Demonstrating the need for performance evaluation in design governance

Urban design governance is defined as the means and processes of designing and managing the built environment to shape outcomes for better design performance and in the public best interest [1]. Most Australian cities use a performance-based planning approach to govern design. In these systems, urban design decisions are based on the degree to which different design alternatives deliver more liveable, sustainable, and economically vibrant living environments.

Often, however, there is no clear connection between the desired performance outcomes and clear and practical tools to evaluate and guide the design process. Instead, design regulation tends to be fragmented and uneven creating uncertain outcomes from the design process. Less ambitious minimum standards are often introduced to address this challenge which results in a process that is focused on designing to the lowest acceptable outcome.

Embedding performance evaluation into design regulation can lead to better-informed, more transparent decisions and elevate the industry towards pursuing high-performance design. Performance evaluation can facilitate discussions and decisions on trade-offs between different design alternatives. Through their effective use, we can avoid prescriptive design regulations and allow flexibility for innovation and design solutions that respond to the local context. This will also develop a more collaborative relationship between design teams and design reviewers.

Why should we include performance evaluation in design regulation?

Design regulations are often perceived as restrictions in the design process. The development of regulations often requires the need to anticipate many possible context variables (e.g., site orientation, built form context etc.) and then developing prescriptive metrics to guide designs towards acceptable outcomes. This approach carries a risk of design inefficiency, with restrictions that can hinder innovation or rule out opportunities for context-driven design responses, where better outcomes could be possible with an alternative design response.

To support flexible design responses, design regulations are often made discretionary – that is the developer is encouraged to align with the prescribed metric, but is not required to. This approach relies on the assumption that good design will naturally be the outcome of a design process aiming for high performance against defined design objectives (e.g., improving residential well-being and health). However, over the past few decades, market economics have significantly transformed our relationship with the spaces we inhabit. Land scarcity and speculation, as well as recent inflationary impacts, have increased the cost of building, and the quality of our built environment has, for many, become secondary to its performance as a commodity or asset for capital accumulation.

Performance evaluation in design is not new and has become well-established in sustainability regulation [2]. Various certifications are already standard practice in the market, including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS), Passivhaus or Green Star in Australia.Building sustainability certification tools can deliver some of the promised positive impacts, such as nearly a quarter reduction in greenhouse gases [3]. Certification is usually privately managed and can be costly. They are also not always required across other design measures beyond sustainability, however, in the last few years other quality performance measures, like a building’s impact on health and wellbeing, have been certified (e.g., WELL).

This type of performance evaluation can readily be expanded into other design dimensions. There is also a strong case to embed these types of evaluation tools into our regulation system to clearly connect design performance expectations with the broader design objectives that are universally agreed upon, such as biodiversity and walkability, and to add clarity to the way these are assessed.

Introducing performance evaluation into design governance

An effective performance-based system cannot work by just complying with defined metrics. It requires clear links between well-defined design objectives, carefully selected and tested performance measurements (quantitative and qualitative), explanatory guidance and tools for evaluation, and tangible examples of design excellence in achieving the best outcomes.

Whether a design performs well, depends on what we want the design to achieve, which can be different for all parties involved. It is therefore essential to clarify first what we want to realise. In this context, the role of the urban designer is situated upstream in the process, ensuring the design objectives and expectations are clear. Clear objectives should guide design decisions adding up to a higher performance in quality, sustainability, and overall urban liveability. The aim is to reposition the role of design teams in problem-solving, interpreting, and responding to urban complexity to develop innovative and high-performing design propositions that build up to the selected objectives.

How can this be done?

The following are key elements necessary for effectively establishing performance evaluation into design governance.

1. Clarity of values and objectives

Effective design governance using performance measures should first be positioned upstream of the specifics of development controls. To assess design performance, we first need clarity on what is valued, the design objective and purpose, the principles that should guide our design response and overarching performance indicators.

2. Evidence and testing that lead to agreed performance metrics

Performance measures and expectations shouldn't just be assumed; they need to come from experience and knowledge gathered from examples of high-quality design where they exist as well as academic research. They can also come from design competitions and design testing through open processes, including industry, academic and public partners.

Developing performance metrics through a shared process can also strengthen connections between various actors. It will guarantee that the expectations are achievable and grounded. It will also develop a substantial body of evidence and guidance for evaluating parties and design teams to further evolve together. A good recent example of this was the development of the Freo Alternative.

Testing will also help identify outcomes that are more direct to measure (e.g., sunlight access) and those that require more subjective guidance or may rely on complex evaluation methodologies (e.g., heritage or character integration). Outcomes that are not easily measured may still be evaluated through other tools that make up effective design governance (E.g., Case studies, review panels, and others).

3. Process-focused

The introduction of performance evaluation should be conceived as a tool for designers rather than an imposition. It is common for design practitioners to view regulations as an unnecessary diversion away from the primary task of design. To avoid this perception, performance evaluation should be accompanied by valuable aids across the design process to facilitate interpretation and discussions. Decision-makers need methodologies and tools to evaluate the expected performance of the built environment and to have conversations with design teams about feasible aspirations for design. Rather than prescribed solutions, these are definitions, metrics and other resources that further clarify the challenge and to which design teams can reference in developing design propositions, such as the Good Quality Homes for all Londoners guidelines.

4. Integrated with other design governance tools

As with other planning and urban design tools, performance evaluation is not a silver bullet. It should be integrated and considered within a wide array of tools, including design review panels, competitions, and other innovative tools that may add clarity to the expected outcomes.

Our award-winning review of the ACT planning system recommended developing an integrated framework with performance measures and mechanisms to improve urban design outcomes. An integrated framework should ensure design regulations, design guides and supporting materials build up to a clearer process of design governance in which performance evaluation can be embedded.

Performance evaluation is critical if we want evidence-based decision making

Including performance evaluation into urban design governance systems is crucial for ensuring that design decisions are grounded and geared towards clear goals and outcomes and that the impact of these decisions can be effectively evaluated. Evaluation tools provide a systematic and objective way to assess the performance of urban planning initiatives and developments, allowing for evidence-based decision-making. This leads to better alignment of resources, improved transparency and accountability, and, ultimately, more sustainable, liveable, and economically vibrant cities.