GEODESIGN: BURNET WOODS PROPOSALS FOR BURNET WOODS PARK, CINCINNATI, OH

3

Prepared by:

Graduate Independent Study 7062School of PlanningDAAP, University of Cincinnati

Professor:

Beth Nagy

Graduate Assistant:

Zachary Moore

Students:

John GardockiCarlos Jean-BaptisteKelsey SmithSara WoolfLydia YenLu Zhang

Spring 2014

GEODESIGN: BURNET WOODS PROPOSALS FOR BURNET WOODS PARK, CINCINNATI, OH

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD....................................... 05

DATA COLLECTION....................... 09

METHODOLOGY............................. 11

ITERATION 01.................................. 12

ITERATION 02.................................. 17

ITERATION 03.................................. 24 EVALUATION.................................... 33

COURSEWORK PROPOSAL........... 34

SOURCES........................................... 37

ABOUT THE AUTHORS................. 38

5

FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION to the INDEPENDENT STUDY

During the Fall of 2013, the Masters of Community Planning program, with input from students and Professor Beth Nagy, decided to investigate the tool/process known as “geodesign.” The interest in pursuing such coursework came in pursuit of the unknown; the concept of geodesign has not reached the momentum of the global market yet.

What is Geodesign?

To answer this question, Professor Nagy contacted ESRI, the creator of ArcGIS and CityEngine which is the software designed to help users produce scenarios for their geodesign studies. ESRI provided two sources of information to assist the class: A Framework for Geodesign by Carl Steinitz and Geodesign by Shannon McElvaney.

Geodesign is “the ability to easily sketch alternative design scenarios and quickly get feedback on suitability by comparing the design proposal to geospatial databases.”

“Geodesign infuses design with a blend of science- and value-based information to help designers, planners, and stakeholders make better-informed decisions.”

“Globalization, population growth, climate change, and increasing demands for resources are serious problems. Geodesign is the solution.”

How is Geodesign different within the context of this independent study?

This geodesign study is largely based off of the team opinions and interactions within the study area (Uptown) because we are residents of the area. A normal geodesign process would go through an intensive public involvement campaign which the group did not have time to complete. The tools utilized to make an outcome were also less detailed than a normal project would take on. The process models were very limited and could have been elaborated on if more time were available.

CHOOSING THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The City of Cincinnati has 52 neighborhoods within its boundaries. The University of Cincinnati is in the Uptown area which includes six neighborhoods: Clifton Heights, University Heights, Fairview, Avondale, Clifton, Corryville, and Mt. Auburn. Initially, the class selected Uptown for its independent study as this area is where the majority of the student population lives in apartments or converted single family housing units.

After a thoughtful consideration of scale, the class decided to focus on a specific park in the Uptown area and its surroundings, Burnet Woods. The park is located next to the University of Cincinnati and resides just opposite of the School of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning. In fact, the land on which DAAP is built was originally parkland that was annexed by the university in 1970.

Image courtesy of cardcow.com

Vintage Aerial View of the University of Cincinnati

7

INTRODUCTION to BURNET WOODS

Burnet Woods is a 90-acre urban park adjacent to the University of Cincinnati in the Uptown area. The park offers a variety of recreational activities such as hiking and cross-country trails, a fishing pond, a bandstand, a disc golf course, and picnicking amenities. There is a nature center located within the park that hosts a nature library, meeting space, and the oldest planetarium west of the Allegheny Mountains, the Wolff Planetarium. Ecological geographical processes within the park are not as prominent because there are not many natural areas large enough to sustain habitat for animals. The fishing pond, which is a man-made feature, is the only existing body of water. The pond is seasonally stocked with fish and is checked regularly for algae blooming by park maintenance employees. The Audubon Society has named the park a natural birding site. The park board provides forest management to its tree species especially since the Emerald Ash Borer is a problem in the area. Removal of invasive species is important to sustain the parks native planting initiative.

The Cincinnati region has access to an enormous park system with both the City of Cincinnati Park Board and Hamilton County Parks. Few urban parks remain that are equivalent to the size of Burnet Woods in Cincinnati. Most of the urban parks have dwindled in size offering more visual value than actual recreational value. Burnet Woods, itself, has dwindled in size with University of Cincinnati as the primary owner of its annexed land.

Since the 1970s, the United States has decided that policies need to address the connections between humans and nature, hence the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further protection was given to the plants, water, and animals during the late 20th century. These policies also laid foundations for better quality in air and water standards which resulted in better access for Americans.

Boundary of Burnet Woods ParkThe Trailside Nature Center

Entrance to Burnet Woods from Clifton Street

9

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing conditions report on Burnet Woods should include location, history, existing land use, demographics, community facilities, economy and infrastructure. As some of this information has been made available in other reports and submissions, this document will seek to fill some select gaps where possible, but focus more on the perceptions of Burnet Woods as a measure of its existing conditions.

The population immediately surrounding Burnet Woods includes approximately 37,901 individuals from 16 census tracts. The breakdown of these individuals provides some interesting statistics. Demographically speaking, the population is 60% White and 34% Black with approximately 42% of the total living below the poverty line. The Average Median Income is $22,769 and the Average Mean Income is $40,430. Of particular interest is the age breakdown: 87.5% of this population is 18 years of age and older.

The Geodesign class, as individuals, conducted informal and non-scientific surveys of potential users with likely access. The surveys took on a variety of creative approaches from targeted online approaches on Facebook, NextDoor.com, and Survey Monkey to face-to-face approaches including engaging people in and around the park, individuals on campus, and neighborhood residents. An interesting approach was an anonymous board placed in the park for passers-by to voice their perceptions of the park and opinions on the future direction of the park.

This information is important as a barometer for understanding the perception of Burnet Woods current conditions and as a consideration for the direction of any design or proposal would take the park in future. Informal and non-scientific surveys about the park indicate that, in general, denizens of the area are aware of the park’s existence. The general consensus of Burnet Woods is that the space is valuable, though under-utilized, somewhat under-maintained, and potentially unsafe.

The value of the park comes from its position as a green space in a fairly dense urban environment offering opportunities for exercise, recreational activity, and dog walking. Surprisingly, there is little evidence that the park is widely regarded as a nature sanctuary or reserve.

In general, individuals feel that the park is under-maintained particularly in terms of the trails, some of which “just seem to end.” While safety in the park is a common concern, it is manifest in a variety of fashions and with a similar number of undertones.

Specific references mention “gay cruising” and concerns for children witnessing such inappropriate behavior, however, this is not unsafe so much as uncomfortable and/or disturbing. There is some mention of drug use and distribution, though these claims are not necessarily specific and, again, refer not absolutely to personal safety so much as a sense of suspect conditions. The perception of the park as unsafe comes from secondary or tertiary reports and focus on the park after sunset.

An important consideration in the existing condition of the park is that the park does not seem to serve a significant youth population. Some survey respondents mention the value of the park as a family gathering place or of use to high school students, but the obvious reality is that adults are the majority users and the majority demographic in the surrounding areas.

DATA COLLECTION

18%“Safe during the day”

6%“Green Space”

25%“Beautiful”

27%“Relatively Safe”

20%“Part of the

Neighborhood”

Terms most often used to describe

Burnet Woods

Uptown Population Density Uptown Population 18 and Over

Uptown Median Income Uptown Population Below Poverty Line

11

METHODOLOGY

Image courtesy of Centennial Parks Master Plan, Human Nature 2007

Burnet Woods Master Plan:

In 2007, Human Nature was contracted to develop a Master Plan for the Cincinnati Park System. Below are the recommendations provided for Burnet Woods. The geodesign study group used some of the ideas to enhance their alternative scenarios in the final product.

1. Ludlow & King Street Gateways2. Streetscape Linkages to/from Zoo3. Restored Stream Corridor with Trail Interpretive Stops: storm water BMP’s4. Clifton Gateway: Realigned with Dixmyth5. Improved Parking & Picnic/Play Rental Area6. Realigned Street with Parking, Pedestrian Promenade & Connecting Gardens7. Enhanced Trailside, Boathouse, and Terrace8. Existing Road Removed to Strengthen Forest and Stream Linkage9. Terrace, Café & Restaurant on Clifton Avenue10. Enhanced Lake Promenade 11. New Scenic Drive Alignment12. “Green” Park Maintenance Building13. Enhanced Streetscape Along Clifton Avenue and MLK Avenue14. Expanded Disc Golf Course15. Native Landscape Restoration & Biofiltration16. Entry Plaza & Improved Intersection17. Bandstand Grounds Enhancements

WHAT IS THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE GEODESIGN STUDY?

The geodesign process is not a science per se, however in A Framework for Geodesign Carl Steinitz explains the steps he believes geodesign should follow based upon Ian McHarg’s Design by Nature. Steinitz separates the process into six questions each with its own model. The models are explained below.

Six Questions of the Framework:

1. How should the study area be described in context, space, and time?- Representation Models

2. How does the study area operate? What are the functional and structural relationships among its elements?- Process Models

3. Is the current study area working well?- Evaluation Models

4. How might the study area be altered? By what policies and actions, when and where?- Change Models

5. What differences might the changes cause?- Impact Models

6. How should the study area be changed?- Decision Models

There are three different iterations that look into different parts of the geodesign study:First Iteration: Scoping the Geodesign StudySecond Iteration: Designing the Study MethodologyThird Iteration: Carrying Out the Study

Each iteration follows the six models which asks specific questions relating to the study. Some of the iterations are more qualitative while some are visual or quantitative depending on the study being assessed.

Burnet Woods Master Plan created by Human Nature for the Cincinnati Park Board

13

01 Representation Model by Kelsey Smith:

Where are the boundaries of the study area’s major systems?

The boundaries are self-determined. We can alter them as we choose. Burnett Woods has a defined area but we want to look at the area immediately surrounding the park boundary.

What is the Area’s Physical Geography?

Burnet Woods is 89.3-acres in total. It is bounded by Martin Luther King Drive on the south, Bishop Street on the east, Jefferson and Ludlow Avenues on the north, and Clifton Avenue on the west. Brookline Avenue and Burnet Woods Drive pass through the park and are utilized largely by students.• Slope either under 15 or over 30 degrees• Soil Types are relevant for future development

potential. The existing soil types include: RtB, PhD, EcE, EcD, RtC

• Six existing structures 1) Bandstand 2) The Lone Star Pavilion 3) Diggs Fountain Plaza, 4) Playground 5) Trailside Nature Center and the Wolff Planetarium 6) Richardson Monument• One man-made lake, no river/stream• Four points of entry; however the site lacks a north/

south through street for automobiles• Majority of the park covered by tree canopy

What is the Area’s Economic Geography?

The park is owned and operated by the Cincinnati Park Board in partnership with the University of Cincinnati campus. Economic Activities: Cincinnati Circus trapeze,fees for parking permits, and reservations of the bandstand for weddings and other social activities.

What is the Area’s Social Geography?

The neighborhoods of CUF, Clifton, and Coryville directly touch the park. The 1/2 mile buffer area also includes the Avondale neighborhood. There is a perception of the park as dangerous and underutilized during all hours of the day.Social Activities: Picnic area, playground, and 9-hole disc golf. There are no bus stops or routes in the park, but stops are located at every entrance/exit point.The park is used for educational purposes and for university classes.

Are there prior plans and designs for this geographic study area?

The Cincinnati Park Board previously created a master plan for the park in 2007.

Are there existing (digital) databases for the area?

Yes the group has access to the CAGIS database and data provided by OKI and there is existing data for crime.

Are they accessible to the study team?

Yes the databases are freely accessible via the University of Cincinnati network and Cincinnati Police website.

02 Process Model by Sara Woolf:

What are the areas major physical, ecological, and human geographical processes? How are they linked to each other?

Physical processes:• Slope erosionAlso effecting physical nature of park, but not naturally occurring: • Creation & stocking of an artificial lakeClifton and University Heights bounded as well as development on park lands by the University of Cincinnati • Construction of roads throughout park• Steps embedded into slopes on trails

Ecological processes:Wildlife management: The Audubon Society named the park an Important Birding Area. The area is also home to the famous Clifton lizards. It also serves as small mammal habitat, and a green pocket system for deer.Forest management: The park must manage the death of trees caused by the Emerald Ash borer.Lake management. To maintain the lake, the fish population must be managed. The park board must also consider the management of algae blooms occurring in the lake.

Habitat alteration through undergrowth management & tree clearing

Human Geographical processes:Human activities in the park – fishing, hiking, picnics, recreation (disc golf), playgrounds, crimeThe Trailside Nature Center, located next to the lake, has a nature library, crafts room, meeting space, exhibits. The nature center also houses Wolff Planetarium, which is the oldest planetarium west of the Allegheny Mountains. The park also manages Diggs Fountain Plaza and the Richardson Monument as well as a semester based parking pass system.

03 Evaluation Model by John Gardocki:

Is the area seen as attractive? Is the area seen as vulnerable? Are there current environmental and other “problems” in the area? Are there groups with differing views on these questions?

The trails in the park are not maintained or marked well which discourages use. Tree diversity is evident in the park which features rich colors in the spring and fall. The water feature in the park is typically not well maintained aesthetically. Different parts of the park are utilized more than others because of access, recreational options, and safety. Burnet Woods has value in the community as evidenced during the survey collections. With the economic downturn hitting the city budget, parks have generally had to rely on the “do more with less” scenario.

The City of Cincinnati and the University of Cincinnati have been in discussions to improve the linkages of Burnet Woods and University functions. Recommendations will be collected during 2014.

ITERATION 01

15

ITERATION 01: MODELS CONTINUED

04 Change Model by Lu Zhang:

Who defines the assumptions and requirements for change?

The Geodesign team defines the assumptions and requirements based on people’s feedback and our own experiences with the park.

How?

Feedback is based on the team experience and may also be derived from park users, local residents, and decision makers. The idea is that the designer is expected to make a leap forward in time, first conceiving of the design as a whole “concept” and then selecting the correct choices among the many requirements and options to produce an original vision, known as deductive logic. The geodesign team quickly develops alternative physical designs for future land use or land cover. They are then comparatively assessed for their potential consequences, often through discussion with experts and stakeholders, and sometimes via formal impact models, which is most effective on small projects.

Which scenarios for change are selected? Toward which time horizon(s)? At what scale(s)?

Scenarios:• Connect to Cincinnati Zoo• Natural laboratory for University of Cincinnati• Runoff filter • Bike trail competition• Festival events• Facility improvement

Time horizon: Present day and forward

Scale:Neighborhood

In what future state might this scenario result?

Scenarios:Connect to Cincinnati Zoo-create a long green corridor Natural laboratory-become a part of UC Runoff filter-an example of ecological water treatment Bike trail-cyclists go through the park instead of congested traffic Festival events-more people get to know the park but not good for environment protection

Which issues are beyond the capabilities of the geodesign team and study models?• Assessing criminal behaviors • Redevelopment funding/financing

Which change model(s) are to be applied? Are the outcomes to be designed, or simulated, or both?

The participatory model fulfills our requirements so changes occur concurrently with the team’s designs development. The outcome can either be designed or simulated.

05 Impact Model by Lydia Yen:

What differences might the changes cause? In which ways are foreseen changes seen as beneficial or harmful?

It truly depends upon which changes are taken into action and according to who is asked. To an environmentalist or a naturalist, human interference can interfere with possible bird migration patterns, the snail counts, and the reptiles of Burnet Woods. Proposed improvements from the survey suggest that there can be harmony between the level of activities held between the community and nature.

ITERATION 01: MODELS CONTINUED

Are these impacts seen as serious? Are they irreversible?

As most suggested changes are along the lines of intensity of activities, rather than changes in infrastructure, the proposed changes are reversible. The surveys conducted suggest that possible changes include increased accommodations for dog parks, community events, and increased design features. The environmental impacts of these changes are minimal; however there is still an impact to be measured as increased activity also increases the effects of human interference with nature. These can be measured through land allotted for parking, the level of clean up after activities, and possible sound pollution. Other measures include wildlife counts as the park still serves as a nature preserve more than a formal park.

What differences might the changes cause? In which ways are foreseen changes seen as beneficial or harmful?

As before, the impact of the changes depend on what those changes are and to whose judgment we are referring: the naturalist or environmentalist versus the recreationalist, for example. The group believes there can be harmony between the level of activities held between the community and nature.

06 Decision Model by Carlos Jean-Baptiste:

What is the main purpose of the Geodesign Study? Public Action? Economic Profit? Scientific Advancement?

The main purpose of the geodesign study of Burnet Woods is to investigate the most appropriate land use for the area. While the park serves as a public recreation area with some economic benefits through semester and annual parking passes, there is a mixed perception of the park as potentially lacking in terms of amenities, underused, and dangerous. In this sense, the study

seeks to identify alternative uses such as residential, commercial, or mixed use development; reconceiving the current landscape architecture; or simply maintaining the status quo.

Who are the major stakeholders? Are they public or private?

The major stakeholders in this study are public and private entities. The University of Cincinnati to the south is one of the larger, more significant stakeholders as it has previously acquired sections of the park for expansion. The Cincinnati Park Board is one of the major stakeholders and is the current owner and operator of the park. They rely on a budget approved by the Mayor of Cincinnati and the City Council. The east side the park abuts with residential development and to the north meets commercial/entertainment development. On the west, Hebrew Union College and Good Samaritan Hospital round out the immediate neighbors and stakeholders in usage and future of the park. To a greater extent, stakeholders include residents of Clifton and University Heights and the residents of the greater Uptown area.

“Land Trade Gives 22 Acres in Return for Money and Alms Area,” Cincinnati Enquirer, July 22, 1949.

17

ITERATION 01: MODELS CONTINUED

Are “positions” known? Are they in conflict?

While the positions of these stakeholders cannot be definitively identified at this time, safe assumptions are that there is most likely conflict as there are identifiable users of the area including the recreationalists and departments of the University of Cincinnati, identifiable interests as the pond is stocked and the Audubon Society has identified the park as an important birding area, and these not to mention environmentalists, business interests, historic preservationists, and the like.

Are there legal and implementation-related aspects that must be considered?

As to the legal and implementation-related aspects that must be considered, ownership of the park is the most substantial legal consideration. It is owned by the Park Board whereas we can consider the park within the public domain and subject to the interests of local Cincinnati citizens, whose voices would have to be heard on any planned modification.

Are there binding limitations that must guide the activities of the geodesign study?

The limitations that will bind any geodesign study is strictly resources available to the group. In this case, the limited resources are time and funds with which to undertake any study of consequence.

ITERATION 02

06 Decision Model

What are the objectives and requirements of the decision makers and thus of the geodesign study?

The objectives of the decision-makers in this process are to find the best use for the study area in terms of the most relevant stakeholders.

What do the decision makers need to know in order to implement changes?

Key information required for this process include stakeholder demographics, stakeholder interests, and long-term area planning.

What are the relative levels of importance of their requirements? What are their evaluations based on?

Evaluations should be based on suitability studies, cultural norms and expectations, and legal standards.

Are there any binding constraints on possible outcomes of the geodesign study?

As mentioned previously, the major stakeholders in this study are both public and private. The park is bound immediately on its southern and western boundaries by the University of Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College, and Good Samaritan College and just beyond some light residential on its eastern boundary by the Environmental Protection Agency and University of Cincinnati Medical Campus. To the north and west, just beyond some neighborhoods is the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens. Essentially, this makes the park an island in a sea of built institutions with light commercial and mixed residential filling the voids.

Beyond these institutions, the Cincinnati Park Board is another major stakeholder; it is the current owner and operator of the park and is responsible to the Mayor of Cincinnati and, by extension, to the city’s active registered voters. To a smaller and greater extent, stakeholders include residents of Clifton and University Heights and the residents of the greater Uptown area.

While decisions for development in Burnet Woods should include all of these stakeholders, each should be considered with an appropriate weight. Public interest, in terms of citizens and residents, should be of primary concern. Their interests should be attained though direct community engagement, where possible: charrettes, meetings, and surveys serve as immediate possibilities. The Mayor and the Park Board should be expected to serve as instruments of constraint and possibility for execution. Finally, the surrounding institutions should play their part in the decision process as members of the community and potential donors.

05 Impact Model

Which import models are needed by the decision model to assess and compare potential changes? Which impacts are not part of the decision models but should be considered nevertheless?

Representation Model: used to help understand the economic and social geography of the landscape. This will help show who the stronger stakeholders are, how the space is used, and what park features are to be preserved for the future. For example some of the space is used as parking for university patrons. The revenue from the parking goes to support the park board. This money is a big funding source for the upkeep of the physical condition therefore should not be dissolved.

Impact Model: this will be important for the decision model because the impact can help guide stakeholder opinions. For example potential development could be a massive cost but yet still have a positive economic impact. This could make the Park Board stakeholders want to put in the initial cost to get a positive return on investment.

What, how much, where, when, and to whom are the impacts seen as “good” vs. “bad”? How precise must the impact assessments be?

Impacts should always be considered regardless if they are good or bad and should be given equal weight. I

Image courtesy of Centennial Parks Master Plan, Human Nature 2007

Spring Foliage in Burnet Woods

Sculpture by DAAP Art Students

19

think the impacts in this study will be hard to measure due to lack of historical research on past uses. The group currently has the present uses and are creating future uses; however the past uses are a little vague. We know it has historically been used in a similar manner but there is a lack of qualitative research outlining the usage (such as the number of visitors) and things such as how many concerts played there and visitors to the Nature Center.

The decision model leaves out any information about the environmental/physical characteristics of the area. This is very important to consider. At minimum, one would want any changes to be compatible with the environmental state of the study area.

The perceived social impacts are something a new design scenario would want to change. Currently, the people surveyed do not feel very safe in the woods and would like to see an increase in security measures. Any changes should be for safety.

04 Change Model

What are the assumptions for change?

• Any changes will help increase park usage and safety• People generally want change that increases utility of

the space• It will have an overall positive impact on the social

geography of the surrounding area• The changes will open up more partnerships between

the space and the University of Cincinnati

What are the requirements?

• It will not interrupt the existing environmental features

• Be generally low cost• Appear natural and fit in with the surrounding

community• That the Park Board will be receptive to any changes

being made

Who defines the scenarios for change? Which

scenarios are selected?

• The geodesigners• Based off of suggestions from informal community

surveying • The Stakeholders: unfortunately this is something we

are not going to address with our design scenarios due to lack of time, funding, and scope. If this project was to be carried out, more effort to reach out to the stakeholders would be required.

How shall change be visualized and communicated?

• Maps, drawings, posters, renderings, and documents

Which change models, or way(s) of designing are most appropriate for this geodesign study?

Anticipatory approach- We are confident with making small scale design decisions for this project• Sequential design- there will be multiple variations

constructed/ revisions made to create a strong design scenario

• Rule based- we set the rule that we want to preserve the natural atmosphere of the landscape. Any designs should take into account the current natural uses (environmental and recreational) and should do its best to not disturb this

• The other change models would be important for a more in depth design; however we do not have a specific client. The group was not contracted to do this, nor are we working directly with any specific policy holder/stakeholder group. We are making judgment calls based on our personal experience and interactions with the space.

03 Evaluation Model

What are the measures of the evaluation across distinct but relevant fields?

Site (physical characteristics terrain, demographics):How the physical appearance will change, an expansion of a playground or picnic area, for example. This will be

evaluated physically, such as by how many square feet are developed or how many trees are removed.

Location (area geography, hydrology, appearance):Appearance can be qualitative and quantitative, such as does it look better vs. how much garbage is removed. Also, one can measure how often the grass will be cut to create a positive visual upkeep perception.

Hydrology would be an important feature to measure due to land excavation changing drainage patterns. Any tree removal or creation of impermeable surfaces would have an impact to be evaluated.

Administration (zoning laws, ownership, and rights):Currently we do don’t know, nor can definitively say, the specific codes for Burnet Woods. While the area is owned by one authority, they are the ones who decide how the space can or cannot be developed. It’s up to the Park Board for any administration decision and evaluation. The group is proceeding with the assumption that the Board will allow for development of small portions of the area as long as the natural atmosphere is preserved.

What are their spatial, temporal, qualitative and quantitative metrics? Are they scientifically or judgmentally based?

• Evaluating topics such as perception are judgmentally based. This would be measured through qualitative surveys

• Environmental impacts such as changes in drainage or bird migration are scientifically based

Are they related to legal standards?

• Everything would be regulated to the legal standards set by the Cincinnati Park Board and, in general, the City of Cincinnati.

• However, for our project we are not necessarily taking into account legal standards as we did not find any specific restrictions from the Park Board. If this construction project would be carried out, any specific regulations and legal proceedings would need to be followed and taken through the proper channels, such as presenting design ideas to the

planning board for approval and sponsorship.

02 Process Model

Which models should be included?

Direct process models have already been addressed for this geodesign study which involved perceptions of the project study area and overall opinions of the area. Public involvement was limited to the surrounding neighborhoods and the people with whom the project team members engaged during the public input phase.

Thematic process models are what it sounds like, a map or visual that can show the change overtime from one visual to another. For the project study this could be useful to show tree canopy cover or trail/path locations.

Vertical process models involve overlaying data to determine suitability, for example, of a certain aspect. For the Burnet Woods study, this could be useful when determining whether development would be suitable for areas in the park that deal with slope, tree canopy, or water features.

Horizontal process models involve looking into spatial analysis for the project area. Using Kevin Lynch’s spatial analysis of nodes, landmarks, districts, paths, and corridors would be beneficial to figure out how the park is utilized.

Hierarchic process models looks at spatial and temporal components of a project. Change is very helpful when figuring out what the space was used as in the past which could very potentially be a more productive use than what is currently on the site. For the Burnet Woods study it might be difficult to come up with some of this information besides the original park plan as data is limited.

Temporal process models take the project area and predict the future form based on data assessment. This refers more to environmental conditions and demographics than any other indicators. This process

21

model might be beyond the geodesign comfort zone because it does not have much data to back up reliability.

Adaptive process models take a look at how certain aspects change over time, for example the tree canopy cover would be productive to look at over time for Burnet Woods. Getting this “timescope” data might be hard to do for the geodesign team, as CAGIS data has limited availability.

Behavioral process models look at behavior overtime of certain aspects. For example, it might be interesting to look at demographics around the park to see what age group or ethnicity preferred to live around Burnet Woods which could persuade the design of future park features. Obviously college students would be the majority of the population, but who is next?

How complex should the models be? How shall the impacts be summarized and visualized?

The complexity of models depends on the users intentions in the next steps of the project proposal. Some groups may need to make one of the process models more detailed, for example a spatial analysis proposal would have more complexity in their horizontal process model.

01 Representation Model

Which data are needed? For which geography? At what spatial scale? At which classification? For which times? From which sources? At which cost? In which mode of representation? What are the appropriate data management technologies?

• Current traffic congestion if entrances are changed, trip generation, population density, noise, crime statistics, slope, tree cover. All data would be at scale of park/Uptown. This data was gathered prior to the second iteration when we were scoping the project.

• Other qualitative data (such as perceived image, and design ideas) was gathered through community surveying

• Data source being used is CAGIS, use GIS to display data

What are the appropriate visualization technologies?

• ArcMap, Google SketchUp, basic hand drafting• Other visualizing technologies include CityEngine

and AutoCAD• If this project were to be presented to a community,

well organized posters and visuals would be key for the success and displaying of design ideas

3D Topographic Models

Development Zones

• Ludlow Gateway• Lake Recreation Zone• Picnic/Entertainment• Clifton Gateway

23

Reconstructed Gateways

Ludlow Gateway Zone

Clifton Gateway Zone• Burnet Woods Signage• Landscaping• DAAP Rotating Sculpture Lab• Marked Parking Spaces• Athletic Fields

Lake Recreation Zone• Highlight Uses (Nature Center)• Create New Entrance• Mark Parking Spaces

25

ITERATION 03

CARRYING OUT THE STUDY:

Great Cities Have Great Parks!

These city parks offer suitable amenities to the urban landscape that offer residents and visitors alike an enhanced urban landscape and access to specific leisure activities and opportunities. Cincinnati is one of these great cities, however, this does not imply that there are not parks within the system that are not lacking.

Burnet Woods, located in the Uptown area, is one such park. The park is bound immediately on its southern and western boundaries by the University of Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College, and Good Samaritan College and just beyond some light residential on its eastern boundary by the Environmental Protection Agency and University of Cincinnati Medical College. To the north and west, just beyond some neighborhoods is the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens. Essentially, this makes the park an island in a sea of built institutions with light commercial and mixed residential filling the voids.

While the park struggles with a reputation of questionable safety, general lack of maintenance, under-utilization, and potentially a lack of amenities, it seems to serve more as a proxy in a conflict between institutional growth at the University of Cincinnati and outspoken neighborhood residents threatened by the university’s history of- and potential for additional encroachment. This proxy battle over the park is essentially impeding any opportunities for enhancement or development and creating the opportunity for the park’s reputation to remain in decline.

This proposal would discourage any specific capital improvement to the park with the intention of adding permanent structures or road ways, although any measure discouraging through traffic would be well considered. The issue at hand is safety and the general sense of—in the mayor’s own words—“creepiness.” The quickest solution is to increase park activity thereby placing eyes on the environment. While the city is struggling to maintain its balance sheet and potentially unable to invest significantly in the park in the short term, the institutions around the park, particularly

UC could invest in a public outreach campaign within the park to increase activity and to improved strained relations with neighbors and residents.

Currently programming in the park is light, at best, with chamber orchestra events, a mini circus, and a kid friendly connection to CliftonFest. However, the university could augment these programs through school and college events related to student activities. The College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning, which is the #3 design university in the country and immediately adjacent to Burnet, should be encouraged to have art and design shows within the space in addition to its gallery downtown; the College Conservatory of Music similarly should be encouraged to hold musical and acting performances in the park in addition to the existing performances; and this is only to speak of one campus of one institution that surrounds the park. Health and cultural awareness campaigns certainly fit the outreach profiles of Hebrew Union College, the EPA, and Good Samaritan Hospital and Burnet Woods certainly offers a publicly accessible ground that begs for increased utilization.

Geodesign Proposals by Team Members

Professional Park Proposals

Image courtesy of Mogavero Notestine Associates

Image courtesy of Brandsteller Carroll Inc.

27

ITERATION 03: DESIGN SCENARIOS

Base Scenario: No Intervention

The geodesign class determined that this scenario was a possibility for an appropriate proposal for Burnet Woods based on community feedback and the desire for the environmental preservation of the area.

Uses:• Hiking on trails• Walking• Picnic• Parking• Educational facility

Pros:The scenario does not disrupt the current environmental processes occurring at Burnet Woods. The park remains “natural” which was valued by people surveyed. The Cincinnati Park Board would be required to maintain the current cost of upkeep and maintenance, however there is no potential loss in revenue.

Cons:If the base scenario is chosen, and no interventions are made to Burnet Woods Park, the perspective of danger and security will not be altered. The park will continue to be seen as an “underutilized” asset. There is an additional concern that Emerald Ash Borer may continue to spread and affect trees in the area. There is also no potential increase in revenue for the park.

Title:

ITERATION 03: INTRODUCTION CONTINUED

In terms of light investment to improve perception of the existing amenities, signage within the park to better identify trails and paths with clear distance markers would immediately increase utility for those already running/hiking and encourage marginal users to engage. Signage identifying specific natural aspects of the park, from trees to flowers as well as birds and reptiles would enhance awareness of the park’s place as a unique nature reserve.

More intense interventions would range from minor alterations such as thinning trees at the periphery and highlighting gateways to clearing ideal sections of the park for more intensive recreational activities and creating more focused paths to the Zoo and Gardens.

After reviewing the prior analyses, the Geodesign class made the following determination:

The way you are going to change the park is by putting people in the park.

The class has identified a number of possibilities to achieve this end:

Potential Interventions, Programs and Activities:• Create larger entrances with visible activity beyond

them. • Establish a dog park.• Relocate the playground to a more visible location• Future development may include facilities such as

splash pads, skate parks, and baseball/football fields.

• Define an arboretum • Food truck venue or other eatery • Camping• Festivals

Photo courtesy of Brad Ferguson

Photo courtesy of the SPCA of Cincinnati

Food Trucks and Dog Parks

Base Scenario Map

Existing Features

Personal Photo, Spring 2014

Personal Photo, Winter 2014

29

ITERATION 03: DESIGN SCENARIOS

Second Scenario: Build-Out

The geodesign class determined that this scenario was not a possibility for an appropriate proposal for Burnet Woods.

Proposals:• Create office space and other potential prime real-

estate locations • Thin or remove trees but maintain “campus green”

feel with large engineered parks• Expand University and other Campus

development

Pros: There are multiple benefits to the decision to develop Burnet Woods. Firstly, there is a potential for revenue for the city. The site could maintain some open space and parkland, while allowing for new businesses to enter the area. It is foreseeable that development on the site will reduce the perception of crime in the area.

Cons:By developing the woods, the area will suffer the loss of a large natural park space. Development would disrupt drainage and other environmental features, as well as impact wildlife habitat and bird migratory patterns through the area. There is the additional concern that the construction required for development will incur large amounts of noise which may disrupt the surrounding neighborhoods. Development will also increase traffic in an already congested area.

Image courtesy of Taber Andrew Bain

Image courtesy of Wonderlane

ITERATION 03: DESIGN SCENARIOS

Third Scenario: Minimal Intervention

The geodesign class determined that this scenario was a possibility for an appropriate proposal for Burnet Woods based on community feedback. This proposal was the intervention chosen by the group to be utilized for design proposals.

Proposals:• Install hard surface paths • Increase lighting and expand the blue light system• Increase police patrols in the park • Increase signage and re-mark trails• Thin trees to create better sight lines• Create and expand entrance ways• Increase partnerships with the University of

Cincinnati and surrounding businesses and institutions.

• Create a small open field to serve a variety of activities (dog park and picnicking for example)

Pros:The proposed changes on the site would be minimally invasive, causing little damage to the existing environment. The changes would promote an increased perception of safety in the park by providing for an increased number of activities to take place, thereby attracting more users.

Cons:Although the changes would be as minimally invasive as possible, there would be an environmental impact to any new development in the park. Financially, the costs for the improvements would have little to no return on investment.

Build-Out Scenario Minimal Intervention Scenario

Sketch depicting areas with flat land

Sketch of potential entrance way

Photographs depicting possible campus green and future

construction interventions

31

ITERATION 03: DESIGN SCENARIOS

Fourth Scenario: Recreational Expansion

The geodesign class determined that this scenario was a possibility for an appropriate proposal for Burnet Woods based on community feedback. This proposal combines the desire for environmental preservation of the area with the desire for increased usability and designated recreation spaces.

Proposals:• Expand on changes from Minimal Intervention

(skate park, splash pad, etc.)• Level areas for the creation of recreation fields• Expand playground system• Expand lake for recreation

Pros:By promoting additional uses in the park, the park will attract more visitors, thereby increasing perceived safety. Additionally, by giving spaces a defined purpose, they will be more easily used by community groups and organizations for activities.

Cons:Any development on the site may be potentially damaging to environment and existing ecosystems. The costs for the improvements would continue to have little to no return on investment. There is also a concern that an increase in organized activities in the area will bring additional strain to local streets, and cause further issues with the availability of parking.

Photo courtesy of Seth Lemmons

Photo courtesy of 55Laney69 via Flickr

ITERATION 03: DESIGN PROPOSALS

Criminal Prevention Through Environmental Design

Introduction to CPTED

Criminal Prevention Through Environmental Design takes a look at the built/natural environment and the interaction with human mobility. The New Zealand national guidelines defines CPTED as “a crime prevention philosophy based on proper design and effective use of the built environment leading to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime, as well as an improvement in quality of life” (Ministry of Justice, 5).

CPTED Principles: 1. Surveillance: People are present, active eyes on the scene2. Access Management: Methods are used to attract people and vehicles to some places and restrict them from others 3. Territorial Reinforcement: Clear boundaries encourage community “ownership” of the space4. Quality Environments: Good quality, well maintained places attract people and support surveillance.

There are three approaches that CPTED promotes to reduce the opportunity for crime based upon the four principles:1. Natural: The use of security and behavioral concepts into how human and physical resources are designed and used (borders, sight lines)2. Organized: The use of human security (labor)3. Mechanical: The use of hardware security equipment (cameras, locks, lighting)

Sources of Information Needed to Implement CPTED: Council, crime statistics, demographic data, stakeholder interviews/user surveys, observations, and safety audits

Integrating CPTED for Burnet Woods It is important to note that CPTED studies/regulations are generally driven by an act of law, however in Cincinnati’s case and most of America there are no laws in the books. Most organizations complete these studies because they have problems with crime, not because they are required by law. It has come to our attention that the Cincinnati Police Department uses CPTED in their general awareness campaigns. CPTED trainings for park staff would be beneficial to help future park plans and expansion.

There are major CPTED infrastructure projects that need to be completed within Burnet Woods in order to decrease the perception and reality of crime within the boundaries.

1. Signage/Wayfinding• Proper definition at all entrances help define public/

private areas and make people feel welcome2. Lighting• Scale and intensity of lighting should fit park

standards3. Furniture• All furniture should be see-through including

benches, fences, and walls 4. Hardscapes/Softscapes• Sidewalks should be hardscape (brick or concrete)

while trails should be softscape (mulch/rock)• Maintenance of public areas should be included in

the capital plan

CPTED PrinciplesThe matrix on the left gives some guidelines that parks should follow when implementing CPTED. These are not the only ones that should become policy; however it is a good start. Future implementation of design standards including CPTED principles would be advised by the team.

Recreational Expansion Scenario

Photographs depicting activities that may take place in the park under a recreational expansion scenario.

33

CPTED Principle Performance Standards and Park Area Considerations

Natural Surveillance All entrances must be actively engaging to the users and people passing

by

Lighting must adhere to the following guidelines: 1. Pedestrian lighting

should be no taller than 4 feet 2. Automobile lighting should be no taller

than 15 feet 3. Fixtures should be full cutoff in order to reduce light

pollution at night 4. Provide lighting around areas of congregation

Sightlines should be at eye level or approximately no shorter than 6'0 for

trees and no taller than 3'0' for shrubs

Visibility of security (both human and natural)

Any barriers should be see-through to make criminal activity visual

Access Management Pedestrian paths should be clearly defined by a softscape material for

running/trails and hardscape for sidewalks

Make paths/sidewalks connect to a destination where people would want

to go

Make sure all paths have an exit strategy, no dead ends should be

possible

Signage should be clear as to what areas are permittable to automobiles

and which are not

Way finding signage should be visible for all trails and at main entrances

to indicate that public access is available

Territorial Reinforcement E ntrances/Exits are clearly accessible with proper signage

Any buildings must have windows that can easily be seen through

(windows, doors, activity)

Programming will help define an area and keep eyes on the area (ex. Disc

golf)

Define boundaries that are public and private

Promote community engagement in planning and events

Quality Environments Management and maintenance plans should be in place for all seasonal

changes

All fixtures should be securely mounted into the ground for theft abatement

Active participation in maintenance should be encouraged for users of the

park

Proper planning and quality materials are used in new design features

EVALUATION

Throughout the course of the semester and through the process of each iteration, the independent study team reconsidered the question again and again: What is Geodesign? Is it ESRI’s “ability to easily sketch alternative design scenarios” for quick feedback? Is it some “blend of science and value-based information” with which planners, designers, and stakeholders can make better decisions? Is Geodesign the solution?

Yes!

However, no answer can ever be so simple. The challenge in considering Geodesign, be it the process, the science, the action, the theory, or whatever have you, is that schools of thought and approach are claiming ownership of a term without form. ESRI sees Geodesign as a tool for the creation of build-out scenarios where designers can create cities at desktops and alter form function and feel within a matter of keystrokes. Steinitz and McElvaney see Geodesign as a process of careful data collection, community engagement, and thoughtful design creating alternatives driven by both positive and normative considerations. In the end, though, as a class of future planners delving into the unknown, we found Geodesign to something more fundamental, more concrete, and much simpler to describe.

Geodesign is just good planning. It involves the collection of empirical data, a consideration of relevant

stakeholders, an engagement with the public, and the pursuit of reasonable alternatives through the application of design with the most appropriate tools.

We found the rigidity of the iterations and the process models as a useful tool to keep the study on proper task and as a record of the changes from our initial thoughts and plans for the park into our final proposal. As much as we would all concede that the process took turns for the pedantic, it offered us the opportunity to carefully reconsider our thoughts at each step.

In the end, we recommend this process as a powerful educational tool for both designers and planners whose work will be in the public sector and involve the interaction with any number of stakeholders. We recommend that this class, or another one modeled upon it should be offered, if not as core curriculum than at least as an elective for advanced degree level students seeking to work as practitioners in the field.

As a class, we would also like to thank Dr. Beth Nagy for giving us the opportunity to pursue geodesign and to allow us the academic freedom to explore the unknown. Her leadership and guidance was immeasurable. We would also like to extend our thanks to the graduate program and the school of planning for supporting these endeavors and we hope that this document can lead the way to a wider curriculum.

Criminal Prevention Through Environmental Design Chart

35

FUTURE COURSEWORK PROPOSAL

PLAN XXXX Geodesign School of PlanningCollege of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning

Course Description

This is an introductory, but intensive, course designed to discover and use urban planning theories, techniques, and tools. Geodesign is a technical methodology used to conduct site analysis and design. GIS is a primary tool of geodesign and will be used to analyze existing conditions and propose scenarios. You must have completed Introduction to GIS as a prerequisite for this course.

Course Objective

The objective of this course is to prepare students for employment and/or further study using geodesign methods and tools. At the end of the course, each student will have a work sample to include in your portfolio and a new skill to add to your resume.

Course Format

Geodesign is an interactive course. You should be prepared for the class topic of the day. A typical day will consist of review of assignments, discussion of new material, with the remainder of class time dedicated to individual or group work. There may also be atypical days such as guest speakers, field trips, or multimedia opportunities such as webinars, online information sessions, or free trainings. Course ScheduleWEEK ONE: Introduction, Expectations and Geodesign Framework

Course format, philosophy and backgrounds of students and instructor. Discussion of literature and tools used in this course.Read and outline Lynch’s The Image of the City

WEEK TWO: The Image of the City

Present (chapter) outlines. Discuss the influence of Lynch’s work. Focus on form.Read and outline McHarg’s Design with Nature. WEEK THREE: Design with Nature

Present (chapter) outlines. Discuss the influence of McHarg’s work. Focus on environment.Read Steinitz’s A Framework for Geodesign Chapters 1-2

WEEK FOUR: Geodesign Part One

Framing geodesign and participatory GIS. Ethics of geodesign. Read Steinitz’s A Framework for Geodesign Chapters 3-6

WEEK FIVE: Geodesign Part Two

Geodesign questions, iterations, and decision models. Read and outline case studies in Steinitz’s A Framework for Geodesign Chapters 7-9

WEEK SIX: Geodesign Part Three

Present and discuss case studies of geodesign. Constraints of geodesign.Read Steinitz’s A Framework for Geodesign Chapter 10Discuss implications for research in geodesignStudents select site(s) to conduct geodesign methodology. Prepare basic GIS map of site.WEEK SEVEN: Student Site Selection

Present site selections and how or why site was selected. Conduct iteration one on your selected site.

WEEK EIGHT: Iteration One of Sites

Present and discuss iteration one of sites.Conduct iteration two on your selected site.]

WEEK NINE: Iteration Two of Sites

Present and discuss iteration two of sites.Conduct iteration three on your selected site.

WEEK TEN: Iteration Three of Sites

Present and discuss iteration three of sites.Revise & compile draft geodesign research

WEEK ELEVEN: Present geodesign draft research

Review and provide feedback on drafts. Make revisions to draft. Read Steinitz’s A Framework for Geodesign Chapters 11-12

WEEK TWELVE: Implications for Practice and a Future for Geodesign

Discuss implications and synthesize for conclusion in geodesign research.Incorporate conclusion into geodesign research.

WEEK THIRTEEN: Review final drafts

Review final drafts and begin PowerPoint/prezi draft.

WEEK FOURTEEN: Review PowerPoint/Prezi drafts

Review presentation drafts.Finalize research

WEEK FIFTEEN: Final Research and Presentation

Presentation and research project for geodesign due.

The scheduled exam date is XXXX.

37

SOURCES + WORKS CITED

1) Cincinnati Parks Board. Burnet Woods. n.d. http://www.cincinnatiparks.com/burnet- woods (accessed February 19, 2014).

2) ESRI. (n.d.). Geodesign. Retrieved 2014, from Esri Professional Services: http://www.esri. com/services/professional-services/project- services/Geodesign

3) Hotz, H. M. (n.d.). Geodesign. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.faculty.umb.edu/helenmary. hotz/geodesign_cape_cod.pdf

4) Human Nature. Centennial Parks Master Plan. Cincinnati, OH: 2007.

7) “Land Trade Gives 22 Acres in Return for Money and Alms Area,” Cincinnati Enquirer, July 22, 1949.

3) McElvaney, Shannon. Geodesign: case studies in regional and urban planning. Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2012.

6) Ministry of Justice. 2005. National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

6) Steinitz, Carl. A framework for Geodesign: changing geography by design. ESRI, 2012.

39

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

KELSEY SMITHKelsey is a second year Master of Community Planning candidate. She is originally from New England, but transplanted to the Mid-West for graduate schooling. Her planning research focuses on community and

economic development, housing revitalization, urban renewal, and natural disaster recovery (mitigation, rehabilitation, and resilience planning along coastal regions). Her goal is to become a planner that focuses on the sustainable redevelopment through TOD design. Kelsey has an undergraduate degree from Syracuse University in human geography, focusing on migration, urban historical development, and cartography, and European history, focusing on the French Revolution, Ancient Rome, and the Italian Renaissance.

CARLOS JEAN-BAPTISTECarlos is a first year Master of Community Planning student with a background in political science and international development. Originally from Washington, DC, has had the privilege of working

in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Carlos’s interest in Geodesign encompasses disaster planning and responses in developing countries. Aside from planning,

SARA WOOLFSara is a first year Master of Community planning candidate originally from Pennsylvania. She chose to pursue a career in planning following an interest community outreach after completing her Bachelor of

Architecture degree at Virginia Tech. Sara’s current interests lie in food systems planning and place making. Her career goal is to move back to the Northeast and work for an organization pursuing food systems justice and planning, and creating healthy places for communities to thrive in.

LYDIA YENLydia is a first year Masters of Community Planning student. Lydia found her calling in urban planning during her college days as a community leader, volunteering her time to work with local

municipalities, non-profits, and regional planning organizations. Through her work she has furthered her interests in understanding international views in the melting pot of Southern California while exploring her own bi-culturalism. She attained her bachelors of science in Urban Planning from Cal Poly Pomona. Her research interests include urban design, economic development, and cultural urbanism with an emphasis on the Asian continent.

ZACHARY MOOREZach is a first year Masters of Community Planning candidate, and the Graduate Assistant for the Geodesign course. In 2013 he received a Bachelor of Arts from Wright State University in Urban Affairs and Geography

with a concentration in Planning, as a well a certificate in Geographic Information Science. His research interests are in urban historical mapping and analysis, suburban retrofitting and greyfields redevelopment, and interjurisdictional collaboration.

BETH NAGY, Ed.D., MCPBeth Nagy holds a Bachelor of Urban Planning (BUP) degree, Master of Community Planning (MCP) degree and doctorate in Urban Educational Leadership (Ed.D.) from the University

of Cincinnati (UC). Her research interests are geodesign, urbanization science, technology & innovation, entrepreneurship, community engagement, community-based nonprofits, community development, and campus-community partnerships. She is currently adjunct faculty in the School of Planning, College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning (DAAP) at UC and Community Planning Consultant in the Cincinnati area. Beth lives and is active in the Uptown Cincinnati community.

LU ZHANGLu is a first year Master of Community Planning student. She is studying in the U.S. after growing up in China. The difference of cultural background gives her a diverse understanding of planning. In 2012, she

obtained a bachelor degree in Environmental Art Design and one year practice in landscape architecture. The product she is pursuing keeps a standard in both scientific and aesthetic .

ABOUT THE INSTRUCTORS

JOHN GARDOCKIJohn is a first year Master of Community Planning student. He received a B.S. of City and Regional Planning from The Ohio State University. Urban planning comes as an interest to him because it involves affecting

people’s daily routines to make them more sustainable. His interests in planning include: the environment, geographical information science, public transportation, and sustainability.