Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Information and Communication Tools (ICT) affect the processes and decision-making in professional urban design practice?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
URBAN DESIGN International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Literature suggests that introducing IT tools into urban design practice provokes a new paradigm that involves new modes of thinking that would increase the quality of the design and decision-making process. However, their effective usage in mainstream practice in US Planning departments lags due to technical, financial, social, and institutional constraints. This mixed-method research pursued in three phases in San Diego uses IT tools to support its planning for growth and design control. The research objective is twofold: to investigate how urban designers use IT tools at various phases and to assess the impact of their usage on the design process. The empirical results were compared to the theoretical propositions to highlight the areas and the extent to what the IT tools’ usage has influenced the design process. The results demonstrated that the impact of IT tools usage correlates with several procedural and substantive factors influenced by the tools' capabilities, the designer's skills in their usage, and the choice of the design methodology. The results did not provide clear evidence that a paradigmatic shift in mainstream practice seems to exist. They suggest a computational methodology that aligns and connects new tools with their methods of usage through new concepts and modes of thinking and communication. This shift yet implies a shift in urban design pedagogy, skillset, knowledge, and training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbdulGhani, M. 2012. 3D visualization and GIS as a common platform for planning. Ph.D. Thesis, Deakin University.

  • Ahmed, F., and S. Sekar. 2015. Using three-dimensional volumetric analysis in everyday urban planning processes. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 8 (4): 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Douri, F. A. S. 2006. Impact of utilizing three-dimensional digital urban models on the design content of urban design plans in United States cities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University.

  • Al-Douri, F. 2010. The impact of 3D modeling function usage on the design content of urban design plans in US cities. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design. 37 (1): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Douri, F. 2013. Assessment of the methods and extents of the usage of urban modeling in urban design practice in US cities. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design. 40 (3): 523–549. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Kodmany, K. 2002. Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature 17: 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, L., Y. Zhang, A. Grignard, A. Noyman, Y. Sakai, M. ElKatsha, R. Doorley, and K. Larson. 2018. Cityscope: A data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design use case volpe. In Unifying themes in complex systems IX, ed. A. Morales, C. Gershenson, D. Braha, A. Minai, and Y. Bar-Yam, 253–261. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Angelova, I., Y. Song, and S. Kim. 2015. Integrated information system for sustainable urban regeneration. In: Proceedings REAL CORP 2015, 361–369. Tagungsband, 5–7 May 2015, Ghent, Belgium

  • Appleton, K., and A. Lovett. 2005. GIS-based visualization of development proposals: Reactions from planning and related professionals. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29 (3): 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asami, Y. 2017. Planning support models in an era of shrinking population: recent planning trends and research. In The virtual and the real in planning and urban design: Perspectives, practices, and applications, ed. C. Yamu, A. Poplin, O. Devisch, and G. De Roo. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M. 2007. Planning support systems: Progress, predictions, and speculations in the shape of things to come, WP122. London: Centre of Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M., M. Dodge, B. Jiang, and A. Smith. 1998. GIS and urban design, WP3. London: Centre of Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty, M., and A. Hudson-smith. 2014. Visual analytics for urban design, WP197. London: Centre of Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behmanesh, H., and A. Brown. 2019. Classification and review of software applications in the context of urban design processes. In Intelligent & Informed, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2019, Vol. 2, pp. 211–220.

  • Besserud, K., and T. Hussey. 2011. Urban design, urban simulation, and the need for computational tools. International Business Machines Journal of Research and Development 55: 21–217. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2010.2097091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billger, M., L. Thuvander, and B. Wästberg. 2016. In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 44 (6): 1012–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosselmann, P, 2008 Urban Transformation: Understanding City Design and Form (Island Press, Washington, DC).

  • Boyko, C., R. Cooper, C. Davey, and A. Wootton. 2006. Addressing sustainability early in the urban design process. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 17 (6): 689–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brković, M. 2009. Digital realm: Implications on urban development and planning. Spatium 17–18: 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çalişkan, O. 2016. How urban designers perform: An international perspective on actual practice. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 32 (1): 229–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M., J. Punter, and D. Chapman. 2002. From design policy to design quality. London: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M., S. Tiesdell, T. Heath, and T. Oc. 2010. Public places-urban spaces; The dimensions of urban design. New York: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) (2006) San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Rising on the Pacific, retrieved from URL: http://www.ccdc.com/images/stories/downloads/planning/plans/sdcp-all.pdf

  • Chapin, T. 2002. Beyond the entrepreneurial city: Municipal capitalism in San Diego. Journal of Urban Affairs 24 (5): 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9906.00144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. L. (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design studies, 23(2), 187–210.

  • Cooper, R., and C. Boyko. 2010. How to design a city in five steps: Exploring VivaCity2020’s process and tools for urban design decision making? Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 3 (3): 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, J., and R. Caves. 2009. Planning in the USA: Policies, issues, and processes, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvetinovic, M., and J. Bolay. 2013. How to technologize urban planning procedures in order to boost urban development in Proceedings of the 2nd International Science Conference Regional Development, Spatial Planning and Strategic Governance, RESPAG 2013, May 22–25, Belgrade, Serbia.

  • Derix, C. 2012. Digital masterplanning: Computing urban design. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning 165 (4): 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derix, C., A. Gamlesæter, P. Miranda, L. Helme, and K. Kropf. 2012. Simulation heuristics for urban design. In Digital urban modeling and simulation, 159–180. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dionisio, R.D.J., M. Schindler, and S. Kingham. 2020. Tools for sustainable change: How spatial decision-support tools support transformative urban regeneration. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR) 9 (2): 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, W., and S. French. 2008. The future of GIS in planning: Converging technologies and diverging interests. Journal of the American Planning Association. 74 (2): 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyett & Bhatia (undated) San Diego Downtown. http://www.dyettandbhatia.com/sandiego_ud.htm

  • Erie, S., V. Kogan, and S.A. MacKenzie. 2010. Redevelopment, San Diego style: The limits of public–private partnerships. Urban Affairs Review 45 (5): 644–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faliu, B., A. Siarheyeva, R. Lou, and F. Merienne. 2018. Design and prototyping of an interactive virtual environment to foster citizen participation and creativity in urban design. In Advances in information systems development, 55–78. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farthing, S. 2016. Research design in urban planning: A student’s guide. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M., and H. Bjornsson. 2004. Real-time digital modeling in design education and practice. Urban Design International. 9: 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, A., and J. Hickling. 2005. Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach, 3rd ed. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, W., and P. Shigley. 2005. Guide to California planning, 3rd ed. Point Arena: Solano Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerlinck, D. 2011. Planning Support Technology Implementation by Local Governments in the US Mountain West. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, US.

  • Hamza, N., and M. Abdelwahab. 2017. Realizing sensory urban environments; Decoding synthetic realities with urban performance simulation. In The virtual and the real in planning and urban design: Perspectives, practices, and applications, ed. C. Yamu, A. Poplin, O. Devisch, and G. De Roo. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, B. 1999. Computing in planning: professional and institutional requirements. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(3), 321–331.

  • Hemmersam, P., N. Martin, E. Westvang, J. Aspen, and A. Morrison. 2015. Exploring urban data visualization and public participation in planning. Journal of Urban Technology. 22 (4): 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, W., and A. Leaman. 1974. How is design possible. Journal of Architectural Research 3: 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horelli, L., J. Saad-Sulonen, S. Wallin, and A. Botero. 2015. When self-organization intersects with urban planning: Two cases from Helsinki. Planning Practice & Research 30 (3): 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, Justin B. 2012. Intelligent participation: Engaging citizens through a framework of multiple intelligences. Community Development 43 (3): 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2011.621086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutraž, A., and J. Le Moine. 2016. Breaking out: New freedoms in urban (re)design work by adding immersive environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing 14 (2): 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutraz, A., and T. Zupancic. 2015. Virtual worlds as support tools for public engagement in urban design. In Planning support systems and smart cities, ed. S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, and J. Stillwell, 391–408. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahila-Tani, M., A. Broberg, M. Kyttä, and T. Tyger. 2016. Let the citizens map-public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process. Planning Practice & Research. 31 (2): 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman, R. E. (1997). Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer-aided planning. Journal of Planning education and research, 17(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunze, A., R. Burkhard, S. Gebhardt, and B. Tuncer. 2012. Visualization and decision support tools in urban planning. In Digital urban modeling and simulation, 279–298. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S. 2006. Towards a sustainable city centre: Integrating ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles into urban renewal. Journal of Green Building 1 (3): 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., J. Casello, and M. Groulx. 2012. Effective environmental visualization for urban planning and design: Interdisciplinary reflections on a rapidly evolving technology. Journal of Urban Technology 19 (3): 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, R., N. Laura, and C. Jon. 2016. Embracing the conceptual shift on new ways of experiencing the city and learning urban design: Pedagogical methods and digital technologies. Journal of Urban Design 21 (5): 638–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T., H. Lin, and M. Hu. 2015. Three-dimensional visibility analysis and visual quality computation for urban open spaces aided by Google SketchUp and WebGIS. Environment and Planning b: Urban Analytics and City Science. 44 (4): 618–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linovski, O., and A. Loukaitou-Sideris. 2013. Evolution of urban design plans in the United States and Canada: What do the plans tell us about urban design practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (1): 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2012. Addressing the challenges of urban landscapes: Normative goals for urban design. Journal of Urban Design 17 (4): 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsall, L. 2015. Smarter urban planning through a citizen-based approach: The smart urban planning method. Doctoral Thesis in Technology, University of Girona, Spain

  • McGrath B, 2008 Digital Modeling for Urban Design (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).

  • Metze, T. 2020. Visualization in environmental policy and planning: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22 (5): 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1798751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münster, S., C. Georgi, K. Heijne, K. Klamert, J. Noennig, M. Pump, and H. Van der Meer. 2017. How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges, and promising approaches. In 21st International conference on knowledge-based an intelligent information and engineering systems, KES2017, Procedia computer science, ed. C. Zanni-Merk, C. Frydman, C. Toro, Y. Hicks, R. Howlett, and L. Jain, 2391–2405. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neto, P. 2006. Public perception in contemporary Portugal: The digital representation of space. Journal of Urban Design 11 (3): 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B., and T. Peters. 2018. Computing the environment: Digital design tools for simulation and visualization of sustainable architecture. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, R. 2020. Is a new “planning 3.0” paradigm emerging? Exploring the relationship between digital technologies and planning theory and practice. Planning Theory & Practice 21 (2): 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1748699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punter, J. 1999. Design guidelines in American cities: A review of design policies and guidance in five west coast cities. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, W. 2016. Mobile responsive websites and local planning departments in the US: Opportunities for the future. Environment and Planning b: Urban Analytics and City Science 44 (5): 947–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, W., and K. Gordon. 2015. How is mobile technology changing city planning? Developing a taxonomy for the future. Environment and Planning b: Urban Analytics and City Science 44 (1): 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515610337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. 2007. Enhancing 3D models with urban information: A case study involving local authorities and property professionals in New Zealand: Quantifying the Benefit of 3D over Alternative 2D systems, Master of Building Science Thesis, Victoria University Wellington. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1162

  • Saad-Sulonen, J. 2013. Multiple participations. In New approaches to urban planning, insights from participatory communities, ed. L. Horelli. Helsinki: Aalto University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, M., and R. Dionisio. 2021. A framework to assess impacts of path dependence on urban planning outcomes, induced through the use of decision-support tools. Cities 115: 103256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, M., R. Dionisio, and S. Kingham. 2020. Challenges of spatial decision-support tools in urban planning: Lessons from New Zealand’s cities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 146 (2): 04020012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Z., and M. Kawakami. 2010. An online visualization tool for Internet-based local townscape design. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 34: 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Z., Z. Lei, X. Li, and K. Sugihara. 2013. Design coordination regarding urban design guidelines using Google Earth. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development 1 (3): 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. 2005. Use of Web technology by US planning agencies: Results from a national benchmark survey. Washington: ICMA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaaland, E., and K. Pitera. 2021. Investigating the use of visualization to improve public participation in infrastructure projects: How are digital approaches used and what value do they bring? Urban, Planning and Transport Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2021.1887757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotterback, C. 2011. Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design 38 (3): 468–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotterback, C., and J. Hourdos. 2009. Technology in planning and participatory processes: Identifying new synergies through real world application. Minneapolis: Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza, L., and C. Bueno. 2022. City information modelling as a support decision tool for planning and management of cities: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Building and Environment 207: 108403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojanovski, T., J. Partanen, I. Samuels, P. Sanders, and C. Peters. 2020. City information modelling (CIM) and digitizing urban design practices. Built Environment 46 (4): 637–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., T. Buser, and M. Buchecker. 2016. Does real-time visualization support local stakeholders in developing landscape visions? Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design 43 (1): 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velibeyoğlu, K. 2004. Institutional Use of Information Technologies in City Planning Agencies: Implications from Turkish Metropolitan Municipalities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey

  • Walin, S., J. Saad-Sulonen, M. Amati, and Horelli. 2012. Exploring E-planning practices in different contexts. International Journal of E-Planning Research 1 (3): 17–39. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2012070102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wergles, N., and A. Muhar. 2009. The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design: A comparison of viewer responses to visualization versus on-site visits. Landscape and Urban Planning. 91: 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, W., and B. Parolin. 2012. Review of web-based communications for town planning in local government. Journal of Urban Technology 19 (1): 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.626702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L., J. Danforth, C. C. Davila. 2019. How to generate a thousand master plans: A framework for computational urban design. In: Proceedings of the symposium on simulation for architecture and urban design (SimAUD), Atlanta, GA, USA, 7–9 April, 113–120. San Diego, CA: The Society for Modeling and Simulation International.

  • Yamu, C., A. Poplin, O. Devisch, and G. De Roo, eds. 2017. The virtual and the real in planning and urban design: Perspectives, practices, and applications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank several anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions for improvements to this paper. The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the American Planning Association (APA) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and the administrative support provided by Professor Dr. Taha Imeci, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, International University of Sarajevo (IUS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban & Regional Planning, Jackson State University, 101 W Capitol Street, Jackson, MS, 39201, USA

    Firas A. Al-Douri

Authors
  1. Firas A. Al-Douri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Firas A. Al-Douri.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Douri, F.A. How Information and Communication Tools (ICT) affect the processes and decision-making in professional urban design practice?. Urban Des Int (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-022-00196-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-022-00196-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation