REVIEW: A.H. Mahmoud, R.H. Omar., 2014. ‘Planting Design for Urban Parks: Space Syntax as Landscape Design Assesment Tool.’ Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt. Sciencedirect.com
REVIEW:
A.H. Mahmoud, R.H. Omar., 2014. ‘Planting Design for Urban Parks: Space Syntax as Landscape Design Assesment Tool.’ Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt. Sciencedirect.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE DELIVERS HYPOTHETICAL PARK LAYOUT IN CAIRO. Utilizing the ‘Depthmap’ Virtual Reality or Virtual Mapping tool to see where three major spacial layouts maybe effected by the use of, what the research nominates as ‘agents’.
What agents are exactly we will never know but are lead to suppose that these are humans. As the research itself nominates that these are either potential user interactions or are potential vehicle interaction, though, no vehicle is expressed within the research. Whilt the research article identifies the history, the process, and the ideology behind the programming of spacial constructs to show potential spacial use, it does not support its research against or with any similar real life examples, as such; shows itself as being fundamentally flawed.
The first line in the discussion segment states that the research is a success and that possible human interractions can be mapped, however this isn’t validated within the research and cannot be true without seeing some real tactile evidence. The research itself does not even notionally touch on the possibility of what may occure with Real Life (RL) participants. Other than admitting that one of the references had suggested that problems were caused when adding participants with an active agenda (i.e. they are using the area as a path and not a node and as such the space becomes transient space and not destination space), yet wasn’t evidently approached as a real concern within the article.
The research is a suggestion of what computers can do with Virtual Reality (VR) “agents” in Virtual Mapping (VM) worlds. If you read this review before the article you will need to note down those acronyms because while the article covers VR and VM it does not tell us what these aconyms actually stand for.
There are several diagrams that show us tree layouts in plans, alas there is no indication of the height or size of tree on the map, so, while it is stipulated that the variety of tree and canopy is an important factor in landscape design, there is no indication how this has been applied to the study. Not even through section or elevation.
What would have made the study far more interesting, or accurate, is if there had been an extra design based from a real life situation (possibly within the proposed site El-Qanater Gardens, Greater Cairo, Egypt) that allowed the proposition of the research to be tested.
Yes there is data shown here, and an excellent proposal for the capacity of VM within industry, but no, there is no indication that this is any more than abstracted data collection for the sake of its own collecting of data.
If indeed the second map shown was the map prevailing better socializing of ‘agents’ then by all means one would expect a follow up that showed alternatives to the proposed planting schema. As in: more than three maps with arbitrary designs, in arbitrary spaces are required. The satellite map of the area shows us clearly that, there is far more going on around the proposed site: a river, a small field of trees, a small construction (maybe paths and fountains?) there is a road to the north and west yet what appears to be a blockade to the south and east, there is a central road that leads to the site, which one assumes is the considered major thouroughfare of the proposal, yet this ignores what is evidentaly the ‘major thoroughfare’.
If the research is correct, suggestive that the angle of inclination to the proposed site of the sky itself is a factor in mapping the potential use of spaces then it is a concern that the north point appears to be incorrect on the proposal(s) with regards to the satellite map. Factors such as weather conditions, solar access, encumant shadows, climate, including visual blockades from outside the proposed area, and mostly: the topography of the area and the proposed site: are factors being ignored, yet; they are factors that are required provision of a full understanding of what actually occurs on site and how VR agents (or real humans) would possibly react.
The truth is that even slight inclinations, depressions, plateaus and plains, all affect the user in any given situation. The truth, as such, behind this research; is that we are given a brief outline of Virtual Mapping, a small understanding of the importance of spatial dialect (reacting to ‘things’ in space) and how a computer program takes three ‘no-where’ maps and proposes how ‘no-where’ participants interract ‘no-where’; provided they had no-where else to interract.
In saying that, there are some gems of language revealed from the research regarding the importance of spatial construct (placement of ‘things’ in space), and spatial dialect for any participant, and how it can mould and scope the very real reality of actual physical spaces, causing harmony and socialization, or the inverse, as well as influence access and egress both visually and physically.
One or two last things to consider: if you place a path, the general consensus is that you want it to me utilized. Commonly, paths with curves in them get used less, as people often take the advantage to go from point A to point B. This means that, whilst the space where the path ‘is not’ gets used, it also suffers degredation. This also means that the path becomes impotent – and – a waste. Other than to be something to look a as one ‘walks on the grass’. At no time or place have i seen this not occure, unless some formal partitions prevents people from obtining the grass.
If a structure is elected to be apart of the design consideration, one must nominate what that edifice is meant to be utilized for: Kiosk, Garden Shed, Pavillion (Pergola), Toilets, Information, Tickets, Bus Stop, etc. The reason is: The use of the structure will alter the way by which participants will utilize there space, as, even as a structure with no public use it may evidence itself as a structure that piquest curiosity, It becomes a tangible destination as, people will seek to explore it. No part of this research showed that the structure was being utilized – even for the sake of perhaps those that may need the restroom and as such went to investigate the structure to see if it held services for them. This has a much larger effect on the whole proposal as, entering from the south-west of the area, many may actually go straight to the structure, and then go back through the park. Giving us a very different perspective of how the park could be used. For example; if the structure represented a kiosk, then peoplpe may go there to acquire refreshment, and then once there turn back to the park and decide where to sit to enjoy the refreshment.
As the use of space in Real World is multifactoral, A.H. Mahmoud’s and R.H. Omar’s 2014: ‘Planting Design for Urban Parks: Space Syntax as Landscape Design Assesment Tool.’ Is singular in is approach, and not even correctly cardinally aligned.
A.H. Mahmoud, R.H. Omar., 2014. ‘Planting Design for Urban Parks: Space Syntax as Landscape Design Assesment Tool.’ Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt. Sciencedirect.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE DELIVERS HYPOTHETICAL PARK LAYOUT IN CAIRO. Utilizing the ‘Depthmap’ Virtual Reality or Virtual Mapping tool to see where three major spacial layouts maybe effected by the use of, what the research nominates as ‘agents’.
What agents are exactly we will never know but are lead to suppose that these are humans. As the research itself nominates that these are either potential user interactions or are potential vehicle interaction, though, no vehicle is expressed within the research. Whilt the research article identifies the history, the process, and the ideology behind the programming of spacial constructs to show potential spacial use, it does not support its research against or with any similar real life examples, as such; shows itself as being fundamentally flawed.
The first line in the discussion segment states that the research is a success and that possible human interractions can be mapped, however this isn’t validated within the research and cannot be true without seeing some real tactile evidence. The research itself does not even notionally touch on the possibility of what may occure with Real Life (RL) participants. Other than admitting that one of the references had suggested that problems were caused when adding participants with an active agenda (i.e. they are using the area as a path and not a node and as such the space becomes transient space and not destination space), yet wasn’t evidently approached as a real concern within the article.
The research is a suggestion of what computers can do with Virtual Reality (VR) “agents” in Virtual Mapping (VM) worlds. If you read this review before the article you will need to note down those acronyms because while the article covers VR and VM it does not tell us what these aconyms actually stand for.
There are several diagrams that show us tree layouts in plans, alas there is no indication of the height or size of tree on the map, so, while it is stipulated that the variety of tree and canopy is an important factor in landscape design, there is no indication how this has been applied to the study. Not even through section or elevation.
What would have made the study far more interesting, or accurate, is if there had been an extra design based from a real life situation (possibly within the proposed site El-Qanater Gardens, Greater Cairo, Egypt) that allowed the proposition of the research to be tested.
Yes there is data shown here, and an excellent proposal for the capacity of VM within industry, but no, there is no indication that this is any more than abstracted data collection for the sake of its own collecting of data.
If indeed the second map shown was the map prevailing better socializing of ‘agents’ then by all means one would expect a follow up that showed alternatives to the proposed planting schema. As in: more than three maps with arbitrary designs, in arbitrary spaces are required. The satellite map of the area shows us clearly that, there is far more going on around the proposed site: a river, a small field of trees, a small construction (maybe paths and fountains?) there is a road to the north and west yet what appears to be a blockade to the south and east, there is a central road that leads to the site, which one assumes is the considered major thouroughfare of the proposal, yet this ignores what is evidentaly the ‘major thoroughfare’.
If the research is correct, suggestive that the angle of inclination to the proposed site of the sky itself is a factor in mapping the potential use of spaces then it is a concern that the north point appears to be incorrect on the proposal(s) with regards to the satellite map. Factors such as weather conditions, solar access, encumant shadows, climate, including visual blockades from outside the proposed area, and mostly: the topography of the area and the proposed site: are factors being ignored, yet; they are factors that are required provision of a full understanding of what actually occurs on site and how VR agents (or real humans) would possibly react.
The truth is that even slight inclinations, depressions, plateaus and plains, all affect the user in any given situation. The truth, as such, behind this research; is that we are given a brief outline of Virtual Mapping, a small understanding of the importance of spatial dialect (reacting to ‘things’ in space) and how a computer program takes three ‘no-where’ maps and proposes how ‘no-where’ participants interract ‘no-where’; provided they had no-where else to interract.
In saying that, there are some gems of language revealed from the research regarding the importance of spatial construct (placement of ‘things’ in space), and spatial dialect for any participant, and how it can mould and scope the very real reality of actual physical spaces, causing harmony and socialization, or the inverse, as well as influence access and egress both visually and physically.
One or two last things to consider: if you place a path, the general consensus is that you want it to me utilized. Commonly, paths with curves in them get used less, as people often take the advantage to go from point A to point B. This means that, whilst the space where the path ‘is not’ gets used, it also suffers degredation. This also means that the path becomes impotent – and – a waste. Other than to be something to look a as one ‘walks on the grass’. At no time or place have i seen this not occure, unless some formal partitions prevents people from obtining the grass.
If a structure is elected to be apart of the design consideration, one must nominate what that edifice is meant to be utilized for: Kiosk, Garden Shed, Pavillion (Pergola), Toilets, Information, Tickets, Bus Stop, etc. The reason is: The use of the structure will alter the way by which participants will utilize there space, as, even as a structure with no public use it may evidence itself as a structure that piquest curiosity, It becomes a tangible destination as, people will seek to explore it. No part of this research showed that the structure was being utilized – even for the sake of perhaps those that may need the restroom and as such went to investigate the structure to see if it held services for them. This has a much larger effect on the whole proposal as, entering from the south-west of the area, many may actually go straight to the structure, and then go back through the park. Giving us a very different perspective of how the park could be used. For example; if the structure represented a kiosk, then peoplpe may go there to acquire refreshment, and then once there turn back to the park and decide where to sit to enjoy the refreshment.
As the use of space in Real World is multifactoral, A.H. Mahmoud’s and R.H. Omar’s 2014: ‘Planting Design for Urban Parks: Space Syntax as Landscape Design Assesment Tool.’ Is singular in is approach, and not even correctly cardinally aligned.
Discover More:
Comments
Post a Comment