Are you using GIS in school or at work? Traditionally, GIS is a tool that planners have embraced while architects/urban designers have been slower to adopt. How can we use this powerful tool in new and meaningful ways?
the mappings from James Corner's Taking Measures Across the American Landscape come to mind.
In one studio we looked at GIS data in conjunction with our typical methods of site analysis. The data gave us the ability to assess site impact for our design proposals, and the analytical documents created before the design phase acted as great jumping off points (some of the analytical documents created from this exercise were far more beautiful than the design that followed). Most of the projects responded in some basic way to the various layers of GIS information that were considered.
GIS is very limited. It lacks accuracy and resolution, and it is ripe with projection problems (i.e. NAD vs. WGS vs. UTM). I am currently trying to use it for a client, using the 3D analysis tool to extract a 1m contour from a DEM file, and it looks crappy (I am resorting to Lightwave and Rhino for this). Although I did say it lacks accuracy, GIS analytical tools tend to be so precise that the end result looks abstracted or weird (i.e. a contour line looks straight when it shouldn't). If I work with ArcScene or ArcGlobe, I can get better results, but those applications do not run as smoothly as ArcMap. However, I have seen some very beautiful work on GIS using TIN's.
Although it is primarily an analysis tool, it is always interesting to see people do some actual designing with it. Although difficult, it is possible.
i see lots of smoke signals being puffed out of sfukhg af auyf sigshdoshdvsu oh dvo u d z odvoyh owsdhv kdvuhsdv hglheoge uhg egleh ugu rgalluhgluhg urhghgu lg wul lgh erglrhg u r g ugwru u ugwrrlu ghlu eraglu lu eilugergueereg eueu hdgherrh
The biggest problem with GIS is the issues of how accurate the data is and whether the task you're doing should even be using that data. Using large scale date for small scale sites is the faux paux in my experience. Though, I might say instead of too limited, GIS is too general.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the more recent applications--particularly the 3D applications. I used to do GIS work in DOS!!!
I've used GIS a lot. (Granted, I'm a planner, not an architect, so perhaps that makes sense.) But Smokety and Driftwood are correct: garbage in, garbage out. It's all about getting good base data.
I find the newer GIS analytical tools pretty amazing. Though the 3d models look quite crude, it's great for quick analysis. ArcMap with 3d and Spatial Analysis can do pretty amazing stuff.
GIS is a very useful tool for large scale site analysis. For anything requiring greater detail, CAD is far better. While there are programs that allow for data interpolation, it's not ideal.
GIS is great for doing overlays, but more in line with Ian McHarg than Jim Corner.
i've used GIS pretty extensively as a design tool/ design generator. as has been pointed out by everyone else, the grain of the data sets are key. but the thing is, the tools aren't scale specific...so there is a lot of potential architectural application if the data sets were out there.
oh yeah, the other problem with GIS is ESRI. the company threatens to dumb down GIS in the same way the Autodesk is killing architecture and Powerpoint kills corporate culture. but there's just no good alternative. i've tried using open-source software like GRASS, but its sooo clunky...
Nov 23, 05 9:50 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Are you using GIS?
Are you using GIS in school or at work? Traditionally, GIS is a tool that planners have embraced while architects/urban designers have been slower to adopt. How can we use this powerful tool in new and meaningful ways?
I don't think I'm qualified to run most GIS software. I do use GIS data though.
used it in school for site analysis, especially in studios that put special emphasis on landscape issues.
the mappings from James Corner's Taking Measures Across the American Landscape come to mind.
In one studio we looked at GIS data in conjunction with our typical methods of site analysis. The data gave us the ability to assess site impact for our design proposals, and the analytical documents created before the design phase acted as great jumping off points (some of the analytical documents created from this exercise were far more beautiful than the design that followed). Most of the projects responded in some basic way to the various layers of GIS information that were considered.
GIS is very limited. It lacks accuracy and resolution, and it is ripe with projection problems (i.e. NAD vs. WGS vs. UTM). I am currently trying to use it for a client, using the 3D analysis tool to extract a 1m contour from a DEM file, and it looks crappy (I am resorting to Lightwave and Rhino for this). Although I did say it lacks accuracy, GIS analytical tools tend to be so precise that the end result looks abstracted or weird (i.e. a contour line looks straight when it shouldn't). If I work with ArcScene or ArcGlobe, I can get better results, but those applications do not run as smoothly as ArcMap. However, I have seen some very beautiful work on GIS using TIN's.
Although it is primarily an analysis tool, it is always interesting to see people do some actual designing with it. Although difficult, it is possible.
googlearth, man
transit, man.
i see lots of smoke signals being puffed out of sfukhg af auyf sigshdoshdvsu oh dvo u d z odvoyh owsdhv kdvuhsdv hglheoge uhg egleh ugu rgalluhgluhg urhghgu lg wul lgh erglrhg u r g ugwru u ugwrrlu ghlu eraglu lu eilugergueereg eueu hdgherrh
sorry for the alphabet soup .... use GIS -- it's a hell of a lot easier than people make out to be
protek cha nek! dont use the GZA
Wisdom, Universe, Truth, Allah, Nation, and God
smokety's on it.
The biggest problem with GIS is the issues of how accurate the data is and whether the task you're doing should even be using that data. Using large scale date for small scale sites is the faux paux in my experience. Though, I might say instead of too limited, GIS is too general.
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the more recent applications--particularly the 3D applications. I used to do GIS work in DOS!!!
I've used GIS a lot. (Granted, I'm a planner, not an architect, so perhaps that makes sense.) But Smokety and Driftwood are correct: garbage in, garbage out. It's all about getting good base data.
I find the newer GIS analytical tools pretty amazing. Though the 3d models look quite crude, it's great for quick analysis. ArcMap with 3d and Spatial Analysis can do pretty amazing stuff.
GIS is a very useful tool for large scale site analysis. For anything requiring greater detail, CAD is far better. While there are programs that allow for data interpolation, it's not ideal.
GIS is great for doing overlays, but more in line with Ian McHarg than Jim Corner.
i've used GIS pretty extensively as a design tool/ design generator. as has been pointed out by everyone else, the grain of the data sets are key. but the thing is, the tools aren't scale specific...so there is a lot of potential architectural application if the data sets were out there.
oh yeah, the other problem with GIS is ESRI. the company threatens to dumb down GIS in the same way the Autodesk is killing architecture and Powerpoint kills corporate culture. but there's just no good alternative. i've tried using open-source software like GRASS, but its sooo clunky...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.