Page 163 of 170

Suburbia wayfinding

An unfortunate part of living in the suburbs and only ever traveling to major points of interests in the region by auto is that you never actually learn how to navigate the region, or the areas surrounding those points of interests. What you do you learn is the location’s position to the nearest highway. The result is that you don’t know where anything is, just how to get there from one origin.

The same holds true for large cities, like Chicago, when it comes to traveling to new places – you learn how to travel to your destination, but you don’t know your destination. You won’t know what’s in between here and there, and you won’t see the changes and history that brought social groups from here to there, spatially and chronologically. 

A method to encourage visitors – this doesn’t mean tourists – to know their destination, and spread out “their feelers” to get a real understanding of a neighborhood’s substance is by pointing out significant spaces and places. This technique is popularly known as wayfinding. It can be quite simple, like adding signs that show the direction and distance to a well-defined community or major park, or it can be complex by involving residents and asking what are the important points of interest that they would like to promote.

Wayfinding signage is only one way to correct the original statement in this article: that the motor vehicle hides local values and decreases our knowledge of the space in between and around our origin and destination. We travel too fast, and we take bypassing highways. 

There are other approaches cities can take to help people slow down and experience more interesting places.

  1. Make it accessible. This doesn’t mean complying with Americans with Disabilities Act. It means increasing the options on how people can get there, or informing them of their options. This could mean identifying nearby roads suitable for bicycling, or promoting existing transit service nearby, but also making sure that locals and visitors don’t compete for auto parking space.
  2. Market the place. Use traditional marketing and advertising to tell people why they should spend a little more time exploring and getting to know the place. Perhaps your community has a bistro bustling during lunch, and a few blocks away is a farmer’s market where business has plateaued because only the locals are buying. Some low-cost graphics and a good relationship with the restaurant now has 5% of its customers venturing out to the market. 

I wrote a paper on the residential and economic dynamics between two adjacent neighborhoods in Chicago’s Lower West Side, University Village and Pilsen. University Village is a neighborhood created from scratch – designed to be “perfect” you could say. It houses a few thousand university students who come and go on different daily and weekly schedules, as well as permanent homeowners population. Sprinkle in some restaurants, local and national retail firms, and essential services like dry cleaning and hair salons along two major and intersecting bus routes and you have a “perfect” neighborhood.

University Village, because of its newness and designed quality, lacks character, history, and can seem a bit sterile. That’s where Pilsen can support the new neighborhood; Pilsen is over 100 years old, has seen major demographic, spatial, and physical changes, and heavily influenced by its majority Mexican population that it more than makes up for what University Village lacks. The problem is that neither neighborhood knows about the other aside from a bus, bike, or car ride through. There’s also a railroad viaduct separating the two. These barriers can be overcome, and each neighborhood can require the services of the other. Students usually need cheap food – you can get that in Pilsen. And long-time residents want new retail choices – University Village can provide that.

Read the entire paper, titled Economic and residential dynamics between University Village and Pilsen.

Urban planning the stuff of dreams, says David Brooks

David Brooks’s article at the New York Times today is making the “urban planning rounds.”

I think the most important idea to take away from this article, and one I picked up on in the second sentence, is this:

Don’t plan for dreams!

Also, I think the writer has failed us – urban planners – simply by mentioning that urban planners dream about the day that Americans will “repent.” This is definitely not the way to attract readers to “our side.”

Or my side. And my side is just, rational, grounded, objective planning, for the existing and possible future needs of those for whom a plan is being created.

Right now, I’m working on a plan to serve bicyclists with better parking at transit stations. It took me a long time to develop the criteria to help me choose 40 stations, which I will eventually whittle to 10. After I chose the 40 stations, I will use different methods to find the “top 10.”

I would really like to “disrecommend” this article because it paints the picture of urban planners as holier than thou, and not in need of repentance like everyone else – this picture is created in the first two paragraphs and it really turns me off to the whole article. Unfortunately, though, thousands of people have already read the article: it’s in the Top 10 for emailed and blogged. 

Even though if you disregard this section, his points are unclear. In the tainted section I’ve already discussed, he introduces the article by saying that urban planners want American cities to be like those in Amsterdam, but in the remainder of the article Brooks talks about a Pew survey that says Americans are basically optimistic, want to move, and lists some places they’re moving. 

Brooks gives no direction to the urban planners who’re reading this (except perhaps not to try to Amsterdamize our cities), and no motivation for Americans to pay attention to urban planners.

I will not be forwarding this…

I’m not alone in my criticism of this article: Read Streetsblog’s take. I continue to hold that the New York Times is one of the best news and opinion source for armchair planners.

Obama’s promise for open government

I’m excited about Obama’s memorandum he wrote in his first week of office, on January 21st, 2009. In it, he calls for federal agencies to stop looking for legal ways to say no to requests for data, or in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

He will help usher in a new American government, where “[a]ll agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure.” 

And the agencies shouldn’t be so passive about the distribution of their data. President Barack Obama continues with:

“…agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.”

The United States Government is probably the world’s largest collector and holder of data. It probably stores more data and information than the internet (minus what the government publishes there). I hope I can expect an onslaught of data, but it must be accessible in multiple formats and in ways we can use. Saving spreadsheets is NOT distributing data. That’s protecting it and trying to make it harder to manipulate. It means providing raw access to tables and databases, providing APIs for custom queries, and XML feeds for simple and broad presentation.

Perhaps we’ll need a White House Office of Data to coordinate with agencies about the formats and presentation and distribution methods they choose or will choose.

I’m glad Obama’s transition team took the advice from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on this one – they fight for, among many things, the rights of the internet and information and how access to both should be equalized and open. Read the EFF’s news article about this about-face from George Bush’s archaic information policies.

To Obama: When you create that office, please consult the geniuses at EveryBlock for the Office’s “Public Consumption” division. They know how to package data for quick and informative understanding.

Over-landscaped Asian parks

BLDGBLOG’s post about “over-landscaped” parks in South Korea makes me think of my favorite “natural” space in Chicago, Ping Tom Park in Chinatown on the south branch of the Chicago River at 18th St.

The article discusses Korean photographer Hosang Park’s new photography work featuring these tight, semi-open spaces typically installed at high-rise apartment buildings.

The article talks about how the park’s amenities and features are so crammed together that the park is more a symbol of what a park can be. I was hoping Nicola or Park would address if there’s an inherent cultural style found in the park. That is, are they really over-landscaped, or do they resemble other artistic designs of East Asia.

Would we say that Korean Hangul characters are “over drawn” or have too many lines crammed into one character?

The Ping Tom Park in Chinatown has many similarities to the small parks featured in the blog post: They both have a strictly designed layout, as opposed to the free flowing shape and boundaries of American forest preserves; each features a pagoda; there is a lot of hardscaping using various materials of many colors to form the walkways.

A perception I take away from the article, Ping Tom Park, and the photos of the parks in Korea, is that the open space and green or grassy areas are available purely to watch and respect, but not to step on.

It seems the author’s opinion, which may be the same as the photographer’s, but that’s not clear, is that these parks are so perfect and manicured that we can’t appreciate them as much as more “natural” looking recreational spaces. However, the photographer, Park, unconsciously speaks to its benefits and why they continue to be constructed: “the trees, paths, and water features, no matter how artificial, push up property prices by providing an implicit guarantee of ‘the environmental benefits of a place where they belong.’ ”

I also wrote about two other Chicago parks, Jackson and Millenium, in November 2007.

Converting shapefiles and KML files

Google Earth Pro is a slightly more advanced version than the free edition of the popular satellite imagery application (okay, it does way more, but many people just use that feature). One major additional feature it includes is the ability to import GIS shapefiles and display their features on top of the imagery, including terrain. It’s useful to have your data as KML (Keyhole Markup Language) because KML (or KMZ) is easier to share and Google Earth standard edition is free. But then again, it’s useful to have your KML files as shapefiles because proper GIS software is more powerful at analyzing data. Also, someone might ask you for your data in shapefile format (but they could easily follow these instructions).

Good data management requires options. Options mean your data won’t be locked into a proprietary format. Data want to be free! Read on for ways to convert your KML and shapefile data:

Converting KML files to shapefiles

Like Google Earth Pro, Quantum GIS (QGIS) can convert KML or KMZ to shapefile, and best of all – it doesn’t cost $400 per year (it’s free!). QGIS is a cross-platform application meaning it will run on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

Use QGIS to convert a KML or KMZ file to shapefile:

  1. Click on Layer > Add Vector Layer
  2. Find your KML or KMZ file.
  3. Right-click your new layer and click “Save as shapefile.”

Zonums provides online conversion tools. Or, use ArcGIS and this plugin to convert KML files to shapefiles.

Converting shapefiles to KML files

The freeware Shp2kml 2.o (Windows only) from Zonums will convert shapefiles to KML files. Want some free, interesting data to try it out? Check my ever expanding repository.

ESRI’s ArcGIS can convert KML files to shapefiles using this plugin and then import the shapefile as a layer onto your map.

Creating KML files online

As I described in this post, BatchGecode will generate a KML file for you by inputting a list of addresses and names. Additionally, Google Earth (part of the rising Google GIS platform) creates KML files. Google’s My Maps feature also allows you to generate KML files (for sharing or download) by clicking and drawing points and lines on a map and inviting you to describe the features you create. Use this to get a map of your church congregation, or a map of people who voted for your candidate.

GeoCommons Finder lets you upload geodata in many formats, save it to your profile, and then download it into multiple formats. You can upload a shapefile (.shp) and its accompany files (shx, dbf, and prj), verify that it read your data correctly,

More choices for converting

Additional software with conversion capabilities:

  • MapWindow (another free software choice; Windows only) – An alternative to QuantumGIS and ArcGIS.
  • ExpertGPS (Windows only, not free) – Ideal for GPS device owners, or for researchers using GPS devices in projects. But it can convert the GPS and shapefile data into KML, shapefiles, or a spreadsheet, amongst other functions.
  • Zonums, creator of the standalone Shp2kml software converter, now offers many online tools for KML users, including one that reverses the conversion and exports shapefiles from KML files. I found the link on FreeGeographyTools.com.
  • OpenGeo Suite – Commercial software with non-profit licenses.
  • uDig – Free GIS software, but I haven’t had good experiences with it on my computers.

GeoCommunity has a good article, with screenshots, on how some of these programs work.

Need to work with General Transit Feed Spec (GTFS) data?