A Public Arbiter of Good Design - Design Review Boards

What is the basis for the arbitrary regulation of design?

I mean seemingly arbitrary regulation. I suppose that statement stems from the provision that unless design aesthetics reflect a thought process inherent within a specific project than the application of "design" as a commodity, is relatively arbitrary. Which of course must be justified and judged by a relatively arbitrary collection of judges (the design review board) that may or may not render their decision based upon a understanding of intent any more than personal preference.

Roger K. Lewis of the Washingtonpost argues that while land use and zoning regulations have a practical and legal backing most design reviews are hard to quantify. Personal taste and opinion may unduly influence critique in such a manner as to be detrimental to the community that would be affected by a proposed project. Once the possibility of political and personal intents are added to the equation the entire design review process becomes even more dubious.

There are the classic murmurs how those with an intimate familiarity with design should take the time and effort to populate their community's design review boards, however many people find these positions an easy way to feel important/connected and to profess personal ideologies upon a community that may or may not follow the same beliefs. One colleague stated, when I had considered joining my local design review committee (which I ended up not submitting a CV for), was that I "must not have enough work to keep me busy" with the assertion that those on the review boards are not talented enough to find enough work so instead they critique (similar to the adage that those that cannot do, teach) which is such a seemingly bitter statement that it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

Instead I agree with Lewis, that design review boards would do well to create a set of community standards and ideals, to maintain a high level of professionalism and intellect on the board coupled with a passion for the community that would be indicative of a strong belief system and personal reverence for the neighborhood that are, in effect, being protected. Only through creating a raised level of expectations for design can communities elevate the inferred value that is placed upon aesthetics and the rigor of problem solving. Whether the boards should be elected positions or even how this level of decorum would be maintained is beyond me. I don't profess to have all the answers (all the time) but I do suggest that systems in place and effect are continuously questioned in order to prove that they are working to our benefit and that they are still effective.

It isn't so much that I feel design review boards are a flawed system, or even that my personal interaction with them has been awful. Instead I found the article interesting in the assertion of how the system could be improved to the advantage of the design community and the 'city' as a whole.