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