GeoDesign and Urban Impact Analysis

Background

Geoinformation is booming. People orientate via GPS, locate points of interest by smartphones, and thanks to satellites we can always and everywhere find out who or what is currently in our environment. Geodata surveying “by the way” is just as possible as the precise control of events “on the way.” It seems natural to assume that this development influences techniques and methods in which our built and natural-oriented living environments are planned and designed. However, this assumption quickly gives way to skepticism when one compares the wishes and hopes of digital landscape planning with what has remained. The big promises of web-accelerated planning today are delivered only (but at least) by the offer that actors and interested persons have the chance to be quickly and comprehensively web-informed (Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2013). To successfully transport geoinformation into the sphere of the design process, a field between technology and creativity must be opened. The attempt to engage geo-IT and design as “Geodesign” is burdened with some obstacles (Schwarz-v. Raumer & Stokman, 2012), but it works and is illustrated in this chapter.

Geodesign is not an emerging activity or practice. Nevertheless, it has been practiced for a long time ago. Li & Milburn (2016) and Miller (2012) argued that any action that incorporates dealing with geography, space design or allocation, hunting animals or selecting materials for shelter construction is considered as geodesign activity. Many designers and architects used the methodology of geodesign without mentioning the term though. For example, Ian McHarg (1920–2001), in his book Design with Nature (1969), introduced a geo-based methodology for landscape architecture and dealing with the surrounding environment. Not only MacHarg but also Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959) and Richard Neutra (1892–1970) gave full attention not merely to their clients but also the context of the design (Miller, 2012).