都市設計的品質對於都市中的經濟、社會、環境層面都有重大的影響，而都市設計落實到現實場域時往往透過開發案的形式來實現，在開發案中最重要的三個角色是建築師、開發商以及公部門，其競合的關係會影響設計品質的優劣，若競合關係是「具生產力的談判」會形成優良的設計品質，反之則會造成「次等的設計品質」。
故本研究在探討開發案中三股霸權(建築師、開發商、公部門)的競合關係對於設計品質的影響，而以臺南市住宅大樓開發案的私有開放空間(Privately Owned Public Spaces，以下簡稱POPS)為研究對象。為了要了解三者的競合關係，首先要了解三者對於POPS整體關注的設計品質面向為何？接著要探討三者競合的正式場域：臺南市都市設計審議以及建造執照預審(兩者統稱為設計審議)中審議委員(公部門)對於POPS所關注的面向、三方的競和過程以及是否能有效提升POPS的設計品質？最後要針對臺南市提升POPS設計品質給予改善建議。
研究實證首先藉由文獻建立POPS設計品質指標，然後根據此指標分析臺南市都市設計審議以及建築執照預審會議記錄，了解審議委員(公部門)對於POPS所關注的設計品質面向為何，接著為了深入了解三方對於POPS所關注的面向、設計審議的競合過程以及設計審議是否能有效提升POPS設計品質，將分別訪談建築師、開發商以及公部門代表。最後選定兩個個案進行研究，將分別詢問建築師、開發商對於個案設計審議過程及結果的看法，更進一步了解三方競合過程以及對於設計審議用以提升POPS設計品質的看法。
根據臺南市都市設計審議以及建造執照預審內容分析發現，審議委員(公部門)對於POPS設計品質關注的面向依序是使用品質、美學品質、場所品質；而根據訪談發現建築師基於設計目標以及開發商基於商業目標故對於美學品質、使用品質比較關注，而對於場所品質較不關注，而公部門基於政策目標而對於使用品質、場所品質較為關注，但對於美學品質較不關注。
根據本研究訪談發現，臺南市設計審議文化較其他縣市來的平和，三方極少在審議時有難以解決的意見衝突，建築師以及開發商在設計審議場域中對大多數以公共利益為出發點的委員意見皆持正面態度(不論是美學品質、使用品質或場所品質)，但對某些類型的意見也確實形成衝突與妥協，主要可歸納為兩點：POPS的開放性與私密性的衝突以及公益性設施，多數開發商以及半數建築師認為POPS應某種程度上保有私密性以及不應該要求開發商提供公益型設施。但在個案分析中的兩個個案中，個案一的建築師在設計審議時對於不認同的委員意見會當下反應，而個案二的建築師則選擇妥協，這也反映出設計審議以協商取代明文規定，會讓建築師或開發商代表個人的表達能力或是臨場反應成為最終決議的因素之一，而非單純取決於設計品質。
根據文獻回顧以及訪談發現若要提升POPS設計品質，其關鍵是政府的法令以及管理而非POPS的建築師或開發商個人的努力，然而目前臺南市對於POPS設計品質的把關的機制主要是都市設計審議以及建造執照預審這兩個以協商代替明文規範的裁量式設計審議。故本研究結論建議臺南市制定或修訂涵蓋面向更廣、更細緻、可量化的POPS相關法規，而裁量式設計審議應僅限於輔助法規以及行政審查所無法涵蓋的設計品質面向。另外由於在開發案中各個不同的權益關係人會本能上對都市設計產生不同的目標，故臺南市在制定或是修訂POPS相關法規時，應該納入開發案中不同權益關係人的意見，以減少衝突與妥協區域、增加具生產力的談判空間，進而提升設計品質。

This thesis focuses on the cooperation of developmental tyrannies in POPS design review in the Tainan city which are: (1)creative tyranny; (2)market tyranny; (3)regulatory tyranny. In addition, the entities behind the three tyrannies are architects, developers, and the government. In short, this thesis aims to explore the relationship between the POPS design review and the POPS design quality, and tries to consolidate The content analysis, semi-structured interviews, and case studies are employed as research methods. This research confirms the Carmona’s “tyrannies theoty”: the objectives of the three tyrannies are design, business, and the policy interest in order. The conclusions of this research are: (1)the ambitions of the Tainan city government to enhance the POPS design quality is not enough; (2) in the Tainan city POPS design review, the focuses of the reviewers are in “usage quality”, “aesthetic quality”, and “place quality” in order; (3)the focuses and the opinions on the design review of the three tyrannies are different; (4)the coopration between the three tyrannies is peaceful compared to other cities in Taiwan, but the conflicts and the compromises truly exist; (5)the codes or the design guidelines are supposed to be adopted in order to improve the design quality of POPS; (6) different perspectives of stakeholders should be encompassed in the enactment or the revision of the POPS-related codes.

于洋（2016）。紐約市區劃條例的百年流變 (1916—2016)——以私有公共空間建設為例。國際城市規劃，31(2)，98-109。
王光旭（2005）。都市計畫審議機制之制度分析: 以台中市為例。行政暨政策學報，41。
何友鋒，劉正智，劉玉屏（2010）。民眾參與都市設計審議之研究。設計學報，1。
呂昕潔（2017）。實施容積獎勵建案之開放空間人行流動與公共性探討—以臺北市信義區、中山區為例（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ncku.edu.tw/etdservice/view_metadata？etdun=U0026-1008201702164100&query_field1=&query_word1=%E5%91%82%E6%98%95%E6%BD%94。
吳建德（2005）。台南市都市設計審議制度之研究（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ncku.edu.tw/etdservice/view_metadata?etdun=U0026-0812200911404672&query_field1=&query_word1=%E5%90%B3%E5%BB%BA%E5%BE%B7。
吳義隆（2009）。都市設計審議機制運作型式之研究-以高雄市內惟埤文化園區特定區為例（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ncku.edu.tw/etdservice/view_metadata？etdun=U0026-0812200915275565&query_field1=&query_word1=%E5%90%B3%E7%BE%A9%E9%9A%86。
李岱輿（2016）。都市設計準則制定程序與工具之研究─以高雄車站都市設計為例（碩士論文）。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號104NUK05347002）。
林筱菁（2016）。以開放空間系統的開放性探討私有公共空間(POPS)之環境品質 ─以臺北市萬華、松山區容積獎勵開放空間為例（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ncku.edu.tw/etdservice/view_metadata？etdun=U0026-1508201611184600&query_field1=&query_word1=%E6%9E%97%E7%AD%B1%E8%8F%81。
陳冠民（2015）。以調節理論觀點探討公共空間設置在私有財產的 開發機制研究-以臺北市獎勵性都市政策為例。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號103NCKU5347027）。

陳婉鈺（2007）。初探都市設計審議之獎勵與回饋-以信義計畫區高層辦公建築為例。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號095NTUS5222050）。
黃玉芸（2015）。以公益性觀點探討綜合設計獎勵設置開放空間制度—以臺北市萬華區為例（碩士論文）。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號103TIT05224025）。
黃志弘（1998）。由成文法精神檢討「都市設計審議制度」行政行為。建築學報，25，105-112。
黃景茂（2008）。中央都市設計政策與審議機制。臺灣都市景觀改造與都市設計規劃全國論壇。高雄市。 

游美惠（2000）。內容分析、文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究，(8)，5-42。doi:10.7014/TCYC.200008.0005。
楊少瑜（2007）。從公私部門角度探討容積獎勵機制之目標與效益 -以台北市為例（碩士論文）。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號095NCKU5347005）。
臺北市議會（2014）。「臺北市都市設計及土地使用開發許可審議委員會職掌權限之 檢討」專案報告會議紀錄。臺北市議會公報，10。
趙子元（譯）公共場所與都市空間─都市設計面面觀(原作者：Carmona, M.)。臺北市:六合出版社。 (原著出版年: 2010) 。
監察院（2010）。各級政府對都市計畫、都市設計之審議，其審議權限是否符合依法行政原則與適法性專案調查研究報告。監察院研究報告。
劉中昂（2009）。都市設計與建築管理整合機制之研究—以高雄市凹子底農十六地區為例—（碩士論文）。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號097NUK05222017）。
賴榮平（2013）。都市設計審議的公義。臺灣建築學會，53-58。
謝雅卿（2006）。臺北市實施綜合設計地區環境品質之評估（碩士論文）。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統（系統編號094NTU05225029）。
營建署(2008)。從當前都市設計面臨之課題與挑戰-論都市設計未來發展政策。2008全國都計建管會議。
羅嘉慧（2016）。臺南市建築基地綜合設計審議制度執行之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立成功大學，臺南市。
Ambrose, P. (2014). What Happened to Planning？. NY: Routledge.
Baer, W. C. (2011). “Customs, norms, rules, regulations, and standards in design practice.”, in Companion to Urban Design. NY: Routledge.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. NY: Free Press
Ball, M. (1998). Institutions in British property research: a review. Urban Studies, 35(9), 1501-1517.
Barnett, J. (1974). Urban design as public policy: practical methods for improving cities. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bentley, I. (Ed.). (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers. NY: Routledge.
Bentley, I. (1999). Urban transformations: Power, people and urban design. NY: Routledge.
Blaesser B.W. (1994) The Abuse of Discretionary Power. In: Scheer B.C., Preiser W.F.E. (eds) Design Review. MA : Springer.
CABE. (2007). Paved with Gold. CABE. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/paved-with-gold_1.pdf
Carmona, M. (2001). Housing Design Quality: through policy, guidance and review. London: Taylor & Francis.
Carmona, M., De Magalhães, C., & Edwards, M. (2002a). Stakeholder views on value and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 7(2), 145-169.
Carmona, M., de Magalhaes, C., & Edwards, M. (2002b). What value urban design？ Urban design international, 7(2), 63-81.
Carmona, M. (2009). Design coding and the creative, market and regulatory tyrannies of practice. Urban Studies, 46(12), 2643-2667.
Carmona, M. (2011). Design coding: mediating the tyrannies of practice. In A.Tiesdell & D. Adams. Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process (54-73). NJ: Wiley.
Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C., & Natarajan, L. (2016). Design Governance: The CABE Experiment. London: Taylor & Francis.
Carmona, M. (2017). The formal and informal tools of design governance. Journal of Urban Design, 22(1), 1-36.
Davies, L. (2000). Urban design compendium. London: English Partnership and the Housing Corporation.
Dimmer, C. (2013). Changing Understanding of New York City's Privately Owned Public Spaces. Sustainable Urban Regeneration, 25, 8-11.
Ellin, N. (2013). Integral urbanism. NY: Routledge.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1), S223-S240.
Foote, K. E., & Azaryahu, M. (2009). Sense of place. International encyclopedia of human geography, 8, 96-100.
Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research & Information, 31(5), 318-333.
George, R. V. (1997). A procedural explanation for contemporary urban design. Journal of urban design, 2(2), 143-161.
Guy, S. (1998). Developing alternatives: energy, of ces and the environment. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22(2), pp. 264–282.

Juran, J., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Quality handbook. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kayden, J. S. (1978). Incentive zoning in New York City: A cost-benefit analysis. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Kayden, J. S. (2000). Privately owned public space: the New York City experience. NJ: Wiley
Kayden, J. S. (2006). Zoning incentives to create public spaces lessons from New York City. The Human Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st-Century City [full book], 240.
Kirchner, T. A., Ford, J. B., & Markowski, E. P. (2016). Coopetition (Contemporaneous Cooperation and Competition) Among Nonprofit Arts Organizations. In C. Cambell & J. J. Ma. Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing (pp. 246-246). Berlin: Springer
Kovács, Z., & Musterd, S. (2013). The importance of places and place branding. In Z.Kovács & S.Musterd. Place-making and policies for competitive cities, 97-104. NJ: Wiley
International City Management Association. (1984). Facilitating economic development: Local government activities and organization structures. Urban Data Service Report, 16(11), 693-707.
Lang, J. (1996). Implementing urban design in America: Project types and methodological implications. Journal of Urban Design, 1(1), 7-22.
Lang, J. T. (2005). Urban design: A typology of procedures and products. NY: Routledge.
Lassar, T. J. (1989). Carrots & sticks: New zoning downtown. DC: Urban Land Inst.
Lightner, B. C. (1992). Design review: A critical evaluation. Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, 9, 280–287.

Lightner, B. C. (1993, January). Survey of design review practices. (Planning Advisory Service Memo). IL: American Planning Association.

Mandelker, D. (1993). Land use law (3rd ed.). VA: The Michie Co.

McGlynn S. (1993) Reviewing the Rhetoric. In R. Hayward & S. McGlynn. Making Better Places: Urban Design Now, Architectural Press, Oxford, 3–9.
Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), 41-53.
Nasar, J. L., & Grannis, P. (1999). Design review reviewed: administrative versus discretionary methods. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 424-433.
Nelissen, N. (2002). The dynamic of aesthetic control in the Netherlands. Urban Design International, 7(1), 49-57.
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5-23.
Oliveira, L., & Pisani, M. A. J. (2017). Espaços públicos de propriedade privada: os Pops de Nova York. Paisagem e Ambiente, (39), 113-132.
Preiser, W. F. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. (Preface) Berlin: Springer.
Preiser, W. F., & Rohane, K. P. (1988). A survey of aesthetic controls in English-speaking countries. Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, 422-433.
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.
Plater-Zyberk, E. (2012). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. (Foreword) Berlin: Springer.
Rouse, J. (1998). The seven clamps of urban design. Planning, No. 1293, 18–19.

Rose, K. (2005). Project quality management: why, what and how. FL: J. Ross Pub.
RICS & DoE (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Department of the Environment) (1996) Quality of Urban Design: A Study on the Involvement of Private Property Decision-Makers in Urban Design. London, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Scheer, B. C. (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic controls. NY: Chapman and Hall.

Schmidt, S., Nemeth, J., & Botsford, E. (2011). The evolution of privately owned public spaces in New York City. Urban Design International, 16(4), 270-284.
Shirvani, H. (1981). Urban Design Review: a guide for planners. London: Taylor & Francis.
Shirvani, H. (1985). The urban design process. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
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.
Stille, K. 2007. The B-Plan in Germany. Urban Design, 101, 24–26.
Tiesdell, S., & Adams, D. (2004). Design matters: major house builders and the design challenge of brownfield development contexts. Journal of Urban Design, 9(1), 23-45.
Tiesdell, S., & Adams, D. (2011). Real Estate Development, Urban Design and the Tools Approach to Public Policy. Urban design in the real estate development process. NJ: Wiley.
Tiesdell, S., & Oc, T. (1998). Beyond ‘fortress’ and ‘panoptic’cities—Towards a safer urban public realm. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(5), 639-655.
Urban Task Force. (1999). Towards an Urban Renaissance. London: E & FN Spon).

Rahi, G., Martynkiw, A., & Hein, E. (2012). Accessing Vancouver's Privately Owned Public Spaces. Trail Six: An Undergraduate Journal of Geography, 6.
Van Doren, P. (2005). The political economy of urban design standards. Regulating Place, Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, 45-66.
Verhage, R., & Needham, B. (1997). Negotiating about the residential environment: it is not only money that matters. Urban Studies, 34(12), 2053-2068.
Weaver, C. L., & Babcock, R. F. (1979). City Zoning, the once and future frontier. IL: Planners Press.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. DC: Conservation Foundation
American Planning Association (n.d.). Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces. Retrieved May 24, 2018, from: https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/disturbis/disturbis_a2011n10/disturbis_a2011n10a4/characteristics.htm
Procject for Public Spaces (n.d.). What makes a successful place？ Retrieved May 26, 2018 from: https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeatn
URA (Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore Government) (n.d.). GOOD PRACTICE GUIDELINES
FOR PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC SPACES (POPS). Retrieved May 14, 2018 from: https://www.ura.gov.sg/-/media/User%20Defined/URA%20Online/circulars/2017/Jan/dc17-02/dc%2017-02%20Apppendix%203.pdf？la=en
New York City (n.d.). POPS Design Standards. Retrieved May 21, 2018 from: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops-plaza-standards.page
New York City (n.d.). Privately Owned Public Space: History – Inauguration of the Program. Retrieved July 9, 2018 from: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/pops/pops-history.page
Williamson, M. (2006). Retrieved June 15, 2018 from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ray-noorda-422415.html Independent, Ray Noorda - Pioneer of 'co-opetition'