IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v61y2024i7p1230-1247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualising ‘street-level’ urban design governance in Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Richardson

Abstract

This article develops ‘street-level bureaucracy’ theory to conceptualise how policy implementation within urban design governance is shared among actors whose role transcends sectoral responsibilities and motivations. It presents case study research with a Scottish local authority which has made a strategic investment in a placemaking policy agenda, including the creation of an influential design review panel of volunteer experts which exemplifies the wider embrace of private capacity within public governance. The paper identifies the distinctive role of design review panel members in street-level implementation, and shows how their discretion is shaped simultaneously by public and private interests. It concludes that understanding and utilising these micro-level processes provides opportunities for conceptualising policy implementation within a neoliberalising urban governance context, and for addressing the implementation gap between the aims of public urban design policy and the realities of delivery.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Richardson, 2024. "Conceptualising ‘street-level’ urban design governance in Scotland," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(7), pages 1230-1247, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:61:y:2024:i:7:p:1230-1247
    DOI: 10.1177/00420980231204219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980231204219
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00420980231204219?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Carmona, 2019. "Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-48, January.
    2. Gavin Parker & Emma Street & Matthew Wargent, 2018. "The Rise of the Private Sector in Fragmentary Planning in England," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 734-750, October.
    3. Alexander Cuthbert, 2017. "Urban decay and regeneration: context and issues," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 140-143, March.
    4. Matthew Carmona, 2019. "Marketizing the governance of design: design review in England," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 523-555, July.
    5. Catherine Durose, 2011. "Revisiting Lipsky: Front‐Line Work in UK Local Governance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 59(4), pages 978-995, December.
    6. Philip Black, 2019. "Beauty in the eye of the design reviewer: the contested nature of UK design review," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 556-574, July.
    7. Matthew Carmona, 2016. "Design governance: theorizing an urban design sub-field," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 705-730, November.
    8. 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.
    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. Johannes Herburger & Nicola Hilti & Eva Lingg, 2022. "Negotiating Vertical Urbanization at the Public–Private Nexus: On the Institutional Embeddedness of Planning Committees," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 253-266.
    2. Jing Jing, 2022. "Seeing Streetscapes as Social Infrastructure: A Paradigmatic Case Study of Hornsbergs Strand, Stockholm," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 510-522.
    3. Dickinson, Daniella & Shahab, Sina, 2021. "Post planning-decision process: Ensuring the delivery of high-quality developments in Cardiff," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Agnieszka Jaszczak & Ewelina Pochodyła & Katarina Kristianova & Natalia Małkowska & Jan K. Kazak, 2021. "Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Evelien Tonkens & Imrat Verhoeven, 2019. "The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1595-1610, June.
    6. Bartzokas-Tsiompras, Alexandros & Bakogiannis, Efthimios & Nikitas, Alexandros, 2023. "Global microscale walkability ratings and rankings: A novel composite indicator for 59 European city centres," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Yang Yang & Ruizhen He & Guohang Tian & Zhen Shi & Xinyu Wang & Albert Fekete, 2022. "Equity Study on Urban Park Accessibility Based on Improved 2SFCA Method in Zhengzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Mouratidis, Kostas, 2019. "Built environment and leisure satisfaction: The role of commute time, social interaction, and active travel," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Dalit Shach-Pinsly & Hadas Shadar, 2024. "The Public Open Space Quality in a Rural Village and an Urban Neighborhood: A Re-Examination after Decades," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Ramon Marrades & Philippa Collin & Michelle Catanzaro & Eveline Mussi, 2021. "Planning from Failure: Transforming a Waterfront through Experimentation in a Placemaking Living Lab," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 221-234.
    11. James Charlton & Ian Babelon & Richard Watson & Caitlin Hafferty, 2023. "Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-31.
    12. Chris Hastie, 2021. "The Perpetuation of Inequality: The Role of Community Engagement," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(3), pages 759-767, September.
    13. Rasha A. Moussa, 2023. "A Responsive Approach for Designing Shared Urban Spaces in Tourist Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-27, May.
    14. Gusti Ayu Made Suartika & Alexander Cuthbert, 2020. "The Sustainable Imperative—Smart Cities, Technology and Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-15, October.
    15. Howayda Al-Harithy & Batoul Yassine, 2023. "The Co-Production of a Shared Community Space in Al-Khodor, Karantina, in the Aftermath of the Beirut Port Blast," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Johan Colding & Karl Samuelsson & Lars Marcus & Åsa Gren & Ann Legeby & Meta Berghauser Pont & Stephan Barthel, 2022. "Frontiers in Social–Ecological Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Bernardino Romano & Francesco Zullo & Lorena Fiorini & Cristina Montaldi, 2022. "Micromunicipality (MM) and Inner Areas in Italy: A Challenge for National Land Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    18. Mouratidis, Kostas, 2021. "How COVID-19 reshaped quality of life in cities: A synthesis and implications for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Peter Fieger & Girish Prayag & David Dyason & John Rice & C. Michael Hall, 2023. "Exploring CBD Retail Performance, Recovery and Resilience of a Smart City Following COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Bradley Bereitschaft, 2023. "The changing ethno-racial profile of ‘very walkable’ urban neighbourhoods in the US (2010–2020): Are minorities under-represented?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(4), pages 638-654, March.

    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:sae:urbstu:v:61:y:2024:i:7:p:1230-1247. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.