Dr. Michael Flaxman
Geodesign Technologies, Inc.

Definitions & Tools
◦ Implications of methods on tools

Ways of Thinking About Tools
◦ Chronological Approach
◦ Taxonomic Approach

Necessarily incomplete view

Covering the most widely-known tools

Purposefully omitting tools to be discussed
by others in the forum

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


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”

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 ?!



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

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”

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”
◦ 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



By Sketch
From External Plans / Buildout
Simulated
◦ At Plan Level (agglomerations of built forms)
◦ At Building/Parcel Level (simulating siting)

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

Impact Simulators with Parameter/Scenarios
Input
◦ General-purpose
◦ Special purpose

Impact Simulation with Implicit-geography

Sketch tools with semantics but not
evaluation
◦ CAD with orthophoto underlay
◦ ArcSketch

Generative design tools
◦ CityEngine, etc.

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