(G)eographic (I)ntiution (S)ystem

 

Typical GIS Layers

    On our discussion of interactions with the built environment and the natural landscape, one kind of discussion (at least in my head) began to present itself. As we discussed the work of Ian McHarg and his various urban planning projects, we began to discuss the topic of GIS (Geographic Information System) and its role in our modern phase of designing the built environment. While this was an innovation at the time that allowed McHarg to complement the natural features of the built environment, it would seem to me now that there is a difference in how GIS was built and how it is used.
 
    Most times now for a project, it seems as if GIS might be one of the first things that people go and look for when completing a site analysis for a project. Because of the rich swath of information available in GIS datasets, such as topography, floodplains, road information, etc., this dataset is invaluable to the early conceptual and programming process for a project. But in its digital format, it would seem to me that this kind of programmatic cataloguing of the natural environment separates us from the actual experience and atmosphere of the place. We do not possess an actual understanding of the environment on the site, just the data and information. 

    Because of this, it appears there is a difference between the landscape integration from the past and the present. Landscape now is highly analyzed, and utilizes the data to ensure the area around a building is carefully manicured to perfection. But while we understand the data, we have lost our intuition about what actually works with our landscapes. Designers in the past, McHarg included, had a grasp on what was actually happening on the site from both experience, and because of their hands-on information of drawing the GIS layers themselves. Our digital experience with GIS lacks this kind of personal connection. So, I believe we need to reorient our typical use of GIS. Not abandon the use of the tool entirely; but refocus how we engage with the data. I'm not entirely sure what that would look like. 

Comments

  1. Hayden, it seems that the structures that we designed in the past relied on the ability to be on site and see first hand what was going on and the relations to that specific piece of land. Now we rely on these programs to give us the technical information without having any connection to that site. With how fast projects are needed to be turned around with the advancements of technology, it makes sense to use these tools.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts