The differences between geodesign and traditional design.

Summary

  • In this article, I argue that geodesign should be thought of as a process not a tool or a branded exercise.
  • We are at a point where advances in tools and technology can be leveraged to have a collaborative, integrated a design and impacts analysis.

What is Geodesign?

Geodesign has been used (or misused) as a buzzword lately in social media, conferences and other forums. In recent years, there are has been a proliferation of academic courses and conferences organized around the topic. Critics argue that geodesign is not new or that it is an invented term used mostly for marketing. They argue that designing has been a activity that is carried on for thousands of years and essentially the movement of geodesign is just a continuation of that.

Geodesign is a workflow

While the critics are partially correct, there are some aspects of geodesign that make it fundamentally different from what we have experienced before. To understand this, we need to think about the following: Is Designing an art or science? Obviously, there is no absolutely correct answer to this in the context of geodesign, it is a mixture of both. A more nuanced question is the following: Is the process of designing art or science? When an architect designs a building or a home there is an inherent internal creativity that results in the form. In the same way when a climate scientist studies sea level rise, it is underpinned by solid scientific and technical theories and models. However, one cannot design a home using climate change models nor can a single person guided by their experience and creativity design a solution for sea level rise. The methods of designing a house do not work to design a plan for climate change (and vice versa). One of the reasons  why these methods are not interchangeable is that as the scale gets larger collaboration between different disciplines of design and science plays a increasingly crucial role.

The process of geodesign is most useful and effective when it is used collaboratively not to design a single house or to design a climate mitigation system but in the scales that are in the middle: collection of buildings, neighborhoods, wards, cities, city regions, multiple counties. There are three different trends with collaboration technologies that converge to make geodesign relevant and powerful.

Firstly, there has been maturing of enabling technologies. The smartphone revolution, the relative ease at which broadband is available means that there are more people connected and engaged. This also has meant that the underlying infrastructure and technologies that power all the Apps and data the internet has finally matured and is capable enough to serve billions of users. The design community has become much more amenable to integrating technology into the design process over the past number of years. And that the increasing horsepower of technology allows for much more rapid and fluid design prototyping and analysis leading to better communication and iteration of ideas. As scientific progress is made, we have developed a deeper understanding of the delicate interconnections between nature and the built environment. The design professions are tasked with a leadership role to orchestrate the complex interconnected systems that are at play in a study area.

Secondly, there is a general understanding that the major problems facing our planet necessitate a collaborative approach to problem solving. Thus people from different disciplines and domains including people of the place need to bring in their expertise and knowledge to design solutions. This is sometimes enforced and mandated by legal frameworks such as the European Landscape Convention and others.

Thirdly, we are in the midst of a geospatial computing revolution with broad availability of open data and mapping technologies. And there is a small ecosystem of startups focused on mapping technologies that have attracted venture capital and are well on their way to success.  (Startups like Azavea, Mapbox and CartoDB etc.). These trends open up an opportunity to build the next generation of design tools that enable collaboration, leverage open data and standards. Fundamental advances in general purpose software: such as version control, data analysis and processing, cloud computing also accelerate this trend.

Design Methods

In the case of design however methods play an critical role. The technological and societal changes also mean that design methods and experience that has worked for many years can be updated and modernized using software. What does this mean? It means that designs can be produced faster, they can be compared more efficiently (and rejected quicker), they also mean all analysis and feedback is done in near real time collaboratively. This is the essence of the geodesign process.

This makes geodesign fundamentally different: the process of design is different. There is no distinction between design and analysis it combined into one seamless operation that can be understood by people of different professions, experts and non-experts alike. All of this is powered by collaborative software that accommodates different design methods and scales.

What do you think makes geodesign different?

In the coming weeks, I plan to write a series of blog posts on the fundamentals of the geodesign workflow.

Credits

I would like to thank Matthew Baker of opengeodesign.org and Critter Thompson of PlaceMatters for their comments, feedback and reviewing this post.

Geodesign Hub

Geodesign Hub is a modern planning and analysis tool to collaboratively design better urban plans with the power of data. Creating and running geodesign projects is free for individuals and there is a comprehensive support portal to help you get started. For companies, we offer paid professional support and training.

One thought on “The differences between geodesign and traditional design.

Comments are closed.