The growth of buildings in big cities necessitates Design Review (DR) to ensure good urban planning. Design Review involves the city community in various forms; however, community participation remains very limited or even non-existent. There are indications that the community has not been involved in the Design Review process. Currently, DR tends to involve only experts and local government, without including the community. Therefore, this research aimed to analyze the extent of opportunities for community participation by exploring DR analysis in developed countries and related policies. In-depth interviews were also carried out with experts and Jakarta was selected as a case study since the city possessed the most intensive development. The results showed that the implementation of DR did not consider community participation. A constructivist paradigm was also applied with qualitative interpretive method by interpreting DR data and community participation. The strategy selected was a case study and library research adopted by examining theories from related literature. Additionally, the data was collected by reconstructing different sources such as books, journals, existing research, and secondary data from related agencies. Content and descriptive analysis methods were also used, where literature obtained from various references was analyzed to support research propositions and ideas.

1. Alexander, H. B. (2014). Jakarta is the worst city in Indonesia (Indonesian). Available online: https://www.kompas.com/properti/read/2014/09/17/115909921 (accessed on 21 August 2023).
2. Ardiansyah F., Alexander, H. B. (2021). Want to register to become a professional team of building experts, here’s how (Indonesian). Available online: https://www.kompas.com/properti/read/2021/08/01/160000521/mau-daftar-jadi-tim-profesi-ahli-bangunan-gedung-berikut-caranya#google_vignette (accessed on 23 October 2023).
3. Assche, K. V., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., et al. (2012). Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems. Planning Theory, 12(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212456771
4. Black, P. (2018). Beauty in the eye of the design reviewer: the contested nature of UK design review. Journal of Urban Design, 24(4), 556–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1511973
5. Booth, P. (2003). Controlling Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203451489
6. Calderon, C. (2019). Unearthing the political: differences, conflicts and power in participatory urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1677146
7. Carmona, M. (1998). Design control — bridging the professional divide, part 1: A new framework. Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724424
8. Cohen, M., & Wiek, A. (2017). Identifying Misalignments between Public Participation Process and Context in Urban Development. Challenges in Sustainability, 5(2), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05020011
9. Dawson, E., & Higgins, M. (2009). How Planning Authorities Can Improve Quality through the Design Review Process: Lessons from Edinburgh. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802452930
10. Farhat, R. R. (2012). Beyond Regulation: Special Improvement Districts, Design Review and Place-making in New Jersey. Journal of Urban Design, 17(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.683402
11. Haarhoff, E., Beattie, L., & Hunt, J. (2018). Improving the Quality of the Built Environment using Urban Design Review Panels: An Appraisal of Practices in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15640/jea.v5n2a1
12. Hall, A. C. (1997). Dealing with incremental change: An application of urban morphology to design control. Journal of Urban Design, 2(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809708724407
13. Hu, X. (2021). The Distinction of the Major Design Principles of Planning Systems and How They Potentially Impact Planning Outcomes. Journal of Architectural Research and Development, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.26689/jard.v5i2.2023
14. Kim, J., & Forester, J. (2012). How design review staff do far more than regulate. URBAN DESIGN International, 17(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.11
15. Kumar, S. (2003). Information in Design Review. Planning Practice and Research, 18(4), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/1561426042000215588
16. Kumar, S., & George, R. V. (2002). Fallacious argumentation in design review. URBAN DESIGN International, 7(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000070
17. Lung-Amam, W. (2013). That “Monster House” Is My Home: The Social and Cultural Politics of Design Reviews and Regulations. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.772880
18. Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800600644035
19. Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999). Design Review Reviewed. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976072
20. Poerbo, H. W. (2001). Urban Design Guidelines as Design Control Instrument: with a case study of the Silver Triangle Superblock [PhD thesis]. Technische Universität Kaiserslautern.
21. Prasetyoadi, T., Danisworo, M. (2015) Global Cities in a Local Context: The Case of Indonesia’s Urban Development, Conference Proceeding. CTBUH.
22. Punter, J. (1996). Developments in urban design review: The lessons of west coast cities of the United States for British practice. Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809608724369
23. Punter, J. (2003). From Design Advice to Peer Review: The Role of the Urban Design Panel in Vancouver. Journal of Urban Design, 8(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800306483
24. Punter, J. (2007). Developing Urban Design as Public Policy: Best Practice Principles for Design Review and Development Management. Journal of Urban Design, 12(2), 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800701306195
25. Scheer (formerly Lightner), B. C. (1993). Survey of Design Review Practices. Planning Advisory Services Memo (Chicago, IL, American Planning Association).
26. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (1994). Introduction. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600301
27. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (editors). (1994). Design Review. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2658-2
28. Semenza, J. C., & March, T. L. (2008). An Urban Community-Based Intervention to Advance Social Interactions. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311136
29. Setiawan, B. (2014). Pengaruh Koloniaslisme pada morfologi Ruang Kota Jawa Periode. 1600–1942. Petra Christian University.
30. Shirvani, H. (1981). Urban Design Review. American Planners Association.
31. Shirvani, H. (1985). Urban Design Process. Van Nostrand Reinhold. University of Michigan.
32. Southworth, M. (2016). Learning to make liveable cities. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 570–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1220152
33. Stamps III, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0036
34. Sung, H., Lee, S., & Cheon, S. (2015). Operationalizing Jane Jacobs’s Urban Design Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x14568021
35. White, J. T. (2015). Future Directions in Urban Design as Public Policy: Reassessing Best Practice Principles for Design Review and Development Management. Journal of Urban Design, 20(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1031212
36. Wu, C. I., Wu, Y. Y., & Liu, C. C. (2012). Value Evaluation System for Urban Design Review. Advanced Materials Research, 524–527, 2698–2701. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.524-527.2698