To start the study we took a site visit. Then we were broken into groups of five, each person in the group was given two categories to create a inventory and then analysis of. Mine was Hydrology and Utilities, other topics included but were not limited to; topography, biology, history, land use, ect. We then took these maps and compiled the information giving us the best ideal areas of development.
For the entirety of the project I felt this system was flawed. I was bothered deeply at the fact that a system can just be accepted when it plays such a huge roll in how cities are developed. I had a great deal of difficulty in determining why I feel that this type of analysis is flawed. But I feel after completing the project I found the source of some of the problems.
When compiling the maps each has a huge affect on the other. This causes great deal of conflict when one map is more concise than the other. One can be very suggestrial with a given topic, while the other is very concise. This would cause a sway in the accuracy in the final suitability/feasibility. Second, the choice in the way we measure a certain map, ie. Hydrology, washes. Also the way information can be compiled for biology, this is a huge roll within the analysis. It is of most importance to measure and compile information on every topic in a way that relates to one another and the over all influence of the site. This is such a large part of the analysis I feel that even if one map is of slight mistake it will sway the other maps that are combined within the study.
I am unsure of another way to create such an analysis, but I am sure there is another way. We just need to start challenging the things we accept. Here are some of the maps used and how they were compiled.
Development suitability/feasibility
Dark Blue representing best for developing
1 comment:
since you refuse to update your blog i've been forced to download a virus to your site. Good by rabbi christof.
Post a Comment