IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i8p1572-d1213056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of the Urban Design Review Panel in a Master-Planned Community Development: A Case Study of Hobsonville Point, New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • I-Ting Chuang

    (School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

  • Lee Beattie

    (School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

Abstract

Design guidelines and design review panel (DRPs) are crucial components in ensuring consistent and high-quality design within masterplan sites. This study focuses on New Zealand, examining the challenges faced by industry partners in adapting to master-planned design guidelines. The case study centres on Hobsonville Point, the largest government-led masterplan community in New Zealand, which promotes sustainable and higher-density living—an uncommon concept in the country. We conducted interviews with 18 key stakeholders involved in the development of Hobsonville Point. The results show that the DRP provides flexible judgments and insightful information that better accommodate individual development characteristics than the strict numerical standards specified in design guidelines. This study underscores the importance of the DRP in producing good design outcomes, especially when they are involved at the very beginning of the design process. Additionally, we took note of stakeholder concerns about DRP members’ expertise and the possible effects of high turnover rates on the design process. To strive for continual improvement, future empirical studies on the DRP process are encouraged to enhance proficiency and dependability. Design guidance should be prioritised to ensure that climate-related design is implemented to promote sustainable urban development.

Suggested Citation

  • I-Ting Chuang & Lee Beattie, 2023. "The Role of the Urban Design Review Panel in a Master-Planned Community Development: A Case Study of Hobsonville Point, New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:8:p:1572-:d:1213056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/8/1572/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/8/1572/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Barnett, 2017. "Can we extend design governance to the big urban design decisions?," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 37-39, January.
    2. James T. White & Heather Chapple, 2019. "Beyond design review: collaborating to create well-designed places in Scotland," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 597-604, July.
    3. Matthew Carmona & Andrew Renninger, 2017. "The Royal Fine Art Commission and 75 years of English design review: the final 15 years, 1984–1999," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 577-599, October.
    4. Gary Hack, 2017. "The curious subject of design ‘governance’," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 41-43, January.
    5. James T. White, 2015. "Future Directions in Urban Design as Public Policy: Reassessing Best Practice Principles for Design Review and Development Management," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 325-348, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Husam AlWaer & Ian Cooper, 2020. "Changing the Focus: Viewing Design-Led Events within Collaborative Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Robert Richardson, 2024. "Conceptualising ‘street-level’ urban design governance in Scotland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(7), pages 1230-1247, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:8:p:1572-:d:1213056. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.