s t i c e .3 The paradox of our g e n e r a l l y h i g h s tandard of l i v i n g i n the post - 2 -i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s incongruous w i t h the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g which 4 c h a r a c t e r i z e d many c i t i e s of the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . F r e d e r i c k Gutheim has i n d i c t e d the c u r r e n t s t a t e of most North American c i t i e s i n h i s paper , "Urban Space and Urban D e s i g n " : To the v i s u a l l y t r a i n e d or s e n s i t i v e person today , the a s s a u l t of urban anarchy on the senses i s remorseless and u n r e m i t t i n g . I t i s an ou t s t and ing f a c t of modern l i f e , an expre s s ion of b r u t a l i s m as harsh and as s i g n i f i c a n t as s l a v e l a b o r , atomic warfare or genocide . . . and i t r e v e a l s the same d i s r e g a r d f o r l i f e . . ' . 5 Perhaps the s t ronges t condemnation of a l l contemporary commentators of the v i s u a l aspects o f our urban environment i s P e t e r B l a k e : No people has i n h e r i t e d a more n a t u r a l l y b e a u t i f u l l and than we . . . the o n l y t r o u b l e i s tha t we are about to t u r n t h i s b e a u t i f u l i n h e r i t a n c e i n t o the b i g g e s t slum on the face of the e a r t h . The mess t h a t i s man-made A m e r i c a , as a B r i t i s h magazine has c a l l e d i t , i s a d i s g r a c e of such va s t p r o p o r t i o n s tha t o n l y a concer ted n a t i o n a l e f f o r t can now hope to r e t u r n p h y s i c a l America to the community of c i v i l i z e d n a t i o n s . ^ The degenerat ion of the urban environment i s e s p e c i a l l y d i s t u r b i n g when one cons ider s the r a t e of u r b a n i z a t i o n that i s o c c u r r i n g i n the w o r l d today. Before 1850 no s o c i e t y c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as predominant ly u r b a n i z e d , and by 1900 o n l y one - Great B r i t a i n - cou ld be so regarded . Today, o n l y 65 years l a t e r , a l l i n d u s t r i a l n a t i o n s are h i g h l y u r b a n i z e d , and i n the w o r l d as a whole the process of u r b a n i z a t i o n i s a c c e l e r a t i n g r a p i d l y . C l e a r l y the w o r l d as a whole i s not f u l l y urban ized but i t w i l l soon be .7 Toclay, 70 per cent of Americans l i v e i n u rban ized a reas , and w i t h i n a g decade t h i s f i g u r e w i l l r i s e to 80 per c e n t . Moynihan has r e c e n t l y equated the problems of American c i t i e s w i t h the c o u n t r y ' s r a p i d r a t e of - 3 -u r b a n i z a t i o n and p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e : I f there i s any pr imary reason American c i t i e s are i n such t r o u b l e a t t h i s moment i t i s because we doubled our p o p u l a t i o n i n the past f i f t y y e a r s . I t took three c e n t u r i e s f o r the f i r s t hundred m i l l i o n , h a l f a century f o r the next hundred m i l l i o n ; i t w i l l take a t h i r d of a century f o r the next hundred m i l l i o n . To c r e a t a rewarding environment f o r a n a t i o n of three hundred m i l l i o n i s the p r e c i s e task a h e a d . 9 The l e v e l of u r b a n i z a t i o n i n Canada i s no l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t . I n abso lute f i g u r e s the p r o j e c t e d i n c r e a s e i n Canada's t o t a l urban p o p u l a t i o n i s 5.8 m i l l i o n people by 1980, w i t h a 60 per cent r i s e a n t i c i p a t e d f o r the 29 l a r g e s t ' c e n t e r s ^ a n d one t h i r d i n the three g r e a t e r m e t r o p o l i t a n areas of M o n t r e a l , Toronto and V a n c o u v e r . ^ By the year 2000 more than 35 12 m i l l i o n Canadians w i l l be l i v i n g and work ing i n urban environments . The p o p u l a t i o n of Grea te r Vancouver may be expected to quadruple i n the 13 next f i f t y years to a f i g u r e between 3 1/2 to 4 m i l l i o n peop le . To quote K i n g s l e y Davis a g a i n , " these l a r g e and dense urban agglomerat ions compr i s ing the urban p o p u l a t i o n i n v o l v e a degree of human contac t and 14 s o c i a l complex i ty never be fore known i n h i s t o r y " . B o r i s Pushkarev has f u r t h e r suggested a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the breakdown of a e s t h e t i c order and t h i s sudden expansion of the s c a l e at which the growing p o p u l a t i o n s are now m a n i p u l a t i n g nature and the urban environment. The f a c t o r s of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p are de sc r ibed i n terms of numbers of peop le , the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to them, the consumption of energy, and the v a s t expanse of space w i t h i n which each i n d i v i d u a l now opera te s . - 4 -Early Attitudes and the City The visual chaos that is now urban America has been attributed to several major factors, not least of which was the anti-city bias of the early colonialists. Thomas Jefferson, himself an architect and stout defender of the virtues of country l i f e , declared that ci t i e s were,"pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.""^ This tradition was generally sustained by the rurally based legislative assemblies and such influential writers as Thoreau and Lewis Mumford in later generations."''7 The disregard for the visual quality of American cities has also been rationalized by the country's preoccupation with opening up the West and the mass manufacturing of u t i l i t y and consumer items such as automobiles, clothing and appliances in abundance for the "good l i f e " . Now, after being too busy providing, or preoccupied by the more, insistent demands of depression and war, we are embarassed by our c i t i e s . The democratic city i s predominantly ugly. We cannot find the simple dominants that once gave form to c i t i e s . Catherine Bauer Wurster has claimed that in the continental European's view, the Anglo-Saxon tradition could not produce a real urbanity or a great cosmopolitan culture in i t s c i t i e s because of i t s tradition for individuality on the one hand and i t s sentiment for greenery on the other. The freewheeling individualism of the 19th century laissez-faire philosophy has also contributed to the present appearance of our c i t i e s . In - 5 -I n North A m e r i c a , where no "humane t r a d i t i o n " acted as a brake to a l l -out s p o i l and u n c o n t r o l l e d development, " the American c i t y i s i i n c o n v e n i e n t , d i r t y , l a c k i n g i n charm and beauty because the i n d i v i d u a l landowner has 20 been p e r m i t t e d to p l a n i t . " Thi s highhdegree of i n d i v i d u a l i s m i n c i t y development, and the pres sure f o r the e x p l o i t a t i o n of every i n c h of ground 21 to the utmost of i t s revenue producing c a p a c i t y , has r e s u l t e d i n chaos. "Up to now i n A m e r i c a " , dec l a re s Wal te r McQuade, " the r u l e s f o r c i t i e s 22 have always been f i n a n c i a l . They are r u l e s s tacked aga in s t s u r v i v a l . " A l s o important has been the r e l u c t a n c e of government to e x e r c i s e i t s l e g i s l a t i v e power i n r e g u l a t i n g t h i s p r i v a t e development, e s p e c i a l l y i n matters d e a l i n g w i t h appearance. Re l a t ed to the l a i s s e z - f a i r e p h i l -osophy was the b a s i c na ture of i n d i v i d u a l p roper ty r i g h t s which were s u c c i n c t l y expressed by the judge i n a 1921 U . S . S t a te Court a c t i o n : L i k e any other fundamental l i b e r t y , i t [ownership and use of ^ p r o p e r t y ] i s a r i g h t to which the p o l i c y power i s s u b o r d i n a t e ; i. M u n i c i p a l t a x i n g p o l i c i e s i n many s t a t e s have not served to encourage an improvement i n the p h y s i c a l appearance of U . S . c i t i e s . P e n a l t i e s i n the form of i n c r e a s e d p r o p e r t y assessments f o r w e l l designed and p r e s t i g i o u s b u i l d i n g s has been c i t e d by P e t e r B lake as be ing one of the more p e r n i c i o u s impediments to good a r c h i t e c t u r a l and urban d e s i g n . B lake g ives the example of the Seagram B u i l d i n g i n New York whose tax assessments were c a l c u l a t e d a t a r a t e of approx imate ly 50 per cent h i g h e r than the " j u n k y " s p e c u l a t i v e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s which were e rec ted nearby , and which a c t i o n was upheld by both the New York S ta te Court and i t s - 6 -A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n . I n summary, the v i s u a l b l i g h t which i s our c i t i e s today has been e x p l a i n e d i n terms of e a r l y a n t i - c i t y b i a s e s , the pres sure f o r l and e x p l o i t a t i o n and s p e c u l a t i o n , the fundamental p roper ty r i g h t s of i n d i v i d -u a l s , and nega t ive t a x i n g p o l i c i e s . However, George F . Kennan, former U . S . ambassador to the S o v i e t Union f e e l s tha t the reason may be more fundamental : There i s a deep-seated weakness i n the American c h a r a c t e r : a c e r t a i n shy s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s tha t tends to deny i n t e r e s t s other than those of b u s i n e s s , s p o r t s , or war . There i s a powerfu l s t r a i n of our American cas t of mind t h a t has l i t t l e use f o r the a r t i s t or the w r i t e r , and professes to see i n the p u r s u i t s of such people a l a c k of v i r i l i t y - as though v i r i l i t y c o u l d not f i n d expre s s ion i n the c r e a t i o n of beauty . . . 25 In Rudofsky ' s o p i n i o n many Americans regard u g l y c i t i e s as an a s s e t : . . . For they produce tha t tough s t r e a k i n manythat makes him eminent ly f i t to s u r v i v e i n an atmosphere of r u t h l e s s c o m p e t i t i o n . Accord ing to popular b e l i e f , harmonious surroundings are f i n e f o r a r e s o r t town but do not go w e l l w i t h the workaday w o r l d . Beauty saps the s t r e n g t h of the work ing man, a f f e c t s h i s power of judgement, and leads to d i s s o l u t e n e s s . 2 6 Changing A t t i t u d e s D e s p i t e the t r a d i t i o n a l l a c k of concern , c u r r e n t developments p o i n t to a new and e n l i g h t e n e d i n t e r e s t i n the appearance o f Nor th American communit ies . Urban a e s t h e t i c s was the theme of a t l e a s t one 27 of P r e s i d e n t Kennedy's addresses to the n a t i o n , w h i l e at the White House Conference on N a t u r a l Beauty i n May, 1965, P r e s i d e n t Johnson repeated the theme: - 7 -We must not o n l y p r o t e c t the c o u n t r y s i d e and save i t from d e s t r u c t i o n , we must r e s t o r e what has been des t royed and sa lvage the beauty and charm of our c i t i e s . I t s o b j e c t i s not j u s t man's w e l f a r e , but the d i g n i t y o f man's s p i r i t . 2 8 Under t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , P r e s i d e n t i a l pres sure induced s t a t e and l o c a l governments to take such measures as might be necessary to 29 improve the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of areas under t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . Even as l a t e as August , 1970, P r e s i d e n t N i x o n , i n ajimessage to Congress , s t a t e d the need to "develop c i t y s c a p e s that d e l i g h t the eye and u p l i f t "}0 the s p i r i t " . W i t h i n the past decade, urban a e s t h e t i c s has been the main t o p i c of many p l a n n i n g and a r c h i t e c t u r a l conferences , w h i l e des ign c r i t i c s 31 have pursued the theme r e l e n t l e s s l y . Moreover , t h i s changing a t t i t u d e has not been c o n f i n e d f t p P r e s i d e n t i a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l concern a l o n e . A c c o r d i n g to Laurence B. Anderson , Dean of the School of A r c h i t e c t u r e and P l a n n i n g at M . I . T . : The p u b l i c c l i m a t e i s now one of more concern f o r the q u a l i t y of l i f e and the environment than at any time i n the remembered p a s t 5 and the concern seems l i k e l y to grow and s u s t a i n i t s e l f . 3 2 Changing va lue s and a new awareness have r e s u l t e d i n the accept -ance by many communities o f b u i l d i n g c o n t r o l s , " l o o k - a l i k e and n o n - l o o k -33 a l i k e " ordinances and a e s t h e t i c r e g u l a t i o n s , highway b e a u t i f i c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n and programs, a n t i - b i l l b o a r d l e g i s l a t i o n , c i v i c b e a u t i f i c a t i o n programs, and the p r e s e r v a t i o n of h i s t o r i c b u i l d i n g s and d i s t r i c t s . T h i s l a s t phenomenon has had a p a r t i c u l a r l y dramat ic impact on both the c i t y ' s form and v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r . S ta te and p r o v i n c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , - 8 -municipal ordinances, and special building regulations relating to 3 A historic d i s t r i c t s have, in many cases, made this movement possible. Objective of the Study The objective of this study is to investigate North American and European legislative attempts and practices by the various levels of government to accomplish the goals of higher aesthetic standards in our urban environment, particularly in the fields of architecture and urban design. In addition, a detailed analysis w i l l be made of one particular aspect of government attention paid to aesthetic controls, v i z . the function of architectural review as practiced by the Civic Design Panel in the City of Vancouver, B.C. The analysis of the Panel w i l l be made in terms of i t s : (a) function, (b) terms of reference, (c) compos-ition, (d) powers, (e) procedures, and (f) effectiveness. By delving into this particular aspect of public control over private development decisions, i t is hoped a better insight may be gained into i t s p o l i t i c a l , legislative, and procedural problems, and that some basis for revised and improved approaches may be formulated and recommended to assist similar or future bodies in achieving their objectives. Assumptions For the purpose of this study, i t is assumed that: Our rapidly expanding rate of urbanization and population increase w i l l continue, and - 9 -tha t no major s o c i o l o g i c a l or t e c h n o l o g i c a l breakthrough w i l l occur i n the near f u t u r e to r a d i c a l l y a l t e r the n e c e s s i t y to c o n s t r u c t new b u i l d i n g s . That the remaining v e s t i g e s of the l a i s s e z - f a i r e p h i l o s o p h y w i l l cont inue to d e c l i n e and that the e m e r g i n g i i d e a l w i l l cont inue to d i r e c t the power and resources of the community f o r the p u b l i c b e n e f i t . That the concept of some p u b l i c c o n t r o l over p r i v a t e development i s both d e s i r a b l e and neces sary . That a e s t h e t i c as w e l l as s o c i a l and economic va lues are necessary to p r o v i d e f o r an optimum environment f o r man. O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Thes i s The i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter i s an attempt to e s t a b l i s h through a documentation of the l i t e r a t u r e the r a p i d r a t e o f u r b a n i z a t i o n and i t s e f f e c t on the urban environment. I t a l s o documents t r a d i t i o n a l , a n t i -c i t y b i a s e s and p r a c t i c e s which have c o n t r i b u t e d to the v i s u a l cbaoseof our c i t i e s , changing a t t i t u d e s , and the new concern shown by government, p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and the g e n e r a l p u b l i c f o r the a e s t h e t i c va lue s i n our c i t i e s . Chapter I I - Def ines the importance of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s r e g u l a t o r y power as the b a s i s f o r a l l government l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n . A l s o the e v o l u t i o n of e a r l y government p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t r a c e d from those r e g u l a t i o n s based on o b j e c t i v e s of h e a l t h and w e l f a r e to those based e s s e n t i a l l y on a e s t h e t i c grounds. Chapter I I I - Descr ibes the v a r i o u s types of a e s t h e t i c r e g u l a t i o n s - 10 -which have been e x e r c i s e d i n many communities as w e l l as a rev iew of j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e s r egard ing the l e g a l i t y of these c o n t r o l s . Chapter IV - Descr ibes the dev ice s most o f t e n used to a d m i n i s t e r the v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e ac t s based on a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t i v e s , v i z . a r c h i t e c t u r a l boards of rev iew and s i m i l a r agencies such as the F i n e A r t s Commission, as w e l l as some examples c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g i n Nor th America and the U n i t e d Kingdom. Chapter V - Presents a d e t a i l e d examinat ion of one aspect o f a e s t h e t i c l e g i s l a t i o n , namely i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h r o u g h a case study o f the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l . Th i s chapter prov ides the background i n f o r m a t i o n as a d e s c r i p t i o n of the P a n e l ' s o p e r a t i o n under f i v e of the s i x b a s i c headings p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d . Chapter V I - Present s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of any sources of c o n f l i c t which may e x i s t i n the o p e r a t i o n of the P a n e l under the s i x b a s i c head ings . A l s o d e s c r i b e d are the o b j e c t i v e s o f the case s t u d y , a d e s c r i p t i o n of the re search methodology, a p r e s e n t a t i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d , as w e l l as some obse rva t ions and c o n c l u s i o n s . Chapter V I I - The l a s t chapter presents some recommendations to improve the o p e r a t i o n of the P a n e l , an e v a l u a t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i s , an e v a l u a t i o n of the de s ign pane l system i n p r i n c i p l e , the re levance of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s s tudy to the p r a c t i c e o f community and r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g , and some recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . - 11 -Hypothes i s of the Study The C i v i c Des ign Pane l was e s t a b l i s h e d i n the C i t y o f Vancouver i n 1957 as an a d v i s o r y body to the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board . The C i t y ' s Zoning and Development By-Law No. 3575, P a r t I I , S e c t i o n 10 (a ) , de f ines i t s terms of r e f e r e n c e : Any [development] a p p l i c a t i o n may be r e f e r r e d to a Des ign P a n e l appointed by the C i t y C o u n c i l to c o n s i d e r and adv i se on a r c h i t e c -t u r a l d e s i g n . I t i s contended i n t h i s t h e s i s that the term " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " was intended to be i n t e r p r e t e d i n the narrow sense and i m p l y i n g the p u r e l y s u b j e c t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e aspect of des ign a e s t h e t i c s o n l y , e . g . the s e l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s , the arrangement of form, s c a l e , c o l o r , e t c . I n no way was i t in tended by C o u n c i l to connote the broader f u n c t i o n a l s i d e o f urban p l a n n i n g and des ign as w e l l , such as l and use , a c c e s s i b i l i t y , d e n s i t y , e t c . , which would f a l l w i t h i n the ambit of urban des ign p r i n c i p l e s . The concept of a r c h i t e c t u r a l des ign as compr i s ing the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g s w i t h no f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i t s t o t a l urban s e t t i n g does not have a v a l i d b a s i s i n today ' s i n t e n s e l y developed and complex c i t i e s . T h i s l a c k of b u i l d i n g and development r e l a t i o n s h i p has c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to the present s t a t e of v i s u a l chaos. " W i t h very few e x c e p t i o n s , the b u i l d i n g s cons t ruc ted i n our c i t i e s are 35 b u i l t w i t h o u t the s l i g h t e s t regard to matters o f urban d e s i g n . " On the b a s i s tha t a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew must be g iven the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of a r c h i t e c t u r a l des ign w i t h i n i t s terms of - 12 -re ference to p r o v i d e f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement to the q u a l i t y of the urban environment , i t i s hypothes i zed t h a t : The r o l e of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l must be broadened to i n c l u d e the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of des ign rev iew i n order to improve the c i t y ' s t o t a l p h y s i c a l environment. The v a l i d i t y of t h i s hypothes i s w i l l be d i s cus sed i n the f i n a l c h a p t e r . The Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study S ince many l e t t e r s of i n q u i r y have been r e c e i v e d by the P l a n n i n g 36 Department, C i t y of Vancouver, r e g a r d i n g the f u n c t i o n , powers, e t c . , of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l , t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s in tended to p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r use i n both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . But because very l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n has been p u b l i s h e d i n Canada r e l a t i n g to the main theme of t h i s t h e s i s , i t was necessary to draw from o u t s i d e source s , n o t a b l y the U n i t e d States and Great B r i t a i n , where more has been accom-p l i s h e d i n t h i s f i e l d . The case study which represent s one f ace t of l e g i s l a t i v e a t t e n -t i o n to urban a e s t h e t i c s , namely the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w , i s l i m i t e d to the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l i n Vancouver, B . C . The scope of the a n a l y s i s i s de f ined by the methods used to gather i n f o r m a -t i o n and d a t a , which i n c l u d e p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , some r e l e v a n t correspondence, and an examinat ion of the P a n e l ' s minutes from the years 1968 to 1971, i n c l u s i v e . A l l o p i n i o n s , answers, e t c . , r e g a r d i n g the v a r i o u s aspects of the P a n e l ' s f u n c t i o n i n g r e s u l t i n g from - 13 -the method of i n q u i r y were d i s a s s o c i a t e d from a l l p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t i e s as a matter of p o l i c y . P l a n n i n g P e r s p e c t i v e The broad o b j e c t i v e of c i t y p l a n n i n g i s to promote the w e l f a r e of the people i n the community by h e l p i n g to c rea te an i n c r e a s -i n g l y b e t t e r , more b e a u t i f u l , c o n v e n i e n t , and a t t r a c t i v e environment.37 The concept t h a t c i t y p l a n n i n g i n v o l v e s merely economic and s o c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i s no longer adequate to meet the expanded i d e a l s of the m a j o r i t y of c i t i z e n s today. When p lanners address t h e i r energ ies to matters of m u n i c i p a l economics, to the e f f i c i e n t f u n c t i o n i n g of c i t i e s ' s e r v i c e s , to the s o c i a l impacts of the environment , and to the programming of p u b l i c works and a c t i v i t i e s , they must be no l e s s concerned w i t h the a e s t h e t i c development o f t h e i r communit ies . " I n p l a n n i n g f o r p h y s i c a l man, " w r i t e s the D i r e c t o r of C i t y P l a n n i n g f o r Houston, "we must not 38 forge t s p i r i t u a l man . " The sub jec t of t h i s paper , l e g i s l a t i n g f o r urban a e s t h e t i c s or the l e g a l r e g u l a t o r y measures of the sub jec t matter of urban des ign i s becoming an i n c r e a s i n g l y important area of concern to the p l a n n i n g p r o f e s s i o n . A r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew procedures i n p a r t i c u l a r have become an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g f u n c t i o n and an accepted f e a t u r e of the environment i n many communities today. The importance of urban a e s t h e t i c s and environmenta l q u a l i t y as l e g i t i m a t e areas of concern may be i l l u s t r a t e d i n the Vancouver "Downtown Concepts" r e p o r t - 14 -of 1970. Under the heading of " G o a l s " , i t s t a t e s : Environment: Downtown should be guided i n t o deve lop ing a l l the a t t r i b u t e s of a p lea sant and s o p h i s t i c a t e d environment . The Downtown must r e f l e c t a unique c h a r a c t e r e v o l v i n g from i t s h i s t o r y and s e t t i n g and i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n s p i r i t the bes t of o t h e r . c i t i e s . The C i t y Center must be b e a u t i f u l , a l i v i n g and c r e a t i v e p l a c e c a t e r i n g to c u l t u r a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l needs, b u s t l i n g and g i v i n g a sense o f p r i d e to i t s c i t i z e n s . 3 9 A e s t h e t i c s and Beauty L e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g to beauty i n community appearance has been impeded not o n l y by the h i s t o r y of Anglo-Saxon j u r i s p r u d e n c e concern ing p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , but a l s o by the a b s t r a c t na ture of beauty i t s e l f . Webster de f ine s beauty as : That q u a l i t y o r aggregate of q u a l i t i e s i n a t h i n g which g ives p lea sure to the senses or p l e a s u r a b l y e x c i t e s the mind or s p i r i t . The Concise Oxford D i c t i o n a r y ventures one s tep f u r t h e r by i d e n t i f y i n g these q u a l i t i e s : [The] combinat ion of q u a l i t i e s , as shape, p r o p o r t i o n , c o l o r , i n human face or form, or i n o ther ob j ec t s tha t d e l i g h t s the s i g h t . . . The p r e c i s e na ture of these q u a l i t i e s , t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p e r c e p t u a l f u n c t i o n s o f the viewerehave never been s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e r p r e t e d . The meaning of beauty has had many d e f i n i t i o n s . Research i n t o the nature of beauty and a e s t h e t i c s has long occupied the mind o f man, a t l e a s t s i n c e the time of the a n c i e n t Greeks . The p r e - S o c r a t i c Greeks , under the dominat ion of phys i c s and mathematics , sought to d e f i n e beauty - 15 -i n s p a t i a l and q u a n t i t a t i v e terms, w h i l e P l a t o went to another extreme 40 and merged the b e a u t i f u l i n a subl ime i d e n t i t y w i t h the good. The Roman p h i l o s o p h e r P lo t imus h e l d that a e s t h e t i c exper ience i s the c l o s e s t approx imat ion to m y s t i c a l exper ience because one became l o s t i n contem-41 p l a t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t . Kant and Schopenhauer thought tha t beauty became that q u a l i t y whereby an o b j e c t p leases r e g a r d l e s s of i t s use , s t i r r i n g i n one "a w i l l - l e s s contempla t ion and a d i s i n t e r e s t e d i • ?f 42 happiness . I n contemporary t i m e s , the I t a l i a n p h i l o s o p h e r and statesman Croce concluded tha t beauty and u g l i n e s s were q u a l i t i e s not of a work of 43 a r t , but o f the s p i r i t expressed i n t u i t i v e l y i n that work. I n t h i s the E n g l i s h c r i t i c L o u i s Arnand R e i d c o u l d not agree : Croce i s so possessed by the i d e a tha t beauty i s f o r and i n the mind, tha t he f o r g e t s that though f e e l i n g i s necessary to i t s embodiment, y e t a l s o the embodiment i s necessary to f e e l i n g . ^ 4 A r t c r i t i c s C. K. Ogden, I . A . R i c h a r d s , and James Wood t e n t a t i v e l y ass igned as many as s i x t e e n q u a l i t i e s which cou ld c o n c e i v a b l y j u s t i f y an o b j e c t to be c a l l e d b e a u t i f u l , e . g . anyth ing which has a s p e c i f i e d form, which produces a s p e c i f i e d emotion, which i n v o l v e s the process of 45 empathy, e t c . D e s s o i r gave to the " s c i e n c e " of a e s t h e t i c s three b a s i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which he c a l l e d the s p e c u l a t i v e - e m p i r i c a l , normat ive-d e s c r i p t i v e , and s u b j e c t i v e - p s y c h o l o g i c a l , each w i t h t h e i r own se t of 46 " n a t u r a l " l a w s . An important i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s sub jec t was repor ted by the B r i t i s h s e m a n t i c i s t and c r i t i c I v a r Armstrong R ichards i n 1929. - 16 -H i s experiments i n d i c a t e d t h a t t t h e a e s t h e t i c responses of even h i g h l y c u l t i v a t e d persons were c o n d i t i o n e d by e d u c a t i o n , acqu i red o p i n i o n , and 47 other s o c i a l c i r c u m s t a n t i a l f a c t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t o ther c o n d i t i o n i n g f a c t o r s such as t r a d i t i o n , the f a sh ions of a p a r t i c u l a r age and l o c a t i o n , and o ther s o c i a l pressures c o u l d l e a d to great changes i n a e s t h e t i c standards and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s among i n d i v i d u a l s . Because some of the g rea te s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l minds i n h i s t o r y have not been ab le to agree on the nature of a e s t h e t i c s , and the evidence tha t t a s t e can be c o n d i t i o n e d by many media t ing f a c t o r s , the s p e c u l a t i v e nature of t h i s sub jec t remains to t h i s day. Because of i t s s u b j e c t i v e n a t u r e , i t has been de sc r ibed as a normat ive s c i ence d e a l i n g p r i m a r i l y 48 i n v a l u e s , as opposed to the d e s c r i p t i v e s c i ences which d e a l i n f a c t s . Lay persons n o r m a l l y regard a e s t h e t i c s and the na ture of beauty as be ing a matter of p e r s o n a l t a s t e and of l i t t l e r e l evance to the p r a c t i c a l . everyday matters of l i f e . Many de s ign a u t h o r i t i e s r e f r a i n from a e s t h e t i c s p e c u l a t i o n a l t o g e t h e r , f e e l i n g there i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of a r r i v i n g 49 at any d e f i n i t e c o n c l u s i o n . I n . a d d i t i o n , many l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s f e e l tha t beauty i n any form cannot s u c c e s s f u l l y be l e g i s l a t e d because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n f o r m u l a t i n g p r e c i s e a e s t h e t i c c r i t e r i a : Th i s i s the c e n t r a l matter of s t andards . No l e g i s l a t u r e . . . cou ld reduce a e s t h e t i c c r i t e r i a to s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e r u l e s - as i s accomplished i n the c r i m i n a l system.50 A l s o , i n matters r e l a t e d to urban a e s t h e t i c s : . . . the s t y l e and appearance of b u i l d i n g s may w e l l meet w i t h d i f f i c u l t y , i f f o r no other reason than the problem of p r e s c r i b i n g - 17 -proper standards which can be f a i r l y enforced . . . A e s t h e t i c P e r c e p t i o n - S c i e n t i f i c methods of q u a n t i f y i n g percep-t u a l exper iences are s t i l l i n the exper imenta l stages but have prov ided a new dimension i n t h i s f i e l d . A l though i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s paper to e l a b o r a t e on the importance o f the p e r c e p t u a l process i n d i s c u s -s i n g a e s t h e t i c v a l u e s , i t i s now b r o a d l y recognized t h a t p e r c e p t i o n of the urban environment comes to us through a l l the senses and i n v o l v e s more than the mere v i s u a l appearance of b u i l d i n g s and s t r e e t s . O l f a c t o r y , a u d i t o r y and t a c t i l e pe rcep t ions are a l s o i m p o r t a n t , as w e l l as many o ther elements of the urban environmentasuch as v e h i c l e s , topography, 52 and peop le . F u r t h e r p e r c e p t u a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s by L y n c h , Kepes, and o ther s may one day p r o v i d e the e m p i r i c a l b a s i s f o r d e f i n i n g 53 p r e c i s e a e s t h e t i c va lue s a t a c i t y - w i d e l e v e l , as w e l l as some system of a e s t h e t i c s tandards which can be more r e a d i l y e n f o r c e d . A A e s t h e t i c s and Behavior - Some environmenta l d e t e r m i n i s t s have suggested tha t w e l l designed and a t t r a c t i v e surroundings have a d e f i n i t e p s y c h o l o g i c a l b e a r i n g upon the emot iona l w e l l - b e i n g of urban i n h a b i t a n t s . K e v i n L y n c h , f o r example, has p o i n t e d out t h a t " n o t h i n g i s exper ienced 54 e x c e p t i o n r e l a t i o n to one ' s s u r r o u n d i n g s " . There i s by no means, however, a unanimity of o p i n i o n on t h i s i s s u e . A c c o r d i n g to one c r i t i c , " [ t h e r e are] no s t u d i e s of any s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of a e s t h e t i c s to i n d i v i d u a l w e l l - b e i n g o r the good l i f e " . ^ ^ Good des ign to many a r c h i t e c t s and p lanners should be i t s own reward : - 18 -. . . w h i l e [the] s u c c e s s f u l p r a c t i c e of p l a n n i n g can be used as a means to achieve f i n a n c i a l , s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l o b j e c t i v e s as w e l l as good d e s i g n , the l a t t e r must always stand on i t s own,two f ee t as an end i n i t s e l f , not to be measured by the rewards of long term inves tment , the b l e s s i n g s of r a c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n , or the p s y c h i c h e a l t h of a b i g c i t y u r c h i n . . . A e s t h e t i c s and C i v i c Des ign H i s t o r i c a l l y , c i t y p l a n n i n g i n Nor th America had been p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the appearance of c i t i e s , namely how to.make them more p h y s i c a l l y impre s s ive and a t t r a c t i v e . When the n i n e t e e n t h century B r i t i s h reformers and s o c i a l t h i n k e r s such as Ebenezer Howard and P a t r i c k Geddes i n f l u e n c e d the n o t i o n of the planned community i n Nor th America i n the1 e a r l y p a r t of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , appearance gave way to s o c i o l o g i c a l and economic f a c t o r s as the main preoccupa t ion of the - . 57 p r o f e s s i o n . The o r i g i n s of c i v i c de s ign as a body of s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge r e l a t e d to c i t y p l a n n i n g was f i r s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the C i t y B e a u t i f u l movement i n the e a r l y p a r t of t h i s c e n t u r y . T h i s movement had found i t s most e loquent expre s s ion i n the C h i c a g o ' W o r l d ' s Columbian E x p o s i t i o n 58 of 1893 and the subsequent p lans f o r the Chicago l a k e f r o n t . T h i s i d e a l was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the s t a t i c Renaissance p r i n c i p l e s of formal composi t ions of urban spaces organized a long v i s u a l axes , the c a r e f u l arrangement of p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , s t a t u a r y , f o u n t a i n s , and o ther elements 59 of n e o - c l a s s i c i s m . In the years tha t f o l l o w e d , t h i s aspect of c i t y p l a n n i n g cont inued to r e f l e c t the s u p e r f i c i a l i d e a l s of the Beaux A r t s - 19 -academism: The p a t e n t l y sk in-deep glamour of i n d i v i d u a l p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and whole c i v i c centers b u i l t i n the decades tha t f o l l o w e d crea ted an a s s o c i a t i o n i n the p u b l i c mind of ' c i v i c d e s i g n ' w i t h monumental b u i l d i n g s and expensive c o n s t r u c t i o n o n l y . C i v i c de s ign was seldom thought o f . . . i n any other c o n n e c t i o n . By the e a r l y 1950's the s u p e r f i c i a l na ture of c i v i c de s ign and i t s e x c l u s i v e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h a r c h i t e c t u r e and c i v i c a r t was quest ioned by some contemporary d e s i g n e r s . I n t h i s re spec t Tunnard thought t h a t the words " c i v i c d e s i g n " suggested an " a r t a p p l i e d to the c i t y s t r u c t u r e " , but that the on ly v a l i d approach to the whole q u e s t i o n was one tha t had a . " r e a l s o c i a l b a s i s , deeply rooted i n the s o c i a l i n s t i n c t f o r c o o p e r a t i o n , 61 o r g a n i z a t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l e x p r e s s i o n " . At the same time many ideas of C a m i l l o S i t t e were r e d i s c o v e r e d 62 i n the "townscape" s t u d i e s of Gordon C u l l e n which e s t a b l i s h e d i t s e l f as a major i n f l u e n c e on environmenta l d e s i g n e r s . These s t u d i e s suggested tha t c e r t a i n v i s u a l e f f e c t s i n grouping of b u i l d i n g s are based on d e f i n -ab le a e s t h e t i c p r i n c i p l e s , and prov ided the b a s i s f o r many of the down-town " b e a u t i f i c a t i o n " and " s t r e e t f u r n i t u r e " p r o j e c t s which were l a t e r 63 launched d u r i n g the 1960's.^ C u l l e n ' s s t u d i e s were l a t e r expanded by Ian N a i r n who recognized the need to s a t i s f y s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a per son ' s need f o r i n d i v i d u a l i t y and f o r community through the p h y s i c a l form and d e t a i l of the p l a c e i n which he l i v e s and works . The consc ious de s ign of t o t a l p h y s i c a l environment , the appropr ia tenes s of d e t a i l , the p r o v i s i o n of amenity , were a l l important i n the complete urban mosa ic . - 20 -The townscape i n f l u e n c e a l s o became the b a s i s f o r a new urban a e s t h e t i c i n which Sydney W i l l i a m s suggested the three pr imary reasons f o r improv-i n g the v i s u a l charac te r of urban a rea s : 1) To g i v e the urban c i t i z e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to comprehend v i s u a l l y and o r i e n t h i m s e l f v i s u a l l y to the d a i l y l i f e of the c i t y . 2) To p r o v i d e a v i s u a l emphasis f o r those f u n c t i o n s which are s o c i a l l y , c u l t u r a l l y and economica l ly i m p o r t a n t . 3) To h e l p s t i m u l a t e c i v i c consciousness and c i v i c p r i d e i n the 64 c i t i z e n . Wi th the i n c r e a s i n g emphasis b e i n g p laced on the socio-economic and c u l t u r a l aspects of l a r g e s c a l e de s ign appeared the new term "urban de s ign 1 ' , which has s i n c e been de f ined by F r e d e r i c k Gutheim "as tha t p a r t of c i t y p l a n n i n g which dea l s w i t h a e s t h e t i c s and which determines the 65 order and form of the c i t y " . S e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s soon prov ided a new dimensionsto the f i e l d of urban d e s i g n . H e n r i c i has suggested that the t r a n s i t i o n from the prev ious n u c l e a t e d and s t a t i c community concept to the present trends of r a p i d l y changing urban form and s t r u c -t u r e , together w i t h the f r e e r movement of both goods and people had 66 a l s o brought about a new phase i n urban d e s i g n . F i n a l l y , new a r c h i -t e c t u r a l complexes were i n c r e a s i n g i n s c a l e and g r a d u a l l y found t h e i r way i n t o the p l a n n i n g f i e l d by t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n and development of urban s p a t i a l v a l u e s . C o n v e r s e l y , broad brush p l a n n i n g techniques were b e i n g broken down and made more d e t a i l e d i n s p e c i f i c des igns and a l s o began to - 21 -be conceived i n three d imens iona l terms i n s t e a d of the t r a d i t i o n a l two d imens iona l l a n d use arrangements. Between the p r o f e s s i o n s of a r c h i t e c -t u r e and c i t y p l a n n i n g a b r i d g e was g r a d u a l l y b u i l t so tha t both the a e s t h e t i c and f u n c t i o n a l determinants have now gained equal s t a t u s i n b u i l d i n g the c i t y ' s form, s t r u c t u r e and v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r . The s y n t h e s i s of a r t , a r c h i t e c t u r e and p l ann ing , suggests P a u l S p r e i r e g a n , i s the essence of urban d e s i g n : . S t i c k s and s to nes , n a i l s and g l a s s make a house. I f they are assembled w i t h a r t , the same m a t e r i a l s become a r c h i t e c t u r e . S i m i l a r l y , a c i t y i s an assemblage of b u i l d i n g s and s t r e e t s , systems o f communications and u t i l i t i e s , p l aces of work, h a b i t a -t i o n , l e i s u r e , and meet ing . The process of a r r a n g i n g these elements t o g e t h e r , both f u n c t i o n a l l y and b e a u t i f u l l y , i s the essence of urban design.67 I n i t s e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s , a r c h i t e c t u r e , even more than urban d e s i g n , has been l a r g e l y the product of i t s own c r e a t i v e dynamic, a process of o r g a n i c growth w i t h o n l y a minimum of b u i l t - i n c o n t r o l mechanisms. But l i k e the e a r l y medieva l and Renaissance s o c i e t y , we have now come to r e a l i z e tha t the a r t o f c i t y b u i l d i n g i s not a f r e e a r t , but a s o c i a l a r t , and must be ab le to s tand the t e s t of p u b l i c 68 s c r u t i n y . I n d e s i g n i n g and b u i l d i n g our, c i t i e s the d e s i g n e r - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p has not prov ided the q u a l i t i e s e s s e n t i a l to a good urban environment , and has r e s u l t e d i n the v i s u a l chaos d e s c r i b e d by many c r i t i c s i i n the f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r . As a r e s u l t , the l a s t h a l f century has seen a growing number and v a r i e t y of c o n t r o l s be ing imposed by governments on p r i v a t e development, and which i n t u r n r e f l e c t s - 22 -the p a r a l l e l r i s e i n p u b l i c concern over a l l aspects of urban l i f e . Summary In the past s e v e r a l y e a r s , the sub jec t of environmenta l q u a l i t y has assumed i n c r e a s i n g importance to a l l l e v e l s of government and concerned c i t i z e n s a l i k e . Many contemporary w r i t e r s have c r i t i c i z e d the v i s u a l and environmenta l q u a l i t i e s of our c i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y when c o n s i d e r i n g the r a p i d r a t e of u r b a n i z a t i o n which i s o c c u r r i n g i n Nor th America today. The v i s u a l b l i g h t which c h a r a c t e r i z e s many of our c i t i e s has been e x p l a i n e d i n terms of e a r l y a n t i - c i t y b i a s e s , the pres sure f o r l and e x p l o i t a t i o n and s p e c u l a t i o n , the r e l u c t a n c e by government to e x e r c i s e i t s l e g i s l a t i v e power i n r e g u l a t i n g p r i v a t e development e s p e c i -a l l y i n terms of appearance, n e g a t i v e t a x i n g p o l i c i e s , and the t r a d i t i o n a l a n t i - b e a u t y a t t i t u d e s of most Nor th Americans . Desp i te t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l l a c k of concern , c u r r e n t developments p o i n t to a new and e n l i g h t e n e d i n t e r e s t i n the appearance and q u a l i t y of urban communities . Urban a e s t h e t i c s has been the sub jec t of s e v e r a l p r e s i d e n t i a l speeches s i n c e 1962 and has a l s o been the main t o p i c of many p l a n n i n g and a r c h i t e c t u r a l conferences on the c o n t i n e n t i n the past decade. Changing va lue s and new a t t i t u d e s have r e s u l t e d i n the acceptance by many communities of v a r i o u s types of r e g u l a t o r y devices a f f e c t i n g both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e development i n order to enhance the a e s t h e t i c and environmenta l q u a l i t y of our c i t i e s . A t the same t i m e , the t r a d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s of c i v i c - 23 -des ign as r e l a t i n g o n l y to the s u p e r f i c i a l aspects of c i t y appearance have a l s o been r e p l a c e d by the organ ic p r i n c i p l e s of urban d e s i g n , and which have a l s o br idged the gap between the f i e l d s of contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r e and c i t y p l a n n i n g . Wi th t h i s "new" concept , both the a e s t h e t i c and f u n c t i o n a l aspects of environmenta l p l a n n i n g have gained equa l s t a t u s i n de termin ing the c i t y ' s form, s t r u c t u r e and v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r . - 24 -FOOTNOTES 1 von E k a r d t , W o l f e , A P l a c e to L i v e (De lacor te P r e s s , New Y o r k , 1967) , p . X V I . 2 I n s t i t u t e f o r L o c a l S e l f Government, C i v i c Ecology f o r Century 21 : A  Bo ld Approach, B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. 3 McHarg, I a n , "Man and Envi ronment" , The Urban C o n d i t i o n (Simon and Schus te r , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1969) , p . 51 . 4 I b i d . ^Gutheim, F r e d e r i c k , "Urban Space and Urban D e s i g n " , i n C i t i e s and  Space - The Future Use of Urban Land (The John Hopkins P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , 1966), p . 116. B l a k e , P e t e r , God's Own Junkyard - The Planned D e t e r i o r a t i o n of A m e r i c a ' s  Landscape ( H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New Y o r k , 1964) , p . 8 . ^Dav i s , K i n g s l e y , "The U r b a n i z a t i o n of the Human P o p u l a t i o n " , i n C i t i e s ( A l f r e d A . Knopf , I n c . , New Y o r k , 1965) , p . 4 . g U n i t e d S ta tes Chamber of Commerce, Form, Des ign and A More A t t r a c t i v e  C i t y , Washington, D . C , U . S . Chamber of Commerce, 1969. 9 Moynihan, D a n i e l P . , p re face to W i l l They Ever F i n i s h Bruckner Boulevard? (The M a c M i l l a n Company, New Y o r k , N . Y . 1969) . ^ F e l d m a n , L i o n e l D . , G o l d r i c k , M i c h a e l D . , P o l i t i c s and Government o f  Urban Canada; S e l e c t e d Readings (Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , Toronto , 1969) , p . 29. ''"''"Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, The Canadian Economy From the I960 ' s to  the 1970 ' s , (Ot tawa , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967) , p . 3. 12 The Vancouver Sun, March 15 , 1968, p . 13 . - 25 -13 The P l a n n i n g Department of the D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby, B . C . , Urban S t r u c t u r e (1971) , p . 34. 14 D a v i s , op. c i t . , p . 4 . "^Pushkarev , B o r i s , " Sca le and Des ign i n a New Environment" , i n Who Designs  Amer ica? , (ed.) Lawrence B. Hol l and , (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1965) , p . 88. "^Rudofsky , B e r n a r d , S t r e e t s For People (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1969) , p . 16. " ^ W u r s t e r , C a t h e r i n e Bauer , "Do Americans Hate C i t i e s ? " , i n J o u r n a l of  the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 23, No. 1, p . 3 . 18 Smi th , C h l o t h i e l Woodard, " C i t i e s i n Search of Form" , i n J o u r n a l o f the  American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , March 1961, p . 77. 19 Wurs te r , op_. c i t . , p . 3 - 8 . ^ 20 Rudofsky, op. c i t . , p . 16. 21 A r o n o v i c i , C a r o l , Community B u i l d i n g , Sc ience Technique, A r t (Doubleday and Company^ I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1956) , p . 317. 22 • . ' McQuade, W a l t e r , "The V i s u a l Q u a l i t y , o f C i t i e s " , J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , March , 1961, p . 218. 23 M a r s h a l l v . D a l l a s , '253 SW 887 (1921) , quoted i n B a i l e y , Stephen K . , F r o s t , R i c h a r d T . , " A e s t h e t i c s and M e t r o p o l i t a n G r o w t h " , J o u r n a l of the  American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 23 , No. 3 , 1958, p . 107. 24 B l a k e , op_. c i t . , pp. 28 - 29. 25 Tunnard, C h r i s t o p h e r , "Urban A e s t h e t i c s " , A . S . P . O . , P l a n n i n g 1953, Proceedings of the Annual N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , October 11 - 15 , p . 49 . 26 Rudofsky, op_. c i t . , p . 17. 1 - 26 -27 P r e s i d e n t ' s Council on R e c r e a t i o n and Beauty, From Sea to S h i n i n g Sea,  A Report on the American Environment - Our Natural H e r i t a g e , Washing-t o n , D . C , 1966, p . 11. 2 8 T . . . I b i d . 29 Bureau of Community Planning, Newsletter, V o l . 6 , Nos. 3 , 4 , S p r i n g -Summer, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1966. 30 President ' s C o u n c i l on R e c r e a t i o n and Beauty, l o c . c i t . 31 Eldridge, H . Wentworth, ( e d . ) , Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , V o l . 1 (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1967) , p . 268. 32 I n s t i t u t e f o r L o c a l S e l f Government, C i v i c Ecology f o r Century 21 : A  Bo ld Approach (Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , 1970) , p . 10. 33 Tunnard, C h r i s t o p h e r , Pushkarev , B o r i s , Man-Made A m e r i c a : Chaos or  C o n t r o l ? (Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Haven, 1963) , p . 405. 34 A s t l e s , o A l l e n t R . , "The P r e s e r v a t i o n and R e s t o r a t i o n of A e s t h e t i c and H i s t o r i c Elements W i t h i n the Nor th American C i t y " , unpubl i shed paper , 36Vancouver, B . C . , (1969) , pp. 2 - 8 . 35 B l a k e , op_. c i t . 36 I n t e r v i e w w i t h M r . P e t e r Mees, Sec re ta ry to the Vancouver C i v i c Design P a n e l . 37 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i t y Managers' A s s o c i a t i o n , L o c a l Planning A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 3rd e d . , Ch icago , I l l i n o i s , 1959, p . 10. 38 E l l i f r i t , Ralph S . , "Urban A e s t h e t i c s " , P l a n n i n g 1953, Proceedings of the Annual N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference, ' Detroit, M i c h i g a n , October 11-15, 1953. 39 Downtown Vancouver Development Concepts , C i t y o f Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, Vancouver, B . C . , 1970. - 27 -40 Durant , W i l l , The P lea sure s of P h i l o s o p h y (Simon and Schus te r , New Y o r k , 1953) , p . 190. 41 Freund, E r i c C , "What i s T h i s Thing C a l l e d B e a u t i f i c a t i o n ? " , N e w s l e t t e r ; Bureau of Community P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , V o l . 6 , Nos. 3 and 4 (1966). 42 Durant , op. c i t . , p . 191. 43 Croce , Benedet to , A e s t h e t i c as a Sc ience of E x p r e s s i o n and Genera l  L i n g u i s t i c ^ ( M a c M i l l a n and C o . , L t d . , London, 1909) , pp. 20-35. 44 R e i d , L o u i s Arnaud, A Study i n A e s t h e t i c s , ( G e o r g e A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , London, 1931) , p . 166. 45 Ogden, C . K . , R i c h a r d s , I . A . , Wood, James, The Foundat ion of A e s t h e t i c s (George A l l e n and Unwin L i m i t e d , London, 1922) , pp. 20 - 21 . 46 D e s s o i r , Max, A e s t h e t i c s and the Theory of A r t (Wayne S ta te U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , 1970) , pp. 23 - 34. . 47 Freund, E r i c C , op_. c i t . 48 Dempsey, Nadine M . , P a t t e r n and C o m p l e x i t y : P s y c h o - P h y s i c a l Needs  as Determinants i n the V i s u a l Environment , unpubl i shed M a s t e r ' s Thes i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver , B . C . , 1968, p . 32. 49 Ogden, C . K . , R i c h a r d s , I . A . , Wood, James, op. c i t . , pp. 20 - 2 1 . " ^ H a l l , The Hon. F r e d e r i c k W . , "One Judge Looks at Land Use R e g u l a t i o n " , P l a n n i n g 1961, Se l ec ted Papers From the ASPO N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g C o n f e r -ence, Chicago , I l l i n o i s , 1961. B a i l e y , Stephen K . , F r o s t , R i c h a r d T . , " A e s t h e t i c s and M e t r o p o l i t a n Growth" , i n J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 23 , No. 3, 1957, p . 110. - 28 -52 Welsh , George S . , "The P e r c e p t i o n of Our Urban Envi ronment" , i n P e r c e p t i o n and Environment; Foundations of Urban D e s i g n , (ed.) S t r i p e , Robert E . ( I n s t i t u t e of Government, The U n i v e r s i t y of Nor th C a r o l i n a a t Chapel H i l l , 1966) , pp. 3 - 9 . 53 E l d r i d g e , op_. c i t . , p . 268. 54 L y n c h , K e v i n , The Image of the C i t y (The M . I . T . P r e s s , Cambridge, Mas sachuse t t s , 1960) , p . 1. " ^ E l d r j d g e , op. c i t . , p . 268. "^Weinberg , Robert C . , "Urban Design and the Community", i n J o u r n a l o f  the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 26, No. 3, May. 1962, p . 134. "^Montgomery, Roger, "Urban Des ign - A t t a i n a b l e , E l u s i v e , or I l l u s i o n a r y ? " , i n P l a n n i n g 1968, Se l ec ted Papers from the ASPO N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , 1968, p . 190. 58 Weinberg, Robert C , "Urban D e s i g n " , i n P l a n n i n g 1958, Se lec ted Papers from the ASPO N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , 1958, p . 19. 59 Montgomery, op. e x t . , pp . 190— 194. ^ W e i n b e r g , op. c i t . , p . 134. 61 Tunnard, C h r i s t o p h e r , " C i t i e s By D e s i g n " , i n J o u r n a l of the American  I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 17, Summer, 1951, p . 143. 62 Descr ibed by C u l l e n as " the a r t of g i v i n g v i s u a l coherence and o r g a n i -z a t i o n to the urban environment" , Townscape ( W i l l i a m Clowes and Sons L i m i t e d , The A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , London, 1971) . 63 Montgomery, op. c i t . , p . 191. 64 W i l l i a m s , Sydney, "Urban D e s i g n " , i n P l a n n i n g 1953, Se l ec ted Papers from the ASPO N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , 1953, p . 58. - 29 -^ G u t h e i m , op_. c i t . , p . 116. 66 A r o n o v i c i , op_. c i t . , p . 316. 67 S p r e i r e g a n , P a u l D . , Urban D e s i g n : The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Towns and C i t i e s ( M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, Toronto , 1965) , p . 106. 68 Report by the Greater London C o u n c i l , The G . L . C . i n the Environment , Greater London C o u n c i l , London, 1971, p . 9 . - 30 -CHAPTER I I THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT I n t r o d u c t i o n The e n t i r e h i s t o r y of the human race has shown a . g r a d u a l but sure p r o g r e s s i o n from complete i n d i v i d u a l independence to t h a t of communal interdependence. ' '" I n our own t i m e , the process i s a c c e l e r a t i n g p r o p o r -t i o n a t e l y to the r a p i d c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n s i n t o l a r g e r and l a r g e r urbanized a r e a s , w i t h i n c r e a s i n g job s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and i n c r e a s i n g 2 demand f o r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s of ever-widening scope. T h i s e v o l u t i o n a r y s o c i a l process has a f f e c t e d the a n c i e n t c o n f l i c t of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p roper ty r i g h t s w i t h tha t of the community's g e n e r a l w e l f a r e . Under E n g l i s h common l a w , one of the most v a l u a b l e a t t r i b u t e s of ownership i n r e a l p roper ty was the r i g h t of the owner to use h i s p roper ty as he saw f i t w i t h l i t t l e or no concern f o r h i s ne ighbour : So g r e a t , moreover, i s the regard f o r the law f o r p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y , tha t i t w i l l not a u t h o r i z e the l e a s t v i o l a t i o n of i t ; no , not even f o r the g e n e r a l good of the whole community . 3 G r a d u a l l y , some e a r l y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to t h i s p r i v a t e independence emerged. Some of these i n c l u d e the easement of l i g h t and a i r over a n e i g h b o u r ' s p r o p e r t y , the p r o h i b i t i o n of wooden s t r u c t u r e s i n c e r t a i n h i g h d e n s i t y 4 areas , and c e r t a i n l and uses which produced a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . - 31 -With the development of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and group r e s p o n s i -b i l i t i e s more comprehensive and s o p h i s t i c a t e d forms of l and use c o n t r o l s emerged. In contemporary t i m e s , p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y may be r e g u l a t e d at the m u n i c i p a l l e v e l by zoning b y - l a w s , s u b - d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s and b u i l d i n g codes. Added to these may be s p e c i a l l o c a l ordinances d e a l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c l a n d uses or p a r t i c u l a r aspects of use , development, occupancy or c o n s t r u c t i o n . Some of these may i n c l u d e a n t i - n o i s e o r d i n a n c e s , smoke abatement or a i r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l s , the keeping of a n i m a l s , mobi le home r e g u l a t i o n s and so on."* The development of these c o n t r o l s has always been j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s of m a i n t a i n i n g community h e a l t h and w e l f a r e . I n the U n i t e d S ta tes t h i s e roding o f i n d i v i d u a l p roper ty r i g h t s was accomplished by an ever-widening i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and the p a r a l l e l broadening of the i n h e r e n t r e g u l a t o r y power of the m u n i c i p a l i t y . ^ Regula tory Power of the M u n i c i p a l i t y I t i s g e n e r a l l y acknowledged t h a t i f l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n f o r a e s t h e t i c purposes i s to be l e g a l l y u p h e l d , i t must be e f f e c t e d through the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s r e g u l a t o r y power. I n i t s o r i g i n a l and broadest sense the term " r e g u l a t o r y power" denotes the i n h e r e n t power of a sovere ign governing e n t i t y to govern "men and t h i n g s " . ^ I n i t s more l i m i t e d sense, i t i s the power to e s t a b l i s h the s o c i a l o r d e r , to p r o t e c t the l i f e and h e a l t h of per sons , to secure t h e i r e x i s t e n c e and - 32 -comfort , and to safeguard them i n the enjoyment of p r i v a t e and s o c i a l 8 l i f e and the b e n e f i c i a l use of t h e i r p r o p e r t y . U n i t e d States - Under the 14th amendment of the U . S . C o n s t i t u t i o n 9 the e x e r c i s e o f the p o l i c e power i s l i m i t e d by the requirement tha t i t be reasonable and not a r b i t r a r y and a l l o w s f o r "due process and equal p r o t e c t i o n of the l a w " . 1 0 T r a d i t i o n a l l y t h i s l i m i t a t i o n has been i n t e r p r e t e d by the j u d i c i a r y as p r o v i d i n g a safeguard to prevent a r b i -t r a r y and unreasonable a c t i o n by government and thereby p r o h i b i t i n g a a n unreasonable i n v a s i o n of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . Because of the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a n c t i t y o f p e r s o n a l p roper ty r i g h t s , one of the e a r l y r e s t r a i n t s p laced upon the p o l i c e power was the one aga ins t a e s t h e t i c s . E s s e n t i a l l y t h i s p rov ided tha t " a e s t h e t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a lone are not s u f f i c i e n t to s u s t a i n a r e s t r i c t i o n upon the use of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y " as i t may be judged a r b i t r a r y and unreasonable."'""'' R e s t r i c t i o n s based upon the t r a d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s of p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , morals and genera l w e l f a r e of the community a lone have j u s t i f i e d i t s use . Canada - By way of c o n t r a s t , s i m i l a r p r o t e c t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l p roper ty r i g h t s do not e x i s t as ye t i n Canada. Under the d i s t r i b u t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e power under the B r i t i s h Nor th America Act of 1867, matters o f p r o p e r t y and c i v i l r i g h t s f a l l w i t h i n the p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s -d i c t i o n . A p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e has the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power to - 33 -a r b i t r a r i l y c o n f i s c a t e , r e s t r i c t or o therwise r e g u l a t e any p r i v a t e 12 p r o p e r t i e s by a l e g i s l a t i v e enactment, a l though t h i s has seldom or never been done due to the e x i s t e n c e of E n g l i s h common law p r i n c i p l e s . Al though a c o n v e n t i o n a l l i s t of r i g h t s and freedoms was r e c i t e d i n the 1960 Canadian B i l l of R i g h t s , they were not entrenched i n the B . N . A . A c t . As a consequence they o f f e r e d no p r o t e c t i o n aga ins t i n v a s i o n s of r i g h t s by p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t y . Many aspects of fundamental r i g h t s i n c l u d i n g those of p r i v a t e p roper ty are thus l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of 13 each p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . The Laws o f Nuisance - The law of p r i v a t e nuisance r e s t s on the concept embodied i n the a n c i e n t l e g a l maxim, " S i c u t e r e tuo ut a l ienum non l a e d u s " , meaning i n essence t h a t every person should use h i s 14 p roper ty so as not to i n j u r e tha t of another . As a consequence, a p r i v a t e nuisance e x i s t s i n a l e g a l sense when one makes an improper use o f h i s own p r o p e r t y and i n tha t way i n j u r e s the l a n d or some i n c o r p o r e a l r i g h t of one ' s n e i g h b o u r U n t i l comprehensive zoning by- laws were developed by Nor th American m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the laws of nuisance were commonly invoked to s top the i n c o m p a t i b l e uses of b u i l d i n g s or l a n d under the r e g u l a t o r y power. Land and B u i l d i n g Regu la t ions B u i l d i n g Codes - T h i s i s probably the o l d e s t form of b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n i n h i s t o r y , d a t i n g back at l e a s t to the Baby lon ian Code of - 34 -Hammurabi, some 2000 years be fore C h r i s t . A n c i e n t Rome used an ex tens ive system of r e g u l a t i o n to p r o t e c t i t s c i t i z e n s aga in s t f i r e , b u i l d i n g c o l l a p s e and d i s e a s e , w h i l e the C i t y of London enacted i t s f i r s t b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s as long ago as 1 1 8 9 . 1 7 The f i r s t b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s i n the U n i t e d States were p r o h i b i t i o n s aga ins t wooden chimneys i n a New York C i t y ord inance o f 1648. L a t e r r e g u l a t i o n s were i n t r o d u c e d to l e s s e n the danger o f f i r e . E v e n t u a l l y a steady process of growth has l e d to contemporary codes which s p e c i f y the types of m a t e r i a l s and c o n s t r u c t i o n which may be used i n v a r i o u s b u i l d i n g s , the types of e l e c t r i c a l and plumbing i n s t a l l a t i o n s t h a t may be i n s t a l l e d and many s i m i l a r matters which impose s a f e t y standards on new c o n s t r u c t i o n 18 and occupancy of b u i l d i n g s . A l though b u i l d i n g appearance i s d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by t h i s r e g u l a t o r y d e v i c e , i t s s o l e purpose i s one of s a f e t y and w e l f a r e r a t h e r than ae s thet i c s . - Due to the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the p o l i c e power o b j e c t i v e s of p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y , there has been l i t t l e q u e s t i o n as to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of most b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . S u b d i v i s i o n R e g u l a t i o n s - These p u b l i c c o n t r o l s govern the p r e l i m i n a r y stages of s u b d i v i s i o n development; the l a y o u t of s t r e e t s and l o t s and the p r o v i s i o n of necessary s e r v i c e s . They occupy a 20 p o s i t i o n somewhat between the b u i l d i n g code and the zoning o r d i n a n c e . Most s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s apply u n i f o r m l y to a l l new r e s i d e n t i a l - 35 -development, but r e c e n t F . H . A . recommendations i n the U n i t e d States a l l o w f o r separate standards a c c o r d i n g to the c h a r a c t e r and d e n s i t y of the development. S u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s f i r s t appeared i n the U n i t e d S ta tes i n the 19th century and r e q u i r e d tha t proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s be a c c u r a t e l y surveyed and p l a t t e d and tha t these be approved p r i o r to r e g i s t r a t i o n . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h i s r e g u l a t i o n has been upheld s e v e r a l t imes aga i n s t charges of be ing a r b i t r a r y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . 21 I n the case of " I n M a t t e r of S idebotham", the C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court s t a t e d : The a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h i s i s not a v a l i d p o l i c e power l e g i s l a t i o n because i t b e n e f i t s o n l y a s p e c i a l c l a s s . . . and not the whole p u b l i c i s w i t h o u t substance . The p o l i c e power may be , and u s u a l l y i s , e x e r c i s e d f o r the purpose of p r o t e c t i n g p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s e s of the p u b l i c i n need of such p r o t e c t i o n , and i t i s r a r e indeed tha t a s i n g l e law i n c l u d e s every one i n the scope of i t s r e g u l a t i o n s . 2 2 B u i l d i n g L i n e Setbacks - Many zoning by- laws c o n t a i n s p e c i a l r e g u i a r e g u l a t i o n s which e s t a b l i s h b u i l d i n g l i n e s a long c e r t a i n c i t y thorough-fa re s i n an attempt to preserve a c o r r i d o r of open p u b l i c space. Th i s demand f o r a d d i t i o n a l space may be r e q u i r e d to d i l u t e exhaust gases from heavy t r a f f i c , p r o v i d e e a s i e r t r a f f i c manoeuvring, to supply a d d i t i o n a l space f o r o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g , and to ensure g r e a t e r v i s i o n c l ea rance at 23 i n t e r s e c t i o n s . The e s t a b l i s h i n g o f b u i l d i n g l i n e s are u s u a l l y j u s t i -f i e d on grounds of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and w e l f a r e and are e f f e c t e d through the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s r e g u l a t o r y power. - 36 -R e s t r i c t i v e Covenants - These are a type of r e g u l a t i o n by p r i v a t e agreement among a f f e c t e d p roper ty owners, a l though i n some cases they may be made between an owner and v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f government. Whi le zoning and b u i l d i n g c o n t r o l s s p e c i f y l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s by o r d i n a n c e , a covenant d e s c r i b e s o b l i g a t i o n s by l e g a l c o n t r a c t and must always " r u n 24 w i t h the l a n d " . R e s t r i c t i v e covenants have o f t e n been used e f f e c t i v e l y i n c e r t a i n p r e s t i g e neighbourhoods to m a i n t a i n a d e s i r e d s tandard of 25 l and use , house q u a l i t y and de s ign and g e n e r a l amenity . T h i s dev ice i s u s e f u l to m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s i n a t l e a s t two ways: a) p l a n n i n g agencies have been ab le to achieve o b j e c t i v e s beyond the scope of t h e i r r e g u l a t o r y powers by persuading developers to i n c l u d e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants i n the deeds to p roper ty conta ined i n s u b d i v i s i o n s , and b) o c c a s i o n a l l y , i n order to secure more d e t a i l e d r e g u l a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n , r e s e r v a t i o n of o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g space, or n a r r o w e r e l i m i t a t i o n s on the uses p e r m i t t e d on a p a r t i c u l a r t r a c t , a p lanner w i l l be ab le to persuade a developer to impose such covenants on h i s p roper ty i n r e t u r n f o r a zoning amendment or the grant of a s p e c i a l use p e r m i t . 2 ^ R e s t r i c t i v e covenants f i r s t appeared i n England i n the 17th century 27 and i n Nor th America about the b e g i n n i n g of the 20th c e n t u r y . I n recent years the e x t e n s i o n of p l a n n i n g c o n t r o l s has to some extent - 37 -reduced the importance of r e s t r i c t i v e covenants . However, the major advantage of t h i s dev ice over the r e g u l a t o r y ordinance i s tha t i t may cover a much wider range of sub jec t mat ter than a m u n i c i p a l i t y may r e g u l a t e . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n the U n i t e d States where there would be no need to show any r e l a t i o n to the r e g u l a t o r y power o b j e c t i v e s 29 of p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s , or g e n e r a l w e l f a r e . Zoning Nor th America - The r e g u l a t i o n of p r i v a t e development f o r a e s t h e t i c purposes has normal ly been e f f e c t e d through m u n i c i p a l zoning ordinances i n both Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Zoning had i t s o r i g i n s i n the d i s t r i c t by- laws of San F r a n c i s c o d u r i n g the 1880 ' s . A f t e r s e v e r a l attempts at s t a t u t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n aga ins t Chinese immigrants had been h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by the c o u r t s , the c i t y banned a l l l aundry shops from most areas on grounds of f i r e hazard and p u b l i c 30 nu i s ance . Subsequently these same r e s t r i c t i o n s were a p p l i e d to l i v e r y s t a b l e s , dance h a l l s , s a l o o n s , and o ther u n d e s i r a b l e b u i l d i n g s . Between 1909-1915 Los Angeles e s t a b l i s h e d the d i s t r i c t i n g dev ice on a comprehensive b a s i s as a convenient method of p r o t e c t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t r i c t s w i t h o u t the expensive l i t i g a t i o n procedures r e q u i r e d to o b t a i n 31 i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f aga ins t n u i s a n c e s . By the t u r n o f the century the d i s o r g a n i z e d p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e of many l a r g e American c i t i e s was 32 s e r i o u s enough to cause p u b l i c remedia l a c t i o n . In 1912 the - 38 -Massachusetts l e g i s l a t u r e amended the g e n e r a l m u n i c i p a l law to permit any c i t y or town i n the S ta te to r e g u l a t e the h e i g h t , a r e a , l o c a t i o n , and use of b u i l d i n g s and other s t r u c t u r e s . Many o ther s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s 33 took s i m i l a r a c t i o n i n c l u d i n g M a r y l a n d , Minnesota and New Y o r k . In Canada, the O n t a r i o l e g i s l a t u r e a u t h o r i z e d the c o u n c i l s of c i t i e s hav ing a p o p u l a t i o n of more than 100,000 to enact by- laws r e s t r i c t i n g the c r e a -34 t i o n of b u i l d i n g s of c e r t a i n c l a s s e s to des ignated p a r t s of the c i t y . I n 1916 the f i r s t comprehensive zoning law ( i n c l u d i n g d i s t r i c t s f o r use , f o r h e i g h t , and f o r s i t e coverage) was passed i n New York C i t y 35 f o l l o w i n g a grant of power from the S t a t e . By 1937, a t o t a l of 1322 American c i t i e s had adopted zoning o r d i n a n c e s . The Purpose of Zoning - The purposes o f zoning have been s t a t e d i n S e c t i o n 3 o f the Standard S ta te Zoning E n a b l i n g A c t , A d v i s o r y Commit-tee on Zoning o f the U . S . Department of Commerce. Such r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be made i n accordance w i t h a comprehensive p l a n and designed to l e s s e n conges t ion i n the s t r e e t s ; to secure s a f e t y from f i r e , pan ic and o ther dangers ; to promote h e a l t h and the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e ; to p r o v i d e adequate l i g h t and a i r ; to prevent the overcrowding of l a n d ; to a v o i d undue c o n c e n t r a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n . . . Such r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be made w i t h reasonable c o n s i d e r a t i o n . . . to the c h a r a c t e r o f the d i s t r i c t and i t s p e c u l i a r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r p a r t i c u l a r u se s , and w i t h a v iew to conserv ing the v a l u e of b u i l d i n g s and encouraging the most a p p r o p r i a t e use of l and through-out such m u n i c i p a l i t y . 3 6 Under the r e g u l a t o r y power, l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e s are f u r t h e r empowered to d i v i d e the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t o d i s t r i c t s i n which i t may r e g u l a t e and r e s t r i c t the e r e c t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n , r e p a i r , - 39 -or use of b u i l d i n g s , s t r u c t u r e s , or l a n d . The L e g a l Ba s i s For Zoning - There i s no inherent power i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y to enact a zoning o r d i n a n c e . I n the U n i t e d States the power to zone i s r e g u l a r l y possessed by m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s e i t h e r by grant of power (an e n a b l i n g ac t ) from the l e g i s l a t u r e or by o u t r i g h t i n c l u s i o n i n the s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n . For the purpose of promoting h e a l t h , s a f e t y , morals or the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s empowered to r e g u l a t e and r e s t r i c t : the h e i g h t , number of s t o r i e s , , and s i z e of b u i l d i n g s and other s t r u c t u r e s ; the percentage of l o t tha t may be o c c u p i e d ; the s i z e of y a r d s , cour t s and other open spaces ; the d e n s i t y of p o p u l a t i o n and the l o c a t i o n and use of b u i l d i n g s , s t r u c t u r e s and 38 l and f o r t r a d e , i n d u s t r y and o ther purposes . I n Canada, the m u n i c i p a l -i t y ' s power to enact zoning by- laws i s de legated by the p r o v i n c i a l gov-ernment. These powers and p r o v i s i o n s are s t a t e d i n the M u n i c i p a l A c t s of each p r o v i n c e . I n g e n e r a l , the l e g i s l a t u r e s have shown the c o u r t s tha t the f i e l d s of r e g u l a t i o n are based upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the community w e l f a r e , and so are e x e r c i s e d w i t h i n the l e g a l s anc t ions of the r e g u l a -t o r y powers. T h i s was f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d by the U . S . Supreme Court 39 d e c i s i o n i n the landmark case of E u c l i d v . Ambler R e a l t y C o . , which r u l e d d i r e c t l y on the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of zoning per se r a t h e r than upon i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s i n v o l v e d . The c o u r t ' s v iew was t h a t zoning was not an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n v a s i o n of p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , - 40 -but r a t h e r "a new a p p l i c a t i o n of s anc t ioned methods f o r s anc t ioned t r a d i t i o n a l p u r p o s e s " . 4 ^ I n the case of Nectow v . Cambridge 4 ^ which f o l l o w e d , the cour t s t a t e d tha t even though the p r i n c i p l e of zoning i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , i n each case i t may examine the a p p l i c a t i o n of the ord inance to the p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e of p roper ty i n v o l v e d i n order to determine whether that a p p l i c a t i o n c o u l d be su s t a ined as a proper 42 e x e r c i s e of the r e g u l a t o r y power. Before a s p e c i f i c ord inance c o u l d be d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , i t s p r o v i s i o n s would have to be shown to be c l e a r l y a r b i t r a r y and unreasonable and hav ing no s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n to the p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s , or g e n e r a l w e l f a r e of the community. Summary Under the E n g l i s h common l a w , one of the most v a l u a b l e a t t r i b u t e s of ownership i n r e a l p r o p e r t y was the r i g h t of the owner to use h i s p roper ty as he saw f i t w i t h l i t t l e or no concern f o r h i s ne ighbour . G r a d u a l l y some e a r l y forms of r e g u l a t o r y dev ice s evolved such as ease-ments of l i g h t and a i r over a ne ighbour ' s p r o p e r t y and other r e g u l a t i o n s based on h e a l t h - o r s a f e t y f a c t o r s . With the development of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , group r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and the growing concern w i t h the q u a l i t y of the urban environment more comprehensive and s o p h i s t i c a t e d forms of l and use c o n t r o l s emerged, some based on a e s t h e t i c as w e l l as h e a l t h and s a f e t y o b j e c t i v e s . The l e g a l b a s i s f o r these r e g u l a t i o n s l a y i n the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' r e g u l a t o r y powers, which can be de f ined as the - 41 -i n h e r e n t power of a sovere ign governing e n t i t y to e s t a b l i s h the s o c i a l o r d e r , to p r o t e c t the l i f e and h e a l t h of per sons , to secure t h e i r e x i s t e n c e and comfort and to safeguard them i n the enjoyment of p r i v a t e and s o c i a l l i f e and the b e n e f i c i a l use o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y . I n the U n i t e d States t h i s term i s r e f e r r e d to as the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s " p o l i c e power" , and i s l i m i t e d under the 14th amendment of the U . S . C o n s t i t u t i o n by the requirement tha t i t be reasonable and not a r b i t r a r y and a l l o w f o r "due process and equal p r o t e c t i o n of the l a w " . I n Canada no s i m i l a r p r o v i -s i o n e x i s t s under the B . N . A . A c t governing the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e g u l a t o r y power o ther than the t r a d i t i o n of E n g l i s h common law p r i n c i p l e s . The most common forms of r e g u l a t i o n s governing the use and appearance of p r i v a t e development e x e r c i s e d under the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s r e g u l a t o r y powers are b u i l d i n g codes , s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s , b u i l d i n g s e tbacks , and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n a separate type of p r i v a t e r e g u l a -t i o n i s e x e r c i s e d i n many communities under p r i v a t e agreement by the use of r e s t r i c t i v e covenant amongst p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y owners or between owners and a government agency. A l though these r e g u l a t i o n s are not based on a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t i v e s , they do serve to a f f e c t the appearance of l and improvements to some e x t e n t . I n g e n e r a l , the l e g i s l a t i v e bodies have shown the cour t s tha t a l l of these r e g u l a t o r y dev ices are based upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of the community w e l f a r e , and so are e x e r c i s e d w i t h i n the l e g a l s a n c t i o n s of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ' r e g u l a t o r y powers. - 42 -FOOTNOTES "' 'Hamilton, H . H . , R e g u l a t i o n Land Use by L o c a l Governments For A e s t h e t i c  Purposes , unpubl i shed D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , Ind i ana S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1961. 2 B l a i r , F r e d e r i c k H . , J r . , and C u r t i s , V i r g i n i a , ( E d s . ) , P l a n n i n g  C i t i e s (American S o c i e t y of P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , 7 Chicago , I l l i n o i s , 1970) , p . 255. 3 Beuscher, J . H . , ( E d . ) , Land Use C o n t r o l s - Cases arid M a t e r i a l s (The C o l l e g e Typing Company, Madi son , W i s c o n s i n , 1966) , p . 1-1. 4 B a r d , A l b e r t S . , A e s t h e t i c s i n C i t y P l a n n i n g , C i t i z e n s ' Union Research Foundat ion , New Y o r k , November 1957, p . 5 . ^ B l a i r , op. c i t . , p . 229. H a m i l t o n , op. c i t . , pp. 1 - 9 . ^Webster, Donald H . , Urban P l a n n i n g and M u n i c i p a l P u b l i c P o l i c y (Harper and Brother s P u b l i s h e r s , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1958) , p . 270. 8 l b i d . 9 I n the U n i t e d Sta tes the term " p o l i c e power" i s used r a t h e r than the term " r e g u l a t o r y power" . "^American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e , Junkyards , Geraniums and  J u r i s p r u d e n c e , Proceedings of a Two Day N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e Conference , June 2-3 , Chicago , I l l i n o i s , 1967, p . 328. 1 : L I b i d . , p . 327. 12 Dawson, R . M . , "The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Powers - C r e a t i o n of a F e d e r a t i o n " , (| i n Se lec ted Readings i n Law For L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , (Ed.) Lane, W . T . , School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver , B . C . , 1970, p . I V - 1 7 . - 43 -1 3 I b i d . , p . IV-8. 1 4 G r e e n , P h i l l i p P . J r . , Cases and M a t e r i a l s on P l a n n i n g Lawaand Admin- i s t r a t i o n ( I n s t i t u t e of Government, U n i v e r s i t y of Nor th C a r o l i n a , Chapel H i l l , N . C . , 1962), p . VIII-5. 1 5 I b i d . I b x d . 1 7 T , . , I b i d . 18 Mandelker , D a n i e l R . , Managing Our Urban Environment : Cases , Texts  and Problems (The B o b b s - M e r r i l l Company, I n c . , P u b l i s h e r s , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1963), p . 593. 19 Green, op_. c i t . , p . VIII-5. 20 Webster , op_. c i t . , p . 290. 21307 U . S . 634, 59S. C t . 1031, 183 L . E . D . 1516 1939. 22 Green , op_. c i t . , p . XI-4. Webster , op_. c i t . , p . 291. 2 4 S m y t h , J . E . , and Soberman, D . A . , The Law and Bus iness A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  i n Canada, ( P r e n t i c e - H a l l of Canada, L t d . , T o r o n t o , 1964), p . 382. 25 Tunnard, C , Pushkarev, B . , op. c i t . , p . 117. 26 Green, op. c i t . , p . IX-6. I b i d . 2 8 M e g a r r y , R . E . , A Manual of the Law of R e a l P r o p e r t y , ( S t e v e n s and Sons L i m i t e d , London, 1947), p . 408. 29 - 44 -2 9Green, op_. c i t . , p. IX-8. 3 0Delafons, John, Land Use Controls i n the United States, (The MU.l. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965), p. 19. 3 1 I b i d . 3 2Williams, Norman Jr., The Structure of Urban Zoning (Butteheim Publishing Corporation, New York, N.Y., 1966), p. 60. 3 3Lewis, Harold,M., Planning the Modern City,(John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1949), p. 259. 34 T, . , Ibid. 3 5Williams, op_. c i t . , p. 60. Green, op_. c i t . , p. XII-1. 3 7 I b i d . O Q Blair, op. c i t . , p. 315. 3 9272 U.S. 365, 47 Supt. Ct. 114 71L E.D. 303,1926. 4 0Delafons, op_. c i t . , p. 26. 4 1277 U.S. 183 48 Supt. Ct. 447 1928. 4 2Green, op_. c i t . , XII-4. - 45 -CHAPTER I I I CONTROLS BASED ON AESTHETIC OBJECTIVES I n t r o d u c t i o n Land and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n based on f u n c t i o n a l and s a n i t a r y o b j e c t i v e s has been e s t a b l i s h e d i n Nor th America f o r almost a c e n t u r y . In the l a s t s e v e r a l years there has been a great i n c r e a s e i n l e g i s l a t i v e a t t e n t i o n governing community appearance and based almost e x c l u s i v e l y on a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t i v e s . To some c r i t i c s t h i s t rend i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s and g r e a t e r ref inement i n c u l t u r a l va lues i n a matur ing s o c i e t y . " A r t u s u a l l y appears i n a n a t i o n o n l y a f t e r the accumulat ion of an economic s u r p l u s and the growth of a l e i s u r e class'.'""'" I n many cases , s o c i e t y i d e a l s become more e x a c t i n g and s o c i a l s tandards u l t i m a t e l y conform to these new i d e a l s . To one p r a c t i c a l l y minded o b s e r v e r , however, t h i s emerging t r e n d i s more l i k e l y the r e s u l t of the g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y i n i g n o r i n g u g l i n e s s i n c i t i e s 2 which are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y more crowded and complex. The A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l Ordinance Zoning by- laws have been enacted p r i m a r i l y to c o n t r o l l a n d and b u i l d i n g uses r a t h e r than t h e i r appearance per se i n the a e s t h e t i c sense. Al though a e s t h e t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s have been i n the minds of many p lanners ner s - 4 6 -and. l e g i s l a t o r s who have developed zoning l e g i s l a t i o n , the improved appearance of the community has been a by-product r a t h e r than a d i r e c t 4 o b j e c t i v e of zoning p o l i c y . Apar t from s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s and the use of r e s t r i c t i v e covenants on new development, the l e g a l d ev i ce which i s normal ly employed to c o n t r o l the e x t e r n a l appearance of e i t h e r p u b l i c or p r i v a t e development i s the a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l o r d i n a n c e . T h i s dev i ce has been used w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e success i n many c i t i e s and i t s useshas been g a i n i n g g r e a t e r favour i n Nor th A m e r i c a . ^ D e f i n i t i o n - One of the e a r l i e s t d e f i n i t i o n s of t h i s form of r e g u l a t i o n i n Nor th America was p u b l i s h e d i n The P lanners J o u r n a l i n 1938, and i s s t i l l l a r g e l y accepted to t h i s day: A r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l i s a p u b l i c w e l f a r e measure intended to enhance the ameni t ie s of l i f e i n the f i e l d of p h y s i c a l , economic and s o c i a l p l a n n i n g . . . i t may be understood to mean r e g u l a -t i o n of the appearance of p r i v a t e as w e l l as p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s at a l l stages of d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , ma inten-ance, d e m o l i t i o n , and replacement i n accord w i t h a preconce ived and f l e x i b l e three d imens iona l c i v i c p a t t e r n based on comprehen-s i v e c i t y p l a n n i n g and z o n i n g , i n which a l l e x t e r i o r s are h a r -monized as to m a t e r i a l s , c o l o r s , s t y l e s , t e x t u r e s , s i l h o u e t t e s , and s ca l e s w i t h the genera l scheme of c i v i c d e s i g n . ^ No re fe rence i s made to the f u n c t i o n a l or s p a t i a l use of l a n d or b u i l d -i n g s , but concerns i t s e l f o n l y w i t h the a e s t h e t i c e x p r e s s i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l elements of a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n . , The g r e a t e r m a j o r i t y of these types o f r e g u l a t i o n s have been l i m i t e d to r e s i d e n t i a l a rea s , a l though a t t e n t i o n i s i n c r e a s i n g l y b e i n g focused on commercial zones as w e l l . - 47 -Purpose - The p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s type of ord inance are to prevent exce s s ive u n i f o r m i t y , d i s s i m i l a r i t y , i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o r poor q u a l i t y of des ign i n the e x t e r i o r appearance of b u i l d i n g s or s t r u c -t u r e s . The o v e r a l l g o a l i n the va s t m a j o r i t y of cases , however, i s the maintenance and c o n s e r v a t i o n of e x i s t i n g p roper ty v a l u e s . S e c t i o n 137.05 of the C o d i f i e d Ordinances of the C i t y of C l e v e l a n d H e i g h t s , O h i o , s t a t e s t h a t i t s purpose i s t o : 1) p r o t e c t p roper ty 2) m a i n t a i n h i g h c h a r a c t e r o f community development 3) p r o t e c t r e a l e s t a t e from impairment or d e s t r u c t i o n of v a l u e . These o b l i g a t i o n s are sought to be accomplished by r e g u l a t i n g : 1) de s ign 2) use of m a t e r i a l s 3) f i n i s h grade l i n e s 4) o r i e n t a t i o n (new b u i l d i n g s ) . 7 Some r e g u l a t i o n s make no re fe rence to the maintenance of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s but r e f e r o n l y to the achievement of beauty or harmony i n community appearance. In S t o c k t o n , Massachuset t s , the L e g i s l a t i v e By-Law of 1942 s t a t e s : The Selectmen s h a l l grant no such permit as would i n t h e i r judgement adver se ly a f f e c t the scheme of growth l a i d down f o r the town or tend to i m p a i r the beauty of the town or the d i s t r i c t most immediate ly a f f e c t e d . 8 The o b j e c t i v e s of harmony and g e n e r a l " s u i t a b i l i t y " are c l e a r l y ev ident - 48 -i n San D i e g o ' s B u i l d i n g Code: As a b a s i s f o r j u d g i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f a proposed s t r u c t u r e , the e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s i n each area have been used as the b a s i s f o r j u d g i n g i t s a c c e p t a b i l i t y , r a t h e r than standards determined f o r a l l new s t r u c t u r e s . 9 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - Th i s type of ord inance i s u s u a l l y admin i s t e red e i t h e r through the o f f i c e of the m u n i c i p a l b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r o r through a s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n i n the l o c a l zoning b y - l a w s , which g ives the m u n i c i p a l i t y the l e g a l power to c rea te an A r c h i t e c t u r a l Board of Review. The d u t i e s , powers, terms of r e f e r e n c e , e t c . , of each Board may vary to some degree and are n o r m a l l y o u t l i n e d i n a s p e c i a l s e c t i o n of the v a r i o u s m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s . Thethe U n i t e d States t h i s type of ordinance i s enacted by the l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e s on the b a s i s of i t s p o l i c e power. The g e n e r a l v iew i s t h a t the o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s type of r e g u l a t i o n bear a r e a l and s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n to the p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s , and genera l w e l f a r e of the p u b l i c , and do not c o n s t i t u t e an unreasonable o r a r b i t r a r y use of t h i s p o w e r . 1 0 A l t e r n a t i v e C o n t r o l s - An a l t e r n a t i v e means of e x e r c i s i n g de s ign c o n t r o l on a l a r g e s c a l e o ther than by means of p r o h i b i t i o n or s p e c i f i -c a t i o n i s through the method of ground l e a s i n g . Here , the owner of the fee of s t r a t e g i c a l l y l o c a t e d l and i n l a r g e h o l d i n g s can e x e r c i s e a v e r y s t rong p l a n n i n g and a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r e r o g a t i v e to great advantage i f he s e i z e s the i n i t i a t i v e and se t s out to produce good urban d e s i g n . The - 49 -more l and that cou ld be s o l d i n l a r g e p a r c e l s , the l e s s the danger of p iecemeal r e v e r s i o n . Th i s dev i ce o f f e r s c i t i e s an o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n t r o l t h e i r f u t u r e , and i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e to redevelopment l a n d . Shopping cen te r s e x e r c i s e d e s i g n c o n t r o l i n a s i m i l a r way.""'"'' A e s t h e t i c C o n t r o l i n R e s i d e n t i a l Areas Many m u n i c i p a l zoning by- laws c o n t a i n s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n s which a r b i t r a r i l y c o n t r o l the e x t e r n a l appearance of newly c o n s t r u c t e d or remodel led r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g s . These u s u a l l y f a l l i n t o one of the two f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s . " L o o k - A l i k e R e g u l a t i o n s " - The o l d e s t l e g i s l a t i o n of t h i s type 12 was inaugurated i n Santa B a r b a r a , C a l i f o r n i a , i n 1925. A f t e r a d i s a s t r o u s earthquake had des t royed t w o - t h i r d s of the b u i l d i n g s on the main s t r e e t - the Estado - the m u n i c i p a l i t y e s t a b l i s h e d a s p e c i a l board to enforce compliance w i t h the "Monterey" s t y l e of house d e s i g n . I n e i g h t months over 2,000 b u i l d i n g permi t s were i s sued on approva l from t h i s b o a r d , and 13 the r e s u l t has been c a l l e d "one of the most a t t r a c t i v e towns i n A m e r i c a " . These r e g u l a t i o n s are o f t e n found i n the more a f f l u e n t r e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h the immediate o b j e c t i v e s of m a i n t a i n i n g cohesiveness i n b u i l d i n g 14 q u a l i t y and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n . S t r a t f o r d , C o n n e c t i c u t , has s p e c i -f i e d t h a t " a l l b u i l d i n g s are to be of C o l o n i a l or Georgian design","'"*' w h i l e the Borough of R o c k l e i g h i n New Jer sey has adopted an ord inance r e q u i r i n g that hous ing des ign "be of e a r l y American or o ther a r c h i t e c t u r a l - 50 -s t y l e conforming w i t h the e x i s t i n g r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s and w i t h the 16 r u r a l surroundings of the Borough" . Dearborn , M i c h i g a n , Miami and C o r a l Gab le s , F l o r i d a , a l l e x e r c i s e " l o o k - a l i k e " zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . In the l a s t named m u n i c i p a l i t y , a l l r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e s except ing those a l r eady bound by p r i v a t e r e s t r i c t i v e covenants must be of Span i sh , V e n e t i a n , I t a l i a n or s i m i l a r Medi ter ranean a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l i n g . " N o - L o o k - A l i k e R e g u l a t i o n s " - These r e g u l a t i o n s are the r e s u l t of p u b l i c r e a c t i o n to the monotonous "was te l ands " o f i d e n t i c a l houses which had begun to c h a r a c t e r i z e the Nor th American s u b d i v i s i o n s i n c e the Second World War. B a s i c a l l y t h i s ordinance r e q u i r e s t h a t the b u i l d e r must produce v a r i a t i o n s i n theddes ign and e x t e r n a l appearance of h i s houses w i t h i n a g i v e n development. For example, no two houses i n a succe s s ion o f perhaps f i v e would be p e r m i t t e d to l o o k a l i k e , nor l i k e any on theooppos i te s i d e of the s t r e e t . In d e t a i l , many r e g u l a t i o n s r e f e r to e l e v a t i o n s which show where windows and doors are p l a c e d , the 18 amount of s lope a l lowed f o r a gable r o o f , as w e l l as o t h e r s . I n the V i l l a g e of S c a r s d a l e , New Y o r k , under a s p e c i a l r e g u l a t i o n enacted i n 1950, no b u i l d i n g development permit was to be i s sued under the B u i l d i n g Code f o r one or two f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i f i t appeared s u b s t a n t i -a l l y l i k e any nearby d w e l l i n g i n more than three of the f o l l o w i n g s i x r e s p e c t s . - 51 -1. Height o f the main roo f r i d g e , or i n the case o f a b u i l d i n g w i t h a f l a t r o o f , the h i g h e s t p o i n t of the roo f beams, above the e l e v a t i o n s of the f i r s t f l o o r ; 2. H e i g h t s o f the main r o o f r i d g e above the top of t h e p p l a t e ( a l l f l a t e r o o f s are deemed i d e n t i c a l i n t h i s d i m e n s i o n ) ; 3 . Length of the main roo f r i d g e , or i n the case of a b u i l d i n g w i t h a f l a t r o o f , l e n g t h of the main r o o f ; 4 . Width between o u t s i d e w a l l s a t the ends of the b u i l d i n g measured under the main roo f a t r i g h t angles to the l e n g t h t h e r e o f ; 5 . R e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of windows i n the f r o n t e l e v a t i o n s or i n each of both s i d e e l e v a t i o n s w i t h r e spec t to each other and w i t h re spec t to any door , -chimney, porch or a t tached garage i n the same e l e v a t i o n ; 6. . . . B u i l d i n g s s h a l l be deemed to be l i k e each other i n any dimension w i t h re spec t to w h i c h t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between them i s not more than two f e e t . B u i l d i n g s between which the o n l y d i f f e r -ence i n r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of elements i s end to end or s i d e to s i d e r e v e r s a l o f elements s h a l l be deemed to be l i k e each o ther i n r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of such elements . . .19 I n a d d i t i o n to these , many m u n i c i p a l ordinances c o n t a i n r e s t r i c -t i o n s aga in s t both s i m i l a r and d i s s i m i l a r de s ign i n c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial d i s t r i c t s . A l though the immediate o b j e c t i v e s of these ordinances are to achieve e i t h e r a degree of v a r i e t y or harmony and c o n t i n u i t y i n o v e r a l l v i s u a l e f f e c t , i m p l i c i t i n these o b j e c t i v e s i s the paramount d e s i r e to m a i n t a i n e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . The Lake F o r e s t , I l l i n o i s , A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l Commission Ord inance , cons idered an advanced model governing both s i m i l a r i t y and d i s s i m i l a r i t y i n e x t e r n a l d e s i g n , may serve to i l l u s t r a t e the i n t e n t and purpose of a e s t h e t i c l e g i s l a t i o n i n r e s i d e n t i a l a rea s : The C i t y C o u n c i l hereby f i n d s t h a t exce s s ive s i m i l a r i t y , d i s s i m i l a r i t y , or i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s i n e x t e r i o r d e s i g n and appearance of b u i l d i n g s i n r e s i d e n t i a l , duplex and o f f i c e d i s t r i c t s . . . i n r e l a t i o n to the p r e v a i l i n g appearance of b u i l d i n g s i n the v i c i n i t y t h e r o f a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s the - 52 -d e s i r a b i l i t y of immediate and neighborhood areas and impa i r s the s t a b i l i t y and t axab le v a l u e of l a n d and b u i l d i n g s i n such a reas , prevents the most a p p r o p r i a t e use of r e a l e s t a t e . . . depr ive s the c i t y of tax revenue which i t o therwise coulde r e c e i v e and des t roys a proper ba lance i n r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t axab le v a l u e of r e a l p r o p e r t y i n such areas and the cos t of the m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s p rov ided t h e r e f o r . . .^0 H i s t o r i c Area C o n t r o l s S p e c i a l zoning ordinances have been a p p l i e d to areas c o n t a i n i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s t r u c t u r e s . Among such f a c t o r s as p r e s e r v i n g the n a t i o n ' s c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e , the need f o r v a r i e t y and d i v e r s i t y i n the c i t y , and the economic b e n e f i t s of i n c r e a s e d t o u r i s t revenue, h i s t o r i c p r e s e r v a t i o n has been j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s 21 of i t s a e s t h e t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n to the c i t y . I n 1931 o n l y two c i t i e s 22 i n the U n i t e d S ta tes had areas zoned as h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t s . In 1963 t h i s f i g u r e increa sed to 68 areas and by 1969 almost 200 had adopted 23 measures to e s t a b l i s h o f f i c i a l H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s . The p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e of such c o n t r o l has been to prevent the w i l f u l d e s t r u c t i o n of these b u i l d i n g s and to r e g u l a t e d e m o l i t i o n s , a l t e r a t i o n s , r e p a i r s , new c o n s t r u c t i o n , and g e n e r a l l and and b u i l d i n g use p a t t e r n s to preserve the unique charac te r of these a rea s . U n i t e d States - Many s t a t e s have enacted s p e c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g i s -l a t i o n which a l l o w s i t s c i t i e s to l e g a l l y adopt r e g u l a t i o n s to enhance and p r o t e c t these a rea s . For example i n 1956 New York S ta te amended i t s Genera l C i t y Law t o : - 53 -. . . p r o v i d e , f o r p l a c e s , b u i l d i n g s , s t r u c t u r e s , works of a r t , and other ob jec t s hav ing a s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r or s p e c i a l h i s t o r -i c a l or a e s t h e t i c i n t e r e s t or v a l u e , s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s or r e g -u l a t i o n s f o r t h e i r p r o t e c t i o n , enhancement, or use , which may i n c l u d e a p p r o p r i a t e and reasonable c o n t r o l of the use or appear-ance of n e i g h b o r i n g p r i v a t e p roper ty w i t h i n p u b l i c v i e w , o r both . . .24 A s tandard approach i n most c i t i e s has been to make h i s t o r i c r e g u l a t i o n s a p a r t of the e x i s t i n g zoning o r d i n a n c e , thus c r e a t i n g a new d i s t r i c t w i t h i n which s p e c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s are a p p l i e d . In a d d i t i o n , the use of a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew boards or s p e c i a l commissions has p layed an important r o l e i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the r e g u l a t i o n s i n these a rea s . S ince 1936, the V ieux C a r r e . h i s t o r i c s e c t i o n i n New Orleans has been p r o t e c t e d aga ins t the impairment of i t s " q u a i n t and d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r " through a m u n i c i p a l ord inance e s t a b l i s h i n g the Quarter as a H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t and the s e t t i n g up of a V ieux Carre Commission to a d m i n i s t e r the o r d i n -25 ance. By v i r t u e of the L o u i s i a n a C o n s t i t u t i o n t h i s Commission has c o n t r o l "over the a r c h i t e c t u r e of p r i v a t e and s e m i - p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s 26 e rec ted on or a b u t t i n g the p u b l i c s t r e e t s of s a i d V i e u x Car re s e c t i o n " . Without Commission a p p r o v a l no b u i l d i n g can be e rec ted or a l t e r e d i n appearance, c o l o r , t e x t u r e of m a t e r i a l s or e x t e r i o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n . With the h e l p of s t a t e or p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n c r e a s i n g l y g r e a t e r numbers of Nor th American c i t i e s have r e c e n t l y adopted s i m i l a r r e g u l a t i o n s . Some of these i n c l u d e Bos ton , W i l l i a m s b u r g , Richmond, 27 V i r g i n i a , P o r t l a n d , Washington, A l e x a n d r i a and New Y o r k . Where s p e c i a l commissions have been c r e a t e d , t h e i r f u n c t i o n s and powers have - 54 -been g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r . They are u s u a l l y empowered by s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a -t i v e ac t s to approve or r e j e c t a l l development proposa l s submit ted to them, but i n many cases p r o v i s i o n f o r appeal aga ins t t h e i r d e c i s i o n s i s made w i t h i n the m u n i c i p a l development b y - l a w s . These appeals are o f t e n made d i r e c t l y to C i t y C o u n c i l , as has occurred i n 1967 when the A r c h i t e c -t u r a l Review Board was o v e r r u l e d i n one i s s u e i n v o l v i n g addevelopment 28 permit i n the h i s t o r i c " O l d Town" s e c t i o n of A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a . The commiss ions ' terms of r e f e r e n c e are u s u a l l y c o n f i n e d to a rev iew of " e x t e r i o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l f ea ture s which are sub jec t to p u b l i c 29 view from a s t r e e t or way" . For example, i n pa s s ing upon cases the de s ign Board of Review i n A n n a p o l i s , M a r y l a n d , must c o n s i d e r : . . . the g e n e r a l d e s i g n , arrangement, t e x t u r e s , m a t e r i a l and c o l o r of the b u i l d i n g or s t r u c t u r e i n q u e s t i o n and the r e l a t i o n of such f a c t o r s to s i m i l a r f ea ture s of b u i l d i n g s i n immediate s u r r o u n d i n g s . The Board of Review s h a l l not cons ider d e t a i l e d d e s i g n , r e l a t i v e s i z e of b u i l d i n g s i n p l a n , i n t e r i o r a r range-ment, o r b u i l d i n g f ea ture s not sub jec t to p u b l i c v iew.30 Al though the major t h r u s t of c i v i c a c t i o n to date has concerned i i t s e l f p r i m a r i l y w i t h the p u r e l y v i s u a l aspects of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l i n h i s t o r i c areas there i s an apparent t rend to a l s o c o n s i d e r o ther r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . For example i n New Orleans the 1967 Vieux Carre Study has made some s p e c i f i c proposa l s to expand the Commission's terms of r e f e rence to i n c l u d e l and use c o m p a t i b i l i t y as w e l l , so t h a t the sum t o t a l e f f e c t , i . e . b u i l d i n g s p l u s environment , would be cons idered the 31 b a s i s f o r a l l development r e v i e w . - 55 -Canada - Al though s e v e r a l h i s t o r i c v i l l a g e s have been c rea ted by v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e ac t s i n Canada, zoning f o r h i s t o r i c and a e s t h e t i c amenity has not been w i d e l y adopted i n the major urban a rea s . A n o t a -b l e e x c e p t i o n i s the C i t y o f M o n t r e a l , which employed p r o t e c t i v e l e g i s -l a t i o n to c o n t r o l development i n i t s h i s t o r i c s e c t i o n . I n 1964, the p r o v i n c i a l government des ignated Old M o n t r e a l a h i s t o r i c s i t e through Q u e b e c ' s H i s t o r i c Monuments A c t , " thereby p r e v e n t i n g d e m o l i t i o n s , a l t e r -a t i o n s , or changes, e i t h e r i n t e r i o r o r e x t e r i o r to s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n 3 the p r e c i n c t " , w i t h o u t the a u t h o r i z a t i o n of the Jacques-Viger Commission. T h i s s p e c i a l board o f rev iew was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1962, w i t h the pr imary purpose o f Old M o n t r e a l ' s p r e s e r v a t i o n , and i s empowered to accept or r e j e c t a l l proposed development which r e l a t e s to t h i s a r e a . T h i s A c t , l i k e many o ther s i n Nor th A m e r i c a , has been to make h i s t o r i c a l r e g u l a t i o n s a p a r t of the e x i s t i n g zoning o r d i n a n c e , and so c r e a t i n g a new d i s t r i c t w i t h i n which s p e c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s are a p p l i e d . B r i t i s h Columbia - On February 2 , 1971, the Gastown/Chinatown h i s t o r i c area of Vancouver was des ignated an " H i s t o r i c S i t e " under the e x i s t i n g A r c h a e o l o g i c a l and H i s t o r i c S i t e s P r o t e c t i o n A c t , R . S . B . C . , 1960. W i t h i n t h i s d e s i g n a t i o n , a l l e x i s t i n g and proposed b u i l d i n g s and r e l a t e d s t r u c t u r e s i n c l u d i n g s i gns became c o n t r o l l e d w i t h re spec t to both f u n c t i o n and appearance. To a d m i n i s t e r the o b j e c t i v e s of the A c t , a s p e c i a l H i s t o r i c Area A d v i s o r y Board was e s t a b l i s h e d to adv i se C i t y - 56 -C o u n c i l and through them the P r o v i n c i a l Government on a l l matters a f f e c t i n g the enhancement and p r e s e r v a t i o n of the h i s t o r i c a r e a . The H . A . A . B . a l s o makes recommendations on the d e s i g n a t i o n of s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e s as h i s t o r i c landmarks , recommendations on any new deve lop-ments or d e m o l i t i o n s i n the a r e a , the approva l of a l l proposed d e v e l -opment i n r e l a t i o n to i t s a r c h i t e c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r and d e t a i l i n g be fore development permi t s may be i s s u e d , and a l l q u a l i t i e s deemed e s s e n t i a l 32 to the area as an H i s t o r i c S i t e . The ^compos i t ion of the Board i n c l u d e s r e s i d e n t s , merchants , and p r o p e r t y owners, from the H i s t o r i c S i t e , as w e l l as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n from the Department o f F i n e A r t s , U . B . C . , the Community A r t s C o u n c i l , the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , The Community A r t s C o u n c i l , and the Vancouver P ioneer s As soc -i a t i o n . The D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g or h i s deputy serves as Chairman w i t h o u t v o t i n g p r i v i l e g e s . England - The Bath A c t , passed by Par l i ament i n 1925, gave the L o c a l C o u n c i l the l e g a l a u t h o r i t y to prevent the d e m o l i t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n 33 or e x t e n s i o n of a l l e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s i n t h i s h i s t o r i c c i t y . D i r e c t a e s t h e t i c b u i l d i n g c o n t r o l s were i n t r o d u c e d by the Bath C o r p o r a t i o n A c t , 43 1937, and s i n c e 1947, under the Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t s . Under these A c t s L o c a l C o u n c i l s were empowered to review development p lans f o r a l l new b u i l d i n g s i n order to ensure cohesiveness and harmony i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e , s c a l e , m a t e r i a l s and h e i g h t w i t h nearby s t r u c -35 t u r e s . Appeal aga ins t C o u n c i l d e c i s i o n s was granted - the t r i b u n a l - 57 -c o n s i s t i n g of an a r c h i t e c t appointed by the P r e s i d e n t of the R o y a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h A r c h i t e c t s ; a surveyor appointed by the P r e s i d e n t o f the Chartered Surveyors ' I n s t i t u t i o n ; and a M a g i s t r a t e appointed by 36 the C o u n c i l . S i m i l a r powers were l a t e r granted to the C o u n c i l s of the h i s t o r i c " c o n s e r v a t i o n " c i t i e s of Y o r k , Chester and C h i c h e s t e r under the C i v i c Ameni t i e s A c t of 1967 which f o r the f i r s t t ime gave r e c o g n i t i o n to the importance of whole towns or d i s t r i c t s as " c o n s e r v a t i o n „ 37 areas . I n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g s of h i s t o r i c , a r c h i t e c t u r a l or a e s t h e t i c v a l u e have been p r o t e c t e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n s i n c e the A n c i e n t 38 Monuments A c t , 1931. Under t h i s A c t the M i n i s t e r of P u b l i c B u i l d i n g s and Works has o f f i c i a l l y " l i s t e d " almost 100,000 b u i l d i n g s throughout the c o u n t r y , 19,753 of which are i n the Grea te r London area a l o n e . To a s s i s t these L o c a l C o u n c i l s , the C e n t r a l Panel s Committee of the C o u n c i l f o r the P r e s e r v a t i o n of R u r a l Eng land , the Roya l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h A r c h i t e c t s , and the I n s t i t u t e of B u i l d e r s have e s t a b l i s h e d a d v i s o r y 39' panels of exper ienced a r c h i t e c t s i n a l l p a r t s of the c o u n t r y . I n London, the Greater London C o u n c i l has o f t e n requested s p e c i a l a s s i s t -ance from the C i v i c Trus t or the Roya l F i n e A r t s Commission when faced 40 w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l y d e l i c a t e problem. A e s t h e t i c L e g i s l a t i o n A f f e c t i n g S p e c i a l Areas Highway A e s t h e t i c s - The recent a t t e n t i o n p a i d to the a e s t h e t i c - 58 -aspects of highway c o r r i d o r l e g i s l a t i o n i n the U n i t e d States has i n d i c a t e d the importance of " t o t a l " environmenta l concepts . Where long s t r e t c h e s of highway once wound t h e i r way through r u r a l l andscape , they are now as much a p a r t o f the urban scene as the hot dog s tand and the mote l complex. I n 1965 the U n i t e d States Congress passed the Highway B e a u t i f i -c a t i o n A c t which encouraged the Sta tes to c o n t r o l outdoor a d v e r t i s i n g 41 and junkyards ad jacent to a l l I n t e r s t a t e and pr imary highways. I n e f f e c t t h i s A c t r e q u i r e d tha t a l l S ta tes p r o h i b i t a l l forms of outdoor a d v e r t i s i n g w i t h i n 660 f ee t o f the edge of the r i g h t - o f - w a y or l o s e 10 per cent of t h e i r F e d e r a l A i d highway funds . S i m i l a r l y junkyards must be screened or removed from p u b l i c v iew unles s l o c a t e d i n p r o p e r l y zoned 42 a reas . E n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n has been enacted i n many s t a t e s to complement the F e d e r a l e f f o r t . Up to 1969, 39 S ta tes had enacted l e g -i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g the a c q u i s i t i o n of s c e n i c easements or s t r i p s ad jacent to the highway f o r the r e s t o r a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l 43 beauty . I n 1963, C a l i f o r n i a adopted a master p l a n f o r S ta te s c e n i c highways to e s t a b l i s h and apply d e s i g n standards i n order to develop the "complete h ighway" , i n c o r p o r a t i n g not o n l y s a f e t y , u t i l i t y and 44 economy, but a l s o beauty . In an e f f o r t to r e s t r i c t commercial s t r i p development a long the highway, Tacoma, Washington, e s t a b l i s h e d a roads ide s e r v i c e d i s t r i c t which groups bus inesses i n a manner s i m i l a r to commer-45 c i a l l y zoned bus iness d i s t r i c t s . - 59 -S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t s - S e v e r a l American c i t i e s have adopted l e g i s -l a t i o n governing c e r t a i n areas of the c i t y which r e q u i r e s p e c i a l aes the-t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Under S ta te Law enacted i n 1953, Oklahoma C i t y created the C a p i t a l Improvement and Zoning Commission to prepare a master p l a n f o r the c i t y ' s governmental c e n t e r . The o b j e c t i v e s of the Commission were to encourage harmony and s u i t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a l l new deve lop-ment proposed f o r the planned C i v i c C e n t e r , and the Commission has the 46 power to r e j e c t a l l des igns which do not meet w i t h i t s s t andards . The Commission's powers are o n l y a p p l i c a b l e where the des ign i s executed by a n o n - a r c h i t e c t . The Commission i s composed of f i v e members, f our of whom are members of the l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e , w h i l e the f i f t h i s s e l e c t e d 47 from the o u t s i d e to ac t as E x e c u t i v e S e c r e t a r y . A s t a f f of p r o f e s s i o n a l a r c h i t e c t s and des igners p r o v i d e the Commission w i t h expert adv i ce be fore f i n a l recommendations are made on a l l p r o p o s a l s . S p e c i a l Amenity Zones - S p e c i a l areas which p r o v i d e e x c e p t i o n a l l y f i n e v iew or amenity q u a l i t i e s w i t h i n the urban environment have a l s o been p r o t e c t e d by l e g i s l a t i o n governing the e x t e r n a l appearance of b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s . I n 1951, Niagara F a l l s , New Y o r k , enacted an ord inance r e q u i r i n g the P l a n n i n g Commission, w i t h the adv ice of a s p e c i a l A d v i s o r y Committee, to approve: the de s ign of any b u i l d i n g w i t h i n a ' s c e n i c p r o t e c t i v e a r e a ' . . . Such b u i l d i n g s ( i n c l u d i n g s i gns ) s h a l l be of such d e s i g n , appearance, and r e l a t i o n tooone another tha t they w i l l enhance r a t h e r than i m p a i r the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and p leasantness of appear-ance . . . of Niagara F a l l s and the Gorge of the Niagara R i v e r - 60 -. . . In fur therance of these purposes the p l a n n i n g board s h a l l seek to assure good b u i l d i n g de s ign but s h a l l not p r e s c r i b e any type or p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e of a r c h i t e c t u r e as be ing r e q u i r e d t h e r e f o r . 4 8 Entrance D i s t r i c t s - A s m a l l number of communities e x e r c i s e a e s t h e t i c c o n t r o l over the v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r o o f i t s highway approaches. The C h a r l e s t o n S .C . Zoning Ord inance , 1947, a l l o w s the l o c a l Board of Adjustment t o : pass on the appropr ia tenes s of e x t e r i o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l f ea tures of b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s h e r e a f t e r e r e c t e d , r e c o n s t r u c t e d , a l t e r e d , r e s t o r e d , or where g e n e r a l e x t e r i o r r e p a i r s are made "that are sub jec t to p u b l i c v iew from any p u b l i c s t r e e t or way i n the Entrance D i s t r i c t s of the C i t y of C h a r l e s t o n . . .4°* France - I n 1950, the C i t y of P a r i s ( P r e f e c t u r e of the Seine) e s t a b l i s h e d s i x zoning d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the c i t y which became sub jec t to s p e c i a l d e s i g n c o n t r o l s . B a s i c a l l y these zones are of three t y p e s : 1) Zones of p r o t e c t i o n of s i t e s of p i c t u r e s q u e , monumental, h i s t o r i c a l , a r c h a e o l o g i c a l , and a e s t h e t i c c h a r a c t e r ; 2) Zones of p r o t e c t i o n of monumental p e r s p e c t i v e s ( v i s t a s ) ; 3) Zones of S p e c i a l R e s i d e n t i a l P r o t e c t i o n . The f i r s t type i n c l u d e s h i s t o r i c squares l i k e the P l a c e Vendome and the Champs de Mars , which are sub jec t to the s t r i c t e s t c o n t r o l s . I n these areas no m o d i f i c a t i o n s may be made to the e x t e r i o r of any s t r u c t u r e s w i t h o u t s p e c i a l p e r m i s s i o n from the P a r i s M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l , through i t s a d v i s o r y body, the Commission of S i t e s , P e r s p e c t i v e s and Landscapes of the Department of the Se ine . Some form of a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e s t r i c t i o n s - 61 -have in fact been exercised over development in Place Vendome continuously since 1.6.9 9. Aesthetic controls are also exercised over a l l new and existing development in most of the zones in the second category, while controls in the special residential areas may be imposed by either public or private means. Aesthetics and the Judicial Attitude Overview - The fundamental consideration in determining the legal basis for design review is the j u d i c i a l attitude toward aesthetics. Traditionally i t has been the rule that a zoning law or other regulatory measure based primarily on aesthetic factors in the United States consti-tuted a violation of personal property rights and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Much of American attitudes towards aesthetics can be learned through the rich heritage of the ancient laws of nuisance, of covenants, subdivision regulations, zoning and more recently through the architectural control ordinance - perhaps more from the cases than 52 from the laws and statutes themselves. Laws of Nuisance - The courts have long been sympathetic to community efforts to abate conditions which were offensive and deleter-ious to the senses of hearing and smell. But these same courts have hesitated to exercise authority i n the abatement of nuisances where the subject matter is objected to by the complaints of offensiveness to the - 62 -s i g h t . The t r a d i t i o n a l j u d i c i a l v iew has been that a d i s t i n c t i o n between the l a t t e r c l a s s and the two preced ing ones l a y i n the d i f f i c u l t y which arose i n a t tempt ing to c r e a t e a s tandard of measurement by which to gauge 53 whether an a l l e g e d u n s i g h t l y s i t u a t i o n c o u l d be c l a s s e d as a n u i s a n c e . Even where a e s t h e t i c s have been the obvious grounds f o r a nui sance c o m p l a i n t , the c o u r t s have r e l i e d on s a f e t y or the o ther t r a d i t i o n a l 54 f a c t o r s of p u b l i c w e l f a r e to s u s t a i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . As l a t e as 1948 the C a l i f o r n i a ' Supreme Court of Appeals i n the case of People v . Ol iver " ' " ' abated an ug ly wooden b u i l d i n g , surrounded by s t acks of wooden and paper boxes and waste m a t e r i a l , and l o c a t e d i n the hear t of an a t t r a c t i v e r e s i d e n t i a l area not because i t was u n s i g h t l y , but because 56 i t was a f i r e h a z a r d . S h o r t l y a f t e r , i n the case of L i v i n g s t o n v . D a v i s , t h e c o u r t s t a t e d : tha t a t h i n g i s u n s i g h t l y or of fends the a e s t h e t i c sense does not o r d i n a r i l y make i t a nuisance or a f f o r d grounds f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . 5 8 S ign C o n t r o l - Among the f i r s t attempts to r e g u l a t e l and uses based upon a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t i v e s i n v o l v e d the i s s u e of commercial b i l l -boards which had p r o l i f e r a t e d i n the U n i t e d S ta tes at the t u r n o f the 59 c e n t u r y . I n these cases , the j u d i c i a l a t t i t u d e took the p o s i t i o n tha t any c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c s would make such a n r e g u l a t i o n i n v a l i d and an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l use of the r e g u l a t o r y power. T h e i r p o s i t i o n was tha t a e s t h e t i c s was a l u x u r y r a t h e r than a n e c e s s i t y and s i n c e n e c e s s i t y a lone j u s t i f i e d the e x e r c i s e of the r e g u l a t o r y power, such a purpose - 63 -was i n s u f f i c i e n t . The statement by Judge Swayze i n the case of P a s s a i c v . P a t t e r s o n B i l l P o s t i n g C o . ^ ° t y p i f i e d the j u d i c a l a t t i t u d e at the t u r n of t h i s c e n t u r y : No case has been c i t e d , nor are we aware of any case which ho ld s tha t a man may be depr ived of h i s p r o p e r t y because h i s t a s t e s are not those of h i s ne ighbours . A e s t h e t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are a matter of l u x u r y and indulgence r a t h e r than a n e c e s s i t y , and i t i s nec-e s s i t y a lone which j u s t i f i e s the p o l i c e power . . . 61 Dur ing the next f i f t y y e a r s , a g radua l change occurred i n the numerous cases i n v o l v i n g a e s t h e t i c s and p u b l i c amenity . I t was g r a d u a l l y con^ ceded tha t a e s t h e t i c s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s c o u l d enter to a great extent as an a u x i l i a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n where the r e g u l a t i o n had a r e a l or s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n to s a f e t y , h e a l t h , morals or the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e of the community. E s p e c i a l l y important was the c o u r t ' s broadening v iew and p o s i t i v e i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n of the term " g e n e r a l w e l f a r e " . T h i s was e s p e c i a l l y r e f l e c t e d 62 i n the New York Court of Appeals i n Wulfsohn v . Burden: The p o l i c e power i s not l i m i t e d to r e g u l a t i o n s designed to promote p u b l i c h e a l t h , p u b l i c morals or p u b l i c s a f e t y , or to the suppres-s i o n of what i s o f f e n s i v e , d i s o r d e r l y or u n s a n i t a r y , but extends to d e a l i n g w i t h c o n d i t i o n s which e x i s t as to b r i n g out of them the g r e a t e s t w e l f a r e of the people by promoting p u b l i c convenience or g e n e r a l p r o s p e r i t y . ^ 3 The r e l a t i o n s h i p of a e s t h e t i c s to t h i s expanding concept of the p u b l i c w e l f a r e was acknowledged by the c o u r t i n Genera l Outdoor A d v e r t i s i n g Co. 64 v . C i t y of I n d i a n a p o l i s : . . . there i s a t rend In the modern d e c i s i o n s (which we approve) to f o s t e r under the p o l i c e power the a e s t h e t i c and c u l t u r a l s i d e of m u n i c i p a l development . . . to prevent a t h i n g t h a t of fends the sense of s i g h t i n the same manner as a t h i n g t h a t offends the senses of h e a r i n g and s m e l l i n g . 6 5 - 64 -In 1953 Florida became the f i r s t state to uphold a zoning regulation governing billboards solely on aesthetic grounds. In the case of Merritt v. P e t e r s t h e court specifically held that factors of health, safety,; andamorals.did not constitute a reasonable basis for a restiction of certain types of billboards, but that the protection of beauty in 67 the community did. Historic D i s t r i c t Control - The aesthetic and cultural basis for exercising the regulatory power in Historic Districts has seldom been challenged. Even before the Massachusetts legislature passed appropriate b i l l s declaring the island of Nantucket and Beacon H i l l in Boston as protected areas, the state.courts advised favourably on the constitution-68 a l i t y of the proposed acts. The purpose of these acts was to preserve the architectural features of the two areas and enabled the local manipulators to enact ordinances "to maintain said d i s t r i c t s as a land-69 mark in the history of Boston architecture . . . " Similar ordinances have been upheld by the courts on aesthetic and cultural grounds in Williamsburg, V i r g i n i a ^ and on the powers of the Vieux Carre Commission in New Orleans. Zoning and Architectural Control - The United States courts have generally been extremely reluctant to uphold zoning by-laws, or similar regulatory devices, with purely aesthetic objectives in r e s i -dential areas. In cases involving building design or appearance, - 65 -favourable judgements are usually based on an economic rationale, v i z . the conservation of property values. This has come to be regarded as a proper function of theppublic welfare and thus j u s t i f i e s the exercise of the regulatory power. In the case of Jacobson v. Village of 71 Wiomette, the I l l i n o i s Supreme Court i n 1949 validated an ordinance that excluded apartment buildings from single family residential areas: Very often . . . the apartment house is a mere parasite, con-structed i n order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district.^2 I n the case of Reid v. Architectural Review Board, Court of Appeals of 73 Ohio, the court majority upheld the Board's refusal to issue a develop-ment permit to an applicant on the grounds that the plans did not maintain the high character of community development because i t did not 74 conform to the character of the homes in the area. Although aesthetics were considered a factor in the case, the favourable judgement leanedd heavily on economic factors: . . . i t is held that aesthetic conditions alone are i n s u f f i -cient to support theiinvocation of the police power, although i f a regulation finds a reasonable j u s t i f i c a t i o n in serving a generally recognized ground for the exercise of that power, the fact that aesthetic considerations play a part in i t s adoption does not affect i t s v a l i d i t y . ^ 5 Unfavourable court decisions were given in similar cases involving arch-76 itectural review boards such as Hankins v. Borough of Rockleigh, and City of West Palm Beach v. State ex r e l . Duffy.^ Perhaps the crucial factor in each case l i e s in the particular facts in each situation and - 66 -the subjective values the judges bring to bear in each. Generally, however, courts have shown more and more pronounced tendencies to uphold the validity of architectural restrictions within zoninggby-laws. 78 The Wisconsin court i n the case of State v. Wieland, may have summed up many decisions when i t s dicta discussed the impact of architectural design on property values: Under a broad interpretation of general welfare, the question simply becomes whether protection of property values by r e s t r i c -tions on architecture w i l l promote the greatest welfare of the people. It can readily be seen that a variance of architec-ture and exterior appearance of a building can lower the value of surrounding property . . . The architectural design i t s e l f does not justify the restriction. It is because the architec-tural design w i l l lower the value of the surrounding property that the laws are j u s t i f i e d . The state cannot force a community to build a l l one style homes, but i t can and must protect the property interests of the community.79 Court attitudes toward private property and aesthetic control have varied greatly from state to state. The traditional view and s t i l l the stated position of most courts is that except for certain billboard regulations, zoning or other forms of control based solely on aesthetic objectives is beyond the scope of the regulatory power. In most cases the prevailing j u d i c i a l attitude is not to enunciate a rule that any aesthetic consideration would be sufficient to justify a statutory prohibition, but rather only in cases where i t bears directly on the 80 economic, social, or cultural patterns of the community. - 67 -Summary Zoning by-laws have been enacted primarily to control land and building uses rather than their appearance per se in the aesthetic sense. Apart from subdivision regulations and the use of restrictive covenants on new development, the legal device which is normally employed to control the external appearance of either private or public development is the architectural control ordinance. The.majority of these types of regulations have been limited to residential areas, although attention is increasingly being focused on other zones as well. This type of ordinance is usually administered either through a special provision in the local zoning by-law which gives the municipality the legal power to create an architectural review board or similarybody. Aesthetic controls in residential areas are usually those referred to as "look-alike" and "non-jlook-alike" regulations which have as their objective to prevent excessive similarity or dissimilarity of building design. Although the immediate objectives of these ordinances are to achieve either a degree of variety or harmony and continuity in overall visual effect, implicit in these objectives is the paramount desire to maintain existing property values. Regulations based on aesthetic and cultural objectives have also been applied to areas containing concentrations of historically significant structures.. Other types of aesthetic l e g i s l a -tion existing in various North American communities include thosee - 68 -affecting the appearance of highway corridors, special d i s t r i c t s such as civic centers, special amenity zones such as at Niagara F a l l s , New York, and controls affecting the visual character of a city's highway approaches. The use of an architectural review board or special commission has played an important role in administering these regu-lations. Several types of aesthetic controls are practised in Paris, France, where six zoning di s t r i c t s within the city are subject to special design controls. In the United States i t had been the rule that a zoning by-law or other regulatory device associated with aesthetic objectives constituted a violation of personal property rights and was therefore unconstitutional. During the last f i f t y years a gradual change has occurrediin.the attitude of the U.S. courts. It was gradually con-ceded that aesthetic considerations could enter to a great extent as an auxiliary consideration where the regulation had a real or substantial relation to safety, health, morals or the general welfare of the community. The position of most courts in the United States today is that except for certain billboard regulations, architectural or other forms of building controls based solely on aesthetic objectives is beyond the scope of the police power. Because of constitutional differences, similar problems do not exist in Canada. - 69 -FOOTNOTES "''Durant, op. c i t . , p . 193. 2 79 Harvard Law Review, 1320, A p r i l , 1966. 3 Webster , op . c i t . , p . 421. ^Mackesey, ThomassW., " A e s t h e t i c s and Z o n i n g " , i n The P l a n n e r ' s J o u r n a l , V o l . 5 , No. 4 , January - March 1939, p . 95 . "'Webster, op . c i t . , p . 421. ^ B r a i n e r d , H a r o l d B . , " A B r i e f f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The P l a n n e r ' s  J o u r n a l , V o l . 4 , No. 2 , 1938, p . 40. ^Mandelker, op . c i t . , p . 748. g F a g i n , Henry , Weinberg , Robert C , P l a n n i n g and Community Appearance, J o i n t Committee on Des ign C o n t r o l (Reg iona l P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1958) , p . 94. 9 l b i d . , p . 95 . ""^Webster, op. c i t . , p . 301. "*""Hjeese, Harry M . , "Random Thoughts on A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l s and T h e i r E f f e c t s on C i t i e s " , i n J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , March 1961, p . 58. 12 Mackesey, op. c i t . , p . 98 . 13 D e l a f o n s , op. c i t . , p . 61 . 14 Mandelker , op . c i t . , p . 749. - 70 -1 5 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 131. 16 Mandelker , op. c i t . , p . 749. 1 7 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 131. 1 8 I b i d . , p . 77. 19 I b i d , p . 130. 20 Mandelker , op_. c i t . , p . 757. 21 As t i e s , op. c i t . , pp . 2-8 . 22 Tunnard, C , Pushkarev, B . , op. c i t . , p . 405. 23 van Weston, P e t e r K o r n e l i s , Goal F o r m u l a t i o n and Achievement i n  H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t P r e s e r v a t i o n , unpubl i shed M a s t e r ' s Thes i s i n Community and Reg iona l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver, B . C . , 1967, p . 1. F a g m , op_. c i t . , p . 69. 25 Board of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report to C i t y C o u n c i l , C i t y of Vancouver, B . C . , March 4 , 1971'. 26 H a m i l t o n , op. c i t . , p . 100. 27 F a g i n , op. c i t . , p . 68. 28 J o u r n a l of Hous ing , No. 1, January 1968, p . 34. 29 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 68. I b i d . Board of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report to C i t y C o u n c i l , C i t y of Vancouver, B . C . , March 4 , 1971. - 71 -32 Minutes of i n i t i a l meeting of H i s t o r i c Area A d v i s o r y Board , May 3, 1971, C i t y of Vancouver, Vancouver, B . C . 33 P e p l e r , George L . , " A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The P l a n n e r ' s  J o u r n a l , V o l . 4, No. 6, 1938, p . 151. 34 Buchanan, J . e t . a l . , B a t h : A Study i n C o n s e r v a t i o n , Report to the M i n i s t e r of Housing and L o c a l Government and Bath C i t y C o u n c i l , 1968. I b i d . 36 P e p l e r , op. c i t . , p . 151. 37 Young, Wayland, "Achievements and P r o s p e c t s " , i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, December, 1970, pp. 341 - 350. 38 McKown, Rober t , Comprehensive Guide To Town P l a n n i n g Law (George Godwin L i m i t e d , London, 1964), p . 38. 39 P e p l e r , op. c i t . , p . 151. 40 I n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr . R. Shaw, Grea ter London C o u n c i l P l a n n i n g Department, December, 1971. 41 P r e s i d e n t ' s C o u n c i l , op. c i t . , p . 74. American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , op. c i t . , p . 37. 43 I b i d . , p . 39. 44 C a l i f o r n i a S t r e e t s and Highway Code S e c t i o n 227. 45 American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , op_. c i t . , p . 41 . 46 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 74. I b i d . - 72 -4 ^ I b i d . , p . 70. 49 I b i d . , p . 141. 5 ° C h e n e y , Char le s W . , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The P l a n n e r ' s J o u r n a l , V o l . 6, No. 2 , 1938, p . 45. ^ F a g i n , op_. c i t . , pp. 64--67. 52 American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , op. c i t . , p . 23 . 53 Beuscher , op . c i t . , p . I V - 3 0 . I b i d . 5 5 8 6 C a l i f . App. (2d) 885, 195P (2d) 926 (1948). "^Beuscher , op. c i t . , p . I V - 3 2 . 5 7 I o w a , 50 N.W. (2d) 592 1951. 58 Beuscher , op_. c i t . , p . I V - 3 2 . 59 American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , op. c i t . , p . 329. 6 0 7 2 N . J . L285, 62 ATT. 267, 1905. 61 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 84. 6 2 N . Y . 288, 150 N . E . 120, 122, 43 A.L.RT. 651, 1925. 6 3 B e u s c h e r , op. c i t . , p . V I I I - 1 9 5 . 6 4 2 0 2 I n d . 85, 172 N . E . 309, 1930. American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , 0 £ . c i t . , p . 337. - 73 -6 6 6 5 So. (2d) 861, 1953. 6 7 American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , op. c i t . , p . 337. 6 8 H a m i l t o n , op. c i t . , p . 98 . I b i d . 7 ° I b i d . , p . 99 . 7 1 4 0 3 111. 250 85 N . E . (2d) 753, 1949. 72 H a m i l t o n , op_. c i t . , p . 101 7 3 1 1 9 Ohio App. 67, 192 N . E . (2d) 7.4, 1963. 74 Mandelker , op. c i t . , p . 750. 7 ^ l b i d . , p . 751. 7 6 5 5 N . J . Super. 132, 150 A . (2d) 63, 1959. 7 7 1 5 8 F l a . 863, 30 So. (2d) 491, 1947. 7 8 2 6 9 W i s . 262, 69 N.W. (2d) 217, 1955. 79 H a m i l t o n , op_. c i t . , p . 53 . 80 Thomson, B e r n a r d . , Cop lan , Norman, " A e s t h e t i c s and the Law: P a r t 2 " , i i i P r o g r e s s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e , September 1967, p . 182. - 74 -CHAPTER IV THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SYSTEM Introduction Until recently, public control over the architectural design of private buildings and structures in the interests of promoting the general welfare has not been great. 1 But because of the growing number of various forms of architectural review boards which have been estab-lished in North American communities within the past decade, i t is clear that this form of government regulation over private development i s becoming increasingly important. Their contribution to the aesthetic aspect of the urban environment has been acknowledged by government o f f i c i a l s , planning authorities and architectural institutions. In broad terms, their function i s to advise ci v i c planning authorities on the design merits of individual buildings or groups of buildings with the objectivesof increasing the general level of architectural design in the city. Historical The earliest known example in North America where the appearance of private buildings was regulated by public authority occurred in - 75 -Washington, D . C . Under the Ships tead A c t of 1930, permit s f o r p r i v a t e and s e m i - p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s f a c i n g the p r i n c i p a l government b u i l d i n g groups were r e q u i r e d to be assessed by the N a t i o n a l F i n e A r t s Commission. The C i t y l a t e r e s t a b l i s h e d an e f f e c t i v e v o l u n t a r y board of rev iew composed of l o c a l members of the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s who served w i t h o u t compensation on the A r c h i t e c t ' s A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l . T h i s C o u n c i l examined a l l p lans f i l e d w i t h b u i l d i n g permit a p p l i c a t i o n s and was -empowered by the A c t to recommend t h e i r approva l or r e j e c t i o n based p u r e l y on the a e s t h e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p of the proposed development to the e x i s t i n g 2 p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s . The C i t y of San Diego soon f o l l o w e d i n 1934 when C o u n c i l passed an amendment to the b u i l d i n g code r e q u i r i n g that a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r permit s to b u i l d on the p r i n c i p a l thoroughfare be f i r s t approved by the P l a n n i n g Commission. T h i s requirement was l a t e r extended to s e v e r a l o ther areas of the c i t y . In each case the e x t e n s i o n of the c o n t r o l l e d area was brought about by p e t i t i o n s of the l o c a l p roper ty 3 owners. Because of the e a r l y l e g a l and o p e r a t i o n a l b a r r i e r s which e x i s t e d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , s e v e r a l important s teps were r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h e f f e c t i v e a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew procedures on a n a t i o n - w i d e b a s i s . W r i t i n g i n The P l a n n e r ' s J o u r n a l , H . B . B r a i n e r d o u t l i n e d the fundamental requirements i n 1938. 1. That the c o n s t i t u t i o n s of a l l i n t e r e s t e d s t a t e s and o f the F e d e r a l Government would be amended to s p e c i f i c a l l y permit c o n t r o l of the appearance of p r i v a t e as w e l l as p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and - 76 -s t r u c t u r e s i n order tha t the v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t u r e s would thereby be a u t h o r i z e d to enable communities to se t up l o c a l boards of c o n t r o l d u l y ves ted w i t h the necessary powers to r e g u l a t e c i v i c des ign throughout the c o u n t r y . 2 . That a system of c o n t r o l be dev i sed that would f a c i l i t a t e and i n s u r e a c o n t i n u i n g p o l i c y of c o n s t r u c t i v e c i v i c d e s i g n i n g and enforcement of r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated by l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d boards of c o n t r o l . 3. That l o c a l laws and ordinances a f f e c t i n g the appearance of b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s be s t rengthened where necessary and tha t means were taken to ensure cont inuous enforcement . 4 Many s t a t e s subsequently amended t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n s to enable l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e s to l e g a l l y e s t a b l i s h a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l s w i t h i n c e r t a i n des ignated areas and i n some cases f o r e n t i r e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . S ince the 1930 ' s , a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew procedures have become an i n c r e a s -i n g l y important m u n i c i p a l f u n c t i o n and accepted f e a t u r e of many American communities ." ' I n i t s 1958 r e p o r t , P l a n n i n g and Community Appearance, p u b l i s h e d by the New York Chapters of the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h -i t e c t s a a n d the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , some t w e n t y - f i v e commun-i t i e s i n the U n i t e d S ta tes were l i s t e d as hav ing e s t a b l i s h e d v a r i o u s forms of a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew procedures to a d m i n i s t e r a e s t h e t i c r e g u l a -t i o n s . Some of these were e f f e c t e d through C i t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r s s s p e c i a l rev iew boards , and i n the case of C h a r l e s t o n , S . C . , a s p e c i a l Board of Adjus tment . By 1966, over s i x t y - e i g h t c i t i e s i n the S ta te of C a l i f o r n i a a lone had l e g i s l a t e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew o r d i n a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g Santa Barbara , Monterey, and V e n t u r a . ^ One e a r l y " s t u d y " u s i n g undef ined a e s t h e t i c s tandards and p u r e l y s u b j e c t i v e va lue s attempted to r a t e v a r i o u s major c i t i e s i n the U n i t e d - 77 -States on the b a s i s of t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l and environmenta l q u a l i t i e s . These r e s u l t s were w i d e l y p u b l i s h e d and d i s cus sed by v a r i o u s a r c h i t e c t u r a l and p l a n n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n an attempt to c r e a t e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n 8 t h i s f i e l d . C i t i e s which have e x e r c i s e d no a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l and amount of "good" a r c h i t e c t u r e and environment which they p r e s e n t : Washington, D . C * 25 per cent P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . * 15 per cent New York C i t y 12 per cent L o s ' A n g e l e s , C a l i f . 12 per cent Bos ton , Mass. 12 per cent San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f . 11 per cent Oakland , C a l i f . 10 per cent Ch icago , 111. 8 per cent S t . L o u i s , M o . * 7 per cent F o r t Worth , Tex. 6 per cent D a l l a s , Tex. 6 per cent *As the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the F i n e A r t s Commissions that e x i s t e d i n these c i t i e s a t t h a t t ime i s l i m i t e d to p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , except i n Washington, where i t i n c l u d e s i n some p l ace s the p r i v a t e b u i l d i n g oppos i te or f a c i n g p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , the e f f e c t on the t o t a l c i t y i s s m a l l . C i t i e s and suburbs which have e x e r c i s e d p a r t i a l or complete a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l , and amount of "good" a r c h i t e c t u r e and environment which they p r e s e n t : Roland Park - Homeland - G u i l f o r d , B a i t . F o r e s t H i l l s , Long I s l a n d Shaker Heighjfcs, C l e v e l a n d Country Clubs D i s t r i c t , Kansas C i t y S t . F r a n c i s Wood, San F r a n c i s c o Pa los Verdes E s t a t e s , Los Angeles Y o r k s h i r e V i l l a g e , Camden, N . J . Santa Barbara , C a l i f . P r a c t i c e and Procedures Terms of Reference - There i s no s t a n d a r d i z e d r u l e which 95 per cent 95 per cent 80 per cent 75 per cent 95 per cent 95 per cent 90 per cent 40 per cent - 78 -determines the scope or terms of reference with respect to the various Architectural Review Boards which function in the many communities across North America today. .Many of the earlier Boards were empowered by local ordinance to assess only the aesthetic quality of individual structures and their relationshippwith existing development in terms of materials, finish, grade lines, building orientation and so on. For example a Charleston, S.C., ordinance grants power to a Board of Adjustment to review the appropriateness of "the general appearance of buildings, 9 structures, lots or yards that can be seen from a public street or way". The Board's terms of reference are limited, however, and do not include land use or functional considerations: . . . but shall not consider the detailed design, relative size of buildings in plan, interior arrangements of buildings' features, or appearance of lots or yards not subject to public view, nor shall i t make requirements except for the purpose of preventing developments or conditions obviously unsightly . . .10 With the increasing liberalization of j u d i c i a l attitudes towards aesthetics,''"''' some later Boards have had their powers of review greatly expanded, and c r i t e r i a standards may now include various functional as well as purely aesthetic considerations. In Monterey, California, for example, the Review Committee must consider the following standards: 1) The siting of any structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighbourhood. 2) A l l structures shall be i n good propertion, have simplicity of mass and detail; shall not strive for picturesque effect; there - 79 -s h a l l be an a p p r o p r i a t e use of m a t e r i a l s ; c o l o r s s h a l l be i n good t a s t e and never h a r s h , g a r i s h , but i n harmony w i t h themselves and t h e i r environment. 3) The s i z e , l o c a t i o n , d e s i g n , c o l o r j number, l i g h t i n g and m a t e r i a l s of a l l s s i g n s and outdoor a d v e r t i s i n g s t r u c t u r e s s h a l l be r ev iewed . No s i g n s h a l l be approved i n excess of the maximum l i m i t s se t by an ord inance by the C i t y of Monterey , but the s i z e or number of s i gns i n any area sub jec t to Des ign C o n t r o l may be reduced below t h i s maximum number or l i m i t s , s e t by such o r d i n a n c e . 4) Landscaping s h a l l be r e q u i r e d on the s i t e and s h a l l be i n keeping w i t h the c h a r a c t e r or des ign of the b u i l d i n g and e x i s t i n g t ree s s h a l l be preserved wherever p o s s i b l e . 5) The s i z e , l o c a t i o n and arrangement of o n - s i t e p a r k i n g and paved areas . 6) I n g r e s s , egress and i n t e r n a l t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n . 7) A l l of the above f a c t o r s to be r e l a t e d to the s e t t i n g or e s t ab-12 l i s h e d c h a r a c t e r of the neighbourhood or surrounding a r e a . The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Commission i n B e v e r l y H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a , has s i m i l a r wide terms of r e f e r e n c e , and i n a d d i t i o n must assess a l l new development proposa l s i n terms of t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the image of the c i t y as a " p l a c e of beauty , spac iousnes s , b a l a n c e , t a s t e , f i t n e s s , broad v i s t a s , 13 and h i g h q u a l i t y . " Very few ordinances grant powers of rev iew to i n c l u d e l and use - 80 -o r l o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n a s se s s ing the impact o f new development; nor are a l l types of designed s t r u c t u r e s of aneengineered c h a r a c t e r such as b r i d g e s , t u n n e l s , roads and open spaces i n c l u d e d . Purpose - The purposes of the v a r i o u s Boards are g r e a t l y c o n d i -t i o n e d by the o b j e c t i v e s of the ord inance i t i s empowered to a d m i n i s t e r . I n the great m a j o r i t y of cases , the o v e r a l l goa l i s to p r o t e c t and m a i n t a i n p roper ty v a l u e s , e s p e c i a l l y when f u n c t i o n i n g i n r e s i d e n t i a l a reas . For example, S e c t i o n 137.05 of the C o d i f i e d Ordinance of the C i t y of C l e v e l a n d Height s s t a t e s that the purpose of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Board of Review are t o : . . . p r o t e c t p roper ty on which b u i l d i n g s are c o n s t r u c t e d or a l t e r e d , to m a i n t a i n the h i g h c h a r a c t e r of community development, and to p r o t e c t r e a l e s t a t e w i t h i n t h i s c i t y from impairment or d e s t r u c t i o n of v a l u e , by r e g u l a t i n g accord ing to proper a r c h i t e c -t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s the d e s i g n , use of m a t e r i a l s , f i n i s h e d grade l i n e s and o r i e n t a t i o n of a l l new b u i l d i n g s , h e r e a f t e r e r e c t e d , a and the moving, a l t e r a t i o n , improvement, r e p a i r , adding to or r a z i n g whole or i n p a r t of a l l e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s , and s a i d Board s h a l l e x e r c i s e i t s powers and perform i t s d u t i e s f o r the accomplishment of s a i d purposes o n l y . Where Review Boards or Commissions a d m i n i s t e r l e g i s l a t i o n designed to a f f e c t areas of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t , e . g . t h o s e o o f s s p e c i a l h i s t o r i c , s c e n i c or c u l t u r a l v a l u e , f a c t o r s o ther than the maintenance of p r o p e r t y va lue s become much more i m p o r t a n t . Composi t ion - The compos i t ion o f rev iew boards may vary g r e a t l y from community to community i n terms of numbers of members, e x p e r t i s e , exper ience and l e n g t h of s e r v i c e . I n some cases , the Board may be - 81 -composed e n t i r e l y of a r c h i t e c t s or p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n r e l a t e d f i e l d s such as e n g i n e e r i n g , c i t y p l a n n i n g , landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e , e t c . In o ther s i t may be composed l a r g e l y of i n t e r e s t e d l a y c i t i z e n s c c h o s e n from a v a r i e t y of o c c u p a t i o n s , together w i t h a r e q u i r e d minimum of p r o f e s s i o n -a l l y t r a i n e d e x p e r t s . The exact requirements are u s u a l l y s p e c i f i e d i n the l o c a l m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e , some examples of which are i n c l u d e d be low: [Niagara F a l l s , New Y o r k , Zoning Ord inance , 1951] P l a n n i n g Board s h a l l e s t a b l i s h an a d v i s o r y committee o f not l e s s than f i v e members, one of whom s h a l l be the super intendent of parks of the c i t y , another of whom s h a l l be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the Niagara F r o n t i e r S t a te Park Commission . . . and another of whom s h a l l be a r e g i s t e r e d a r c h i t e c t p r a c t i c i n g i n the c i t y . . .15 [ A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a , Zoning Ord inance , No. 470, Sec. 34] [The Board of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review] to be composed of seven-members who are c i t i z e n s of the C i t y of A l e x a n d r i a , s i x of whom s h a l l be appointed by the C i t y C o u n c i l . Two members s h a l l be c e r t i f i e d a r c h i t e c t s ; one a member of the C i t y P l a n n i n g Commission; one an e s t a b l i s h e d , l i c e n s e d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r i n the c i t y ; and two persons w i t h knowledge of and demonstrated i n t e r e s t i n the h i s t -o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r of the o l d p a r t of the c i t y . . . The terms of o f f i c e of theEimembers s h a l l be three y e a r s , except t h a t the term of the b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s h a l l correspond to h i s o f f i c i a l term of o f f i c e . . , 1 6 [ C i t y of Rye, New Y o r k , L o c a l Law No. 1, 1952] . . . a Board of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review which s h a l l c o n s i s t of f i v e (5) members who s h a l l serve w i t h o u t compensation. A l l members of the Board s h a l l be r e s i d e n t s of the C i t y , and s h a l l be s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d by reason of t r a i n i n g or exper ience i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , l a n d development, c i t y p l a n n i n g , r e a l e s t a t e , landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e or o ther r e l e v a n t bus ines s or p r o f e s s i o n or by reason of c i v i c i n t e r e s t and sound judgement . . . and at l e a s t one member of the Board s h a l l be a r e g i s t e r e d a r c h i t e c t i n the S ta te of New Y o r k . 1 7 The members are appointed by the Mayor w i t h C o u n c i l approva l f o r a term - 82 -of three years, with a staggering of the terms to provide continuity in the program. In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, the Building Board personnel is not limited to any one vocation. The fifteen member Board includes an architect, a teacher, a real estate man, a banker, an insurance man and several manufacturing executives. The Board is composed of three citizens from each of five city wards, and appointed by the mayor with Council approval for a term of one year. Reappointments are relied upon 19 to give the program continuity. D i f f i c u l t i e s Associated With Design Control One of the objectives of planning is to prevent bad design and to encourage the good. But good design is an elusive quality which cannot easily be defined and is just as d i f f i c u l t to teach i f the architect has no inherent sensitivity to, i t s principles and application Design cannot be taught by correspondence; words are inadequate, and being inadequate may then become misleading, or even dangerous. For the competent designer a handbook on design is unnecessary and for the incompetent i t is almost useless as a medium of instruction Despite the great proliferation of aesthetic regulation which has recently been occurring in North American communities, i t s total acceptance by professional designers and architects has been far from universal. It has been a favourite maxim in the design f i e l d that good taste cannot be legislated, and that arbitrary formulas could no more be expected to produce good design than can different historical "style - 83 -i f the designer has "neither the w i l l nor the s k i l l to create i t " . Com-menting on this problem of design control, Professor Fielden, Secretary of the R.F.A.C. in London, stated: It must be faced that control from without cannot turn bad architecture into good architecture, because i t cannot turn bad architects into good architects; and good buildings need good arch i t e c t s . 2 2 The Case Against Controls - When architectural review procedures vwere s t i l l relatively rare in North American communities the prevailing view of many practising architects was that the entire concept was both impracticable and undesirable. Writing in 1938, the American architect/ planner H.B. Brainerd observed that some architects favoured controls only by means of private covenants in deeds, and others only under the then existing legislation which was s t i l l preoccupied with the ancient common law rights in private property. A third group denounced any attempt at aesthetic control as being unworkable due to the a) d i f f i c u l t y in establishing aesthetic standards, b) because i t was an unconstitutional invasion of property rights, and c) because i t would result in regimentation or bureaucratic s t u l t i -23 fication of the creative process. Many contemporary architects are s t i l l c r i t i c a l of the whole concept of architectural controls for the same reasons, especially a) and c) above. The danger of repressing originality, i t i s f e l t , is more serious than 24 that of tolerating a proportion of " i l l i t e r a t e " designs. "There is - 84 -. . . the danger tha t o v e r - c o n t r o l may b r i n g about m e d i o c r i t y and l o s s 25 of v i t a l i t y , which i s an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t of v i s u a l q u a l i t y , " C o n t r o l s are e s s e n t i a l l y n e g a t i v e , s p e l l i n g out p r o h i b i t i o n s . Because of t h i s , opponents f e e l t h a t s o c i e t y must consequent ly s e t t l e f o r the l e a s t common denominator , p r e v e n t i n g the wors t and the b e s t , and w i t h 26 these r e s t r i c t i o n s a bureaucracy which s t i f l e s the i m a g i n a t i o n . The net r e s u l t to s o c i e t y i s un i fo rm d u l l n e s s i n a l l a r c h i t e c t u r e . To some c r i t i c s , i t i s even q u e s t i o n a b l e whether c o n t r o l c o u l d prevent the bad from happening: . . . a f t e r r e j e c t i o n [by a Des ign Panel ] the scheme is re submit ted w i t h a few minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s by the hand which f a sh ioned i t -and i s i t then l i k e l y to be anyth ing but s t i l l bad?27 The danger of l o s i n g a s m a l l number of w e l l designed b u i l d i n g s through o v e r l y r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l s has a l s o been expounded: I f c o n t r o l s cannot produce good a r c h i t e c t u r e , and o n l y prevent the very w o r s t , then I am a g a i n s t i t . I would r a t h e r put up w i t h the f u l l b looded g h a s t l y than anaemic m e d i o c r i t y . . . the danger of l o s i n g even one good b u i l d i n g a year i s a p r i c e tha t we cannot a f f o r d to pay.28 At the p r a c t i c a l l e v e l there have always been the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g a r c h i t e c t u r a l adv ice or of s e c u r i n g a j u r y of competent a r c h -i t e c t s who are w i l l i n g to pass judgement on the designs of o ther 29 a r c h i t e c t s . Commenting on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r problem one B r i t i s h a r c h -i t e c t observed t h a t " a r c h i t e c t s who get on admirably s o c i a l l y , o f t e n d i s l i k e each o ther s work and are the s t ronges t c r i t i c s of i t , nor would they e n t r u s t t h e i r b r o t h e r a r c h i t e c t s w i t h the c o n t r o l of t h e i r own - 85 -, II 30 work . The Case For C o n t r o l s - By c o n t r a s t , some of the e a r l y proponents of a r c h i t e c t u r a l rev iew procedure favoured t h i s d ev i ce on s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l grounds, and t h a t improvement i n the v i s u a l q u a l i t y of the 31 environment was beyond the means or power of the i n d i v i d u a l i n s o c i e t y . The l e g a l o b s t r u c t i o n s to g rea te r c o n t r o l over p r i v a t e development i n the U n i t e d S ta tes were s t i l l acknowledged to be a fo rmidab le b a r r i e r , a l b e i t a temporal one: . . . the h i s t o r y of Anglo-Saxon j u r i s p r u d e n c e cou ld w e l l be d i v i d e d i n t o three p a r t s - f i r s t , tha t hav ing to do w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n o f man's per son ; second, those laws hav ing to do w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n of h i s p r o p e r t y ; and t h i r d , w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n of h i s r i g h t s as a member of the community. We are now a c t i v e l y engaged i n the w r i t i n g of t h i s l a s t chapter .32 To a number o f a r c h i t e c t s and p lanners of the l a t e 1930 ' s , the wide spread use of p u b l i c c o n t r o l was f u r t h e r made necessary by the f a c t tha t i n the U n i t e d S ta tes o n l y 10 to 20 per cent of a l l b u i l d i n g s , r e s i d e n t i a l and 33 commercia l , were then b e i n g designed by t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t s . Consequent ly , enormous d e p r e c i a t i o n and waste had r e s u l t e d from the e x i s t i n g uncon-t r o l l e d system of b u i l d i n g and which r e s u l t e d i n an " i n t o l e r a b l e s i t u a t i o n " . "Though t h i s i s a r i c h n a t i o n , we have to admit to the t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t s 35 of the w o r l d that most of i t i s tawdry i n appearance . " The s c a l e and tempo of present day development, the h i g h v a l u e of l a n d and the commercial c o m p e t i t i o n to produce a r c h i t e c t u r a l "gems" w i t h l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n s h i p to i t s urban s e t t i n g has l e d to the - 86 -e x p l o i t a t i o n of l a n d , environment and peop le . I n t h i s l i g h t , many c r i t i c s c l a i m , some form of c o n t r o l i s neces sary . P r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r e d by a P a n e l or o ther a p p r o p r i a t e agency, a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l s can achieve bo th h i g h e r s tandards of b u i l d i n g de s ign as w e l l as p r e v e n t i n g the s t u l t i f i c a t i o n of c r e a t i v i t y and i n n o v a t i o n i n d e s i g n . In t h i s r e g a r d , the g u i d i n g p h i l o s o p h y of the R o y a l F i n e A r t Commission i n the U n i t e d Kingdom may w e l l serve to exempl i fy the more p r o g r e s s i v e a p p l i -c a t i o n o f c o n t r o l measures. What we have . . . advocated i s not a r i g i d and l i f e l e s s reg imenta-t i o n , but the i m p o s i t i o n of a code of c i v i l i z e d behav ior and good n e i g h b o r l i n e s s , i n which each b u i l d i n g and each space can develop i t s own p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h o u t do ing damage to the c h a r a c t e r o f t t h o s e near i t . We accept the need f o r some s p e c i f i c c o n t r o l s , but we p r e f e r a system i n which these are a p p l i e d w i t h f l e x i b i l i t y and an unders tanding of the needs of v a r y i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 3 ^ Des ign C o n t r o l s i n England and Europe England - The r e g u l a t i o n of the des ign and e x t e r n a l appearance of b u i l d i n g s was f i r s t made p o s s i b l e by the Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t , . 1909, but g e n e r a l advantage was not taken of i t u n t i l a f t e r the pas s ing of the Town and Country A c t , 1932, by P a r l i a m e n t . One of the few except ions occurred i n the town of R u i s l i p - N o r t h w o o d i n 1914. The e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n of 1909 empowered the l o c a l c o u n c i l to pass p lans f o r new b u i l d i n g s i f they cons idered tha t they would be " s e r i o u s l y out 37 of harmony w i t h t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g s " . S ince the Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t o f 1932, a c o n s i d e r a b l e measure of c o n t r o l became p o s s i b l e - 87 -i n r e l a t i o n to a l l f u t u r e p l a n n i n g schemes i n the c o u n t r y . T h i s A c t p l aced the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of r e g u l a t i o n d i r e c t l y on the l o c a l p l a n n i n g 38 a u t h o r i t i e s , who i n t h i s context were p r i m a r i l y the County c o u n c i l s . However, even.before tha t t ime a system of A d v i s o r y Panels came i n t o o p e r a t i o n . They were f i r s t brought i n t o be ing d u r i n g 1928, m a i n l y f o r the purpose of a d v i s i n g l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s and l and owners c a r r y i n g out work under the Housing ( R u r a l Workers) A c t , 1926, and to a s s i s t l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s and others i n the genera l p r e s e r v a t i o n of ameni t ie s i n r u r a l a rea s . Outs ide t h i s system, Panels were a l s o appointed to adv i se l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s and o ther s on the e x t e r n a l appearance of b u i l d -i n g s , the f i r s t be ing set up i n 1925. Some of these panels were employed from tha t t i m e , and a f t e r the pas s ing of the Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t , 1932, the panels g e n e r a l l y agreed to expand t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s by o f f e r i n g to adv i se l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n the use of t h e i r powers f o r r e g u l a t i n g the des ign and e x t e r n a l appearance of b u i l d i n g s under S e c t i o n 12 of the A c t . The P a n e l system which was evolved by the C o u n c i l f o r the P r e s e r v a t i o n of R u r a l England ( C . P . R . E . ) i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the R o y a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h A r c h i t e c t s and the I n s t i t u t e of B u i l d e r s was supported by the then M i n i s t e r i n charge, o f Town and Country P l a n n i n g , but was s t i l l o n l y p a r t i a l l y adopted. Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t , 1947 - T h i s A c t i n t r o d u c e d a - 88 -new system of planning on a national scale, and also called for a revised system of advisory panels to help administer a special section of the Act which dealt specifically with the external appearance of buildings. Such a system was evolved by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (C.P.R.E.) in consultation with the Royal Institute of British Architects (R.I.B.A.) and the Institute of Builders (I.O.B.) for use by County Planning Authorities. The revised system provided for the establishment of panels in a l l parts of England where the Planning Authorities decided to use them. The Act did not make mandatory the use of Design Panels, but by 1949 a total of twenty-two County Planning 39 Authorities were using panels in some form or other. Composition of Panels - In 1949, the C.P.R.E. recommended that the constitution of County Planning Authorities (before 1948 called County Councils) be organized in the following manner: a) Where the Planning Authority desires a Panel consisting of architect members only, that the Panel be appointed by the authority on the nomination of the Local All i e d Society of the R.I.B.A., a l l such nominations to be approved by the Royal Institute of British Architects. b) Where the Planning Authority desires a Panel representative of wider interests, i t is recommended, (i) that the architect members be appointed as above, ( i i ) that a l l other nominations be approved by the national society to which any technical or representative - 89 -members may b e l o n g , and ( i i i ) i n the case of laymen by the C . P . R . E . 40 or C.PBR.W. Many L o c a l P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t i e s f o l l o w e d these recommendations, but some v a r i a t i o n s o f these g u i d e l i n e s s t i l l e x i s t , e s p e c i a l l y where Pane l s were i n e x i s t e n c e be fore the 1947 A c t . Procedures - Because c o n d i t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the country vary so g r e a t l y , no un i form procedure i s u sed . M a t t e r s are u s u a l l y arranged by d i r e c t c o n s u l a t i o n between the L o c a l P l a n n i n g Agency and the v a r i o u s panels from each Borough. The f o l l o w i n g examples i l l u s t r a t e the great v a r i e t y t h a t e x i s t s i n P a n e l o r g a n i z a t i o n , c o m p o s i t i o n , and procedures throughout the c o u n t r y . 1) L e i c e s t e r s h i r e - I n L e i c e s t e r s h i r e there i s one P a n e l c o v e r i n g the whole County. I t was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1938 and s i n c e tha t t ime has been o p e r a t i n g c o n t i n u o u s l y . I t s members work on a r o t a , a c t i n g i n groups of f o u r ; meetings are h e l d weekly and a l l p lans are s u b m i t t e d . The County P l a n n i n g O f f i c e r p o i n t s out tha t by t h i s system, which r e s u l t s i n a d i f f e r e n t P a n e l examining the p lans each week, "any q u e s t i o n of a b i a sed view p o i n t has been e l i m i n a t e d w h i c h , w h i l e a l l o w i n g f o r reasonable v a r i a t i o n , does r e s u l t i n a g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r s tandard of a r c h i t e c t u r a l treatment 41 w i t h regard to new b u i l d i n g s thahnmight be o therwise the c a s e . " The members of the P a n e l g i v e t h e i r s e r v i c e s v o l u n t a r i l y . - 90 -2) Brecon - In Brecon, where there are very few architects resident in the County, a Panel has been appointed by the Planning Authority consisting of the County Architect, one architect in private practice, and the Planning Officer, who is himself an architect. 3) Devon - The Devon County Council has set up four Panels, one for each of the four Planning Divisions of the County, and in addition a Central Panel was set up at Exeter to consider special cases and any controversial matter which is referred to i t . In the Division in which the greatest number of plans aressubmitted, the Panel meets monthly. In the other Divisions, the County Council continues the old practice of leaving detailed arrangements to the discretion of the Divisional Offices and the Panels concerned. The Panels consist of not less than three nor more than six members, and their services as well as their transportation expenses are paid. 4) Worcestershire - In Worcestershire there is one Panel covering the whole county. It consists of eight architects appointed by the Birmingham and Fine Counties Architectural Association, two , builders appointed by the I.O.B., two laymen appointed by the Worcester County Council and two layment appointed by the local branch of the C.P.R.E. The Panel is divided into two sections, each of which : ; meets monthly, both acting under the same Chairman to give contin-uity of policy. A certain number of plans which are not acceptable are dealt with in the County Planning Department without reference - 91 -to the P a n e l , but except f o r these a l l p lans f o r new b u i l d i n g come before the P a n e l . The s e r v i c e s of the P a n e l are g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y and t r a v e l l i n g expenses are not g i v e n . E f f e c t i v e n e s s - The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the A d v i s o r y P a n e l System a l s o v a r i e s to some degree from County to County, and depends upon the competence and t a c t of i t s members, the volumee and q u a l i t y of the designs submitted and o ther r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s . For example, i n Lanca-s h i r e County over 16,500 development a p p l i c a t i o n s were submitted to the P l a n n i n g A u t h o r i t y i n 1958 and approx imate ly one h a l f of these r e q u i r e d 42 c r i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l des ign and l a y o u t . About 30 per cent of the annual a p p l i c a t i o n s are the work of a r c h i t e c t s , but i n o t h e r C C o u n t i e s , those p r i m a r i l y r u r a l i n c h a r a c t e r , o n l y as few as 10 43 per cent o f des igns submit ted are executed by t r a i n e d a r c h i t e c t s . In Kent County the aim of the Des ign P a n e l i s not n e c e s s a r i l y to r e j e c t a l l des igns which f a i l to meet h i g h or even moderate standards of a r c h i t e c t u r e ! but to cons ider each d e s i g n i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p 44 to i t s s i t e and s u r r o u n d i n g s . On b a l a n c e , the A d v i s o r y System has forged a good r e p u t a t i o n i n the v a r i o u s Count ies which have so f a r 45 adopted i t . I n w r i t i n g to the C e n t r a l Panel s Committee of the C . P . R . E . , R . I . B . A . and I . O . B . , whose f u n c t i o n i t i s to formula te p r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e f o r the good working of the P a n e l s e r v i c e , the P l a n n i n g O f f i c e r f o r Hampshire County s t a t e d i n 1952: The Pane l system of a r c h i t e c t u r a l adv i ce i s of i n e s t i m a b l e v a l u e - 92 -. . . I t ensures tha t the b e s t a v a i l a b l e a r c h i t e c t u r a l o p i n i o n i s taken on a l l matters r e g a r d i n g three d imens iona l p l a n n i n g . I t has been found tha t i n i n c r e a s i n g numbers of cases the. p u b l i c are tending to take s k i l l e d p r o f e s s i o n a l adv i ce w i t h a consequent improvement i n the s tandard of des igns submit ted .46 I n p r o v i d i n g the l e g i s l a t i o n f o r some degree of c o n t r o l over the appear-ance of our s u r r o u n d i n g s , as w e l l as over l and use , the c u r r e n t P l a n n i n g Act s appear to make, l e g a l l y p o s s i b l e the a t ta inment of what may be regarded as an i d e a l - i . e . the consc ious molding of our p h y s i c a l environment. U . S . S . R . - A c c o r d i n g to S i r E . D . Simon, the most advanced method of e a r l y a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n t r o l was p r a c t i c e d i n Moscow, where the C i t y C o u n c i l e x e r c i s e d f u l l c o n t r o l over a l l new b u i l d i n g s i n the e a r l y 1930 ' s . Nine a t e l i e r s , each under the l e a d e r s h i p of a d i s t i n g u i s h e d a r c h i t e c t , were made r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the g e n e r a l d e s i g n of the p r i n c i p a l quays and main roads ; i n a d d i t i o n a " d e c o r a t i o n department" of the C i t y C o u n c i l was a p p o i n t e d , employing a number of a r t i s t s to cooperate w i t h the a r c h i t e c t s i n see ing t h a t the d e t a i l s of the d e c o r a t i n g of the s t r e e t s , adver t i s ement s , l e t t e r i n g , minor b u i l d i n g s such as k i o s k s and l a v a t o r i e s , were e f f e c t i v e l y harmonized w i t h the a r c h i t e c t u r a l des ign of the e n t i r e 47 s t r e e t . However, c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s were encountered , and the success of t h i s system of c o n t r o l was never f u l l y assessed by Western o b s e r v e r s . The Use of F i n e A r t Commissions U n i t e d S ta tes - As an a l t e r n a t e form of e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l by m u n i c i p a l l y appointed Boards of Review, s e v e r a l c i t i e s have turned to the use of F i n e A r t s Commissions. As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned i n t h i s Chapter , under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Ships tead A c t of 1930, the de s ign of a l l b u i l d i n g s i n Washington, D . C , which face a major government 48 b u i l d i n g must a c q u i r e approva l of the N a t i o n a l F i n e A r t s Commission. As f a r as known, o n l y three o ther major c i t i e s i n Nor th America make use of these Commissions: S t . L o u i s , M i s s o u r i , S e a t t l e , Washington, and P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a , where the use of an A r t Jury was p rov ided 49 by the C i t y C h a r t e r . To some c r i t i c s the great v a l u e of t h i s approach i s t h a t t h e o r e t i c a l l y at l e a s t the Commission represent s a d i s t i n g u i s h e d body of expert and unbiased o p i n i o n and who r e l y to a great extentoon t h e i r powers of pe r sua s ion r a t h e r than l e g a l e n f o r c e m e n t . W h e r e these Commissions now f u n c t i o n , t h e i r terms of r e f e rence are u s u a l l y w e l l de f ined and r e l a t e o n l y to those areas of s p e c i a l a r t i s t i c or c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e such as the C a p i t o l i n Washington or the C i v i c Center i n P h i l a d e l p h i a . One s e r i o u s drawback to t h i s approach i s t h a t appointment i s sometimes arranged by c i v i c a u t h o r i t i e s by the s imple expedient of p i c k i n g " b i g n a m e s " , r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a b i l i t y and s k i l l i n d i s c e r n i n g a e s t h e t i c va lue s based on p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a in i r i ggand proven a b i l i t y . - 94 -England - I n England the Roya l F i n e A r t Commission has been granted a f a r g r e a t e r r o l e i n h e l p i n g to a d m i n i s t e r those l e g i s l a t i v e ac t s which r e l a t e to the i s sue s of p u b l i c amenity and a e s t h e t i c r e g u l a -t i o n . The Commission was appointed under Roya l warrant i n 1924 s " t o c a l l to the a t t e n t i o n of any . . . Departments of S ta te to any p r o j e c t or development which i n the o p i n i o n of the Commission may appear to 52 a f f e c t ameni t ie s of a n a t i o n a l or p u b l i c c h a r a c t e r . . . " S ince then the Commission has adv i sed Government Departments and other p u b l i c bodies on a great range of matters when requested to do so and when the 53 Commission thought t h a t t h e i r adv ice would be u s e f u l . I t s powers are p u r e l y a d v i s o r y and a l l recommendations are made d i r e c t l y to the p u b l i c 54 body r a t h e r than to developers or o ther i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . A l though i t s powers are l i m i t e d , i t s terms of r e f e rence are exceed ing ly broad by Nor th American s t andards . For example, i t s 1957 Report comments upon the adverse e f f e c t s of h i g h b u i l d i n g s ad jacent to the R o y a l P a r k s ; t h e i r o b j e c t i o n to the Park Lane carr iageway i n Hyde P a r k ; t h e i r concern over the un imag ina t ive des igns f o r b a r r a c k b l o c k s and o ther s e r v i c e b u i l d i n g s ; t h e i r a larm at the outcrop of r i b b o n development, the very low s tandard of s p e c u l a t i v e hous ing d e s i g n s , and the need f o r more a r c h i t e c t u r a l adv i ce to l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s . " * " ' In recent years there has been a r e v o l u t i o n i n the a t t i t u d e of the E n g l i s h p u b l i c towards environmenta l q u a l i t y which has p r e c i p i t a t e d 56 changes i n Government p o l i c y and l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r . The - 95 -C i v i c Ameni t i e s A c t of 1967 and the Town and Country Act of 1968 l a i d a new p a t t e r n of powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s which i n t u r n has s o l i d l y entrenched the Commission's wide scope of 57 i n t e r e s t s . Dur ing the p e r i o d of August .1968 to September 1971 the Commission reviewed approx imate ly 200 cases a y e a r . Almost a t h i r d were concerned i n one way or another w i t h a b u i l d i n g , or group of b u i l d i n g s of h i s t o r i c and a e s t h e t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e . A few cases i n t h i s category were concerned w i t h t h e i r d e m o l i t i o n , o thers w i t h t h e i r a l t e r a t i o n or e x t e n s i o n . B u t , the m a j o r i t y d e a l t w i t h the p l a c i n g o f new b u i l d i n g s so c l o s e to them that there was a danger of t h e i r v i s u a l v a l u e b e i n g d i s t u r b e d or even d e s t r o y e d . About a s i x t h were concerned w i t h h i g h b u i l d i n g s and t h e i r e f f e c t on the urban scene, on open spaces and p a r t i c u l a r l y on the Roya l P a r k s . Another s i x t h were concerned w i t h new roads and b r i d g e s , and one t e n t h w i t h the e f f e c t of developments 58 of a l l k i n d s on p laces of n a t u r a l beauty . I n the o p i n i o n of the newly appointed s e c r e t a r y , P r o f e s s o r Frank F i e l d e n , the Commission's r o l e , f u n c t i o n and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s have been g r e a t l y misunderstood by both government departments and t h e p p u b l i c a t l a r g e : One reason [ f o r t h i s misunders tanding] i s tha t the Commission's t i t l e i t s e l f i s m i s l e a d i n g , f o r the number o f cases concerned d i r e c t l y w i t h the ' f i n e a r t s ' of p a i n t i n g and s c u l p t u r e which the Commission has handled i n the past year i s o n l y f o u r . For the g r e a t e r p a r t of i t s work i s to do w i t h the a r t of a r c h i t e c t u r e and w i t h the q u a l i t y of the environment i n a much w i d e r sense.59 - 96 -Because of t h i s g e n e r a l l a c k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the Commission has o f t e n 60 been r e f e r r e d to as a " t o o t h l e s s watchdog" . In commenting on t h i s i s s u e , P r o f e s s o r F i e l d e n has o f f e r e d the v iew t h a t : T h i s i s a t r u e d e s c r i p t i o n because i t i s a watchdog's f u n c t i o n to b a r k , r a t h e r than to ac t as a guard dog which can be expected to b i t e . The powers o f the Commission, l i k e thos of o ther R o y a l Commissions, are a d v i s o r y r a t h e r than j u d i c i a l ; of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , not of a c t i o n . I f i t were to be g i v e n s t a t u t o r y powers, i t would have to be changed i n t o a l a r g e b u r e a u c r a t i c machine w i t h i n s p e c -t o r s , a d j u d i c a t o r s and the whole apparatus of c o n t r o l s i m i l a r to t h a t now ves ted i n the c e n t r a l and l o c a l p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s . I t s v a l u e as the u l t i m a t e a d v i s o r y body would be l o s t . 6 1 In 1971, the Commission was c o n s t i t u t e d of twenty members, one h a l f of whom were p r a c t i s i n g a r c h i t e c t s . ^ " " S p e c i a l Des ign Commissions A unique form of de s ign c o n t r o l r e c e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n S e a t t l e , Washington, deserves s p e c i a l mention i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The S e a t t l e C i t y C o u n c i l , by Ordinance No. 96897, e s t a b l i s h e d the S e a t t l e Des ign Commis-s i o n i n June, 1968: . . . to a c t i n a c o n s u l t i n g c a p a c i t y , a d v i s o r y to the Mayor , C i t y C o u n c i l and a p p r o p r i a t e C i t y o f f i c i a l s i n connec t ion w i t h environmenta l and de s ign aspects of C a p i t a l Improvement P r o j e c t s of the C i t y . 6 3 I n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Commission the C o u n c i l r ecogn ized tha t each p u b l i c investment i n c i t y f a c i l i t i e s o f f e r e d a chance to shape some p a r t of the c i t y as an improvement i n an environmenta l sense as w e l l as a u t i l i -t a r i a n sense. I t became the Commission's p r i n c i p a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to see tha t the a e s t h e t i c and envi ronmenta l aspects were g i v e n due emphasis - 97 -d u r i n g the de s ign p r o c e s s , and a l s o c a r r i e d through i n the completed p r o j e c t s . T h i s f u n c t i o n was p r e v i o u s l y borne by a subcommittee of the C i t y A r t Commission, but which cou ld no longer handle the i n c r e a s e d volume of work which the 1968 "Forward T h r u s t " C a p i t a l Improvement 64 Program f o r S e a t t l e and K i n g County had brought . The Commission i d e a was f i r s t conceived by a s p e c i a l Forward Thrust Committee as a check on the haphazard and expedient s o l u t i o n s to problems of growth which were e rod ing both the unique n a t u r a l f ea ture s of the r e g i o n and the q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r i t s c i t i z e n s . As a means of a l l e v i a t i n g t h i s e r o s i o n of q u a l i t y , a t l e a s t w i t h i n the p u b l i c domain, the Committee adopted the Des ign Commission i d e a and i n c l u d e d i n the bond r e s o l u t i o n s presented to the e l e c t o r a t e a p r o v i s i o n t h a t a l l c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s under the Forward Thrust Program were* to .'the reviewed by a Des ign Commission. Composi t ion - As e s t a b l i s h e d by the C i t y C o u n c i l , the S e a t t l e Des ign Commission i s composed of seven members i n c l u d i n g two a r c h i t e c t s , two e n g i n e e r s , one landscape a r c h i t e c t , one p l a n n e r , and one layman. The s i x p r o f e s s i o n a l s are s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of p rev ious p r o f e s s i o n a l exper ience and on the recommendation of p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The l a y member i s s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of p rev ious i n t e r e s t and exper ience i n matters r e l a t i n g to the f u n c t i o n o f the Commission. The members serve as p a i d p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n s u l t a n t s to c i t y government and the Commission thus serves to s i g n i f i c a n t l y broaden the base of p r o f e s s i o n a l judgement - 98 -that i s brought to bear on the execution of capital projects. Scope of Work - Based on former experience with the Seattle Art Commission, the City of Seattle broadened the scope of i t s Design Commission to include not only the review of Forward Thrust projects, but also the review of a l l capital projects constructed on land belong-ing to the city and financed in whole or in part by city funds. Function - In general the function of the Commission is to advise and assist city o f f i c i a l s , staff and project designers in the development and execution of city projects. In doing this the Commission makes recommendations in the selection of project designers and recom-mends such aesthetic, environmental and design principles and policies as i t considers appropriate and advantageous as a guide in the develop-ment of the project. In undertaking i t s assignments under the ordinance, the steps taken by the Commission areaas follows: 1) Project Briefing - The Commission f i r s t becomes familiar with each proposed project and studies the function i t is to perform, i t s location, size, budget, impact on the immediate neighbourhood, and i t s relationship to total city development. 2) Selection of Designers - The Commission works jointly with the sponsoring department in reviewing the credentials of designers thought particularly competent to design the project and recommends the designer or designers for the project. - 99 -3) Pre-Design Conference - The Commission reviews each project with the department and the designer prior to commencement of design to assist in establishing c r i t e r i a to be sought in the design of the project. 4) Review of Projects During Design — The Commission reviews each project from time to time during the design period and recommends approval upon the completion of the schematic design phase, the 64 design development phase, and the construction development phase. Many features of this agency are f e l t to be both unique and progressive in the f i e l d of administering aesthetic and environmental controls in North American communities today. Summary There is no standardized rule which determines the scope or terms of reference with respect to the various forms of architectural review boards which function in many communities in North America today. Most of the earlier boards could only review the appropriateness of the general appearance of buildings in terms of architectural style, form, mass, materials and the relationship of a building to i t s immediate surroundings. With the increasing liberalization of judicia-llattitudes and other factors towards environmental aesthetics some of the later boards have had their powers of review expanded somewhat and c r i t e r i a - 100 -standards may now include various functional as well as purely aesthetic considerations. The purpose, composition, procedures, powers and effectiveness of these boards also vary to some extent. The principle of architectural review has not been universally accepted by architects and legal authorities. The traditional* arguments against this device include: a) the d i f f i c u l t y in establishing aesthetic standards which can be effectively judged, b) because i t is an unconstitutional invasion of property rights (in the U.S. context), c) the d i f f i c u l t y in securing a jury of competent architects who are willing to pass judgement on the designs of other architects, and d) because i t can result i n inhibiting the creative process, thereby encouraging mediocrity in a l l architecture. In England the advisory panel system appears to be more highly developed and i t s successful application has been guided on a national scale by several organizations such as the C.P.R.E., O.B.E. and R.I.B.A. Several other bodies having approximately' the same objectives and function as architectural review boards exist in North America, such as Fine Arts Commissions and Sepcial Design Commissions. The Royal Fine Art Commis-sion in England has particularly wide terms of reference, advising various organizations or public agencies on almost a l l visual and functional aspects of the country's physical development. - 101 -FOOTNOTES ^Webster, op. c i t . , p . 297. 2 'Mackesey, op. c i t . , p . 97 . 3 I b i d . 4 B r a i n e r d , op_. c i t . , p . 42 " * C i v i c E c o l o g y , op_. c i t . , p . 17. ^ F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 141. 7 C i v i c E c o l o g y , op_. c i t . , p . 18. 8 Cheney, op. c i t . , p . 43 . 9 F a g i n , op_. c i t . , p . 70. I b i d . 1 1 Tomson , B . , C o p l a n , N . , " A e s t h e t i c s and the Law: P a r t I " , i n Progres- s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e , August , 1967, p . 176. 12 C i v i c E c o l o g y , op_. c i t . , p . 17. 1 3 I b i d . , p . 18. 1 14 Mandelker , op. c i t . , p . 748. 15 F a g i n , op. c i t . , p . 140. " ^ I b i d . , p . 136. - 102 -1 7 I b i d . , pp. 138— 139. 18 Webster , op. c i t . , p . 299. 19 Kneuse, Wilham B . , " B u i l d i n g Board Achieves A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The American C i t y , V o l . 67 , No. 3 , March 1952, p . 119. 20 C u l l i n g w o r t h , J . B . , Town and Country P l a n n i n g i n England and Wales (George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . ^ London, 1970) , p . 182. 21 Weinberg, Robert C . , "Urban Design and the Community", i n J o u r n a l of  the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 26, No. 2 , May 1962, p . 134. 22 P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f e s s o r F . F i e l d e n , Secre ta ry to the Roya l F i n e A r t Commission, Londony,England. 23 B r a i n e r d , op. c i t . , p . 4 1 . 2 A Coates , U . A y l m e r , " P o l i c i e s of Des ign C o n t r o l " , i n Town and Country  P l a n n i n g , V o l . 27 , June 1959, p . 235. 25 P r o f . F i e l d e n i n t e r v i e w , see foo tnote n o . 22. 2 ^Weese, op . c i t . , p . 56. 2 7 Kennedy, R . T . et a l , " A e s t h e t i c C o n t r o l Over A r c h i t e c t s " , i n A r c h i t e c - t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , A p r i l , 1955, p . 248. 2 8 I b i d . , p . 247. 29 Webster , op. c i t . , p . 301. 30 Kennedy, op. c i t . , p . 244. 31 B r a i n e r d , op . c i t • , p . 4 1 . 32 L i t c h f i e l d , E l e c t u s D . , "A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The  P l a n n e r ' s J o u r n a l , V o l 4 . , No. 6 , 1938, p . 150. - 103 -33 Cheney, op. c i t . , p. 43. Ibid. Ibid. 36 Royal Fine Art Commission, Twenty-First Report, August 1968 - September  1971, London, December 1971, p. 12. 37 Pepler, op. c i t . , p. 151. 38 Central Panels Committee, The Advisory Panel System, The Council for the Preservation of Rural England, London (Garden City Press Ltd., Letchworth, 1953), pp. 3-7. 39 Ibid. 40 Ministry of Housing,and Local Government, Architectural Control, Pamphlet No. 206/62, London, 1962, p. 12. 41 Central Panels Committee, op. c i t . , p. 5. 4 2Coates, op_. c i t . , pp. 235 - 236. 43 Central Panels Committee, op. c i t . , p. 5. Ibid. Ibid. 4^Ibid., p. 6. ^^Brainerd, op. c i t . , p. 43. 48 Webster, op. c i t . , p. 300. 49 Fagin, op. c i t . , p. 140. - 104 -"*°Weese, op. c i t . , p . 57 . "'"'"Weinberg, op_. c i t . , p . 96. 52 Roya l F i n e A r t Commission, op_. c i t . , p . 9 . 53 C u l l i n g w o r t h , op_. c i t . , p . 185. 5 4 F i e l d e n i n t e r v i e w ; see footnote no . 22, Chapter I V . "'"'Royal F i n e Ar t -Commis s ion , op_. c i t . , pp . 9 - 13. " ^ F i e l d e n i n t e r v i e w ; see footnote no . 22 , Chapter I V . I b i d . I b i d . 59 R o y a l F i n e A r t Commission, op_. c i t . , p . 9 . 6 0 E s h e r , L o r d , " A e s t h e t i c Censors Without A c t i v e Power" , i n The London  Times, A p r i l 18, 1970, p . 7. ^ R o y a l F i n e A r t Commission, op_. c i t . , p . 9 . I b i d . . ft C i t y of S e a t t l e , S e a t t l e Des ign Commission, unpubl i shed Report No. 6 /11/69 , 1969, S e a t t l e , Washington. 64 T , . , I b i d . - 105 -CHAPTER V THE ADMINISTRATION OF LEGISLATION BASED ON AESTHETIC OBJECTIVES: A CASE STUDY OF THE CIVIC DESIGN PANEL, VANCOUVER, B. C. Introduction The preceding chapters have presented a general background for the development of this thesis. The early forms of aesthetic regulation were effected under the municipality's regulatory power and were often directed at areas of special concern such as civic centers, historic precincts, scenic areas or special residential areas. Legal problems and the evolution of the j u d i c i a l attitude regarding environmental aesthetics were also reviewed to il l u s t r a t e the growing importance of this particular form of legislation. Despite the growing awareness of the problems related to urban aesthetics, and a corresponding increase in legislative attempts for improvements in recent years, the f u l l effects and success of i t s admin-istration have not been documented to any great extent. As illustrated in Chapters III and IV, the basic method of administering this type of legislation i s by special boards, commissions or design panels which are usually established by some level of government under special enabling legislation. - 106 -The v iew expressed by K e v i n Lynch and others t h a t c i t y appear-ance be an i n t e g r a l p a r t of c i v i c development p o l i c y has , to some e x t e n t , been i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n the C i t y of Vancouver s i n c e 19571 A t tha t t ime the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l was set up under s p e c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n to h e l p a d m i n i s t e r c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s of the C i t y ' s Zoning and Deve lop-ment By-Law which were based on broad a e s t h e t i c and envi ronmenta l o b j e c t i v e s . S ince tha t t ime the P a n e l has p layed an important r o l e i n h e l p i n g to ensure that a h i g h e r s tandard of b u i l d i n g des ign was main-t a i n e d by a r c h i t e c t s and b u i l d e r s which zoning and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s a lone c o u l d not ensure . The remainder of the t h e s i s w i l l present a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s of one f a c e t of a e s t h e t i c r e g u l a t i o n i n urban development, v i z . , i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n through a case study of the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l . Wi th the p o s s i b l e v iew of making recommendations f o r a new and expanded r o l e f o r the P a n e l , the hypothes i s of t h i s t h e s i s tha t " t h e r o l e of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l must, be broadened to i n c l u d e the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of de s ign rev iew i n order to improve the c i t y ' s t o t a l p h y s i c a l environment" i s t e s t e d . The O b j e c t i v e s of the Case Study The o b j e c t i v e s of the case study are t h r e e - f o l d . F i r s t l y , to ana lyze the nature of the P a n e l ' s o p e r a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g an assessment of any e x i s t i n g c o n f l i c t s or d i f f i c u l t i e s , w i t h the p o s s i b l e v iew towards - 107 -making recommendations for functional, structural and procedural changes in order to improve i t s effectiveness. The second objective i s to test the stated hypothesis, with the ultimate purpose of establishing i t s validity within the context of the information obtained from two basic sources as described in the next section. The third objective i s to evaluate the usefulness of the design panel system in principle, based on the conclusions reached in the case study. Organization of the Case Study The case study is divided into three chapters, the last consist-ing of the epilogue. Chapter V provides the background information as a description of the Panel's operation under the f i r s t five of the six basic headings outlined in the f i r s t chapteroof the thesis. To summar-ize, these include the Panel's (a) function, (b) terms of reference, (c) composition, (d) powers, (e) procedures, and (f) effectiveness. An evaluation w i l l be made of various aspects of the Panel's effectiveness in Chapters VI and VII of the thesis. This information was collected from a variety of published and unpublished sources as well as personal interviews with several persons either presently involved with Panel operations or having been involved with i t in the immediate past. Chap-ter VI includes an investigation of any sources of conflict which may exist in the Panel's operation and is conducted in two separate parts. Part I consists of a review of a l l available literature relevant to the - 108 -P a n e l w h i l e P a r t I I concentrates on c o l l e c t i n g the o p i n i o n s and a t t i t u d e s of v a r i o u s persons i n v o l v e d w i t h or a f f e c t e d by P a n e l o p e r a t i o n . The ep i logue c o n s i s t s of s e v e r a l recommendations f o r f u n c t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l and p r o c e d u r a l changes i n the P a n e l , an e v a l u a t i o n of the v a l i d i t y of the h y p o t h e s i s , an e v a l u a t i o n of the des ign pane l system i n p r i n c i p l e , recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , and the re l evance of t h i s study to the p r a c t i c e o f community and r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Powers B . N . A . A c t - The B r i t i s h Nor th America A c t , passed by the Imper-i a l Pa r l i ament i n 1876, i s the fo rmal source of l e g i s l a t i v e power i n Canada. Sec t ions 91 and 92 are concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e power between the F e d e r a l pa r l i ament i n Ottawa and the v a r i o u s P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . Under S e c t i o n 92 , the sub jec t s of e x c l u s i v e P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n as set out by the A c t i n c l u d e 92(8) M u n i c i p a l I n s t i t u t i o n s i n the P r o v i n c e ; 92(10) L o c a l Works and Undertakings except ing . . . ; 92(11) the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f companies w i t h P r o v i n c i a l o b j e c t s ; 92(13) P r o p e r t y and C i v i l R i g h t s ; 92(16) Gener-a l l y a l l matters of a merely l o c a l or p r i v a t e na ture i n the Province." ' " Under the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s A c t , and p a r t i c u l a r l y Sec t ions 92(8) and (13) be ing (a) powers to o rgan ize M u n i c i p a l I n s t i t u t i o n s , and (b) P r o p e r t y and C i v i l R i g h t s i n the P r o v i n c e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , the L e g i s l a t u r e of the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia has de legated c e r t a i n - 109 -powers to v a r i o u s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e g a r d i n g matters of l and use , ameni-t i e s , and d e s i g n . These de legated powers are conta ined i n the M u n i c i p a l A c t i n the case of a l l o ther m u n i c i p a l t i e s except the C i t y of Vancouver , which d e r i v e s i t s de legated powers d i r e c t l y from the Vancouver C h a r t e r , 1953. The Vancouver C h a r t e r - The l e g a l a u t h o r i t y to e x e r c i s e de s ign c o n t r o l i n the C i t y of Vancouver was f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d by an amendment to the Vancouver Char te r i n 1953 which i n S e c t i o n 306 p rov ide s tha t -the C i t y may make b y - l a w s : ( k ) ( i ) For r e g u l a t i n g the use of l and w i t h re spect to l o c a t i o n , d e s i g n , and c o n s t r u c t i o n of b u i l d i n g s , and f o r p r o h i b i t i n g the e r e c t i o n or o c c u p a t i o n of any b u i l d i n g or the use of l a n d un le s s the p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r the p u b l i c s a f e t y and ameni ty ; s a n i t a r y f a c i l t i e s , water s u p p l y , dra inage and o ther works and f a c i l i t i e s i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s f o r the t ime i n f o r c e by b y - l a w . ( i i ) For p r o v i d i n g f o r the i s s u e of a permit ( to be known as development permi t ) and . . . the c o u n c i l may deem proper . Under t h i s s e c t i o n the Char te r a l s o prov ides that power be de legated to a board to e x e r c i s e p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y . Subclause ( i i i ) s t a t e s : For a p p o i n t i n g a T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board to which the C o u n c i l may de lega te a l i t o r any of the powers e x e r c i s i b l e by i t under t h i s c l a u s e . 2 Zoning and Development By-Law No. 3575 - I n 1956 the C i t y o o f Vancouver e s t a b l i s h e d the l e g a l d ev i ce to implement the broad e n v i r o n -menta l o b j e c t i v e s which had been de legated to i t by p r o v i n c i a l enab l ing l e g i s l a t i o n by the enactment of the Zoning and Development By-Law No. - 110 -3575. T h i s By- law purpor t s to b e : A By-law to r e g u l a t e , w i t h i n the G i t y of Vancouver , the deve lop-ment of l a n d , as de f ined h e r e i n , w i t h re spect to the use of same, and the l o c a t i o n , d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t i o n , and use of b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s f o r r e s i d e n c e , commerce, t rade i n d u s t r y , r e c r e a t i o n , c u l t u r e and other purposes ; to r e g u l a t e and l i m i t the h e i g h t , number of s to reys and the s i z e of b u i l d i n g s and o ther s t r u c t u r e s to be e rec ted h e r e a f t e r or the a l t e r a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s ; to r e g u l a t e and determine the s i z e of y a r d s , cour t s and other open spaces ; to p r e s c r i b e b u i l d i n g l i n e s , to r e g u l a t e and l i m i t the d e n s i t y of p o p u l a t i o n ; to conserve and s t a b i l i z e the va lueoof p r o p e r t y ; to p r o v i d e adequate open spaces f o r l i g h t and a i r ; to p r o t e c t and improve amenity ; to l e s s e n conges t ion on s t r e e t s ; to promote h e a l t h , s a f e ty and the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e ; and f o r a l l or any of the s a i d purposes to d i v i d e the C i t y i n t o d i s t r i c t s of such number, shape and area as may be deemed bes t s u i t e d to c a r r y out these r e g u l a t i o n s i n accordance w i t h a Town P l a n and to p r o v i d e f o r the g r a n t i n g or r e f u s a l of development permi t s i n accordance t h e r e w i t h i n c l u d i n g where necessary the i m p o s i t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t i v e to the g r a n t i n g of such p e r m i t s , and to p r o v i d e f o r the enforcement of t h i s By- law and to p r e s c r i b e p e n a l t i e s f o r the v i o l a t i o n of i t s p r o v i s i o n s . 3 T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board - Under the heading " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , S e c t i o n 3(2) of the By-law s t a t e s t t h a t " I t s h a l l be the duty of the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board to e x e r c i s e on b e h a l f of the C o u n c i l such 4 powers as are hereby e x p r e s s l y de legated to them. " S p e c i f i c a l l y , s u b s e c t i o n (7) p rov ide s the T . P . B . w i t h the power t o : . . . approve or d i sapprove a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r development permi t s r e l e v a n t to b u i l d i n g s or uses f o r which the consent of the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board i s r e q u i r e d s h a l l be v e s t e d i i n such B o a r d . 5 The r i g h t of appeal on T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board d e c i s i o n s i s granted under By-law 3844 which e s t a b l i s h e d the Zoning Board o f Appeal and the - I l l -procedures to be followed by the same. The f u l l details of the Techni-cal Planning Board's powers, responsibilities and composition are included in Appendix B of this thesis. Civic Design Panel - The legal authority to create a Design Panel as an advisory body to the Technical Planning Board was provided under Section 3(10) of the By-law which states: (a) Any application may be referred to a Design Panel appointed by the City Council to consider and advise on architectural design. (b) The Design Panel should consist of: (i) The Director of Planning, who shall be the Chairman ( i i ) The City Building Inspector ( i i i ) Three members of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (iv) One member of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of British Columbia. Subsection (12)(f) further provides that a development permit may be refused, i f the development in respect of which an application is made: Would in the opinion of the Technical Planning Board adversely affect public amenity. If matters of design are involved, the Technical Planning Board may refer the application to the Design Panel to consider and advise. 0 Operation of Design Panel Development Permit Application - The key to the Design Panel's function i s the development permit application system used by the City of Vancouver. Before a building permit may be granted by the Department of Permits and Licences for any project, a development permit must f i r s t - 112 -be obta ined on the approva l of the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board as p r o v i d e d by S e c t i o n 3(7) of the Zoning and Development B y - l a w . Development permit a p p l i c a t i o n s o ther than those of a ve ry minor na ture must be accompanied by s tandard drawings suchaas p l a n s , e l e v a t i o n s , s i t e development p l a n i n c l u d i n g landscape proposa l s and i n some cases where l a r g e or complex proposa l s are i n v o l v e d , a s imple model o r p e r s p e c t i v e drawing i s r e q u i r e d . A l l drawings must be submit ted i n t r i p l i c a t e , two se t s of which become the permanent p roper ty of the C i t y . 7 F u n c t i o n - For the purposes of t h i s s e c t i o n , the f u n c t i o n of the Des ign P a n e l i s s t a t e d i n the appropooate s e c t i o n s of the Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575, v i z . to cons ider and adv i se the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board on matters of " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " and " p u b l i c amenity" i n c o n s i d e r i n g development permit a p p l i c a t i o n s . As w i l l be i l l u s t r a t e d i n a subsequent s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these two terms has p rov ided the b a s i s f o r some c o n f l i c t i n the P a n e l ' s o p e r a t i o n . Terms o f Reference - W i t h i n the p r o v i s i o n s of Sec t ions 3(10)(a) of the Zoning and> Development By-law which r e f e r to mat ters of " a r c h i t e c -t u r a l d e s i g n " , and S e c t i o n 3(12)(b) which r e f e r to " p u b l i c ameni ty " , the P a n e l has u n t i l r e c e n t l y reviewed o n l y the micro-development aspects of a s i t e i n terms of i t s des ign m e r i t s i n the a e s t h e t i c or " a b s t r a c t " sense, i . e . , such matters as b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s and the arrangement of - 113 -des ign elements i n g e n e r a l such as roo f p r o f i l e , b a l c o n i e s , r a i l i n g s , 8 s i t i n g , l andscap ing a m e n i t i e s , e t c . New proposa l s are a l s o cons idered i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e x i s t i n g development: The P a n e l ' s concern i s not o n l y w i t h the appearance of the p r o p o s a l , but maybe more so w i t h whether or not the p r o p o s a l i s of b e n e f i t to surrounding development and avoids v i s u a l c l a s h e s . 9 Although the P a n e l has r e c e n t l y recommended the r e f u s a l o f c e r t a i n submiss ions on the d u a l grounds of poor des ign and u n s u i t a b i l i t y of u s e , 1 0 the c o r p o r a t i o n councel has f o r m a l l y advi sed the P a n e l through the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g that i t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n as f a r as use or l o c a t i o n are concerned, " [and t h a t ] . . . t h e i r s o l e f u n c t i o n i s to adv i se on ' a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n ' o n l y . " 1 1 When the Pane l was f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1957, o n l y apartment b u i l d i n g s w i t h p a r k i n g garage entrances f r o n t i n g a s t r e e t were rev iewed . As a r e s u l t of a new T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board r e s o l u t i o n i n 1958, a l l 13 p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s and apartments came be fore the P a n e l . By 1969, a wide v a r i e t y of b u i l d i n g s was be ing rev iewed . A P l a n n i n g Department memorandum i n A p r i l 1969 showed a breakdown of the c a t e g o r i e s of b u i l d -ings which a u t o m a t i c a l l y became mandatory items f o r r e v i e w : Ca) a l l p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g government b u i l d i n g s , s c h o o l s , h o s p i t a l s , p u b l i c hous ing and community c e n t e r s ; (b) s e m i - p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s i n c l u d i n g churches , p r i v a t e s c h o o l s , f r a t e r n a l l odges , e t c . ; - 114 -(c) a l l b u i l d i n g s o c c u r r i n g i n CD-I (comprehensive development) zones ; (d) a l l b u i l d i n g s r e l a t e d to zoning a p p l i c a t i o n s ; (e) a l l b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d on des ignated "amenity s t r e e t s " , i . e . B u r r a r d and Georg ia A v e . ; 14 ( f ) a l l g a s o l i n e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s ; (g) a l l commercial and i n d u s t r i a l developments i n urban renewal a r e a s ( M a r c h 25, 1969) ; and (h) major commercial p r o p e r t i e s and o f f i c e towers above three s t o r e y s . Today the P a n e l reviews a l l b u i l d i n g s which do not conform to " o u t r i g h t uses" w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s i duplexes and i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s . " ' ' 7 S e v e r a l extremely important c l a s s e s of development remain t o t a l l y u l t r a v i r e s of Des ign P a n e l j u r i s d i c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s of how s e r i o u s l y they may a f f e c t p u b l i c amenity or environmenta l c o n d i t i o n s . S ince Development Permit A p p l i c a t i o n s are not r e q u i r e d by works undertaken by e i t h e r F e d e r a l or P r o v i n c i a l Departments, they are not mandatory items f o r des ign rev iew and the P a n e l does not become i n v o l v e d unles s e x p r e s s l y 18 i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e . Two c u r r e n t examples of these development p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e the 50- s torey B r i t i s h Columbia B u i l d i n g (B lock 6 1 ) , scheduled f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n i n a downtown l o c a t i o n t h i s y e a r , and the N a t i o n a l Harbours Board f inanced f i l l p r o j e c t f o r B u r r a r d I n l e t . A - 115 -second c l a s s of important development c o n s i s t s of those w h i c h , by v i r t u e of t h e i r s i z e , l o c a t i o n , c o m p l e x i t y , or p o l i t i c a l or f i n a n c i a l r a m i f i c a -t i o n s , are deemed by C o u n c i l to warrant s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n by the e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the C i t y . I n these "ad h o c " c i r cumstances , b i - l a t e r a l agreements are u s u a l l y e f f e c t e d by c o n t r a c t d i r e c t l y between the developer and C i t y C o u n c i l . In subsequent meetings C o u n c i l , on adv ice from the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , d i r e c t l y reviews a l l p r o j e c t s tandards i n c l u d i n g use , d e n s i t y f a c t o r s , f l o o r space r a t i o s , amenity p r o v i s i o n s , and a r c h i -19 t e c t u r a l d e s i g n . Two major examples of developments i n t h i s category i n c l u d e the Four Seasons P r o j e c t and the P a c i f i c C e n t e r , both of which have been the sub jec t of much c r i t i c i s m and l o c a l debate . A t h i r d c l a s s of development which i s not reviewed by the P a n e l c o n s i s t s of those which do not i n v o l v e a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y designed s t r u c t u r e s , such as v i a -d u c t s , b r i d g e s or o ther engineered d e s i g n s , b u t which n e v e r t h e l e s s may have a profound e f f e c t on bo th the v i s u a l and environmenta l q u a l i t y of a c i t y . The new Georg ia V i a d u c t , completed i n 1972, i s an example of 20 development o c c u r r i n g i n t h i s c a tegory . Composi t ion - The C i v i c Des ign P a n e l i s p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d by the f o l l o w i n g members: a) A chairman who i s a s e n i o r member of the P l a n n i n g Department and t r a i n e d i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . He serves i n p l ace of the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g . I n a d d i t i o n to the d u t i e s he i s r e q u i r e d to perform and which are o u t l i n e d i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n , he i s s p e c i f i c a l l y o b l i g a t e d - 116 -to (a) determine the date and time of the meeting; (b) ensure that an agenda is forwarded with notice well in advance of meetings; and (c) ensure that a l l relevant material is placed before the Panel to permit accurate review proceedings to take place. His status is ex-officio, but he has the power to vote only i n the event of breaking a tie vote. b) The City Building Inspector who advises on matters related to City Building Regulations. c) Three practising architects nominated by the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (A.I.B.C.), and formally appointed by City Council. They serve for a period of two years. d) One structural engineer nominated by the Institute of Professional Engineers, and also formally appointed by Council. He also serves for a period of two years. The secretary is a f u l l time membersof the Planning Department and also trained in architecture. Since he is not an o f f i c i a l member of the Panel, he possesses no voting rights. His duties are outlined in a succeeding section. Three alternate architect members and one alternate engineer are also appointed on a two year basis. Their terms are staggered with those of the permanent members, thus assuring a good system of continuity. These "alternates" also serve as replacements to the regular members i f 21 a quorum is required during regular meetings. Additional advice is - 117 -o f t e n requested from v a r i o u s s e n i o r department members when items of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t are i n c l u d e d i n the agenda, such as a p p l i c a t i o n s r e l a t e d to proposed development i n the H i s t o r i c area of s p e c i a l hous ing p r o j e c t s . A l l r e g u l a r and a l t e r n a t e members serve w i t h o u t remunera t ion . Powers - Because the P a n e l was not e s t a b l i s h e d d i r e c t l y under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Vancouver C h a r t e r , i t t e c h n i c a l l y has no l e g a l s t a t u s or powers o ther than to make recommendations to the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board on matters of " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of Development P e r m i t s . The recommendations may be adopted or merely r e c e i v e d by the T . P . B . A l though i t s powers are p u r e l y a d v i s o r y , o n l y three or f o u r i n s t a n c e s have occurred up to 1969 where P a n e l d e c i s i o n s have been o v e r r u l e d b y e e i t h e r the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board or C i t y 22 C o u n c i l . Procedures The volume of Development Permit A p p l i c a t i o n s which are reviewed by the C i t y makes i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r the P a n e l to examine a l l d e s i g n s . At present approximate ly 50 per cent of a l l development r e c e i v e s s p e c i -23 f i c des ign s c r u t i n y . The remaining 50 per cent are " o u t r i g h t u s e s " , and depend on the p e r c e p t i o n of the t e c h n i c i a n s i n the Department of Permit s and L i c e n c e s to determine whether a des ign i s acceptab le or n o t . I n such cases a d o u b t f u l de s ign i s r e f e r r e d to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g to dec ide whether a development permit should be approved. A l l - 118 -applications which are considered "non-conforming uses" or which are automatically mandatory items for Panel review such as public and semi-public buildings, CD-I zoned development, rezoning applications, etc., are forwarded to the Special Projects Division. The f u l l l i s t of mand-atory items i s outlined in a subsequent section. The Department of Permits and Licenses also processes a l l applications with respect to basic development requirements and zoning by-law regulations, parking and loading f a c i l t i e s , street access, etc. When the appropriate designs have been forwarded to the Special Projects Division, an arbi-trary system of screening i s used by the Panel Chairman and Secretary 25 as part of their regular duties. to decide which of the designs may be sufficiently doubtful or of poor quality to merit Design Panel review. Of a l l applications screened, perhaps only 10 per cent are usually considered of sufficiently doubtful quality to merit Panel adjudication. During the screening process, several options are available to the Chairman and Secretary: (a) the design may be approved outright, (b) the design may be deferred for Panel adjudication, (c) further information may be requested from the applicant or his architect before a decision is made, and (d) i n marginal cases the design may be referred to the Development Sub-Committee of the Technical Planning Board who in turn decide whether i t should be referred to the Design Panel. - 119 -The Sub-Committee regularly meets every Wednesday, one day prior to the Design Panel meetings so that applications processed and deferred to the Panel can s t i l l be reviewed .the next day. The timing of these meetings was established by the Technical Planning Board to avoid 27 unnecessary delay to the applicant. The Secretary inspects a l l sites prior to every Panel meeting and takes special notice of the surrounding development, site conditions and general character of the area. Where unique site conditions exist, 28 photographs are taken. In cases where the proposal can be overlooked either by residents on a slope or high-rise apartment, the fact i s noted and duly reported to the Panel. Several days in advance of the 29 next regularly scheduled meeting, the Secretary notifies each member of the respective agenda by mail, and also polls each member regarding his attendence i n order to ensure a quorum and to advise theCChairman 30 accordingly. During the meeting, the Secretary presents each item to the Panel with the appropriate remarks under the direction of the Chairman. The Secretary i s also required to record the o f f i c i a l minutes of each meeting including the Panel's recommendations regarding each application reviewed. The minutes are then prepared and formalized the following morning for submission to the Technical Planning Board. Where designs have been approved, no attempt is made to notify the applicants as the Development Permits are issued automatically by the Department of Permits and Licences. Where recommendations are made that a design is not to be approved, the Secretary i s required to - 120 -n o t i f y the a p p l i c a n t , o u t l i n i n g the reasons f o r the P a n e l ' s d e c i s i o n . 31 T h i s i s o f t e n done s imply by te lephone . I n a s se s s ing the m e r i t s of each des ign a p p l i c a t i o n , s e v e r a l b a s i c op t ions are a v a i l a b l e to the P a n e l through the process of a m a j o r i t y v o t e . These a r e : 1. Where the des ign i s cons idered a c c e p t a b l e , the P a n e l may recommend t h a t i t be approved. Where submitted des igns are cons idered e x c e p t i o n a l l y good, the P a n e l ma inta ins a p o l i c y of . commending the a r c h i t e c t i n i t s recommendations to the T . P * B . 2 . That the de s ign be approved, sub j ec t to minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s which are s a t i s f a c t o r y to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g . These m o d i f i c a t i o n s are u s u a l l y r e l a t e d to b u i l d i n g f i n i s h e s , use of m a t e r i a l s or minor des ign elements . For example, i n one such recommendation the P a n e l comments to the T5P .B . r e a d : The de s ign of t h i s s m a l l post o f f i c e a d d i t i o n was cons idered a c c e p t a b l e . The P a n e l quest ioned the change i n e x t e r i o r f i n i s h at the r e a r e l e v a t i o n and suggested t h a t t h i s be b r i c k as shown on the o ther e l e v a t i o n s . 3 ^ 3. That the de s ign be r e c e i v e d as a progress r e p o r t o n l y , pending r e c e i p t of f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , c l a r i f i c a t i o n of d e s i g n d e t a i l i n g , or m o d i f i c a t i o n of a major n a t u r e . I n one, example the P a n e l made the f o l l o w i n g comment on a de s ign submiss ion f o r a h o t e l a d d i t i o n : T h i s de s ign was s e v e r e l y c r i t i c i z e d f o r the des ign of the f r o n t facade which showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the e x i s t i n g facade of the Devonshire H o t e l . The P a n e l f i n d s the des ign as presented unaccept---ab le and wishes to see not o n l y improvements to i t but a p e r s p e c t i v e drawing showing the a d d i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the e x i s t i n g facade - 121 -along Hornby Street. 4. Where i t is f e l t that a major development requires special consideration due to i t s complexity and impact on existing conditions, the design may be referred to a special meeting of the Panel, Director of Planning, the applicant and his architect, and other persons involved in the design process. 5. Where a design is considered totally unacceptable, the Panel may recommend that the design be refused. The basis for refusal i s usually associated with badly conceived design concepts or architec-tural detailing: Apartment and Commercial Development - The Panel was most unhappy with this concept, which consisted of a mirror image of an exist-ing building directly across the street and which created a "narrow slot' effect looking west along Davie Street. The Panel considers i t aapoor design and c r i t i c i z e s the inadequate handling of detailed design at street level, including the clumsy horizontal sign board extending towards the existing Safeway supermarket.34 In cases where a design has been submitted on several occasions without adequately satisfying the requirements of the Panel, the archi-tect may be requested to attend the next regularly scheduled meeting to verbally present his design concept with any additional explanations he 35 may feel are necessary. Occasionally i f this i s accomplished to the Panel's satisfaction, approval may result. However, more often the architect w i l l agree to the Panel's recommendations and w i l l make the appropriate changes necessary for approval. The Panel w i l l then recom-mend in i t s report to the Technical Planning Board to approve the - 122 -d e s i g n , sub j ec t to the a p p r o p r i a t e ' c o n d i t i o n s , " t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g " . No subsequent submiss ions would then be r e q u i r e d f o r P a n e l r e v i e w . These changes are o f t e n b a s i c a l l y q u a n t i t a -t i v e i n n a t u r e , i . e . a r e d u c t i o n i n the h e i g h t of e l e v a t e d p l a z a s , e t c . As a matter of p o l i c y , the P a n e l w i l l not undertake to p r o v i d e de s ign s o l u t i o n s per se f o r the a r c h i t e c t , "as t h i s would c o n s i t u t e a f r e e A • . ., 36 des ign s e r v i c e . Summary The Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1957 by s p e c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n to h e l p a d m i n i s t e r c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s of the C i t y ' s Zoning, and Development By-law which are based on broad a e s t h e t i c and environmenta l o b j e c t i v e s . The P a n e l f u n c t i o n s as an a d v i s o r y body to the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board to adv i se on matters r e l a t e d to " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " and " p u b l i c amenity" i n the approva l of development p e r m i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s . The P a n e l i s composed of a Chairman and the C i t y B u i l d i n g Inspec tor who are both members of the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , three p r a c t i s i n g a r c h i t e c t s nominated by the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , and a p r a c t i s i n g s t r u c t u r a l engineer nominated by the I n s t i t u t e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Eng ineer s . I n a d d i t i o n , three a l t e r n a t e a r c h i t e c t members and one a l t e r n a t e engineer member are a l s o nominated to serve on a two year b a s i s as replacements to the r e g u l a r members i f a quorum i s r e q u i r e d . A l l members are - 123 -o f f i c i a l l y appointed by City Council. The Secretary i s a regular member of the Planning Department who screens the majority of design applications before presenting those items of sufficiently doubtful merit to the Panel for review. He also presents a l l submissions to the Panel with any additional information under, the direction of the Chairman. He i s not a voting member. Although the Panel's role is only advisory, very few of i t s recommendations have been reversed by the Technical Planning Board or City Council since i t was established. - 124 -FOOTNOTES D . S . M . Huberman, Uni form Law Course f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l Account ing Bodies (1965), ' pp. 1-16. o P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia , The Vancouver C h a r t e r , R . S . B . C . 1921, Chapter 55 ( V i c t o r i a , The Queen's P r i n t e r , pp. 81-84) . 3 C i t y of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia , Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575 (1969), p . 1. 4 I b i d . , p . 6 . 5 I b i d . ^ I b i d . , p . 9 . 7 I n the Des ign P a n e l ' s S e c r e t a r y ' s v i e w , one good aspect of the present system of f u n c t i o n i n g i s t h a t the P a n e l i s r e q u i r e d to rev iew a p p l i c a -t i o n s f o r Development Permi t s be fore the i s suance of the B u i l d i n g Permit because changes to designs can e a s i l y be made. At t h i s stage o n l y sketches a r e . u s u a l l y produced, r a t h e r than working drawings and es t imates f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s . 8 Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , February 20, 1970. 9 L e t t e r from the P a n e l Chairman to M r . I . Simmons, A s s i s t a n t to the P l a n n i n g D i r e c t o r , Richmond P l a n n i n g Department, August 17, 1971. " ^ T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board M i n u t e s , February 20, 1970. I b i d . A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , N e w s l e t t e r , January 1972. T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , "Proposed R e v i s i o n s to Apartment Z o n i n g : C i t y of Vanc o uv e r " , ( 1965 ) . - 125 -14 C i t y P l a n n i n g Department Memorandum, A p r i l 28, 1969. 1 5 I b i d . , March 25 , 1969. I b i d . , December 8, 1969. " ^ N e w s l e t t e r , p . 3 . 18 P a n e l M i n u t e s , January 23 , 1967. 19 I n t e r v i e w w i t h P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . 20 I n f a c t the P a n e l d i d rev iew t h i s p r o j e c t , but o n l y a f t e r c i v i c o f f i c i a l s had met t h e i r demands. 21 L e t t e r to M r . F . Simmons, op. c i t . 22 W. Woodward, "Des ign U n i t Rules of Q u a l i t y of Vancouver , B . C . , B u i l d i n g s " , S e a t t l e Times, September 1, 1968. 23 A development which conforms to a l l aspects of a p a r t i c u l a r zoning a r e a . 24 A development which i n some way i s not cons idered a p e r m i t t e d use i n any p a r t i c u l a r zoning a r e a . 25 I n f a c t the m a j o r i t y of the des igns are screened by the Secre ta ry who es t imates tha t d u r i n g the year 1970 approx imate ly 350 des igns were screened. 26 L e t t e r to M r . F . Simmons, op_. c i t . 27 I n t e r v i e w w i t h the P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . I b i d . 29 The Des ign P a n e l meets every second Thursday i n the Board Room of the C i t y H a l l ' s East Wing Annex at 4:00 p.m. The meetings n o r m a l l y l a s t from one to two h o u r s . - 126 -30, A quorum c o n s i s t s of a Chairman p l u s three v o t i n g members. 31 I n t e r v i e w w i t h P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . 32 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , September 23 , 1971.. 33 Des ign Pane l M i n u t e s , November 25 , 1971. 34 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , August 19, 1971. 35 In some cases , a r c h i t e c t s may be requested to a t t end r e g u l a r Pane l meetings to present u n u s u a l l y complex de s ign p r o j e c t s , and to a l s o cons ider any, ques t ions by the Pane l members. Th i s occurred i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the new P r o v i n c i a l Courthouse on October 22, 1970. 36 I n t e r v i e w w i t h the P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . - 1 2 7 - 1 CHAPTER V I AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONFLICTS EXISTING WITHIN THE CIVIC DESIGN PANEL The concern and purpose of the p r o f e s s i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e i s the c r e a t i o n o f a p h y s i c a l environment of use , o rder and beauty throughothe resources of d e s i g n , economics, technology and management. The p h y s i c a l environment i n c l u d e s a spectrum of elements s e r v i n g man, from the a r t i f a c t and the b u i l d i n g to the community and the r e g i o n . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n s S ince the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1957, i t has not always f u n c t i o n e d w i t h o u t some d i f f i c u l t i e s r e l a t e d to minor o p e r a t i o n a l m a t t e r s . However, s i n c e the l a t e 1960 ' s , s e r i o u s doubts began to be expressed w i t h i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r o f e s s i o n i n the c i t y r e g a r d i n g i t s 2 proper f u n c t i o n as w e l l . A new r o l e , based on broader and more compre-hens ive a r c h i t e c t u r a l and p l a n n i n g c r i t e r i a was be ing advocated by P a n e l members and the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia i n order to make the P a n e l a more e f f e c t i v e t o o l i n shaping the envi ronmenta l goals of the C i t y . Chapter V I i n c l u d e s the i n t r o d u c t i o n , method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and the r e s u l t s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the main areas of c o n f l i c t o c c u r r i n g between the P a n e l members and the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia Des ign P a n e l Committee on the one hand and the c i t y - 128 -a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on the o t h e r . A l s o i n c l u d e d i s a summary of the r e s u l t s as w e l l as some c o n c l u s i o n s reached as a r e s u l t of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d . Method of I n v e s t i g a t i o n - P a r t I I n a n a l y z i n g the nature of the c o n f l i c t s and problems r e l a t e d to Des ign P a n e l o p e r a t i o n s , the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s . P a r t I c o n s i s t s of a rev iew of a l l e x i s t i n g documents r e l a t e d to P a n e l o p e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g the o f f i c i a l Pane l minute s , i n t e r d e p a r t -mental memoranda and correspondence which became a v a i l a b l e to the re searcher on a l i m i t e d b a s i s . In a d d i t i o n , some background i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d through p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h s e v e r a l persons d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to P a n e l o p e r a t i o n s . The major re search emphasis i n t h i s par t was p laced o n 1 i n f o r m a t i o n recorded o n l y d u r i n g the years 1968 to 1971 i n c l u s i v e f o r two b a s i c reasons : (a) l i m i t e d t ime and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l , and (b) the major d i f f i c u l t i e s concern ing the P a n e l ' s o p e r a t i o n and 4 e f f e c t i v e n e s s had o n l y a r i s e n s i n c e approx imate ly e a r l y 1968. I t was t h e r e f o r e deemed acceptab le to use t h i s p e r i o d as a v a l i d b a s i s of e v a l u a t i o n . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n P a r t I i s presented under the s i x b a s i c headings o u t l i n e d i n Chapter I of the t h e s i s . I n summary, these i n c l u d e the P a n e l ' s (a) f u n c t i o n , (b) terms of r e f e r e n c e , (c) composi-t i o n , (d) powers, (e) procedures , and ( f ) e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Because of - 129 -the interdependent na ture of these areas o f c o n f l i c t , a c e r t a i n degree of o v e r l a p was i m p o s s i b l e to a v o i d . The second p a r t of t h e i i n v e s t i g a -t i o n i s e x c l u s i v e l y r e l a t e d to p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s h e l d w i t h v a r i o u s persons d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h or a f f e c t e d by P a n e l d e c i s i o n s . The d e t a i l s of t h i s method w i l l be presented immediately p r i o r to P a r t I I of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . P a r t I I n f o r m a t i o n C o l l e c t e d From L i t e r a t u r e Re levant to Design P a n e l ' s Opera t ion F u n c t i o n - The pr imary sources of c o n f l i c t which has occurred between the Des ign P a n e l and the c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have centered about the P a n e l ' s i n s i s t e n c e on hav ing i t s f u n c t i o n r e d e f i n e d . One of the e a r l i e s t recorded statements i n t h i s regard was expressed i n a l e t t e r to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g by a P a n e l member a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the rev iew procedures of s e v e r a l major p r o j e c t s i n 1968: I t i s not my i n t e n t to i n f e r t h a t the P l a n n i n g Department somehow i s a t f a u l t i n the way . . . the p r o j e c t s were processed through the Des ign P a n e l but r a t h e r to q u e s t i o n whether we are c o l l e c t i v e l y f u n c t i o n i n g as w e l l as we s h o u l d . P r o j e c t s g e n e r a l l y are i n c r e a s -i n g i n s i z e , number and complex i ty - hence the P a n e l should rev iew i t s present terms of r e f e rence and method of o p e r a t i o n and rev iew them i f deemed neces sary .4 On March 26th and A p r i l . 2 n d , 1969, t h i s issueswas inc luded , on the o f f i c i a l agenda of the r e g u l a r l y scheduled P a n e l meet ings . I n a subsequent paper e n t i t l e d " A Reassessment of the Ro le of the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l " , i t was s t a t e d t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the P a n e l ' s - 130 -time was expended on the e v a l u a t i o n of " f i n i s h e s and f e n e s t r a t i o n " and tha t i t s b a s i c r o l e was one of " r e a c t i o n o n l y to p r o j e c t s a l r e a d y des igned" . " ' Th i s checking r o l e , i t was agreed, should remain a p a r t of the P a n e l ' s r o l e but should not be i t s on ly f u n c t i o n . I n p r e s e n t i n g h i s views on the matter to the s p e c i a l Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . ^ Bruno F r e s c h i w r o t e : Because the Des ign P a n e l has had to face c e r t a i n d ichotomies . . . i t s a n a c h r o n i s t i c r o l e has become s e l f ev ident . . . Our b a s i c c o n c l u s i o n i s m a i n l y to expand the P a n e l ' s f u n c t i o n to the environmenta l p o l i c y l e v e l . 8 In t h i s paper he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t was becoming " e x c e e d i n g l y c l e a r " tha t the s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s of the P l a n n i n g and Eng ineer ing Departments had not adequately grasped the e v o l u t i o n a r y changes which were o c c u r r i n g i n the urban d e s i g n - a r c h i t e c t u r a l f i e l d s and that t h i s a t t i t u d e was 9 a great c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to "the P a n e l ' s outdated r o l e . Inseparable from an expanded r o l e f o r the P a n e l was the need f o r a reassessment of the P l a n n i n g Department 's r o l e : . . . an a c c e l e r a t e d pace of c i v i c development i n Vancouver has i n d i c a t e d an urgent need f o r expanding the f u n c t i o n of the P a n e l as w e l l as a reassessment o f the P l a n n i n g Department 's present r o l e . . . There are b a s i c fundamentals of the c i t y development which are y e t to be e s t a b l i s h e d - fundamentals which developers and t h e i r c o n s u l t a n t s must have i f they are to f i t i n t o a l o g i c a l community f a b r i c . In l i e u of these c r i t e r i a the developer must o f t e n e s t a b l i s h h i s own terms of r e f e rence not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d to the i n t e r e s t s of the p u b l i c . 1 0 I n a subsequent statement to the Des ign P a n e l Committee which was formed i n 1969 i n an attempt to a r t i c u l a t e a new r o l e f o r the P a n e l , one P a n e l - 131 -member observed: In the absence of a master p l a n the environmenta l a d v i s o r y f u n c t i o n must r e l y (perhaps too h e a v i l y ) on g e n e r a l p o l i c i e s as r e f l e c t e d i n the zoning and b u i l d i n g by- laws and on case p r e c e -dent s . I t i s important to e l a b o r a t e the p r i n c i p l e tha t the more g e n e r a l i z e d and opendended the development p o l i c i e s of a m u n i c i p a l i t y or a c i t y are the broader and more comprehensive i s the r o l e of any Design P a n e l . H The q u e s t i o n of P l a n n i n g Department development p o l i c i e s i n c r e a s i n g l y became a more important f a c t o r i n an attempt to g i v e the P a n e l a more meaningful and comprehensive r o l e i n the process of c i v i c development. The P l a n n i n g Department should become the major i n i t i a t o r of b a s i c p l a n n i n g concept s , i t was f e l t by P a n e l members and the Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . , r a t h e r than per forming a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s which c o n s i s t e d e s s e n t i a l l y of a d m i n i s t e r i n g the p r o v i s i o n s of the Zoning and Development By- l aw. W i t h i n t h i s new framework, the P a n e l ' s new r o l e should be to a s s i s t the Department i n c e r t a i n c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g f u n c t i o n s and the f o r m u l a t i o n of de s ign p o l i c y and c r i t e r i a . In 1969 the P a n e l presented a b r i e f to C o u n c i l i n an attempt to have i t s powers of review extended to i n c l u d e b r i d g e s , freeways and i n f a c t thewwhole i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e of the c e n t r a l bus ines s d i s t r i c t i n order to a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y r e a l i z e t h i s new approach to environmenta l p l a n n i n g . A l though i t r e c e i v e d a " s y m p a t h e t i c " h e a r i n g , i t was suggested t h a t be fore any a c t i o n was t a k e n , a document be prepared o u t l i n i n g t h e i r views on environmenta l i s sue s and to what extent the P a n e l should p a r t i -12 c i p a t e i n governing developmental p o l i c i e s . - 132 -In e a r l y 1971 the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee i s s u e d a p o l i c y statement i n i t s Des ign P a n e l Report r e g a r d i n g the changing r o l e of the P a n e l : To g i v e i m p a r t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l adv ice d i r e c t l y at the a p p r o p r i -ate l e v e l and a t the a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e , on any p r o p o s a l or p o l i c y a f f e c t i n g the communit ies ' p h y s i c a l environment .13 In e l a b o r a t i n g on t h i s s ta tement , the Report f e l t tha t there had been an e v o l u t i o n a r y change i n the urban des ign and a r c h i t e c t u r a l d i s c i p l i n e s which made i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t f o r m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g , eng ineer ing and s o c i a l p l a n n i n g departments as p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d to p r o p e r l y c a r r y out t h e i r r o l e s . "There e x i s t s an apparent and s u b s t a n t i a l s h i f t towards a broader d e f i n i t i o n of the p h y s i c a l d e s i g n e r ' s r o l e i n shaping 14 envi ronmenta l c r i t e r i a . " I n the R e p o r t ' s v i e w , environmenta l des ign c r i t e r i a encompass by d e f i n i t i o n not o n l y appearance, mass, form and s t r e n g t h of any s i n g l e system, but most i m p o r t a n t l y the use , a c c e s s i b i l i t y and r e l a t i o n s h i p among interdependent systems. To be an e f f e c t i v e a d v i -sory group concerned w i t h the improvement of the C i t y ' s environment , the P a n e l ' s involvement should be c l o s e l y timed to the v a r i o u s stages of a l l development .- from the shaping of p o l i c y to the sa feguarding of i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t execution.' '"" ' Terms of Reference The c o n f l i c t s a r i s i n g from the P a n e l ' s d e s i r e f o r a g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t o r y r o l e i n the p h y s i c a l development of the c i t y i s l a r g e l y - 133 -associated with i t s termsodfrreference as stated in the Zoning and Development By-law, viz. , "to advise on architectural design", and development ". . . affecting public amenity". The differences in interpretation of the former term provides the basis for much of the conflict between the Panel on the one hand, and the city administration on the other: There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion as to what defines architectural design.16 No precise definition of the term "architectural design" seems to be available from any o f f i c i a l source. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the term "architecture" as the "art or science of building". In the architectural sense, the term "design" is defined as a "deline-ation of pattern". Webster further defines the term "design" as the arrangement of parts, form, color, etc., in a work of art". Using the lexicographers' definitions offthe two separate words which comprise this term i t would seem that the term should relate only to the archi-tectural process of the arrangement of a building's parts in the traditional aesthetic sense, namely the imposition of order by a conscious delineation of pattern. Essentially, this has been the traditional view of the city administration, as the following statement would seem to infer: The corporation councel [therefore] considered that the Design Panel had no jurisdiction as far as use or location are concerned. 17 Their sole function is to advise on architectural design. - 13A -In contrast, Panel members have increasingly objected to this narrow interpretation of the term and have insisted that i t consists of much more than merely the aesthetic arrangement of an individual building's parts. Members of the Panel have expressed dissatisfaction with this narrow role of enforcing the art of 'cosmetics' without question- ^ ing the more serious and c r i t i c a l attributes of civ i c development. In discussing this issue as an extra item to the agenda of a regular meeting on March 19, 1970, one member advised the Chairman that in the Panel's view the term "architectural design": . . . means more than dealing with the mass of a building; i t s shape, modulation and fenestration, but also includes itssuse, function, and the influence i t can exert on the environment. In shorti the amenity of the area the building w i l l s i t in . . . A building i s not a static thing; i t creates activity inland' outside which could be beneficial or detrimental to the amenity of an area in question.19 During the same meeting the Chairman was advised that the Design Panel Committee of the A.I.B.C. was at that time preparing a brief concerning the redefinition of the term "architectural design" for submission to 20 the City, and that representatives of the Technical Planning Board meet with the A.I.B.C. Committee to discuss the matter when the brief 21 had been completed. It was also suggested that the Panel "put i t s recommendation within the present legal jurisdiction and that i t be 2 free to comment on a wider basis in addition to such recommendations". By way of some contrast, many qualities can be projected into the meaning of the term "amenity". Webster defines the word as - 135 -" a t t r a c t i v e n e s s ; a t t r a c t i v e f ea tures of a p l a c e " . The Conci se Oxford D i c t i o n a r y prov ides a s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n , i . e . , "p leasantness of p l a c e s , persons , e t c . " . Indeed the almost u n l i m i t e d p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t h i s term have i n recent years p r o v i d e d the b a s i s f o r genera t ing P a n e l optimism i n f o r m u l a t i n g an expanded framework f o r i t s t r a d i t i o n a l terms of r e f e r e n c e . S ince 1968 the P a n e l has u n i l a t e r a l l y adopted a more comprehen-s i v e work ing frame of r e f e rence as i t s mandate, p r o g r e s s i v e l y r e l y i n g more and more on the term " p u b l i c amenity" to s u s t a i n the b a s i s of i t s recommendations. Dur ing the e a r l y phase of t h i s new approach, the P a n e l when making recommendation f o r r e f u s a l on grounds of " a f f e c t i n g p u b l i c amenity" sometimes d i d so on the d u a l grounds of a e s t h e t i c and f u n c t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . For example i n i t s recommendation to the T . P . B . r e g a r d i n g a Development Permi t A p p l i c a t i o n f o r a car wash and s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n February 1970, the P a n e l commented: Thi s a p p l i c a t i o n was cons idered to be unacceptable on two p o i n t s . 1) The use , 2) The d e s i g n . The P a n e l f e e l s tha t the proposed use i n t h i s form was not s u i t e d to a corner l o c a t i o n on Robson S t r e e t . I t was suggested t h a t a development c o n t a i n i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e , shops on the s t r e e t s i d e w i t h a carwash l o c a t e d b e h i n d , or a more i n t e n s e form of deve lop-ment such as an apartment tower w i t h a car washing f a c i l i t y i n the basement would be p r e f e r a b l e . The P a n e l s t r o n g l y c r i t i c i z e d the number of c r o s s i n g s which l e f t ve ry l i t t l e a c t u a l s i d e w a l k . I t i s f e l t t h a t the des ign i s g a r i s h and a l s o not s u i t e d to the l o c a t i o n . Recommendation - That the T . P . B . re fuse t h i s des ign on the grounds t h a t , i f executed the b u i l d i n g w i l l adver se ly a f f e c t p u b l i c amenity . - 136 -I n A p r i l and l a t e r i n November of 1970, the P a n e l made recommendation f o r r e f u s a l based s o l e l y on f u n c t i o n a l and l a n d use f a c t o r s . The P a n e l ' s comments to the T . P . B . concerning the A p r i l submiss ion r e a d : G a s o l i n e S e r v i c e S t a t i o n The P a n e l d i sagreed w i t h the present use of the s i t e at the i n t e r s e c t i o n of Robson and Denman S t r e e t s . I t wished to see a people o r i e n t e d use i n s t e a d of the automobile use tha t i s there at present and was proposed i n t h i s s s u b m i s s i o n . Apar t from the fo rego ing the P a n e l f e e l s tha t the de s ign i s not s u i t e d to the l o c a t i o n . Recommendation - That the T . P . B . re fuse t h i s des ign on the grounds ^ tha t i f executed the b u i l d i n g w i l l a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t p u b l i c amenity . In r e f u s i n g the November 12th,example , the P a n e l s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d i n i t s comments that i t was not c r i t i c a l of the e x t e r n a l appearance of the de s ign r e v i e w e d , but c r i t i c i z e d " the absence of r e t a i l space at s idewalk l e v e l . . . and quest ioned the v e h i c u l a r access i n t o the b u i l d i n g . " 2 " ' I n a s s i s t i n g to formula te a new work ing d e f i n i t i o n f o r the term " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " , Bruno F r e s c h i wrote to the P a n e l Committee i n November 1970 tha t there was a growing s h i f t by environmenta l des igners towards a broader d e f i n i t i o n of the p h y s i c a l d e s i g n e r ' s r o l e i n shaping environmenta l c r i t e r i a . Current l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i c i s m i n the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r e i s i i n c r e a s i n g l y comprehensive i n o u t l o o k , a broadening out from i t s former narrow a e s t h e t i c u t i l i t a r i a n base to encompass the 2 g f u l l range of aspects a f f e c t i n g i n t o t a l the community environment . The c o n t r i b u t i o n of theDDesign P a n e l i t was f e l t c o u l d be g r e a t l y expanded by r e c o g n i z i n g the broad meaning of therterms "environment" and - 137 -" a m e n i t y " , and by extending the P a n e l ' s terms of re fe rence to a l l o w i t to serve i t s most e f f e c t i v e r o l e . I n h i s sugges t ion f o r the term " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " , M r . F r e s c h i proposed the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n : Conscious des ign by p r o f e s s i o n a l s of the p h y s i c a l components of the c i t y and or the spaces and b u i l d i n g s which comprise i t s p h y s i c a l systems. Th i s i n c l u d e s a l l the p h y s i c a l systems from t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , e n c l o s u r e , open space , r e l a t e d a r t i f a c t s and " the i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n use , mass, appearance, w i t h some t o t a l master p l a n , framework, p o l i c y or a t t i t u d e . Environmenta l de s ign c r i t e r i a encompass by d e f i n i t i o n not o n l y appearance, mass, form and s t r e n g t h of de s ign of any s i n g l e system, but most impor-t a n t l y the use , a c c e s s i b i l i t y and r e l a t i o n among interdependent s y s t e m s . 2 7 Composi t ion The growing emphasis on the whole q u e s t i o n of env i ronmenta l q u a l i t y as be ing a v a l i d b a s i s of Des ign P a n e l concern a l s o r a i s e d the i s s u e of i n c r e a s i n g the P a n e l ' s membership i n terms of exper ience and e x p e r t i s e . Th i s p o s s i b i l i t y had e x i s t e d s i n c e a t l e a s t 1969 when the P a n e l agreed at a s p e c i a l meeting on January 23rd t h a t the P a n e l as then c o n s t i t u t e d was adequate except f o r the need of a landscape a r c h i -28 t e c t . The scope of the P a n e l , i t was s t a t e d , would i n t h i s way be expanded. On February 5 , 1969, the D i r e c t o r suggested t h a t f u r t h e r study i n t o the matter be conducted by the Chairman and S e c r e t a r y . A f t e r s e v e r a l p r i v a t e d i s c u s s i o n s r e l a t e d to P a n e l opera t ions the members once aga in r a i s e d the i s s u e of expanded P a n e l membership i n a b r i e f presented to the D i r e c t o r on A p r i l 24, 1969. T h i s t i m e , however, the b r i e f - 138 -s p e c i f i c a l l y requested tha t membership be broadened to i n c l u d e "urban des igners and/or environmenta l s p e c i a l i s t s , landscape a r c h i t e c t s and 29 s o c i a l p l a n n e r s " . T h i s wide cross s e c t i o n o f e x p e r t i s e , i t was f e l t , would be of great a s s i s t a n c e i i n e s t a b l i s h i n g de s ign c r i t e r i a f o r three separate stages of P a n e l invo lvement , i n c l u d i n g the p r e - c o n c e p t , concept and des ign p r o j e c t s t ages . W r i t i n g to the Design P a n e l Committee i n November 1969, one P a n e l member s t a t e d : Environmenta l des ign f u n c t i o n s are by nature i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y and m u n i c i p a l and c i v i c a u t h o r i t i e s are not always aware of the need f o r t h i s k i n d of d i a l o g u e w i t h i n the P a n e l i t s e l f . 3 0 This v iew was l a t e r i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . ' s Design P a n e l Report i n 1971 which f u r t h e r s t a t e d : I t i s s t r o n g l y recommended t h a t a Des ign P a n e l be ab le to request the adv ice of o ther d i s c i p l i n e s f o r s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s when necessary . The expanded group should i n c l u d e as members the r e l e v a n t d i s c i p l i n e s who c o u l d then c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i r own area of concern w i t h i n the p r o j e c t s w h i l e they are under s c r u t i n y . 3 1 Powers An examinat ion of the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s no d i r e c t re ference by P a n e l members to cons ider a change i n the P a n e l ' s s t a t u s . However, the 1971 Des ign P a n e l Report e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s tha t the P a n e l should have the r i g h t to present i t s case d i r e c t l y to the " u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n making b o d y " , v i z . C i t y C o u n c i l . In the Committee's v i e w , t h i s d i r e c t l i n e of communication w i t h the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n making - 139 -body would have a d e f i n i t e advantage over the a l t e r n a t i v e of g i v i n g the P a n e l l e g a l s t a tu s through the a p p r o p r i a t e r e v i s i o n s to the Vancouver C h a r t e r . The l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e , s t a t e s the Repor t , " c o u l d w e l l p l a c e 32 r e s t r i c t i o n s on freedom of comment by the Panel' . ' On t h i s g e n e r a l t o p i c . t h e p e r s o n a l views of the Des ign P a n e l Committee Chairman are worth n o t i n g and i n many ways r e f l e c t the o p i n i o n of P r o f e s s o r F i e l d e n of the Roya l F i n e A r t s Commission quoted e a r l i e r i n the t h e s i s : I t can be cons idered t h a t there are two school s of thought about the 'power' of Des ign Panels . ' There are always those who want to be l e g i s l a t e d i n t o power and p o s i t i o n as a ' d i v i n e r i g h t ' . There are o thers who f e e l t h a t the s i t u a t i o n i s an ' e a r n i n g ' one where the re spec t and support of C o u n c i l and c i t i z e n s i s b u i l t up from ded ica ted s e r v i c e and wi se judgements. F o l l o w i n g l engthy c o n s i d e r -a t i o n , and w i t h an e x p r e s s i o n of l e g a l o p i n i o n , the A . I . B . C . Committee concluded t h a t no de s ign pane l should be g i v e n l e g a l s t a t u s . The a d v i s o r y p o s i t i o n which prov ides the safeguards of q u e s t i o n i n g or even o v e r r u l e i s thought to be the h e a l t h i e r p o s i t i o n . Procedures P a n e l P a r t i c i p a t i o n s - One of the most s e r i o u s problems r e l a t e d to p r o c e d u r a l matters i n the P a n e l ' s v iew i s t h a t major development p r o j e c t s are presented f o r de s ign rev iew o n l y a f t e r a l l major d e c i s i o n s have been made through d i r e c t n e g o t i a t i o n between the developer and e i t h e r C o u n c i l or the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board . By t h i s t ime these 34 p r e s e n t a t i o n s are i n f a c t " f a i t a c c o m p l i " . An e a r l y acknowledgement of t h i s problem on b e h a l f of the c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n occurred i n e a r l y January 1969 i n a l e t t e r to one prominent c i t y a r c h i t e c t - p l a n n e r who - 140 -had r e c e n t l y a s s i s t e d i n the review of a major development p r o p o s a l : From d i s c u s s i o n s tha t took p l a c e d u r i n g the meet ing , you w i l l be aware that we are p r e s e n t l y re-examining the p r e c i s e f u n c t i o n of the P a n e l and w i l l s h o r t l y be hav ing meetings i n t h i s r e s p e c t . A major c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be t h a t of b r i n g i n g developments of t h i s magnitude and consequence be fore the Des ign P a n e l a t the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e stage i n the f u t u r e i n order tha t the de s ign p r o f e s s i o n s i n v o l v e d can more adequately adv i se the C i t y on the approach to be t a k e n . 3 5 A f t e r t h i s problem was d i s cus sed at s e v e r a l r e g u l a r l y scheduled meet ings , a b r i e f was presented to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g on A p r i l 2 4 t h , 1969. I n e f f e c t the b r i e f p o i n t e d out tha t i n view of the great numbers of l a r g e s c a l e developments which would be o c c u r r i n g i n the f u t u r e , i t was necessary t h a t the P a n e l i n some way p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d i r e c t i o n of these designs a t a much e a r l i e r s t age . Three b a s i c stages o f P a n e l p a r t i c i p a t i o n were suggested: a) the pre-concept s t age , b) the concept s t age , and c) the a c t u a l p r o j e c t d e s i g n . By adopt ing t h i s system the b r i e f s t a t e d , " t h e [Panel] c o u l d be of great use to the P l a n n i n g Depar t -36 ment by p r o v i d i n g a p r o f e s s i o n a l ' i n d e p t h ' a n a l y s i s and c r i t i q u e " . I n response to t h i s p r o p o s a l the D i r e c t o r suggested as a p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n tha t the pre-concept stages cou ld be d i s cus sed w i t h the Long 37 Range D i v i s i o n of the P l a n n i n g Department, the concept stages be 38 s t u d i e d w i t h the Town P l a n n i n g Commission, and the u l t i m a t e des ign be d e a l t w i t h i n the u s u a l " c r i t i q u e manner". Wi th one e x c e p t i o n , t h i s 39 approach to e a r l i e r P a n e l involvement was never f u l l y implemented. Very l i t t l e e f f o r t was made to a m e l i o r a t e t h i s problem f o r - 141 -almost two y e a r s . F i n a l l y , on March 24, 1971, i n a memorandum to the Des ign P a n e l Chairman, the Secre ta ry s t a t e d t h a t i t was " q u i t e o b v i o u s " t h a t d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n s between developers and t h e s s e n i b r department heads, "concess ions were be ing made by the Department to these developers tha t might and o f t e n do c o n t r a d i c t recommendations from the Des ign P a n e l " . I n h i s v i e w , there were two a l t e r n a t i v e s open to the P a n e l : a) The Des ign P a n e l i n such cases be not c o n s u l t e d at a l l , or b) The P a n e l become i n v o l v e d at the e a r l y s o - c a l l e d ' c o n f i d e n t i a l ' s tage - as the P a n e l has r e p e a t e d l y requested and [to] f o l l o w the scheme through a l l i t s s tages .40 In a memorandum to a l l department heads on A p r i l 1, 1971, e n t i t l e d "Development Proposa l s - Submiss ion to Des ign P a n e l " , the D i r e c t o r expressed the view tha t wherever p o s s i b l e , development proposa l s should be reviewed by the P a n e l be fore des ign d e c i s i o n s were taken by the Department or the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , w i t h the f o l l o w i n g e x c e p t i o n s : . . . where the rev iew d i s c l o s e s s u b s t a n t i a l non-compliance r e q u i r i n g complete re submis s ion or r e d e s i g n f o r reasons of d e n s i t y , h e i g h t , s e tback , p a r k i n g , l o a d i n g , s t r e e t acces s , e t c . Such except ions would be r e n e g o t i a t e d f o r compliance p r i o r to submiss ion to the P a n e l , but such n e g o t i a t i o n s would exclude matters of a r c h i t e c t u r a l de s ign wherever p o s s i b l e , and the re submis s ion would be r e c e i v e d and submit ted f o r P a n e l c o n s i d e r -a t i o n at the f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y . ^ 1 T h i s appeared to be an a p p r o p r i a t e l y p r o g r e s s i v e s tep to accommodate P a n e l demands, but the second e x c e p t i o n o u t l i n e d by the D i r e c t o r s t i l l i n d i c a t e d t h a t the b a s i c na ture of the problem would remain u n r e s o l v e d , namely tha t o n l y the P l a n n i n g Department would cont inue to have access - 142 -to the p r e l i m i n a r y stages of major p r o j e c t submis s ions : A f u r t h e r e x c e p t i o n w i l l occur from time to time w i t h c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a l submis s ions , i . e . the C . B . C . and P r o v i n c i a l Government B u i l d i n g s where the Department i s o b l i g a t e d to g ive p r e l i m i n a r y des ign guidance i n order to have any o p p o r t u n i t y to i n f l u e n c e the p r o j e c t . O u r ' o b j e c t i v e s should be to encourage such developers to permit a Des ign P a n e l rev iew at the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t ime.42 The b a s i c . c o m p l e x i t y of t h i s problem was f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d i n a memorandum to the Zoning P l anner w i t h re spec t to a proposed o f f i c e b u i l d i n g which had been processed by the Department of Permi t s and L i c e n s e s , and which had r e c e i v e d T . P . B . a p p r o v a l w i t h o u t p r i o r s c reen ing by the S e c r e t a r y . On A p r i l 1, 1971, the Chairman w r o t e : As you are aware, I am concerned as to the r o l e tha t the Des ign P a n e l i s asked to f u l f i l l i n d e a l i n g w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s s o r t , i . e . where the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board has taken a b a s i c a c t i o n i n approving the development w i t h o u t adv ice from the Des ign P a n e l . Whi l e such a c t i o n by the T . P . B . may be reasonable under c e r t a i n c i r cumstances , i . e . i n a b i l i t y to convene a Design P a n e l meeting at an a p p r o p r i a t e t ime i n d e a l i n g w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l y urgent p r o j e c t . I f e e l tha t subsequent des ign c o n s i d e r a t i o n such as t h i s should be d e a l t w i t h d e p a r t m e n t a l l y . 4 3 S e v e r a l examples of major p r o j e c t s which had been presented to the P a n e l as b e i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y " f a i t a c c o m p l i " were the P a c i f i c C e n t e r , 44 P r o j e c t 200, and i n 1970 the R o y a l C e n t e r . In the l a s t named example, however, some concess ions were made i n design.changes by the developers i n an attempt to f o l l o w the P a n e l ' s recommendations d u r i n g the course of s e v e r a l r e s u b m i s s i o n s . Inadequacy of Time - Re l a t ed to the compla int of P a n e l members o f t e n be ing presented w i t h a " f a i t a c c o m p l i " w i t h re spec t to a l l major - 143 -developments i s the a d d i t i o n a l problem r e s u l t i n g from inadequate t ime to rev iew these d e s i g n s . For example, i n January 1969 the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g r e c e i v e d at l e a s t three l e t t e r s from P a n e l members expre s s ing concern w i t h s i t u a t i o n s tha t had a r i s e n from r e c e i v i n g such p r o j e c t s as the Georg ia V i a d u c t 4 " ' and P r o j e c t 200. I n the members^' v i e w s , the P a n e l was expected to f u n c t i o n under u n s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n d i t i o n s i n that the time a l l o c a t e d f o r each c o n s i d e r a t i o n was f e l t to be w h o l l y i n a d e -quate c o n s i d e r i n g the importance of the p r o j e c t s . Dur ing a s p e c i a l meeting convened on January 23 , 1969, to d i s c u s s t h i s problem, the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g acknowledged the v a l i d i t y of t h i s c o m p l a i n t . He a l s o p o i n t e d o u t , however, tha t these problems arose due to p o l i t i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p l i c a t i o n s which i n e v i t a b l y a f f e c t the " l a r g e r 46 and more complex developments whatever t h e i r f o r m " . S i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d , he s t a t e d , are many of the CD-I proposa l s which " tend to reach 47 a d e t a i l e d de s ign stage be fore there i s anyth ing to show the P a n e l " . However, i t was unanimously agreed tha t a l l f u t u r e l a r g e and complex p r o j e c t s would be reviewed at s p e c i a l meetings i n order to ensure the f u l l a t t e n t i o n o f the P a n e l . Advance In format ion — Re la ted to the problem of not hav ing the o p p o r t u n i t y to rev iew major development p r o j e c t s a t an a p p r o p r i a t e l y e a r l y stage has been the a d d i t i o n a l compla int by P a n e l members tha t they have not r e c e i v e d adequate advance i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to these impending - 144 -p r o j e c t s : Panel members wished to know i f i t could be possible to receive information on large scale projects at some time before discussion of such project i n a meeting. The Panel feels that such advance information would have been helpful in analyzing the 'Royal Center' As a consequence, when they have been presented w i t h submiss ions o f t h i s t y p e , they have found t h a t they d i d not possess the necessary background 49 m a t e r i a l on which to base t h e i r recommendations. involvement w i t h l a r g e s c a l e development p r o j e c t s , s e r i o u s concern was expressed i n 1969 as to how the P a n e l ' s t ime cou ld be more e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e d . I n a memorandum to the P a n e l Chairman on January 1 6 t h , 1969, the Secre ta ry urged t h a t a more " s t r e a m l i n e d " o p e r a t i o n be adopted i n t h i s regard and tha t "more weeding out should occur a t the Departmental l e v e l . . . too much t ime i s spent l o o k i n g a t ' t r i v i a ' , i . e . apartments , s c h o o l s , o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s , gas s t a t i o n s , e t c . " " ' 0 F o l l o w i n g s e v e r a l l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n s the Secre ta ry proposed the f o l l o w i n g recommended changes to the s e l e c t i o n procedures : Current Procedure I n c l u d i n g Suggested New Procedure p r o j e c t . 4 8 P r o c e d u r a l S t r e a m l i n i n g - Because of the P a n e l ' s i n c r e a s i n g Mandatory Items a) P u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g Govern- This l i s t should also contain ment b u i l d i n g s , s c h o o l s , h o s p i t a l s , a l l l a r g e e n g i n e e r i n g s t r u c t u r e s , p u b l i c h o u s i n g , community c e n t e r s . such as v i a d u c t s , b r i d g e s , and freeways. Smal l a d d i t i o n s to - 145 -b) Semi-public buildings, including churches, private schools, fraternal lodges, etc. c) CD-I comprehensive development. d) Rezoning applications. e) Location on amenity street (('Burrard and Georgia). f) Gasoline Service Stations. schools or school annexes should be screened by the Department but not necessar- . i l y referred to the Panel. Here also the size and location should determine referral to the Panel. No changes recommended. Again size and importance should determine referral to the Panel. This should be extended to include rehabilitation areas such as Gastown, Chinatown, and Theatre Row on Granville, and others to come. The Panel should only be involved in screening of prototypes, and the Depart-ment would deal with these on an individual basis. - 146 -I n a d d i t i o n , the Secre ta ry suggested t h a t he cont inue to p e r s o n a l l y screen a l l de s ign proposa l s i n RM-3 and RM-4 zoned a rea s , and to o n l y 52 r e f e r the" "bad and b o r d e r l i n e cases " to the P a n e l . At a subsequent meeting of the e n t i r e P a n e l under the Chairmanship of the D i r e c t o r i t was unanimously r e s o l v e d t h a t " r o u t i n e " types of developments be l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g based on " e s t a b l i s h e d 53 des ign c r i t e r i a " . In September of the same; year however, the D i r e c t o r advi sed the Chairman and Secre ta ry t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g s t r e a m l i n i n g procedures , two c a t e g o r i e s of b u i l d i n g s must a u t o m a t i c a l l y be r e f e r r e d to the Des ign P a n e l : a) those b u i l d i n g s s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d by the 54 T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , and b) a l l p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s . No f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n cou ld be obta ined r e l a t e d to subsequent s t r e a m l i n i n g p r o c e -dures . E f f e c t i v e n e s s I m p l i c i t i n the wide range of c o n f l i c t s c u r r e n t l y p l a g u i n g the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l i s the q u e s t i o n of i t s u l t i m a t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The v a r i o u s aspects of these problems are important as r e l e v a n t areas of i n q u i r y on ly as f a r as they determine to what extent the f u l l p o t e n t i a l of the tDes ign P a n e l system i s be ing e x p l o i t e d i n p r o v i d i n g i t s s e r v i c e s to the c i t y . I n s t u d y i n g the a v a i l a b l e documents r egard ing contemplated f u n c t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l and p r o c e d u r a l changes to the P a n e l , i t can be reasonably i n f e r r e d t h a t i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s and t h e r e f o r e i t s f u l l - 147 -p o t e n t i a l v a l u e to the community a t l a r g e has not been f u l l y u t i l i z e d . However, o n l y the 1971 Des ign P a n e l Report e x p l i c i t l y makes t h i s p o i n t : I t i s o n l y f a i r to say that the e x i s t e n c e of the Des ign P a n e l i n i t s present form has r a i s e d some doubts w i t h i n the a r c h i t e c -t u r a l p r o f e s s i o n as to the P a n e l ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n t r y i n g to improve environmenta l s t andards . I t i s hoped t h a t the proposed changes i n the P a n e l ' s s t r u c t u r e and r o l e . . . w i l l improve work ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s and w i l l l e a d to a more e f f e c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n . 5 5 P l a n n i n g Department Response I n seeking ways to accommodate the P a n e l ' s growing i n t e r e s t i n the more comprehensive aspects of c i v i c development and p o l i c y making f u n c t i o n s , the documents show t h a t the D i r e c t o r had made some p r e l i m -i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as to how t h i s i n f a c t might be implemented. A f t e r h i s meeting w i t h P a n e l members on A p r i l 24, 1969, the D i r e c t o r suggested to the Chairman of the Town P l a n n i n g Commission tha t the Des ign P a n e l or an expanded group hav ing as i t s nuc leus Design P a n e l members should form a s p e c i a l " a d v i s o r y group" to the Town P l a n n i n g Commission. I t was t e n t a t i v e l y suggested t h a t t h i s a d v i s o r y group be comprised of three " p r o f e s s i o n a l s from the e x i s t i n g Commission i n a d d i t i o n to three o ther s p e c i a l i s t s , i . e . a town p l a n n e r , landscape a r c h i t e c t , a l a w y e r , e t c . " The Chairman of the Town P l a n n i n g Commission adv i sed the D i r e c t o r t h a t he was i n favour of the i d e a and would be w i l l i n g to d i s c u s s i t i n 56 g r e a t e r d e t a i l w i t h the Des ign P a n e l members. F o l l o w i n g these recommendations and s e v e r a l subsequent d i s c u s s i o n s - 148 -w i t h o ther c i v i c o f f i c i a l s , the D i r e c t o r i s s u e d a memorandum to the Des ign P a n e l on May 13, 1969, r e g a r d i n g the "Fu ture O b j e c t i v e s of the Des ign Panel-Town P l a n n i n g Commission A d v i s o r y Group" . In i t he acknowledged the need f o r two types of a d v i s o r y de s ign f u n c t i o n s i n the c i t y ' s p l a n n i n g program: a) an ^ .execut ive" need to c o n t r o l deve lop-ment under the Zoning and Development By- law as then e x i s t i n g , and b) a " c o n s u l t a t i v e " need to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l adv ice on matters o f genera l des ign and f u n c t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . He f u r t h e r o u t l i n e d s e v e r a l d e t a i l e d proposa l s on how these . two " d e s i g n " needs c o u l d be expressed w i t h i n a new s t r u c t u r a l framework: 1. The Des ign P a n e l would remain i n i t s present form w i t h the p o s s i b l e a d d i t i o n of a landscape a r c h i t e c t or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the Parks Board s t a f f . The P a n e l would be i n v o l v e d i n e a r l i e r s tages of p r o j e c t development and would be s u p p l i e d w i t h major f u n c t i o n a l p l a n n i n g r e p o r t s to f a m i l i a r i z e them w i t h e v o l v i n g P l a n n i n g Depar t -, i ment p o l i c i e s . 2 . A d d i t i o n a l adv ice on genera l de s ign as p a r t of f u n c t i o n a l p l a n -n i n g s t u d i e s c o u l d be obta ined i n two ways: a) By a p p o i n t i n g two members from w i t h i n the Des ign P a n e l membership to one of the a d v i s o r y groups to a s s i s t the Town q P l a n n i n g Commission a f t e r i t s r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The advantage here i s tha t c o n t i n u i t y i s p rov ided when p r o j e c t s l a t e r reach the P a n e l e x e c u t i v e f u n c t i o n . The major disadvantage i n t h i s - 149 -a l t e r n a t i v e would be the added burden on themmembers chosen i n terms of t i m e . b) By a p p o i n t i n g members from o u t s i d e of the P a n e l membership appointed by the A . I . B . C . and o ther p r o f e s s i o n a l groups to j o i n the Town P l a n n i n g Commission a d v i s o r y group. The major d i s a d v a n -tage i n t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would be the l a c k of c o n t i n u i t y . I n the D i r e c t o r ' s v i e w , the P l a n n i n g Department would favour s o l u t i o n a) to tha t of b ) . " ^ The D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g i n d i c a t e d tha t should the members concur w i t h these recommendations, a p r o p o s a l a long these l i n e s 58 would be submit ted to C i t y C o u n c i l f o r s tudy . However, the P a n e l members d e f e r r e d a l l commitments f o r anyy changes i n the P a n e l ' s opera-t i o n u n t i l the Des ign P a n e l Committee p u b l i s h e d i t s r e p o r t , which d i d not become a v a i l a b l e u n t i l l a t e 1971. On September 24, 1971, the D i r e c t o r and P a n e l Chairman attended a s p e c i a l luncheon meeting w i t h s i x members of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee to f u r t h e r e x p l o r e ways and means by which recommendations conta ined i n the 1971 Des ign P a n e l Report might be implemented. A summary of the main p o i n t s of d i s c u s s i o n as presented by the P a n e l members were as f o l l o w s : 1. More comprehensive scope to Des ign P a n e l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 2 . More e x t e n s i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n of Design P a n e l to c r i t e r i a , p o l i c i e s , and o b j e c t i v e s hav ing b e a r i n g on p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s c o n s i d e r e d . - 150 -3 . E a r l y exposure of p r o j e c t s , i n p r e l i m i n a r y stages i f p o s s i b l e . 4 . Use of s p e c i a l i s t s from other f i e l d s when r e q u i r e d f o r c o n s i d e r -a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s . 5 . "Feedback" to Des ign P a n e l on d e c i s i o n s madebby T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , w i t h reasons f o r any r e v e r s a l s . 6 . P a n e l e v a l u a t i o n of completed p r o j e c t s to conf i rm By- law succes s , 59 or to e s t a b l i s h need f o r By-law m o d i f i c a t i o n . The need to recogn ize that P a n e l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s must be made under the mandate of e x i s t i n g By-laws was a l s o d i s c u s s e d . In t h i s regard i t was suggested t h a t the P a n e l might a s s i s t i n e v a l u a t i n g these By-laws and might a l s o c o n t r i b u t e to c e r t a i n r e v i s i o n s when such need was suggested by u n s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . ^ 0 In d i s c u s s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of g r e a t e r P a n e l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h extended b r i e f i n g s , g r e a t e r membership, longer meetings and attendance were c o n s i d e r e d . For these reasons i t was agreed t h a t there might be a need f o r two separate groups , namely the Des ign P a n e l as p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d which would cont inue to cons ider the de s ign of i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t s , and a second a d v i s o r y group who might a s s i s t the P l a n n i n g Department i n s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s such as g e n e r a l env i ronmenta l problems, zoning by- law e v a l u a t i o n , engineered s t r u c t u r e s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems and b e a u t i f i c a t i o n p r o j e c t s . T h i s s o - c a l l e d " f u n c t i o n a l " a d v i s o r y group, i t was agreed, might i n c l u d e members from such r e l a t e d f i e l d s as urban s o c i o l o g y , urban des ign and - 151 -landscape a r c h i t e c t u r e on a " s t andby" b a s i s . At l e a s t one a d d i t i o n a l meetingbbetween the s e n i o r c i v i c o f f i c -i a l s on the one hand and the A ; I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee on the o ther occurred i n l a t e 1971 to f u r t h e r exp lore how a second pane l hav ing a c o n s u l t a t i v e f u n c t i o n might be formed and how i t might f u n c t i o n . Al though by now both s ide s had agreed i n p r i n c i p l e to t h i s c o n s u l t a t i v e pane l or execu t ive committee concept as a means of p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n a l adv ice on the more comprehensive aspects of env i ronmenta l p l a n n i n g , no f u r t h e r steps were taken by e i t h e r s i d e . However, by e a r l y 1972, the two s ide s once aga in resumed a s e r i e s of meetings to f u r t h e r e x p l o r e ways and means of forming t h i s second a d v i s o r y pane l as w e l l as seek ing ways to implement o ther recommendations of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee which would p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r an expanded r o l e f o r the P a n e l . Wi th re spec t to t h i s second P a n e l concept , the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g i n d i c a t e d to the Design P a n e l Committee Chairman on March 8 , 1972, tha t c o o p e r a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h the Advanced P l a n n i n g and Research D i v i s i o n of the P l a n n i n g Department c o u l d "very w e l l be 62 f e a s i b l e " . At t h i s w r i t i n g the Des ign P a n e l Committee i s s t r u g g l i n g w i t h the s p e c i f i c s of such a group - how i t w i l l f u n c t i o n , i t s terms of r e f e r e n c e , i t s s i z e , q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r membership, e t c . When d e f i n e d , the Committee proposes to d i s c l o s e i t s f i n d i n g s to the A . I . B . C . 63 as w e l l as to rev iew i t s r o l e w i t h C i t y P l a n n i n g o f f i c i a l s . - 152 -Summary of P a r t I I n v e s t i g a t i o n From a rev iew of the c o n f l i c t s i n t h i s p a r t i t i s c l e a r tha t at l e a s t s i n c e 1968 both P a n e l members and the Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . have sought to e f f e c t c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l and p r o c e d u r a l changes i n the P a n e l o p e r a t i o n to i n c r e a s e i t s e f f e c t i v e -nes s . Th i s was j u s t i f i e d to a great extent by the p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n c r e a s i n g s i z e , number and complex i ty of developments which had been p l aced be fore the P a n e l f o r de s ign r e v i e w . The P a n e l members a l s o came to the r e a l i z a t i o n that i t s s t r u c t u r e , l i k e tha t of i t s f u n c t i o n , had become o b s o l e t e . The e x i s t i n g documentation expresses a need f o r g r e a t e r P a n e l involvement i n c i v i c development w i t h roughly two broad o b j e c t i v e s . F i r s t , to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a l l aspects of de s ign r e v i e w , i n c l u d i n g not o n l y the a e s t h e t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of b u i l d i n g facade d e s i g n , massing r e l a t i o n s h i p s , m a t e r i a l s e l e c t i o n o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l " s t y l e " , but more i m p o r t a n t l y to a l s o cons ider l a n d use and l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s , t r a f f i c g e n e r a t i o n and d e n s i t y f a c t o r s , a c c e s s i b i l i t y and v i r t u a l l y a l l o ther f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to comprehensive env i ronmenta l des ign c r i t e r i a . Indeed, on the b a s i s of the 1971 Des ign P a n e l Report by the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee, some P a n e l members had even v o i c e d o b j e c t i o n s to the P a n e l ' s " p o l i c e m a n " r o l e which r e q u i r e d a f e l l o w a r c h i t e c t to conform to sometimes narrow By-law r e g u l a t i o n s or i n some cases to recommenda-t i o n s "based on p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n or t a s t e " . I n a d d i t i o n , P a n e l members have a l s o sought the improvement of c o n d i t i o n s f o r the Des ign P a n e l - 153 -which included: enlarging the scope of considerations (terms of reference), better presentation by the City of development policies and intentions relevant to each project considered, an earlier exposure of major development projects, assistance from specialists in related 64 fields as required, and the positive "feedback" to the Panel from the decision making bodies with f u l l explanation for any reversal of decisions. The second objective of the Panel members and the A.I.B.C. Committee was to explore an enlarged role for the Civic Design Panel; to introduce greater design "input" into the City's long range develop-ment plans and policies and to evaluate the basic effectiveness of the current regulations of the Zoning and Development By-law by evaluating the results of various completed projects.. Although there has been no effort to give the Panel legal status, i t has been recommended by the A.I.B.C. Committee that the Panel should have the positive option of presentingiits case directly to the ultimate decision making body should i t be f e l t necessary. Method of Investigation - Part II Part II of the investigation consists exclusively of personal interviews conducted with various persons directly involved with or affected by Panelooperations or decisions. These interviews endeavoured to obtain each respondent's point ofvview with respect to the operation - 154 -of the Panel, and also to ascertain his attitude towards i t s effective-ness. Because of the time constraint, an arbitrary method of selection was devised in order to obtain a reasonably good representative sample of opinion. In this case i t was decided that opinions be sought from four basic categories of respondents: Category I - Representing three present members of the Design Panel. Category II - Representing three past members of the Design Panel. Category III - Representing three members of the City administration directly involved with Panel operations. Category IV - Representing three practising architects not directly involved i n Panel operations. Two of these architects are employed by major development firms in the city, while the third member maintains his own private practice. The choice of each prospective interviewee was determined by a combination of two factors: a) on the basis of the recommendations provided by a past member of the Panel, and b) the interviewee's w i l l -ingness to cooperate in discussing his views. Interviews were conducted with the assistance of a questionnaire which was pre-tested ,on one former Panel member to establish the validity and wording of each question. As a result, the questionnaire was redesigned on two separate occasions. A l l questions were administered to those respondents only in the f i r s t three categories. Only - 155 -pre-selected questions, i.e. those not directly related to procedural matters, were administered to those respondents in Category IV. It was assumed that knowledge of procedural matters by members of this category would be extremely limited. As in Part I of the investigation, the principal areas of concern relative to the Panel's operation were divided into the six basic categories. Where direct quotations are used as replies to certain questions, letters of the alphabet are used to identify the respective respondent. These letters remain constant throughout Part II of the investigation. Results of Interviews With Respondents From A l l Four Categories Under  The Six Basic Headings Function In the f i r s t question respondents were asked i f a redefinition of the Panel's present role or function was required at this time. Respondents Response Yes No No response Present Members Category I Respondent A B C * * * Former Members Category II Respondent D E F * * * City Administration Category III Respondent G H I * A A Outside Architects Category IV Respondent J " K L A A A - 156 -The second question tried to determine what the general function of the Design Panel should be. The replies were as follows: Category I A. "To help protect a l l existing and future physical and social amenities in the ci t y . " B. "To review individual buildings as presently exists but in much greater depth, i.e. their influence on streets, open spaces, citye scape, and movement subsystems. To protect city amenities." C. "To take an active role in establishing and maintaining a high quality physical environment in.the city. To act as an approving body for specific developments as well as participating in city development policies J To assist in formulating good zoning policies." Category II D. "To advise the civic administration on a l l urban development with special reference to i t s quality of l i f e rather than merely facade design or making aesthetic judgements. To advise the civi c admin-istration on a l l amenities constituting the city's physical environment as well as the impact of a l l physical projects on this environment. To also assist the City Planning Department in the formulation of short and long range development plans and policies." E. "To advise on a l l functional and land.use elements which affect the total physical environment in the city." F. "To protect the public interest in the aesthetic and social values of city development." Category III G. "To protect the urban environment from unwarranted intrusion, i.e. bad building design, improper function in specific areas, etc. H. "To provide the city with professional advice on the design merits of architectural development from an independent and detached point of view. To also serve as a checking mechanism to maintain a high level of proficiency within the architectural profession i t s e l f . " - 157 -I. "To improve the quality of architecture in the ci t y . " Category IV J. "The Design Panel should serve as a professional sounding board for civic development, both public and private, in the City of Vancouver. K. "To serve as a people oriented watch-dog over a l l aspects of development in the city." L. "To assess the merits of building design for the benefit of both the development project and the city as a whole. Terms of Reference The third question asked respondents i f the Panel's present terms of reference were adequate. Respondents Response Yes No No response Present Members RespondentAA Category I " B « C * * * Former Members Respondent D Category II " E II F * * * City Administration Respondent G Category III " H I * * * * Outside Architects Respondent J Category IV " K L * ft * - 158 -The fourth question tried to determine whether the Panel should advise on the functional aspects of project submissions such as accessi-b i l i t y , land use and location factors, etc., as part of their regular terms of reference. Category I A l l three respondents answered in the affirmative. Category II A l l three respondents answered in the affirmative. Category III One respondent answered in the affirmative, stating that a l l factors related to comprehensive environmental design problems should be included within the Panel's regular terms of reference. One respondent answered in the negative, stating that although a l l of these factors must be considered in assessing each project submission, this could only be effectively done within the Planning Department. In his reasoning, this respondent f e l t that design decisions based on density, accessibility, location and trip generation factors must by necessity require prelimin-ary detailed analysis and study at the d i s t r i c t or city wide scale and that this function was beyond the technical or time resources of the Panel as presently constituted. However, this respondent also f e l t that the Panel should be free to make "unofficial" observations and comments related to these factors i f warranted, but should not base i t s recommendations to the Technical Planning Board on this basis. The - 159 -third respondent f e l t that i t might be "worthwhile" for the Panel to assess "some" functional aspects of each design submitted as a regular part of i t s duties, but declined to specify which. Category IV A l l three respondents replied that the Panel should consider a l l funct-ional aspects of project design as being within the Panel's terms of reference. One respondent further elaborated by stating that the Panel's terms of reference "definitely should include appropriateness of function, location, envionrmental context, impact and relationship of proposed project to civic objectives". The f i f t h question asked whether a l l environmental elements such as viaducts, bridges, parks, etc., should become mandatory items for design review. Respondents Response Yes No No response Present Members Respondent A " R Category I " C * * * Former Members Respondent D Category II M E F * ft * City Administration Respondent G Category III " H * * * Outside Architects Respondent J Category IV " K L ft * * - 160 -Additional Comment - One respondent stated that only spatial elements such as parks should not be reviewed by the Panel. The sixth question asked whether certain items currently being reviewed should be deleted from the Panel agenda, and i f so, which ones. Category I One respondent answered int.the affirmative, one in the negative and one could not give an opinion. In giving examples of what types of items should be deleted the f i r s t respondent thought that "proto-typal or standardized" designs such as school or church additions, small apart-ment buildings, etc., could be effectively screened by architecturally trained personnel in the Planning Department as part of the regular screening process. Category II The f i r s t respondent could only state "possibly" to this question, " i f explicit design c r i t e r i a could be established or i f there is i n s u f f i c i -ent time, then the Panel should establish a l i s t of building types in order of importance to define their p r i o r i t i e s " . The replies of the second and third respondents were similar to that expressed by the f i r s t respondent i n Category I, namely that "standardized designs could be effectively screened by professionally competent members of the Planning Department". - 161 -Category III A l l three respondents replied in the affirmative to this question, also stating that "routine" items such as small schools and church additions could be effectively screened by architecturally trained personnel in the Planning Department. Category IV No responses could be obtained from members of this category. Composition The seventh question tried to determine whether Panel membership should be broadened to include a greater diversity of opinion, and i f so, to give examples of the types of additional expertise which should be represented. Category I A l l respondents answered that the membership of the Panel should be broadened. In l i s t i n g the additional disciplines to be represented, one respondent suggested the following: a) urban sociologist, b) landscape architect, c) urban designer, d) civi c group member, and e) elected representative from Council. This respondent also f e l t that the Director of Planning should also personally attend and participate at regular Panel meetings. The second and third respondents only suggested - 162 -that an a) urban sociologist, b) landscape architect, and c) urban designer be included on the Panel. Category II A l l respondents i n this category also answered that the membership of the Panel should be broadened. The f i r s t respondent suggested the following disciplines: a) urban sociologist, b) landscape architect, c) urban designer, d) civic group member, e) environmental psychologist, and f) an ' urban geographer. This respondent also indicated that as wide a cross section of expertise and opinion as possible be represented on the Panel. The second respondent stated that only a landscape architect should be included on the Panel as a f u l l time member while other disciplines related to environmental fields should become availa-ble for Panel service only when the specific necessity arose. The third respondent answered that the Panel's basic membership selection should remain unaltered, but that other disciplines related to environ-mental planning and design should become available for Panel duties when required. Category III The f i r s t respondent suggested that the Panel be expanded to include a) an urban sociologist, b) landscape architect, and c) an urban designer. However, this respondent also suggested that additional disciplines be available for Panel service on a "standby" basis only. In his view, "the size of the Panel should be restricted, otherwise the - 163 -operation would become unwieldy and perhaps unmanageable". The second respondent replied that Panel membership should remain unaltered, but that the Panel should "perhaps be represented byoone or more members on the Town Planning Commission to advise on development plans and policies". The last respondent suggested that the Panel be expanded to include only a landscape architect, but that in any case the Panel's present frame of reference should be adhered to regardless of the membership. Category IV The f i r s t respondent answered that Panel membership should not be expanded in terms of greater diversity,of experience and expertise, while the second and third replied that i t should. The additional members suggested by the second respondent included: a) urban sociologist, b) landscape architect, c) urban designer, d) Board of Trade member, and e) Downtown Businessmens' Association member. The third respondent's l i s t included: a) landscape architect, b) urban designer, c) civic group member, d) Real Estate Board member, e) Retail Merchants' Associ-ation member, and f) a member of the Ratepayers' Association, primarily for residential areas. Powers The eighth question tried to determine whether the Panel's status should be a) purely advisory to the Technical Planning Board as presently - 164 -exists, b) to acquire status as a legal entity with the power to make absolute decisions, c) to remain as presently exists but with greater access to City Council through a special committee, or d) some other form. Category I The f i r s t and second respondents answered that the Panel's status should continue to be purely advisory only as presently exists but to also have greater access to Council through a special committee. The third respondent answered negatively to alternatives a), b), and c) but under d) stated that selected members of the Panel, Technical Planning Board, and the Town Planning Commission should form a special board as a legal entity under provisions of a revised Vancouver Charter to "actually make the f i n a l decisions regarding a l l matters of environmental planning policy or design". The members of this decision making body would be selected on the basis of their specific professional background and expertise in fields related to environmental planning or design. In his view, although many members of the T.P.B. were qualified or know-ledgeable in their own particular f i e l d s , "they were not competent to make decisions related to planning or development policies in matters of environmental design". Category II A l l respondents in this category stated that the Panel's status should remain purely advisory as presently exists, but to have greater access - 165 -to Council through a special committee. Category III The f i r s t respondent replied that the Panel's status should remain purely advisory but to'ihave greater access to Council through a special committee. The second and third respondents answered that there should be no change in the present situation, both feeling that there was adequate liaison between the Panel and Council under present conditions. The second respondent also commented that the Panel's recommendations and views con-cerning major development projects were particularly "considered" by Council members. Category IV A l l three respondents answered that the Panel's advisory role should remainaunchanged, although one respondent also suggested that i t should acquire representation on the Technical Planning Board with the legal power to vote on a l l development matters. Procedures The ninth question asked whether the Panel had the opportunity to review major development submissions at an appropriately early stage in order to recommend design changes i f necessary. - 166 -Respondents Responses Always Often Occasionally Almost Never Never Eresent Members Respondent A B Category I " C * * ft Former Members Respondent D E Cateogry II " p * * ft City Administration Respondent G " H Category III „ ft * * * Outside Architects Not administered to this category Category IV The tenth question tried to determine whether a l l major or complex development proposals should always be reviewed separately at specially convened meetings. Respondents Responses Separately Not separately Only under special circumstances Present Members Respondent A Category I " B c * * * Former Members Respondent D " E Category II „ F ft * * City Administration Respondent G Category i l l " ^ * • * * ° C a l e g o r y r f v i t e C t S N o t a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t n i s category - 167 -In the eleventh question, the respondents were asked whether the Panel received adequate advance information at the earliest possible time concerning a l l major development projects. Respondents Responses Always Often Occasionally Almost Never Never Present Members Respondent A Category I " B C * * * Former Members Respondent D Category II " E F * * * City Administration Respondent G Category III " H II A * * * Outside •Architects. „ . . . „ ^ T T r * r Not administered to this category Category IV . e J Additional Comments In respondent "G'"s view, despite the procedural "information gap" which occasionally occurred, the Panelwwas s t i l l free to exercise i t s privilege of tabling the proposal pending the receipt of additional information. The twelfth question tried to determine from the respondents whether the quality of the physical environment had improved in the City of Vancouver since the Panel was established. - 168 -Respondents Responses Significantly Moderately Insignificantl y Not At A l l Present Members Respondent A II T> Category I D C * * * Former Members Respondent D Category II " E F * * * City Administration Respondent G Category III " H " I * * * Outside Architects Respondent J Category IV K L * * * Additional Comments Nine of the twelve respondents f e l t that the minimum standard of individual  building design had improved "moderately" since the Panel was established, while the remaining three stated that i t had improved "significantly". The thirteenth question asked whether the Design Panel system encouraged good architecture from the architectural profession i n Vancouver. - 169 -Respondents Responses Significantly Moderately Insignificantly Not At A l l Present Members Respondent A " B Category I * * * Former Members Respondent D " E Category II „ * * City Administration Respondent G Category III |f ^ * * * Outside Architects Respondent J Category IV n K * * * Additional Comments It was respondent "C'"s view that "bad architects can only do bad designs regardlessoof the Panel's existence". For these architects the Panel could only serve a negative function in terms of exercising prohibitions. Respondents "D" and "F" stated that the existence of the Panel had no effect on the good architects in the city, but served only to regulate the design of the bad. Respondent "L" stated the "inherently bad architects could not be encouraged to produce good designs by the existence of the Panel,bbut could only be prevented from producing the very worst". - 170 -The fourteenth question tried to determine whether the present "policeman" role of the Panel served to curtail the imagination, indiv-iduality or the development of unorthodox solutions by architects, thereby encouraging mediocrity in architecture. Respondents Responses Significantly Moderately Insignificantly Not At A l l Bresent Members Respondent A Category I |( B * * * Former Members Respondent D Category II 11 II p * * * City Administration Respondent G Category III " H I * A A Outside Architects Respondent J Kc Category IV »• ^ * A A Additional Comments Two respondents in each of Categories I and II, and one respondent in Category III f e l t that the current Zoning and Development By-law was in need of revision, and was to blame for some examples of mediocre or "safe" architecture that had been built in the city. - 171 -The fifteenth question asked a) whether the respondents were in favour of the Design Panel system in principle, and b) to state their reasons. Category I A l l three respondents answered in the affirmative to part a) of the question. In answering part b) the replies were as follows: A. "Because the Panel system provides for an unbiased outside body of professional opinion to advise the city administration on the physical development of the c i t y . " B. "Because the recommendations of an independent professional body could make a significant contribution to the development of the cit y . " C. "It provides the only practical means of providing the City with an independent and unbiased source of opinion regarding ci v i c development." Category II A l l three respondents answered in the affirmative to part a) of this question. The replies to part b) were as follows: D. "Because i t i s the best means available in providing an independent check on the physical development of the city." E. "If properly functioning the Panel system can serve to provide expert and unbiased advice to ci v i c o f f i c i a l s regarding the physical development of the ci t y . " F. "Because as an outside body of professional opinion i t can freely exert some pressure i n helping to prevent some of the bad aspects of civic development from happening." Category III A l l respondents in this category also replied in the affirmative to this question and stated as their reasons: - 172 -G. "Because i t gives the city good professional advice free from p o l i t i c a l pressure." H. "Because i t gives the city an independent unbiased view of the design process which can result in substantial improvements to the physical environment of the ci t y . " I. "Because i t forces greater effort by thebbad or mediocre architects to produce better designs as well as encouraging the better architects to continue producing good design solutions." Summary of the Information Collected - Part II  Function 1. Ten of the twelve respondents interviewed stated that a redefin-it i o n of the Panel's role was required at this time. 2. It is impossible to synthesize the twelve replies which were received in response to this question. However, i t is apparent that the great majority of respondents f e l t that the Panel's overall function should consist mainly of advising the civ i c administration on the design merits of a l l aspects of physical development for the general benefit of the urban environment. Terms of Reference 3. Eight of the twelve respondents stated that the Panel's present terms of reference as interpreted by the corporation councel were inadequate to permit the Panel to "properly" f u l f i l i t s function as defined in 2. above. Two respondents from Category III stated that - 173 -the Panel's terms of reference were adequate as presently interpreted, while one respondent in Category I could not give a positive opinion. 4. Ten of the twelve respondents f e l t that the Panel should be required to review a l l functional aspects of project designs such as accessibility, land use, trip generation and location factors as part of their regular terms of reference. In addition, at least a total of three members in Categories I and II expressed some doubts as to the validity of making subjective value judgements based on purely aesthetic c r i t e r i a of building design. 5. Eleven of the twelve respondents stated that a l l environmental elements such as viaducts, bridges and parks should become mandatory items for design review.. However, one respondent in Category III stated that only structures per se should be reviewed by the Panel rather than purely spatial/elements such as parks, which should be reviewed by qualified personnel in the Planning Department with the assistance of Parks Board o f f i c i a l s . 6. Only members of the f i r s t three categories could respond to the sixth question. Six of the remaining nine respondents considered that certain types of items now being regularly reviewed, such as small school or church addition, small apartment buildings, etc., could be deleted from the agenda and could be effectively screened within the Planning Department. These respondents emphasized that under no circumstances should this screening process be done by permit clerks - 174 -or other non-architecturally trained personnel. One respondent from Category I stated that no items should be deleted from the Panel agenda, while one respondent from each of Categories I and II could not give a positive opinion. Composition 7. Ten of the twelve respondents considered that the Panel membership should be expanded to include a greater diversity of opinion and exper-tise. Almost a l l ten respondents suggested that the Panel include an urban sociologist, landscape architect and an urban designer, although some qualified this by suggesting these additional members be available only for standby service. Powers 8. Eleven of the twelve respondents stated that the Panel's role should remain purely advisory to the Technical Planning Board. Six of the eleven respondents also stated that the Panel have greater access to Council through a special committee, while four favoured no change whatsoever in the Panel's present status. Procedures 9. - Almost a l l respondents f e l t that the Panel did not have the oppor-tunity to review a l l major development projects at an adequately early - 175 -stage in order to recommend design changes i f necessary. However, a l l respondents stated that this be an essential ingredient in a l l future proceedings. 10. Almost a l l respondents stated that a l l major or complex development proposals should be reviewed at specially convened meetings in order to assure a higher standard of design review. However, two respondents in Category III f e l t that the time resources of the Panel were too limited to adhere to this practice on a regular basis and favoured the arrangement of special meetings only at Panel request. 11. Almost a l l respondents stated that the Panel did not receive adequate advance information at the earliest possible time concerning a l l major development projects. 12. Two respondents replied that the quality of the physical environment in the City of Vancouver had improved significantly since the Panel was established, five replied only "moderately", four replied only to an insignificant degree, while one replied that i t had not improved at a l l . However, nine of the twelve respondents f e l t that the minimum standard of individual building design had improved "moderately" since the Panel was established, while the remaining three stated that i t had improved "significantly". 13. Only one respondent stated that the panel system encourages the practice of good architecture from the architectural profession in Vancouver to a significant degree, four stated to a moderate degree, - 176 -four s t a t e d to an i n s i g n i f i c a n t degree o n l y , w h i l e three respondents f e l t tha t i t served no encouragement at a l l . 14. Almost a l l respondents f e l t that the e x i s t e n c e of the Pane l i n no way serves to c u r t a i l the i m a g i n a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i t y or the development of unorthodox s o l u t i o n s by a r c h i t e c t s thereby encouraging m e d i o c r i t y i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . 15. A l l respondents s t a t e d tha t they were i n favour of the Des ign Pane l system i n p r i n c i p l e . The most common reasons g i v e n as the b a s i s f o r t h i s o p i n i o n i s tha t i t represents an unbiased o u t s i d e body of p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n which i s r e q u i r e d to adv i se the c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on the p h y s i c a l development of the c i t y . Observat ions On A l l In format ion C o l l e c t e d On the b a s i s of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d from a l l source s , namely an examinat ion of e x i s t i n g documents from the years 1968 to 1971, and an a n a l y s i s of the o p i n i o n survey conducted i n the form of p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s , i t i s concluded that some b a s i c areas of c o n f l i c t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t between the P a n e l members and the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia on the onehhand, and c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c i a l s on the o t h e r . The c o n f l i c t s occur p r i m a r i l y i n the areas of the P a n e l ' s f u n c t i o n , terms of r e f e r e n c e , compos i t ion and c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r s . I t would a l s o appear tha t some d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n concerning the P a n e l ' s t o t a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n improving the - 177 -city's physical environment also exists between the architectural profession and c i v i c o f f i c i a l s directly involved in Panel operations. On the other hand, there appears to be no great difference of opinion between the two groups concerning the Panel's status. Almost a l l principals agree that the Panel's role should continue to be purely advisory, although a majority of architects favour greater Panel access to City Council through a special committee. Although a l l principals agree that the Panel's function should consist of advising c i v i c o f f i c i a l s on matters related to "architectural design" and "public amenity" in the physical development of the city, a crucial gap exists between the two factions as to exactly what quali-ties constitutetthe .term "architectural design". The opposing views are revealed in the examination of the documents related to Panel operations and i n the nature of the replies offered in the opinion survey. In a l l questions related to Panel function and terms of reference almost a l l replies referred to matters affecting the total environment, including land use, accessibility, t r a f f i c generation and location factors. On the other hand, two ci v i c o f f i c i a l s referred only to "architectural" development, obviously referring only to the design of the building in the arrangement of i t s parts and i t s aesthetic relationship with i t s immediate surroundings. In addition, a majority of the c i v i c o f f i c i a l s stated that the Panel's present terms of reference were adequate while almost a l l architects f e l t they were - 178 -not. Conversely, there appears to be no basic difference of opinion as to whether engineered structures such as bridges and viaducts should be included as regular items for Panel review, although one civi c o f f i c i a l stated i n the survey that non-structural elements such as parks should not be within the Panel's terms of reference. Almost a l l persons agree that "streamlining procedures" should take place with respect to deleting certain types of mandatory items now being regularly reviewed. Almost a l l architects favour the expansion of the Panel to include a greater diversity of opinion and expertise. An urban sociol-ogist, landscape designer and urban designer were the disciplines most frequently recommended. There is no unanimity of opinion as to how these additional members should be integrated into Panel operations. 1 Some favour the approach that these disciplines acquire f u l l time membership status, while others feel that these members should only serve on a "standby" basis, being called into service when their particular s k i l l s are required. -On the other hand, the investigation revealed that civic o f f i c i a l s do not especially favour an increase in Panel membership i n terms of additional expertise. Although a l l Panel members feel that the Panel does not have the opportunity to review a l l major development submissions at an appropriately early stage, there i s a unanimity of opinion that this measure be taken in a l l future cases to ensure the Panel's - 179 -effectiveness. There appears to be no major conflict on the issue of convening special meetings in relation to large or complex design submissions. Both factions agree that this be an integral part of Panel procedures although one ci v i c o f f i c i a l preferred that this type of meeting be held only at the specific request of the Panel. Although the investigation shows that Panel members feel that they do not receive adequate advance information concerning a l l major develop-ment projects, ci v i c o f f i c i a l s have acknowledged this problem and are presently investigating how this can be effectively achieved. It is d i f f i c u l t to establish a clear consensus as to how great an improvement has occurred in the physical environment of Vancouver since the Panel was established. The investigations in Parts I and II indicated that the architectural profession at large consider that i t has not improved to any significant degree while two civic o f f i c i a l s consider that i t has. However, both groups have also indicated that the minimum standard of individual building design has improved at least moderately since the Panel was established. It is also d i f f i c u l t to establish a clear consensus as to whether the Panel system serves the positive function of encouraging good architecture from the architec-tural profession in the City of Vancouver. The modal response by architects lay somewhere between "to a moderate degree only" and "to an insignificant degree". The vast majority of a l l respondents feel that the existence of the Panel does not serve to cu r t a i l the - 180 -i m a g i n a t i o n or c r e a t i v i t y of a r c h i t e c t s , but d i d serve to prevent the wors t des igns to happen from?=the l e s s t a l e n t e d a r c h i t e c t s i n the c i t y . There seems to be no c o n f l i c t between the two groups r e g a r d i n g the v a l u e of the des ign pane l system. A l l respondents expressed t h e i r favour of t h i s r e g u l a t o r y measure i n p r i n c i p l e , s t a t i n g g e n e r a l l y that i t s v a l u e l a y i n p r o v i d i n g an unbiased o u t s i d e body of p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n which i s r e q u i r e d to adv i se the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on the p h y s i c a l development of the c i t y . Conc lus ions On the b a s i s of a l l i n f o r m a t i o n obta ined i n P a r t s I and I I of t h i s c h a p t e r , the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s have been reached : 11 . A r e d e f i n i t i o n of the P a n e l ' s f u n c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d at t h i s t i m e . 2 . The P a n e l ' s f u n c t i o n should c o n s i s t m a i i i l y of a d v i s i n g the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on the des ign m e r i t s of a l l aspects of the c i t y ' s p h y s i c a l development to improve the q u a l i t y of the p h y s i c a l environment . 3 . The P a n e l ' s present terms of r e f e rence as i n t e r p r e t e d by c i v i c o f f i c i a l s are inadequate . 4 . The P a n e l should be r e q u i r e d to rev iew the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of urban development, such as l and use , a c c e s s i -b i l i t y , t r i p g e n e r a t i o n and l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s . 5 . A l l environmenta l de s ign elements such as b r i d g e s , v i a d u c t s , p a r k s , c i v i c c e n t e r s , e t c . , should become mandatory items f o r d e s i g n r e v i e w . - 181 -6. C e r t a i n items now b e i n g r e g u l a r l y reviewed as mandatory items by the P a n e l should be d e l e t e d i n order to s t r e a m l i n e P a n e l procedures . 7. P a n e l membership should be broadened to i n c l u d e s e v e r a l o ther d i s c i p l i n e s r e l a t e d to urban development. 8 . The P a n e l should r e t a i n i t s present r o l e as be ing p u r e l y an a d v i -sory body to the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board . 9 . The P a n e l should be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to rev iew a l l major p r o j e c t s a t an adequately e a r l y stage i n order to recommend des ign changes i f neces sa ry . 10. A l l major or complex development proposa l s should be reviewed at s p e c i a l l y convened - meet ings . 11 . The P a n e l does not r e c e i v e adequate advance i n f o r m a t i o n at the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e time concerning a l l major development p r o j e c t s . 12 . The q u a l i t y of the. p h y s i c a l environment has improved somewhat l e s s than moderately i n the C i t y of Vancouver s i n c e the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l was e s t a b l i s h e d . However, the minimum standard of i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g de s ign has improved at l e a s t moderately s i n c e tha t t i m e . 13 . I t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether the de s ign pane l system encourages the p r a c t i c e of good a r c h i t e c t u r e from the a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r o f e s s i o n i n Vancouver. However, i t does serve togprevent the worst des igns by " b a d " a r c h i t e c t s from b e i n g b u i l t . 14. The e s i s t e n c e of the Des ign P a n e l does not serve to c u r t a i l the i m a g i n a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i t y or the development of unorthodox designs - 182 -solutions by architects thereby encouraging mediocrity in a l l architec-ture. 15. The design panel system serves a valuable community function by providing an unbiased, outside body of professional opinion by advising the city administration on the physical development of the city. - 183 -FOOTNOTES From the Preamble of the proposed new E t h i c a l Standards d r a f t e d by the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , 1969. 2 Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , D r a f t s Memorandum, J u l y , 1971. 3 I n t e r v i e w w i t h P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . 4 L e t t e r from M r . G. Woodburn (P .Eng . ) to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , December 24, 1968. ^ , " A Reassessment of the Ro le of the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l , September, 1969. ^Thi s " c h e c k i n g " r o l e was thought to be p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t to r e v i e w i n g " p r o t o t y p e " s t r u c t u r e s such as new s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s , e t c . , as w e l l as m a i n t a i n i n g c e r t a i n de s ign standards f o r apartment b u i l d i n g such as were b e i n g . e r e c t e d i n the West End d i s t r i c t of the c i t y . 7 The A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee was e s t a b l i s h e d to reassess the r o l e of a l l d e s i g n panels o p e r a t i n g i n the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia . I t was l a t e r charged w i t h the ta sk of e x p l o r i n g ways and means of implementing s e v e r a l recommendations from i t s 1971 Des ign Panel s Repor t . I t c o n s i s t s l a r g e l y of c u r r e n t and past members of the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l . g Bruno F r e s c h i , "Observat ions on the F u n c t i o n and F u n c t i o n i n g of the Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l " , Des ign P a n e l Committee, unpubl i shed paper (Vancouver, 1969) , p . 1. 9 l b i d . '^Memorandum, Des ign P a n e l Committee, A p r i l 10 , 1969. Bruno Freschi, op. c i t . - 184 -12 Des ign P a n e l Committee Report . 13 T , . , I b i d . I b i d . 1 5 l b i d . 16 Vancouver C i v i c Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , March 20, 1970. 1 7 D e s i g n P a n e l M i n u t e s , March 19, 1970. 18 Bruno F r e s c h i , op . c i t . 19 . . I b i d . 20 T h i s attempt to r e d e f i n e the meaning of t h i s term was p a r t l y prompted by the c o l l a p s e of the West Vancouver Des ign P a n e l which was caused by a s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s term. 21 I n June, 1970, the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g advi sed the Secre ta ry that he was c o n s i d e r i n g making s e v e r a l changes r e g a r d i n g the o p e r a t i o n of the P a n e l , but would de fer such changes u n t i l the proposed b r i e f of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee became a v a i l a b l e f o r s tudy . 22 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , March 19, 1970. 23 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , February 12, 1970. 24 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , A p r i l , 9 , 1970. 25 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , November 12, 1970. 26 Bruno F r e s c h i , "The Role of the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l " , A . I . B . C . Des ign Panle Committee, unpubl i shed paper , (Vancouver , 1970) , p . 1. 27 I b i d . , p . 3 . - 1 8 5 ' -28 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , January 23 , 1969. 29 Des ign P a n e l B r i e f to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , A p r i l 24, 1969. 30 Bruno F r e s c h i , op. c i t . 31 Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l R e p o r t , unpubl i shed paper (Vancouver, 1971). 32 I b i d . 33 L e t t e r r e c e i v e d from the Chairman, Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . , March 8 , 1972. 32 I n t e r v i e w w i t h Bruno F r e s c h i . 35 L e t t e r from the Des ign P a n e l Chairman to M r . Warnett Kennedy, January 16, 1969. 36 Des ign P a n e l M i n u t e s , A p r i l 24, 1969. 37 The name of t h i s department has s i n c e been changed to the Advanced P l a n n i n g and Research D i v i s i o n . 38 The Town P l a n n i n g Commission was c rea ted under s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s i n the Vancouver C h a r t e r . L i k e the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l i t i s an a d v i s o r y body o n l y , but i t s main f u n c t i o n i s to a s s i s t the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g the c i t y ' s development. I t i s composed of n i n e members appointed by C o u n c i l , three each year f o r three year s te rms . The Commission a l s o i n c l u d e s f i v e e x - o f f i c i o members, one each from C i t y C o u n c i l , the Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n , the Board of School T r u s t e e s , the Vancouver and D i s t r i c t s J o i n t Sewerage and Drainage Board , and the Vancouver P o r t A u t h o r i t y . Thomas J . P l u n k e t t , Urban Canada and I t s Government: A Case Study  of M u n i c i p a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , ( M a c M i l l a n of Canada, T o r o n t o , 1968) , p . 144. A c c o r d i n g to the P a n e l S e c r e t a r y , t h i s e x c e p t i o n occurred d u r i n g the p l a n n i n g and des ign of the Vancouver Mar ine Museum. - 186 -40 Memorandum to the Pane l Chairman from the P a n e l S e c r e t a r y , March 26, 1971. 4 1Memorandum to a l l P l a n n i n g Department heads , from the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , A p r i l 1, 1971. I b i d . 43 Memorandum to the Zoning P lanner from the P a n e l Chairman, A p r i l 1, 1971. 44 I n t e r v i e w w i t h Bruno F r e s c h i . 45 In r e v i e w i n g the Georg ia V i a d u c t p r o j e c t i n December 1968, the P a n e l had arranged w i t h c i v i c o f f i c i a l s to have s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e from a landscape a r c h i t e c t and a prominent c i t y a r c h i t e c t - p l a n n e r . 46 From the minutes of a s p e c i a l Des ign P a n e l meet ing , January 23 , 1969. 47 T , . , I b i d . 48 Design P a n e l M i n u t e s , February 20, 1970. 49 I n t e r v i e w w i t h the P a n e l S e c r e t a r y . "^Memorandum from the P a n e l Secre ta ry to the Chairman, January 16, 1969. 5 1 I b i d . 52 Memorandum from the Secre tary to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , A p r i l 2 3 , 1969. 53 In e f f e c t these " r o u t i n e " des igns were to be screened by the Secre ta ry as p a r t of h i s r e g u l a r s c r e e n i n g d u t i e s . In an i n t e r v i e w w i t h the Secre ta ry i t was r e v e a l e d tha t no e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a had ever been f o r m a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d , but i n t h i s contex t o n l y meant such " p r o t o t y p a l " des igns which had been l a r g e l y d u p l i c a t e d and approved many t i m e s , thereby c o n s t i t u t i n g an "approved p r e c e d e n t " . Howerver, he a l s o - 187 ~ p o i n t e d out tha t as a b u i l t i n " v a l u e checking sys tem" , i t would be a good i d e a to o c c a s i o n a l l y de fe r t h i s type of de s ign f o r P a n e l r e v i e w , e s p e c i a l l y when s i t e c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d e x t r a s t u d y . 54 Memorandum from the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , t o the P a n e l Chairman, September 16, 1969i "^Des ign P a n e l R e p o r t . "^Memorandum from the O f f i c e of the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , May 1, 1969. "^Memorandum to the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l from the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , May 13, 1969/ I b i d . 59 L e t t e r to the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g from W.R. G i b s o n , Chairman of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee, September 24, 1971. I b i d . 6 1 I b i d . 62 L e t t e r r e c e i v e d from W.R. G i b s o n , Chairman of the A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee. I b i d . 6 4 T , . , I b i d . - 188 -CHAPTER VII EPILOGUE The epilogue i s comprised of five parts. The f i r s t consists of several recommendations for some functional, structural and procedural changes to the Civic Design Panel based on the analysis and conclusions reached i n Chapter VI of the thesis. The second part consists of an evaluation of the validity of the hypothesis. The third part evaluates the design panel system in principle, especially in relation to the traditional arguments which have been made against i t , and which have been described in Chapter IV of the thesis. The fourth part describes the study's relevance to the practice of community and regional planning, while the f i n a l part consists of some recommendations for further research. Summary Review of the Case Study As stated in the analysis and conclusions of the findings in Chapter VI, several areas of conflict exist between the architect members of the Civic Design Panel and the Design Panel Committee of the A.I.B.C. on the one hand, and certain members of the civi c administration on the other. The exact nature of these conflicts has been described and the relative positions of the two groups have been - 189 -documented in Parts I and II of the investigation. The results of the investigation expressed the need by the architect members for a redef-ini t i o n of the Panel's role and the improvement of conditions which would allow for the expansion of i t s terms of reference, better pres-entation by civi c o f f i c i a l s of development policies andiintentions relevant to each project reviewed, an earlier exposure of major devel-opment projects, expanded Panel membership in terms of experience and expertise, and the positive "feed-back" to the Panel from the decision making bodies. The second objective was to explore the possibility of achieving a greater participatory role for the Panel in actively assisting to shape the environmental goals of the city as opposed to merely making subjective judgements on the aesthetic merits of build-ing design. The Director of Planning and Panel Chairman have acknow-ledged the merits of many aspects of these two broad objectives and have met with representatives of the Design Panel Committee of the A.I.B.C. on several occasions to explore the means by which many of these conflicts could be resolved. On the assumption that a l l principals are interested in seeking the means to resolve a l l existing conflicts related to Panel operation with the ultimate objective of improving i t s effectiveness, several recommendations are made in this section. - 190 -I. Recommendations For Improvement in the Operation of the Civic  Design Panel The following recommendations involving functional, structural and procedural changes i n the operation of the Civic Design Panel are based largely on the observations and conclusions made in Chapter VI of the thesis. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Panel should be required to base i t s recommendations on the functional as well as the aesthetic aspects of design submissions. Comments This recommendation is based on three factors: a) the consensus shown in Part II of the investigation, b) on the basis of the interpretation of the term "architectural design" as stated by the Design Panel committee of the A.I.B.C. and which must be considered the ultimate authority on this subject in the province, and c) on the basis of contemporary architectural and urban design c r i t e r i a which indicate that urban aesthetics means more than the concept of static beauty in the abstract sense, and is now acknowledged as encompassing social needs and values which must be expressed through a l l the physical design elements in the city. 2. A l l environmental elements such as bridges, viaducts,pparks, civic centers, etc., should become mandatory items for design review. - 191 -Comments This recommendation is based on two factors: a) almost a l l respondents interviewed unanimously agreed that these types of items be included on the Panel agenda and, b) these design elements may often impose a greater impact on the quality of the urban environment than many architecturally designed buildings, and is in fact directly related to the principles outlined in Recommendationol(c) above. 3. "Prototypal" 1'design items such as minor school or church additions, small apartment buildings, etc., should be deleted from the Panel agenda and screened by architecturally trained personnel in the Planning Depart-ment during the regular screening process. Comments This recommendation is based on the fact that the majority of respond-ents in a l l categories of the opinion survey favoured this procedure. 4. Panel membership should be expanded to include a landscape archi-tect, urban designer, and an outside city planner as f u l l time members. Several additional disciplines such as an urban sociologist, transpor-tation planner, and interested lay members should be included on a reserve basis, to become available only when the unique nature of a particular design proposal requires his special area of expertise. Comments Although environmental design studies are inherently inter-disciplinary, - 192 -and some advantages may be gained by including as wide and diverse a membership as possible, the strain on the Panel in terms of lengthened meetings and protracted discussions which might occur on minor proposals could only have the negative effect of discouraging Panel attendance. Even under present circumstances, this has occasionally been a source of concern i n the past. It is quite conceivable that the f u l l comple-ment of both f u l l and part time members would only be summoned to review proposals of a major type such as the Royal Center, Project 200, or the Pacific Center. In any event, i t would be strongly advisable that a l l members carry an equal vote in a l l decisions. 5. The Panel should retain i t s present status as being a purely advi-sory body to the Technical Planning Board, but a special Panel Committee should be established by Council to provide direct access by the Panel to the ultimate decision making body. Comments This recommendation is based on the suggestions made by the majority of Panel members from both categories and from the view held by the Chairman of the Design Panel Committee. In the latter's view, "Most municipal design panels work much more effectively and with direct 2 contact with municipal councils as required." In addition, the view expressed by some respondents that the Design Panel could be repres-ented by one voting member on both the Town Planning Commission and - 193 -the Technical Planning Board could be of immense additional value in presenting the Panel's views on a l l general development policies in the city. It is not recommended that the Panel seek legal status through a revision in the Vancouver Charter, as this could well result in some restriction placed on i t s freedom of comment. 6. The Panel should be given the opportunity to review a l l major development proposals at an adequately early stage in order to recom-mend design changes i f necessary. Comments This recommendation is based on the fact that a l l persons interviewed emphasized that this procedure was essential in assuring greater Panel effectiveness. However, this recommendation can only be implemented at the Departmental level i f Council can be persuaded to abandon i t s present policy of direct and "confidential" negotiations with large scale developers. 7. A l l major or complex development proposals should be reviewed at separately convened meetings. Comments This recommendation is based on the overwhelming consensus obtained in the opinion survey. Although this recommendation would result in a greater time commitment from Panel members, the importance of this type of development to the overall quality oftthe urban environment. - 194 -demands the careful and detailed consideration of every Panel member. It i s questionable whether a high standard of review could be obtained from a greatly expanded Panel which i s also required to review several additional items on the same agenda. 8. The Panel members should receive adequate advance information at the earliest possible time concerning a l l major development projects. Comments This recommendation is also based on the overwhelming consensus received from a l l categories in the investigation. This recommendation should be implemented in two ways: a) the dissemination to Panel members of short and long range Planning Department reports regarding evolving development plans and policies of a general nature, and b) providing Panel members with additional background information concern-ing specific development projects which may become available during the various planning and design stages. 9. The Design Panel should be formally advised by the Technical Planning Board or City Council for any reversal of Panel decisions with a f u l l explanation for any such reversals. Comments Although this feature of Panel operation was not included in the questionnaire, this point was raised by a l l architect respondents during the subsequent discussion, and seemed to be a particular source - 195 -of concern of these members. II. Evaluation of the Hypothesis The hypothesis of the thesis i s that "the role of the Civic Design Panel must be broadened to include the functional as well as the aesthetic aspects of design review c r i t e r i a in order to improve the city's total physical environment." The validity of the hypothesis w i l l be analyzed on the basis of four separate sources of information as revealed in the main body of the thesis and the case study, namely: 1. A review of current theory regarding architectural and urban design principles as outlined in Chapter I of the thesis. 2. A review of current trends in architectural review practices in other cit i e s as outlined i n Chapters III and IV of the thesis. 3. The views related to architectural design theory and articu-lated by the Design Panel Committee of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia. 4. A review of the conclusions drawn from the case study and directly relevant to the evaluation of the hypothesis. 1. A review of current theory regarding architectural and urban  design principles. A review of the literature revealed that civic design was f i r s t associated with the appearance of c i t i e s , i.e., how to make them - 196 -more physically impressive and attractive. By the early 1950's, the superficial and static characteristics of civic design principles gradually gave way to the more socially oriented concept of urban design which sought to effectively integrate the fields of architec-ture and planning into a new and organic city building process encompassing a l l aspects of city form, structure and visual character-i s t i c s . Within this new framework, urban aesthetics has come to mean more than the static arrangement of a building's parts to be made into a "work of art". Urban aesthetics, as interpreted by contempor-ary architects, urban designers and planners encompasses social needs and values which must be expressed through a l l the physical design elements of a city. In this sense, the primary goal of urban design is to develop an aesthetically pleasing urban environment through overall urban form and individual design elements in order to provide the physical conditions which allow the kind of social experience desired by the inhabitants of aecity. 2. A review of current trends in architectural review practices in  other c i t i e s . In reviewing the function and general operation of the various forms of architectural review boards, commissions, and other agencies, there appears to be a gradual broadening of review c r i t e r i a to include some functional as well as purely aesthetic considerations. For - 197 -example, in New Orleans the 1967 Vieux Carre Study has made some spec-i f i c proposals to expand the Commission's terms of reference to include land use compatibility as an integral part of review procedures. It had become recognized that the buildings plus the uses to which they are put must be regulated in order to preserve and enhance the total environment (tout ensemble) of the area. It is also significant that some of the more recently established architectural review boards in the United States which regulate development in the entire municipality, such as those in Monterey, Beverly H i l l s , Ventura and other c i t i e s and municipalities i n California have also been given wider powers of review. Some of these functional considerations include the size, location and arrangement of on site parking areas, landscaping ameni-ties, sign and billboard design and location and t r a f f i c circulation patterns within the development area. The most recently established agency of this type in a major North American city has tremendously wide powers of review and terms of reference. The Seattle Design Commission makes recommendations in the selection of project designers and recommends such aesthetic, functional and environmental design principles and policies as i t considers appropriate and advantageous 3 in the development of a project for the general benefit of the city. Although the design panel system in the United Kingdom is s t i l l based largely on the traditional aesthetic aspects of design review, the revolution i n the attitude of the English public towards environmental - 198 -q u a l i t y has p r e c i p i t a t e d the Roya l F i n e A r t Commission to comment on i s sues of i n c r e a s i n g l y w i d e r scope. For example, s i n c e the C i v i c Ameni t ie s A c t of 1967 and the Town and Country P l a n n i n g A c t of 1968, the R . F . A . C . has r e g u l a r l y commented on l a n d use and l o c a t i o n incom-p a t i b i l i t i e s , the impact of r i b b o n development on the c o u n t r y s i d e , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problems and almost every o ther aspect of p h y s i c a l development which a f f e c t s the t o t a l environment . 3 . The views r e l a t e d to a r c h i t e c t u r a l theory and a r t i c u l a t e d by the  Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . I n r e v i e w i n g the comments made by the a r c h i t e c t members of the P a n e l , and the p o l i c y statement of the Des ign P a n e l Committee of the A . I . B . C . , i t i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r a l c i r c l e s no longer v iew as v a l i d the concept tha t the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r e embraces something l e s s than t o t a l environmenta l v a l u e s : Current l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i c i s m i n the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r e i s i n c r e a s i n g l y comprehensive i n o u t l o o k , a broadening out from i t s former narrow a e s t h e t i c u t i l i t a r i a n base to encompass the f u l l range of pragmatic development a f f e c t i n g i n t o t a l the community e n v i r o n m e n t . 4 and . . . the emerging concepts o c c u r r i n g i n ' contemporary a r c h i t e c t u r e and urban des ign f i e l d have shown a s u b s t a n t i a l s h i f t towards a broader d e f i n i t i o n of the p h y s i c a l d e s i g n e r ' s r o l e i n shaping environmenta l des ign c r i t e r i a . 5 In the Committee's v i e w , the r o l e of the Pane l i s to adv i se on matters of environmenta l de s ign s i n c e the term " a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n " i m p l i e s - 199 -a l l matters r e l a t e d to the t o t a l p h y s i c a l environment. In order to f u l f i l i t s p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to the c i t y , a l l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to a l l p h y s i c a l development such as mass ing , m a t e r i a l q u a l i t y , a c c e s s i b i l -i t y , l and use and the e v a l u a t i o n of s h o r t and long range development p lans and p o l i c i e s should f a l l w i t h i n the P a n e l ' s powers of r e v i e w . 4 . A rev iew of the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the case study and d i r e c t l y  r e l e v a n t to the e v a l u a t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i s . CONCLUSIONS 1. A r e d e f i n i t i o n of the P a n e l ' s present r o l e i s r e q u i r e d at t h i s t ime . 2 . The Panel s s f u n c t i o n should p r i m a r i l y c o n s i s t of a d v i s i n g the c i v i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n on the de s ign m e r i t s of a l l aspects of the c i t y ' s p h y s i c a l development f o r t h e r g e n e r a l b e n e f i t of the urban environment. 3 . The P a n e l ' s present terms of r e f e rence as i n t e r p r e t e d by c i v i c o f f i c i a l s are inadequate . 4 . The P a n e l should be r e q u i r e d to rev iew the f u n c t i o n a l as w e l l as the a e s t h e t i c aspects of urban development, such as l and use , a c c e s s i b i l i t y , t r i p genera t ion and l o c a t i o n f a c t o r s . 5 . A l l env i ronmenta l des ign elements such as b r i d g e s , v i a d u c t s , p a r k s , c i v i c c e n t e r s , p u b l i c monuments, e t c . , should become manda-t o r y items f o r des ign r e v i e w . - 200 -6. The quality of the total physical environment has improved only somewhat less than moderately since the Panel was established. The investigation of the hypothesis has revealed the need to expand the role of the Vancouver Civic Design Panel to include the functional as well as the aesthetic aspects of design review in order to improve the city's total enviornment. It is concluded that the hypothesis appears valid. III. An Evaluation of the Design Panel System in Principle On the basis of a l l information collected in the thesis, i t has been concluded that some form of aesthetic and functional control over the physical development of the city is necessary to help prevent the exploitation of the land, environment and people. However, as outlined in Chapter IV of the thesis, there s t i l l exists a great body of opinion which is opposed to the design panel system or similar agency in the administration of this type of regulation for several reasons. In summary, the traditional arguments against any form of architectural controls are: a) the d i f f i c u l t y in establishing aesthetic standards which can be objectively judged. b) because i t is an unconstitutional invasion of propertyrrights Cin the United States context). - 201 -c) the d i f f i c u l t y in securing a jury of competent architects who are willing to pass judgement on the designs of other architects. d) because i t can result in regimentation or the bureaucratic s t u l t i f i c a t i o n of the creative process, thereby encouraging mediocrity in a l l architecture. Although i t is beyond the scope of this thesis to deal with each of these points on a detailed and comprehensive basis, the investigation into regulations based on aesthetic objectives and i t s administration by architectural review boards, design panels and similar bodies has led the author to draw several conclusions related to these arguments. Several conclusions are also reached on the basis of the information revealed in the case study as well. There is no evidence in this investigation to show that absolute aesthetic standards in terms of building design or architectural "style" can be established. In fact, one, has only to consider such conflicts within the architectural profession i t s e l f as those occur-ring between the "functionalists" and "romanticists" and to also con-em template hi s t o r i c a l cycles between extremes and reactions to extremes to see the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent in this problem. On the other hand, the evidence is strong that both good and bad design does exist exclusive of architectural "style" or design trends of the day. These in fact can be assessed by a jury of competent architects in terms of massing, use of materials, scale, etc., and the design's relationship - 202 -to i t s surroundings. As already concluded in the last section, however, the proper function of design panels is not to judiciously review submissions in terms of absolute design standards, but rather in the terms outlined above as well as on the basis of i t s positive contribu-tion to the urban environment. Although the existence of design panels has been strongly opposed in the past by many j u d i c i a l , legal, and professional authorities in the United States, the evidence shows that the j u d i c i a l attitude is definitely changing in upholding this device as a valid basis for the protection of the public welfare and a legitimate exercise of the municipalities' regulatory power. Within the context of the case study, there has seldom been any d i f f i c u l t y in securing a jury of competent architects to serve on the Civic Design Panel. It is normally the policy of the A.I.B.C. to nominate only the more talented "up and coming" young members from i t s organization to infuse a dynamic s p i r i t of enthusiasm or elan in the quality of the Panel, together with a high degree of professional competence and expertise. Although the evidence in the case study shows that i t is ques-tionable whether the existence of the Design Panel serves the positive function of encouraging the practice of good architecture, i t definitely indicates that i t does not serve the negative function of inhibiting the creative process which encourages mediocrity in a l l architecture. - 203 -Precisely stated, "good architects s t i l l do good architecture and badu architects s t i l l do bad architecture". However, the Panel does serve the function of preventing the worst examples of architecture to be buil t , forcing the minimum standard of design in the city to reach a somewhat higher level. With respect to the value and effectiveness of the design panel system operating in various municipalities in British Columbia, the view expressed by W.R. Gibson, Chairman of the Design Panel Committee of the A.I.B.C. is ofpparticular interest: E w.ould say that at the present time, and under the present frameworks, design panels in B.C. are doing considerably more good than harm. I know of no instance where any outstanding design has been suffocated by design panel considerations and interventions. The effectiveness of design panel considerations only becomes apparent in time, as the inventory of considered p projects gradually builds impact. Against the time scales of building l i f e and city development, our design panels can be measured as barely starting. It i s a long snowballing process with such unmeasurable side effects as changing attitudes of Councils and citizens and [their] influence on developers and builders. 7 On the basis of a l l information collected i t is concluded that, properly administered, the design panel system can help to achieve a higher minimum standard of architecture and building design without inhibiting the creative process or encouraging mediocrity in a l l architecture. IV. Relevance of the Study to Community and Regional Planning With our growing awareness and concern with the quality of the urban environment, many municipalitiestin North America are exploring - 204 -various means with which to more effectively regulate a l l aspects of both public and private development. The poss i b i l i t i e s that the design panel system offers may be one of the more promising regulatory devices with which to accomplish this objective. As stated elsewhere in the thesis, however, very l i t t l e information has been documented on this subject in North America. In the past several years the City of Vancouver Planning Department alone has received many inquiries regarding the nature of the Civic Design Panel's operation in terms of i t s function, composition, terms of reference, membership, etc. It is hoped that the findings in this study w i l l help to dispel some of the traditional legal, professional and p o l i t i c a l barriers which have prevented a greater use of the design panel system in other communities. It i s apparent that the function of design panels w i l l become increas-ingly more comprehensive in scope, to f u l f i l the gradually evolving concepts of architectural and urban design principles and their object-ives. With this advent, the relevance of the information collected in this study becomes clear. It has been stated that the broad objective of the practice of community and regional planning is'to:promote - the welfare of the people in the community by helping to create an increas-ingly more useful, attractive and convenient environment for them. As revealed in the case study, the design panel system may be one of the more important devices available to the practice of community and regional planning in achieving this objective. - 205 -V. Recommendation For Further Research Due to the time constraints of the study, only a sample of opinions was obtained from the various persons associated with the operation of the Civic Design Panel in order to assess i t s effective-ness. As the inventory of considered designs in the city grows, i t is suggested that further investigation regarding the Panel's impact on the character and quality of the urban environment be conducted on the basis of a visual survey of a l l projects which have had the benefit of Panel consideration. With the aid of both graphic methods and text, a comparative analysis should be made on selected designs as f i r s t submitted for Panel consideration at the preliminary sketch design stages to the f i n a l presentation perspectives or models, or the actual completed project on site. A documented l i s t of a l l changes which had resulted during successive stages of refinements and based on recommendations from both the Panel and the new Environmental Design Committee would be included wherever possible. The f u l l impact of the Panel's effectiveness in shaping the quality of the urban environment could then be analyzed on the basis of both established and evolving architectural and urban design c r i t e r i a as outlined in previous sections of the thesis. - 206 FOOTNOTES "''Term used by Panel Secretary to denote those designs which have become somewhat standardized. 2 Correspondence received from Mr. W.R. Gibson, Chairman, A.I.B.C. Design Panel Committee, March 8, 1972. 3 City of Seattle, op_. c i t . , p. 3. 4 Freschi, op. c i t . ^A.I.B.C. Design Panel Committee, op. c i t . ^Civic Design Panel, personal interview with Mr. R. Henriques, M.R.I.A.C. 7W.R. Gibson, see note no. 1. - 207 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Books A r o n o v i c i , C a r o l , Community B u i l d i n g : S c i e n c e , Technique , A r t (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1956) . B a r d , A l b e r t S . , A e s t h e t i c s i n C i t y P l a n n i n g ( C i t i z e n s Union Research Foundat ion , New Y o r k , 1957) . B a s s e t t , Edward M . , Zoning (Wm. F . F e l l Company, P r i n t e r s , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n . , 1936) . Beuscher , J . H . ( e d . ) , Land Use C o n t r o l s - Cases and M a t e r i a l s (The C o l l e g e Typing Company, Madi son , W i s e , 1966) . B l a i r , F r e d e r i c k H . , and C u r t i s , V i r g i n i a ( e d s . ) , P l a n n i n g C i t i e s (American S o c i e t y of P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , Chicago , 1 1 1 . , 1970) . B l a k e , P e t e r , God's Own Junkyard : The Planned D e t e r i o r a t i o n of  Amer ica ' s Landscape ( H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , New Y o r k , 1964) . C a r t e r , Edward, The Future of London (Penguin Books L i m i t e d , M i d d l e s e x , 1962). C r o c e , Bernede t to , A e s t h e t i c s as a Sc ience of E x p r e s s i o n and Genera l  L i n g u i s t i c s ( M a c M i l l a n and Company L t d . , London, 1909) . C u l l i n g w o r t h , J . B . , Town and Country P l a n n i n g i n England and Wales (George A l l a n and Unwin L t d . , London, 1970) . D a v i s , K i n g s l e y , "The U r b a n i z a t i o n of the Human P o p u l a t i o n " , i n C i t i e s ( A l f r e d A . Knopf , I n c . , New Y o r k , 1965).. Dawson, R . M . , "The D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Powers - C r e a t i o n o f a F e d e r a t i o n " , i n Se lec ted Readings i n Law For L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , ( e d . ) , W.T. Lane, School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver , B . C . , 1970. D e l a f o n s , John, Land Use C o n t r o l s i n the U n i t e d States (The M . I . T . P r e s s , Cambridge, M a s s . , 1966). - 208 -D e s s o i r , Max, A e s t h e t i c s and The Theory of A r t (Wayne S ta te U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , 1970) . Durant , W i l l , The P lea sure s of Ph i lo sophy (Simon and Schus te r , New Y o r k , 1953) . E l d r i d g e , H . Wentworth, ( e d . ) , Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , V o l . 1 (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1967). F a g i n , Henry and Weinberg , Robert C , P l a n n i n g and Community Appear- ance, J o i n t Committee of Des ign C o n t r o l (Reg iona l P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1958) . Feldman, L i o n e l D . , and G o l d r i c k , M i c h a e l D . , P o l i t i c s and Government  of Urban Canada: Se l ec ted Readings. (Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , Toronto , 1969) . Green, P h i l l i p P . , J r . , Cases and M a t e r i a l s on P l a n n i n g Law and A d m i n i - s t r a t i o n ( I n s t i t u t e of Government, U n i v e r s i t y of Nor th C a r o l i n a a t Chapel H i l l , N . C . , 1962) . Gutheim, F r e d e r i c k , "Urban Space and Urban D e s i g n " , i n C i t i e s and  Space - The Future Use of Urban Land , ( e d . ) , John Wingo, J r . (The John Hopkins P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , 1966). Huberman, D . S . M . , "Uni form Law Course f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l Account ing B o d i e s " , i n Law f o r L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , ( e d . ) , W.T. Lane , School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver, B . C . , 1970. H u x t a b l e , Ada L o u i s e , W i l l They Ever F i n i s h Bruckner Boulevard? (The M a c M i l l a n Company, New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1969) . L e w i s , H a r o l d MacLean, P l a n n i n g the Modern C i t y , V o l . 1 (John W i l e y and Sons, I n c . , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1949) . L y n c h , K e v i n , The Image of the C i t y (The M . I . T . P r e s s , Cambridge, M a s s . , 1960). Mandelker , D a n i e l R . , Managing Our Urban Environment: Cases , Text and  Problems (The B o b b s - M e r r i l l Company, I n c . , P u b l i s h e r s , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1963) . McKown, Rober t , Comprehensive Guide to Town P l a n n i n g Law (George Godwin L t d . , London, 1964) . - 209 -Megarry , R . D . , A Manual of the Law of R e a l P r o p e r t y (Stevens and Sons L i m i t e d , London, 1947) . Ogden, C . K . , R i c h a r d s , J . A . , and Wood, James, The Foundat ion of A e s t h e t i c s (George A l l e n and Unwin L i m i t e d , London, 1922)~. Osborne, F r e d e r i c J . , Green-Be l t C i t i e s ( E v e l y n , Adams and Mackay, London, 1969) . Osborne, F r e d e r i c J . , and W i t t i c k , A r n o l d , The New Towns: An Answer to  M e g a l o p o l i s (Leonard H i l l Books, London, 1969) . Pushkarev, B o r i s , "Scaleaand Des ign i n a New Environment" , i n Who Designs  America?', 1 (ed.) Lawrence B . H o l l a n d (Doubleday and Company I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1965) . R e i d , L o u i s Arnaud, A Study i n A e s t h e t i c s (George A l l e n and Unwin L t d . , London, 1931) . Rudofsky, Bernard , S t r e e t s For People (Doubleday and Company, I n c . , Garden C i t y , New Y o r k , 1969) . S c o t t , M e l , A m e r i c a n ' C i t y P l a n n i n g S ince 1890 ( U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , Berke ley and Los Ange le s , 1969) . S i x t a , Gerhard t , Urban S t r u c t u r e (The P l a n n i n g Department of the D i s t r i c t of Burnaby, Burnaby, B . C . , 1971). Smyth, J . E . , and Soberman,, D . A . , The Law and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n  Canada ( P r e n t i c e - H a l l of Canada L t d . , Toronto , 1964). S p r e i r e g a n , P a u l P . , Urban D e s i g n : The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Towns and C i t i e s (McGraw H i l l Book Company, Toronto , 1965) . Tunnard, C . , and Pushkarev, B . , Man-Made Amer i ca : Chaos or C o n t r o l ? (Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New Haven, 1963). von E c k a r d t , W o l f e , A P l a c e to L i v e (De lacor te P r e s s , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1967). Webster , Donald H . , Urban P l a n n i n g and M u n i c i p a l P u b l i c P o l i c y (Harper and Brother s P u b l i s h e r s , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1958) . W i l l i a m s , Norman J r . , The S t r u c t u r e of Urban Zoning (Buttenheim P u b l i s h -i n g C o r p . , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1966). - 210 -A r t i c l e s and P e r i o d i c a l s B a i l e y , Stephen K . , and F r o s t , R i c h a r d T . , " A e s t h e t i c s and M e t r o p o l i t a n Growth" , i n J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 23 , No. 3, 1958. B a r d , A l b e r t S . , " A e s t h e t i c s i n C i t y P l a n n i n g " , i n C i t i z e n s Union  Research Founda t ion , New Y o r k , November, 1957. B r a i n e r d , H a r o l d B . , " A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The  P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , V o l . 4 , No. 2 , 1938. Cheney, Char le s W . , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , V o l . 6, No. 2 , 1938. Coates , Aylmer U . , " P o l i c i e s of Des ign C o n t r o l " , i n Town and Country  P l a n n i n g ; ' , V o l . 27, June, 1959. Freund, E r i c C . , "What i s Thi s Thing C a l l e d B e a u t i f i c a t i o n ? " , i n N e w s l e t t e r , Bureau of Community P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , V o l . 6 , Nos. 3 and 4 , 1966. Hoppenfe ld , Mor ton , "The Role of Des ign i n C i t y P l a n n i n g " , i n J o u r n a l  of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 26, No. 2 , May 1960. I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i t y Managers' A s s o c i a t i o n , L o c a l P l a n n i n g and A d m i n i s t r a - t i o n , T h i r d E d i t i o n , Chicago , 1 1 1 . , 1957. Kennedy, R . T . , et a l , " A e s t h e t i c C o n t r o l Over A r c h i t e c t s , i n A r c h i t e c - t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , A p r i l , 1955. Kneuse, W i l l i a m B . , " B u i l d i n g Board Achieves A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The American C i t y , V o l . 67 , No. 3 , March , 1952. L i t c h f i e l d , E l e c t u s D . , " A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l , D i s c u s s i o n " , i n The P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , V o l . 4 , No. 6 , 1938. MacKesey, Thomas W . , " A e s t h e t i c s and Z o n i n g " , i n The P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , V o l . 5 , No. 4 , January - March , 1939. McQuade, W a l t e r , "The V i s u a l Q u a l i t y of C i t i e s " , i n J o u r n a l o f the  American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , V o l . 35 , No. 3, March , 1961. M i n i s t r y of Housing,and L o c a l Government, A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l , Pamphlet No. 206/62, London, 1962. - 211 " P e p l e r , George L . , " A B r i e f For A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l " , i n The P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , V o l . 4 , No. 6 , 1938. Smi th , C h l o t h i e l Woodward, " C i t i e s i n Search of Form" , i n J o u r n a l . o f  the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , V o l . 35, No. 3 , March , 1961. Tomson, B . , and C o p l a n , Norman, " A e s t h e t i c s and the Law: P a r t 1" , i n P r o g r e s s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e , August , 1967. Tomson, B . , and Cop lan , Norman, " A e s t h e t i c s and the Law: P a r t 2 " , i n P r o g r e s s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e , September, 1967. Tunnard, C . , " C i t i e s by D e s i g n " , i n J o u r n a l o f the American I n s t i t u t e  of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 17, Summer, 1951. Weese, Harry M . , "Random Thoughts on A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o n t r o l s and T h e i r E f f e c t s on C i t i e s " , J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of A r c h i t e c t s , V o l . 35, No. 3 , March , 1961. Weinberg, Robert C , "Swedish P l a n n i n g Laws" , i n The P l a n n e r s ' J o u r n a l , January - February , 1937. -Weinberg, Robert C , "Urban Des ign and the Community", i n J o u r n a l of the  American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 26, No. 3, May, 1962. Wurs te r , C a t h e r i n e Bauer , "Do Americans Hate C i t i e s ? " , i n J o u r n a l of  the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 23 , No. 1, 1957. Young, Wayland, "Achievements and P r o j e c t s " , i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, December, 1970. Conference Proceedings American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , Junkyards , Geraniums and J u r i s p r u d e n c e , Proceedings of a Two Day N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e Conference , June 2 - 3 , Chicago , 1 1 1 . , 1967. E l l i f r i t , Ra lph S . , "Urban A e s t h e t i c s " , i n P l a n n i n g 1953, Proceedings of the Annual N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , October 11 - 15, 1953. H a l l , The Hon. F r e d e r i c k W . , "One Judge Looks a t Land Use R e g u l a t i o n " , i n P l a n n i n g 1961, Se lec ted Papers From the A . S . P . O . N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference, Chicago , 1 1 1 . , 1961. - 212 -Montgomery, Roger, "Urban Des ign - A t t a i n a b l e , E l u s i v e or I l l u s i o n a r y ? " , i n P l a n n i n g 1968, Se l ec ted Papers From the A . S . P . O . N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference, 1968. Tunnard, C h r i s t o p h e r , "Urban A e s t h e t i c s " , i n P l a n n i n g 1953, Proceedings of the A . S . P . O . N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , October 1 1 - 1 5 , 1953. Weinberg, Robert C , "Urban D e s i g n " , i n P l a n n i n g 1958, S e l e c t e d Papers From the A . S . P . O . N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , 1958. Welsh , George S . , "The P e r c e p t i o n of our Urban Environment" , i n P e r c e p t i o n and Environment : Foundations o f Urban D e s i g n , ( e d . ) , Robert E . S t r i p e ( I n s t i t u t e of Government, The U n i v e r s i t y of Nor th C a r o l i n a a t Chapel H i l l , 1962) . W i l l i a m s , S idney , "Urban D e s i g n " , i n P l a n n i n g 1953, S e l e c t e d Papers From the A . S . P . O . N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g Conference , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , October 11 - 15 , 1953. Reports Buchanan, C o l i n , and P a r t n e r s , Ba th : A Study i n C o n s e r v a t i o n , Report to the M i n i s t e r of Housing and L o c a l Government and Bath C i t y C o u n c i l , B a t h , 1968. C i t y of Vancouver, Board o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report to C i t y C o u n c i l , Vancouver, B . C . , March 4 , 1971. C i t y of Vancouver, Downtown Vancouver Development Concepts , Vancouver , B . C . , 1970. C i t y of Vancouver, T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , Proposed R e v i s i o n s to  Apartment Z o n i n g , Vancouver, B . C . , 1965. Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, The Canadian Economy from the 1960's to  the 1970 ' s , Four th Annual Review, Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1967. I n s t i t u t e f o r L o c a l Sel f-Government , C i v i c Ecology f o r Century 21 : A  Bo ld Approach, B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. P r e s i d e n t ' s C o u n c i l on R e c r e a t i o n and Beauty, From Sea to S h i n i n g S e a ; - A Report on the American Environment, Washington, D . C , 1966. - 213 -Report by the Grea te r London C o u n c i l , The G . L . C . i n the Environment , Greater London C o u n c i l , London, 1971. R o y a l F i n e Art sCommiss ion , T w e n t y - f i r s t R e p o r t , August 1968 - September 1971, London, December, 1971. U n i t e d S ta tes Chamber of Commerce, Form, Des ign and a More A t t r a c t i v e  C i t y , Washington, D . C , U . S . Chamber of Commerce, 1969. Unpubl i shed M a t e r i a l A s t l e s , A l l e n R . , "The P r e s e r v a t i o n and R e s t o r a t i o n of A e s t h e t i c and H i s t o r i c Elements W i t h i n ,the Nor th American C i t y " , Vancouver , B . C . , A p r i l 1969. C i t y of S e a t t l e , ' ' S ea t t l e Des ign Commission, D r a f t Study No. 6 /11/69 , S e a t t l e , Washington, 1969. P u b l i c Documents C i t y of Vancouver, Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575, Vancouver , B . C . , 1969. P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia , The Vancouver C h a r t e r , R . S . B . C , 1921, Chapter 55 , The Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B . C . , 1968. Theses Dempsey, Nadine M . , P a t t e r n and C o m p l e x i t y : P s y c h o - P h y s i c a l Needs as  Determinants i n the V i s u a l Environment , Unpubl i shed M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s „ i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver, B . C . , 1968. H a m i l t o n , Horace H . , R e g u l a t i o n Land Use By L o c a l Governments For  A e s t h e t i c Purposes , Unpubl i shed D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , Ind iana S ta te U n i v e r -s i t y , 1961. van Westen, Pe te r K o r n e l i s , Goal F o r m u l a t i o n and Achievement i n H i s t o r i c  D i s t r i c t P r e s e r v a t i o n , Unpubl i shed M a s t e r ' s Thes i s i n Community and Reg iona l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , Vancouver, B . C . , 1967. - 214 " The Press Esher , L o r d , " A e s t h e t i c Censors Without A c t i v e Power" , i n The London  Times, A p r i l 18, 1970. The Vancouver, Sun, March 15, 1968. Woodward, W a l t e r , "Des ign U n i t Rules on Q u a l i t y of Vancouver , B . C . , B u i l d i n g s " , i n the S e a t t l e Times, September 1, 1968. Other Sources A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , Correspondence r e c e i v e d from Mr . W.R. G i b s o n , Chairman, A . I . B . C . Des ign P a n e l Committee. A r c h i t e c t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia , N e w s l e t t e r , Vancouver, B . C . , J anuary , 1972. C i t y of Vancouver, Minutes of the C i v i c Design P a n e l , Vancouver, B . C . , 1968-1971. C i t y of Vancouver, Minutes of the H i s t o r i c Area A d v i s o r y Board , Vancouver , B . C . , May 3, 1971. C i t y of Vancouver , Minutes of the T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g Board , Vancouver , B . C . , 1970. C i t y of Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h M r . M. C r o s s , Deputy D i r e c t o r . C i t y of Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h M r . P . Mees, Secre ta ry to the C i v i c Des ign P a n e l . Greater London C o u n c i l , p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h M r . R. Shaw, London, England . Roya l F i n e A r t Commission, p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f . F . F i e l d e n , S e c r e t a r y , London, England . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f . B. F r e s c h i . - 215 -APPENDIX "0" B Y - L A W N o . 3407 O F T H E C I T Y .OF V A N C O U V E R A B y - l a w to establish ; i B o a r d , to he k n o w n as the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , to appoint the members of such B o a r d , and to determine the powers and duties of (lie same. W H E R E A S by Section 306 (k) ( i i i ) of the V a n c o u v e r Char ter , S .B .C . 1053, Chapte r 55, the Counc i l of the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r is empowered to appoint a Technica l Planning- B o a r d and to delegate to the same al l or any of the powers exercisable by the said Counc i l under such clause: A N D W H E R E A S the said Counc i l deems i t expedient to make such appointment, to delegate such powers, and to define the duties of such B o a r d . N O W T H E R E F O R E T H E C O U N C I L O F T H E C I T Y O F V A N C O U -V E R i n open mee t ing assembled enacts as f o l l o w s : 1. A B o a r d , to be k n o w n as the Technica l P l a n n i n g . B o a r d , is hereby established and appointed. 2. The membersh ip of the sa id B o a r d sha l l comprise the f o l l o w i n g : namely , The D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g The Commiss ioner of F i n a n c e (8/1/57—*3615) The Commis s ioner of W o r k s (8/1/57—*3615) T h e C i t y E n g i n e e r The Corpora t ion Counsel T h e C i t y Comptro l l e r The Supervi sor of P r o p e r t y and Insurance (28/1/58—*3G79) The M e d i c a l H e a l t h Officer T h e Super intendent of Schools T h e Superintendent of P a r k s \ The C i t y B u i l d i n g Inspector. 3. T h e duties of the B o a r d shal l b e : To act as a co-ordinat ing B o a r d and to consider and report upon tech-n ica l or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mat ter s bear ing on the development of the C i t y of V a n c o u v e r and w i t h o u t r e s t r i c t i n g the general i ty of the fore-going, to c a r r y out any or a l l of the f o l l o w i n g func t ions : (a) Prepare and submi t to Counc i l a development p lan f o r the future p h y s i c a l development of the said C i t y w h i c h shal l include a pro-g r a m m e of w o r k s and m a y include any other scheme for imple-m e n t i n g such development p l a n ; (b) A c t i n a n adv i sory capacity to Counci l i n mat ter s apper ta in ing to p l a n n i n g ; (c) A c t i n an advi sory capacity to Counc i l i n regard to any applica-t ions to change the zoning of any p a r t i c u l a r area and prepare and submi t to Counc i l any resu l tant amendments to the Z o n i n g B y - l a w ; (d) Recommend to Counc i l such revis ions or amendments of the Zon-i n g B y - l a w as m a y f r o m t i m e to t i m e be considered necessary; 219 A P P . "C" - 216 -(c) Compi le dat-a and ca r ry out surveys a n d ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ; (f) Prepare for submiss ion to Counc i l outl ine p l ann ing proposals f o r the whole or any part of the C i t y including- specific pro jec t s ; (g) D u r i n g the period of preparat ion of the overal l development plan and a Z o n i n g Hv-law, prepare supplementary schemes or plans for submiss ion to C o u n c i l ; (h) Prepare a I, the request of Counci l or other admin i s t r a t ive bodies or the Hoard of School Trustees reports and schemes supplement-a ry to the overal l development plan and i n pa r t i cu l a r w i t h a v iew to i n t e g r a t i n g the plans of the last mentioned bodies w i t h the development plan. P r o v i d e d that i n any case where the prepara-t ion of such a report or the execution of the scheme involves m a j o r expenditure by the C i t y the approval of C o u n c i l sha l l be obtained before u n d e r t a k i n g the preparat ion of such reports or schemes; (i) D o al l such acts, matters , or th ings as m a y be necessary or i n c i -dental to the c a r r y i n g out of such funct ions . 4. The B o a r d shal l have specific p o w e r : (a) T o author ize the issue of development p e r m i t s under and by v i r -tue of the Z o n i n g B y - l a w of the said C i t y . Such issue to be subject to such l i m i t a t i o n i n t ime and to such condit ions as the said B o a r d m a y prescr ibe : (b) Subject to the provi s ions of Sect ion 573(1) of the V a n c o u v e r C h a r t e r to re lax any provis ions of any Z o n i n g B y - l a w or of any by-law pre sc r ib ing requirements f o r dwel l ings i n any case where l i te ra l enforcement would resul t i n unnecessary hardsh ip , or would not, in the opinion of the B o a r d , be i n the best interests of the C i t y . Such re laxa t ion to be subject to such l i m i t a t i o n s i n t ime and to such condit ions as the said B o a r d m a y prescr ibe . (16/6/60—*3852) 5. W i t h o u t prejudice to Section 3 of th i s by-law, and d u r i n g the period whi l e a development p lan or general scheme is i n course of prepara-t ion , the duties of the B o a r d shal l include the f o l l o w i n g : (i) T o ensure as f a r as possible t h a t a l l development proposals w h i c h admin i s t r a t ive bodies or the B o a r d of School Trustees i n i t i a t e shal l be i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the development p l a n ; ( i i ) The pr inciples of development u n d e r l y i n g the prepara t ion of the overal l development p l an h a v i n g once been agreed upon, t h e n to ensure that a l l projects for development, or the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure t h e r e w i t h concerned, shal l be i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h such pr inciples and the pract ica l appl icat ion of the same. 6. The members of the said B o a r d shal l hold office by v i r t u e of t h e i r respective appointments . 7. A n y member of the B o a r d m a y designate h i s D e p u t y to act as h i s a l ternate at any par t i cu l a r meet ing of the B o a r d . A P P . " C " 220 - 217 -8. T l i c Di rec tor of P l a n n i n g shal l be the. C h a i r m a n of the Board . f>. T l i e Board shal l hold meetings at least once in each month but the C h a i r m a n of the B o a r d may call a special meet ing at his d i scret ion. 10. (a) At. any meet ing of the B o a r d any s ix members shal l f o r m a quor-um. (27 /2 /50—*3555 and 16/6/60—*3852). (b) N o report shal l be submit ted to Counci l unless such report has been adopted by the B o a r d by a two-thirds m a j o r i t y of the mem-bers present. 11. The B o a r d shal l keep w r i t t e n minutes of al l business transacted at any meet ing . 12. Subject to the provis ions of th i s B y - l a w the B o a r d shal l determine i ts own procedure. 13. T h i s B y - l a w sha l l come into force and take effect on and after the date of the final pass ing hereof. D O N E A N D P A S S E D i n open C o u n c i l th i s 15th day of November , 1954. F . H U M E , M a y o r . R . T H O M P S O N , C i t y C le rk . T h i s B y - l a w rece ived : 1st r e a d i n g — N o v e m b e r 15, 1954 2nd r e a d i n g — N o v e m b e r 15, 1954 3rd r e a d i n g — N o v e m b e r 15, 1954 221 APP. "C APPENDIX "B" - 218 -appointi'<l pursuant to tho piv.> > • of Section 572 of the Vancouver Charter.(22 3 <>('.—*4234) . PART II ADMINISTRATION Tho Director of Planning and the Technical Planning Board— Duties and Powers (1> It shall he the duty of the Director of Planning to carry out and enforce the provisions of this By-law. (2) It shall be the duty of the Technical Planning Boai'd to exercise on behalf of Council such powers as are hereby expressly dele-gated to them. (3) (a) The Director of Planning may make rules and regulations for the management of the Planning and Development De-partment, and shall order, direct and supervise all the work of the staff of such Depai-tment. (1)) The Director of Planning shall keep an account of all moneys that may be received by him on behalf of the City. (-0 If shall be the duty of the Director of Planning to insure that all projects in respect of which a development permit has been issued are carried out in conformity with the terms of such de-velopment permit for which purpose he may inspect or cause to be inspected any of such projects. (o) The Director of Planning or his accredited representatives shall have the. right of entry and may enter on to any land, or into any building at all reasonable hours, in order to inspect the same, and to ascertain whether the provisions of this By-law are being, or have been, carried out. Any person interfering with, or obstruct-ing, the entry of the Dhector of Planning or his accredited representatives on to any such land, or into any such building, which said entry is made or attempted to be made pursuant to the provisions of this By-law shall be deemed to be guilty of an infraction of this By-law. (2S/5/G3—*4063) (6) The Director of Planning shall keep a register of all applications for development permits and there shall be entered therein the terms upon which a permit is issued, or the reasons for refusing the same, as the case may be, with respect to each application; such register shall be considered a public record and shall be open for inspection by any member of the public during normal working hours... (7) . The power to approve or disapprove applications for development permits relevant to buildings or uses for which the consent of the Technical Planning Board is required shall be vested in such Board. (8) In dealing with applications for development permits the Tech-- 219 -mi-.al P l a n n i n g B o a r d m a y in every case and in accordance w i t h t in : provis ions of th i s B y - l a w grant such permi t s e i ther uncon-di t iona l ly , or subject to conditions, i n c l u d i n g a l i m i t a t i o n in t ime, or may refuse such permits . (a) The D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g m a y relax the provis ion of th i s B y - l a w where, due to conditions pecul iar either to the site or to the proposed development, l i t e ra l enforcement would resul t in unnecessary hardsh ip in any of the f o l l o w i n g cases: (22/3/GG—*4234) (i) A l t e r a t i o n s or addit ions to an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g w h i c h lacks m i n i m u m yards required by the appropriate dis-t r i c t schedule. A n y re laxa t ion i n th i s case shal l be w i t h respect to y a r d requirements only and in no case shal l such ya rd requirements be reduced to less t h a n s i x t y per cent (G0%) of the amount specified i n the d i s t r i c t schedule ; ( i i ) E r e c t i o n of more than one p r inc ipa l b u i l d i n g on one site or s t ruc tura l a l terat ions or addit ions to two or more pr inc ipa l bui ld ings e x i s t i n g on the same site and located in a C or M D i s t r i c t ; (aa) The Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d m a y re lax the provis ions of th i s by- law r e l a t i n g t o : (i) Required setbacks to off-street p a r k i n g areas where, in the opinion of the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , the land-scaping provided or to be provided is adequate to warrant , such re laxa t ion provided in a ( C - l ) C o m m e r c i a l D i s t r i c t or any (R) D i s t r i c t , such re laxa t ion sha l l not p e r m i t a landscaped f r o n t setback to be less on the side where the site abuts a site i n a ( C - l ) C o m m e r c i a l D i s t r i c t or any (R) D i s t r i c t than the required f r o n t y a r d of such a b u t t i n g site, t aper ing to. not less t h a n five feet at the side of the p a r k i n g area a b u t t i n g a street, lane or site zoned other t h a n as a ( C - l ) . ( i i ) Requi red screening on the boundary of a p a r k i n g area, s e rv ing a school, park or s i m i l a r use on a site i n excess of two acres, i n cases where the distance between such boundary and (R) D i s t r i c t s outside the site of the p r i n -cipal use served by the p a r k i n g area, is in excess of 250 feet. (10/11/64—*4139) ( i i i ) The m i n i m u m p a r k i n g or load ing spaces required where , due to condit ions pecul iar e i ther to the site or to the proposed development, l i t e ra l enforcement would result i n unnecessary h a r d s h i p ; (22 /3 /66—*4234) . (b) T h e Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d or the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , as the case m a y be before g r a n t i n g any re laxat ion sha l l be satisfied tha t any proper ty owner who is l i ke ly to be ad-verse ly affected is not i f i ed ; such not i f icat ion shal l be i n the . f o r m appropriate to the c i rcumstances ; (22/3/66—*4234) - 220 -(c) If any property owner so notified shal l object then such re-laxat ion shall not be granted but the appl icant f o r such re-laxat ion may then exercise his r i g h t of appeal to tho Zon ing Hoard of Appeal at w h i c h t ime the representat ions of the Technica l C l a i m i n g Roard or the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g as the case may be and of any such property owner shall be h e a r d ; (22/3/G6—*4234) PROVIDED A L W A Y S in g r a n t i n g any re laxat ion pursuant to the above powers, the Board and the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g shal l adhere to the sp i r i t of the B y - l a w . (10) (a) A n y appl icat ion m a y be referred to a D e s i g n P a n e l appointed by the C i t y Counc i l to consider and advise on a rch i tec tura l design. (b) The Des ign Pane l shal l consist o f : (i) The D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g , who sha l l be the C h a i r m a n . ( i i ) The C i t y B u i l d i n g Inspector. ( i i i ) Three members of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Ins t i tute of B r i t i s h Co lumbia . ( iv) One member of the As soc i a t ion of Profes s iona l E n g i n -eers of the Prov ince of B r i t i s h Co lumbia . (11) In the g r a n t i n g or refusal of development permi t s , and in the g r a n t i n g of re laxat ions or the impos i t ion of condit ions, due regard shal l be g iven to the intent of the B y - l a w as the same applies to the par t i cu la r development under considerat ion. (12) N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the provis ions of th i s B y - l a w a development permi t m a y be refused, i f the development i n respect of w h i c h appl icat ion is made : (a) Does not conform to an amendment to the Z o n i n g and De-velopment B y - l a w for w h i c h a f o r m a l appl icat ion has been made pr io r to the appl icat ion f o r the development permi t . (b) Refers to a site or a por t ion thereof required for any c iv ic purpose, i n w h i c h event the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d shal l re fer the appl icat ion to the C i t y C o u n c i l for a u t h o r i t y e i ther to negotiate w i t h the appl icant or to issue the development permit . (c) W o u l d pre judice the future subdiv i s ion of the proper ty . (d) Refers to a site where adequate drainage, s an i t a ry fac i l i t ie s or water supply are not available. (e) W o u l d i n the opinion of the C i t y E n g i n e e r adversely affect • the publ ic safety. (f) W o u l d in the opinion of the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d adversely affect publ ic ameni ty . I f mat ter s of design are involved , the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d m a y re fer the ap-p l ica t ion to the Des ign Pane l to consider and advise. (13) In any case where a Development P e r m i t has been issued for a use l i s ted in Sect ion 2 of any D i s t r i c t Schedules to th i s by- law 8 - 221 -pursuant to the approval of the Technica l P l a n n i n g Board , the r r . : . . J M n v j p r _ of P l a n n i n g m a y author ize the issuance of a Develop-ment P e r m i t for a n addi t ion to such, development, provided that t lu^a l i i l i l . i bn complies i n a l l respects w i t h the provis ions of th i s l>y-law and does not exceed 3 0 % of the gross floor area of the 1 mild ing author ized by the or ig ina l Development P e r m i t . (22/3/06—*4234) Board of Appea l — Procedure REPEALED 5 / 7 / C O — *38G2— (See B y - l a w N o . 3841 — A p p e n d i x "D"). Enforcement (1) The Di rec tor of P l a n n i n g or the C i t y B u i l d i n g Inspector or the H o u s i n g Contro l Co-ordinator or such other person as is author iz-ed by resolut ion of Counc i l are hereby empowered to order or direct any per son : (a) to discontinue or r e f r a i n f r o m proceeding w i t h any work or us ing or occupying any land or b u i l d i n g or doing a n y t h i n g that is in contravent ion of th i s b y - l a w ; (b) to c a r r y out any w o r k or do a n y t h i n g to b r i n g any land or b u i l d i n g into c o n f o r m i t y w i t h th i s by- law. (2) The Z o n i n g B o a r d of A p p e a l or the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d is hereby empowered to order or direct any per son : (a) to discontinue do ing a n y t h i n g that is in contravent ion of any terms or conditions prescribed b y the Z o n i n g Board of A p -peal or the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , as the case m a y be; (b) to c a r r y out any w o r k or do a n y t h i n g to b r i n g any land or b u i l d i n g into conformi ty w i t h any terms or condit ions pre-scribed by the Z o n i n g B o a r d of Appea l or the Technica l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , as the case may be. (3) In the event of default , neglect, refusal or f a i lure to comply w i t h the order or d irect ion g iven pursuant to Section 5 (1) or Section 5 (2) according to the terms thereof, the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g may , w i t h o u t prejudice to a l l and any other methods of enforce-ment provided for in this by-law, b r i n g the mat te r to the at tent ion of Counc i l , and i f Counc i l shal l so require , then the D i r e c t o r of P l a n n i n g m a y cause such w o r k to be done and the cost of such w o r k sha l l be recoverable by the C i t y by s u m m a r y process at law i n any court of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n and i f the person de fau l t ing appears by the Collector 's R o l l of t h e C i t y to be the owner or owner under agreement, then the cost of such w o r k s shal l also be a charge upon the said proper ty and the said costs w h e n certif ied b y the D i r e c t o r of F inance , i f not before collected, shal l be entered b y the Col lector i n the Collector 's Ro l l next prepared a f ter receipt of such cert i f icat ion and shal l be col-lected i n the same manner as taxes shown on the said r o l l . (22/3/06—*4234) APPENDIX "C" - 222 -FOPw THE CO%S7,U&ttATS.OU uV THE TECfrlHXCflL BOARD February 20, 1970, I'cam '-'-o C i v i c Design P a n e l Minutes of the ©scti^g of February 19, 1970 Attached. APPROVE APPROVE RECEIVE REPORT REFUSE' - 223 -civic y.mi(m PANEL ?.ctir:c; ox t h e C i v i o R e s i g n P a n e l was h e l d on Thi?.rG&ay, r v ^ r y ' l S , 1970, aS 00 p.m. I n t h e P l a n n i n g Department r c r o n c e Room, T h i r d F l o o r , Eaefc Wing, 3F.?5Tj. Mr. M. M. C r o s s , ~ P a p o t y D i r e c t o r o f f a n n i n g , Cfoairrnatu Mr. C i t Do y A. Mat;hesoss, s l i d i n g I n s p e c t o r . Mr. Lo S h i i n g , MaR.A.I.C., Terrissj,Mo R. A* I. C Mr„ K i f i d , M.R.A.I.Co, Mr. Mo S m i t h , M.R.A.I-oCo , Mr. A. G r a f t , M«Ro A.1.C o, VI.. E. Graham : c r Maes :-:;itea of l:ha l a s t r ^ ^ t i n g o f J a n u a r y 8, 1970. h a v i n g i r c ^ l a t e c l aa3 thex's b e i n g no cocitasnt, vcar-e a d o p t e d e - 224 -C i v i c Design Pnnel l'iw.ztvri February l i , v; 5?^. C:- • i-.oanv P e m i t A p p l i c a t i o n Ho. 50795 5b.> :v.vo Street •» CM-2 .Office g l i d i n g . •"'•bio item was considered to be acceptable„ ^?C0M^r^>/Vr50%:. THAT the Technical Planning Board approve ... „ ... «. t h i s design. itv ^ _ f ^ S<rvelop^nt Permit A p p l i c a t i o n No. 50267 2010 Harrison - Prop, GD~1 •>.••: 1-.i; >r _ Clt\igens -^ H o i ^ Tb.*.:: design was considered to be mediocre. I t d i d however •.•••.'..'•.;•;•••:: -.'el;, to tl\e e x i s t i n g building' complex. ^b:iPkV:;::;:^D^±P?!.L THAT the Technical Planning Board approve t h i s design. it Per?r\£t A p p l i c a t i o n Ho. 50368, coftsider-rjcl t h i s design o v e r l y ft>?;s;y altb.or.gh i n :cr acceptsbl ' v r e l a t e d to the e x i s t ing buildinga. a l s o tli-At • e 1 £'.rifiea t i o n on e x t e r i o r fird.ob.ee was Allii•'. THAT the Technical Planning Board receive the above as a progress report and that the '•design be l a i d over f o r " s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n ' o n e x t e r i o r fi i a i c h a e . > - 225 -l,'i*/ji.c iioisign Panel 'Aisjute;., February 2 0 , 1970„ Development Permit A p p l i c a t i o n No. 50708 i/vO Aobson- Street - C-3 • CarJ-;ash_:-md Sen/ice Station This a p p l i c a t i o n was considered to be unacceptable on two points. 1, The use„ .?.. The design. The panel f e e l s that the proposed use i n t h i s form was not s u i t e d to a corner l o c a t i o n on Robson Street„ I t was suggested chat a development containing, for instance, shops on the s t r e e t ^ i d a \'ita a oar wash located behind, or a more intense f o r s of cc-veioywient such as an apartment tower with a car washing f a c i l i t y i n the basement would be p r e f e r r e d . The panel strongly c r i t i c i s e d the number of crossings which A...".'b very l i t t l e a c tual sidcwallt„ i s f e l t that the design i s g a r i s h and a l s o not s u i t e d to A -. l-'u\:;A: l--.-.n,. .• ac penei strongly recommends that Robsou Street be declared ."... ;.;iity s t r e e t i n order that uses such as ear wash o u t f i t s •:'.A A..r:e stations can be better controlled« .AbbAfAh7K: THAT the Technical Planning Board refuse t h i s design on the grounds that, i f executed, the b u i l d i n g w i l l adversely a f f e c t p u b l i c an-en ity« be •••meeting eiowed with f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of the "extra i t era' •\' i n the- previous minutes. A l e t t e r front Corporation' GonnsoJ •edi discussed and r e c e i v e d 0 •..••*./. '-^eivibers wished to hnow i f i t cot?.ld be possible to • • ::'-:?v-;rration on l a r g e r scale p r o j e c t s at soiae tisse before A;- .f: each a project i n a meeting. The panel feel.a that • iviformation would have been h e l p f u l i n analysing • v- " ; i - d : f : aoneo'ot.. APPENDIX "D" " 22? -MASTERS TUBSIS PROJECT Legislfif.iag Tor Urban Aesthetics: A Cass Study Of The Vancouver Civic Design. Panel CIVIC DESIGN PANEL QUESTIONNAIRE Is a sredafiaition of the Panel's presese role or yes function required as; this tiaie? no 2 . K'aat should the general function of the Design P a n e l be? (b^ Xe;aps_of Reference Ara the Panel cs present terms of reference > yes adequate? . r.o If !Vio" above, what other considerations should i t include, i . e , , land use, accessibility factors,, assisting'the Planning Department i n the fo?.mulatioia of development poli c i e s , etc. 5-. Should a i l eircdronmen.Cal elements such as viaducts, bridges,; parks., etc., become mandatory iteais for yea desigs review? r.o S, Should certain types of items now being regularly yes reviewed be deleted froto the Panel agenda? no b. If "yes" above, which types of items? 7„ Should Pa»el membership be broadened to include a yes greater diversity of opinion and expertise? ixo 7 - 228 -b. If "yea" above, shculd i t inciv.de: Please check a) an urban sociologist b) a landscape architect: ^ c> an urban designer d) c i v i c group lucsber •> a) other, pleasa specify (d) y<wars Sc Should the Panel*« powers be: a. Purely advisory to the TF3 as presently exists bo acquire status as a Iragal entity and to exercise a decision making power in the absolute sense To remain purely advisory as preaaatly exists but to have greater access to Council through a special committae d. Other, please specify (e> Procedures • Dees the Panel hava the opportunity to review major development proposals at an appropriately early stage? -3.0, Should a l l major or ccispiex development proposals be- reviewed separately at specially convened 1 1 . Does th« Panel receive advance information at the earliest possible fcis» for a l l ;aajor develcpjaeufc projects? (£'! Effectiveness always of tea occasionally airricRt never _ navar yes no only uv.der srxtclsl c i r cuius tancee always often occasionally almost never neror 1 2 „ Has the quality of the physical environment improved i n Vsncouve?: since the Panel was established? 13» Does the. Panel system encourage the practice of goad architecture froa* the architectural profession .in Vancouver? significantly moderately insignifleantly not at a l l significantly moderately insignificantly not at a l l - 229 -) -B-vas; t h e ''Y/cslic.^ra.ir-:' r o h ; ; o.i i';vn.<;.J. c u x ' t a i l - t h * siv/; ; : lxv.-: . :/iatly i m a g i n a t i o n , i a U i v i d ' V A l i t y ~-r the develoi&$r.e&t o f r » r r . d e l =;• '..'i":.';vr.hodox sol"'t:ioi.:-.: :; by a ' .vchxi : ict& . t h e r e b y e n c c u r ^ ^ x r - g _ K^s'\^'^l.\:i.'.:.:-Yi-xy:j m e d i o c r i t y i n . 3 . rohl ; :ec y;.ot s l i j'. -;-. A r e y o u i n f a v o u r o f t h e L U s i g r . P a n e l S y s t e m i n ;r.?.--p r i n c i p l e ? ao b . F o r what r e a s o n ( s ) ? F l e a s e s p e c i f y . . U i , The s p a c e b e l o w i s p r o v i d e d f o r any cc i iwisnt s y o u may ~« i sh to xoafca o r arty a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a f c i o n w h i c h y o u niay f e e l w i l l b e h e l p f u l i n a s s e s s i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . o f t h e C i v i c D e s i g n P a n e ! . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101715/manifest

Comment

Related Items