Response to Kullmann on methods of socio-spatial analysis in urban design

While Kullmann (2018) and I are both speaking the language of landscape architecture, our points of reference and perspectives on the contemporary discourse of 'urbanism' are somewhat different. For example, I recognize Kullmann is trying to provide a clear description of the various 'urbanisms' that have heated such discourse recently, yet the reductionism of 'modemist' versus 'traditionalist' versus 'landscape' approaches is a simplification that indulges much of the frivolous staking of territory by a few individuals, and renders invisible the rich and wide-ranging scholarship on the city coming out of the landscape architecture discipline today. However, I agree that the tools and techniques for socio-spatial analysis in urban design are outdated and require critical review. Like Kullmann, I additionally recognize that while product design and other consumer-oriented design industries are harnessing new media technologies for gathering ethnographic and 'user' data — both qualitative and quantitative — urban design has remained rather conservative in the integration Of such technologies. In anthropology and ethnography we have seen experiments with digitally-assisted and -driven data collection, as well as new forms of participatory engagement in collaboration with media artists and technologists (see Harvard's Sensory Ethnography Lab, for example; see also Gabrielian 2016). Interactive visualization technologies and gaming softwares are becoming more accessible for urban visioning workshops. One Of SimCity's spinoffs includes Tygron, designed by the Dutch company with the same name for use in 'collaborative urban planning' — offering a 'realistic 3D world with real-life indicators taken from GIS information systems and city datasets' (Yoo 2016).