A Tour of Geodesign Methods and Tools
description
Transcript of A Tour of Geodesign Methods and Tools
A Tour of Geodesign Methods and Tools
Dr. Michael FlaxmanGeodesign Technologies, Inc.
Definitions & Tools◦ Implications of methods on tools
Ways of Thinking About Tools◦ Chronological Approach◦ Taxonomic Approach
Overview
Necessarily incomplete view
Covering the most widely-known tools
Purposefully omitting tools to be discussed by others in the forum
Caveat / Scope
Several geodesign definitions are in use
◦ Inclusive and non-technical definitions “Geography by Design” – Steinitz
◦ Narrower and more technical “… a design and planning method which tightly couples
the creation of design proposals with impact simulations informed by geographic contexts.” - Flaxman
Definitions
By broader definitions, almost all GIS & CAD systems, and even non-digital tools could be considered “geodesign tools”
However, I prefer to stick to my earlier definition, and include tools which◦ Are “tightly coupled”◦ Include “impact simulations informed by
geographic context”
Definitions & Tools
Design methods may or may not start with explicit goals◦ Often have only implicit goals (accommodate Use
X legally, minimizing initial costs)◦ “Client goals” are most often quantified◦ “Public interest”/sustainability only considered
relative to legal requirements
“Informed by geographic context” implies non-trivial representation of contextual area◦ ~= GIS ?!
Relationship with Goals & Metrics
Implicit or narrowly-considered goals tend to lead to very limited representations of geographic context
In many cases, the ‘site’ is considered as a parcel boundary, floating in “paper space”
This, in turn, implies that only components of the design itself are significant◦ Existing site presumed to have no pre-existing
values worthy of consideration
Representation of Contextual Geography
In contrast to “paper space” design methods, geodesign requires the ability to◦ Embed proposed changes in context of existing
site and neighborhood◦ Compute impacts based on geographic context
Introduces in technical terms, requirement for◦ Georeferencing◦ Ability to compute (or request computation of)
“design + context”
Deepening and Broadening “Design Context”
At site to regional scales◦ Reasonable to “draw” abstract characterizations
of areas (i.e. residential vs. industrial) City scale
◦ Several forms of “picking” from uniform tessellations or other pre-defined areas
At regional scales and above◦ Unreasonable to “draw” or “pick”◦ More practical to “simulate”
Relationships between Spatial Scale and Methods
◦ Original idea embedded in “ArcSketch”, now in ESRI GeoPlanner
Avoids creating raw geometry, then adding attributes, then computing characteristics
Workflow starts by picking rich symbol, which sets object/class characteristics
◦ This concept is *not* proprietary, and many web tools, for example, would benefit from adopting it
Geosemantic Sketching
By Sketch From External Plans / Buildout Simulated
◦ At Plan Level (agglomerations of built forms)◦ At Building/Parcel Level (simulating siting)
Treatment of Urban Growth
Interesting Historical Tools◦ Analog map overlay◦ TR55 & USLE – Woodlands, Tx◦ CityGreen – Ecosystem Services Evaluation
Mature Digital Tools◦ CommunityViz™◦ Criterion Planners INDEX◦ NatureServe Vista
Cutting/Bleeding Edge◦ Research Prototypes
By Chronology
Impact Simulators with Parameter/Scenarios Input◦ General-purpose◦ Special purpose
Impact Simulation with Implicit-geography◦ CAD with orthophoto underlay
Sketch tools with semantics but not evaluation◦ ArcSketch
Generative design tools◦ CityEngine, etc.
Taxonomy
CommunityViz™
INDEX / Sparc
NatureServe Vista™
Envision Tomorrow (Fregonese and Associates)
RapidFire / Urban Footprint (Calthorpe – Open Source)
All the cool kids are doing it (geodesign)
Initial challenge was “tight coupling”◦ Response was integrated applications
New challenge is “interoperability”◦ First, to open world of indicators/evaluations◦ Second, to allow widespread public engagement
Conclusions