Land Use Plan Visualization Techniques: What Works Best?

[Wannaplan?]

Of the following land use plan visualizations, what do you think works best? Multiple answers are allowed in the poll - this is not a contest, I just want to get a sense of what the Throbbing Brain of Cyburbia thinks in terms of map visualization techniques. I think all of the following seven choices are valid and work quite well, however, obviously some work better than others. Vote for your favorites!

A. Hand-Drawn Map

B. Original Town Plat Map with Hand-Drawn Modifications

C. Original Area Map with Some Computerized Color Enhancements

D. Rasterized Map, Created in Photoshop or Similar Application

E. Digital Aerial with Conceptual Outlines to Designate Specified Areas

F. GIS Output with Basic Layer Display

G. GIS or CAD Output with Parcel Lines, Roads, and ROW Polygons

 

[NHPlanner]

[mod hat]
Additional poll option added at the bottom.
[/mod hat]

 

[Rumpy Tunanator]

I'd say B. G. H. although the option E. is good when showing transportation options and/or modifications.

 

[Wannaplan?]

D'Oh!

[mod hat]
Additional poll option added at the bottom.
[/mod hat]

Yes! Thank you, I forgot all about that one. Come to think of it, perhaps we need another option - Yahoo! Maps. I'm just kidding, but I have actually seen planning documents that use a Yahoo! map for their street map. Completely unprofessional, in my opinion.

 

[Cardinal]

Thanks for the extra choice. I think that hits it right on the head - different techniques are used for different purposes and different audiences, and at different times during the planning process. I very often use the plat map and aerial photos early in the planning process, just to evolve ideas. At a later stage I begin to draw the fancier maps. While most of my "final" work is computer-based, the odd hand-drawn map may sneak in. This is especially true if it will be used for a marketing purpose.

 

[Wannaplan?]

I'd say B. G. H. although the option E. is good when showing transportation options and/or modifications.

I have a fondness for C - I like the building footprints over the color land use polygons. El Guapo should like this map - it has an airfield on it.

 

[Chet]

I have a fondness for A and E, as they tend to convey a message without being parcel-specific.

 

[martini]

Personally, I like the GIS, Aerial, and Hand done. I like the GIS simply cause I know the program, and find it easy to 'read'. Same goes for the aerial. But the aerial may be harder for the average person to decipher, they are a tad tricky to figure out. I like the hand done simply for the artistry of it. They look good if done right. NH was right to add the last category though, you really should tailor maps to the crowd you'll be presenting to. Wow 'em with technology, or impress them with clarity. Whadaya need to do?

 

[H]

In my opinion, the GIS or CAD Output with Parcel Lines, Roads, and ROW Polygons appears the cleanest and easiest to read.

 

[Richmond Jake]

I also like the aerial due to the "real life" feel to it. We're using old comp plan maps for the update underway in our county.

 

[mendelman]

I personally pefer the aerial method, as long it is modified in GIS to include zones, street names, etc. (option C, E, & G combined)

If you help a people read an aerial, you can help them see the "big picture relaitonship" between the parts/areas of the site/location/muni. and relationship of the infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc)

Of course, it helps if the aerial is as up-to-date as possible.

I get to use aerials from 1998 here. Kind of annoying!

 

[donk]

While I like the maps with property lines, but the number of public meetings I've been to where I spend most of my time being told the lines are in the wrong place is too high to count.

Aerials are also useful, they don't lie once you know what to look for.

 

[mike gurnee]

Early in the process, be vague (A or E). If you are property-line precise, the citizens may feel that it can't be changed. I have been known to make pencil changes and leave it that way, just to show that change is possible. As the process progresses, you can be more specific.

 

[SkeLeton]

Digital aerial photos with Conceptual Outlines to Designate Specified Areas and GIS or CAD Output with Parcel Lines, Roads, and ROW Polygons, Those two would be my picks. they're clearer than the others

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Having a Geography background, I feel that the graphic needs to fit the audience and the purpose. To much or little information in the graphic can really skew the concept under discussion for good or ill. I believe the extraneous information should be kept handy, but that showing all information at one time is close to falsification buy burrying opposition in detail. It is better to make multiple simple graphics than one complicated graphic. Use the method that fits the purpose best.

 

[old man]

vISUALIZATION tECHNIGUES

I find that I use different technigues at different times in the planning process, and for different audiences. I like E (Digital enhanced aeriels) for detailed work and perhaps neighborhood plans. People are bettter able to understand and relate. G (Computer Generalized map) is good for Comp Plan reports as they can be read at a 11X 17 size. I would use G (computer maps with parcel ines) when I am prsenting detailed info.

PS I remember doing black & white hand drawn maps with press on type letters for the legend. It would take several days for the maps to be created, then several more for photgraphy for printing press publication.

 

[Streck]

If the Land Use Map is to be used as a Future Land Use plan or guide, I think the Raster version is best of the ones shown. It shows concept without too much distracting lot lines, or building shapes, or trees, or ROW, etc. But it does show transportation routes and major drainage configuration for planning purposes. It focuses attention to the massive color patterns, which is the main point IMHO.

It is my concept that the Land Use Plan is to be used as a guide for the direction the city sees and recommends for guidance to developers as they apply for zoning changes or significant developments.

It is not necessary to modify the Land Use Plan every time a zoning change is made or change in use occurs. It should be reconsidered about every five years and updated and modified as the city sees its future changing.

Hand drawn colors tend to fade and different colors fade differently, and are hard to assure you are looking at the intended use after a time. Also, updates may never match the original colors and that may be confusing or misleading.

The Land Use Plan should not be used to show so much detail. The current Zoning Map can show as much detail as you like.

 

[boiker]

hand drawn

i like handrawn as it signifies that the land use is 'flexible' in the edge areas. The cad drawings and gis drawings tend to appear inflexible to me. In the same way, architectural, landscaping, or engineering handrawn sketches indicate a proposed design, but in no case final. Computer drawn or hardlined drawings indicate a final and inflexible design.

btw, 300 clube with this post... It's a HUGE achievement for me!

 

[Streck]

Please excuse me for asking again (in a separate thread), but for responders to this thread, is there a difference between "Land Use Plan" and "Future Land Use Plan?"

And would it make a difference in the technique that you think is best?