• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Planning Visuals Smackdown #1

Which Plan Would You Rather Have For Your Community?

  • Hand Drawn Graphics that Effectively Convey the Most Basic Information

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • A Variety of Web-Based Plans that Provide as Much Information as Possible

    Votes: 7 41.2%
  • Other - Please post an image with explanation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,217
Points
29
Which Plan Would You Rather Have For Your Community?

Option #1 - Hand Drawn Graphics that Effectively Convey the Most Basic Information



In this corner, we have a beautifully hand-drawn plan that evokes the days of yesterday. It's clear representation of basic urban elements such as roads, buildings, parks, and water features by utilizing as few colors and lines as possible makes the plan easy to read.


Option #2 - A Variety of Web-Based Plans that Provide as Much Information as Possible



And in this corner, we have a dynamic computer-based plan that is available on the World Wide Web. It is highly accessible to those who know how to get on the Information Superhighway. The website contains many related plans, and the intent is to convey as much information as possible.


Poll closes in seven days.
 

tsc

Cyburbian
Messages
1,905
Points
23
High quality graphics,, that are pleasing to look at is like wearing your best suit for an interview. You could have the most well thought out plans... but the images make (sell) the document
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,918
Points
57
voted for option one.

The simpler, but high quality intro plans are the best. If the image is of physical items (the site plan and placement of building, roads, etc) it works the best.

Making a plan (option 2) that utilizes graphic devices to display planning theory (commercial nodes, zoning districts, passive use areas, green space, etc) makes a plan confusing and jumbled.

Also, we need to know who the plan is being presented to. Is it for planners or is it for the general public? Planners might appreciate option 2, but the general public will probably go for option 1.
 

SW MI Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
3,194
Points
26
I personally like #1 as well. It's clear and simple. I agree with mendelman - it depends on who it would be geared for. I would guess most residents and general public would like #1 as well, but planners, architects, engineers, etc. would like #2.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
Honestly, I think both are good. Its always good to have hard copy maps for people with no access to the interenet, as well as for people who may want to just have a copy (I like to have hard copies for reference), and its just as good to have it on the internet for easy access with some interaction between the user and the digital map.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
Gotta be web-based. Everything needs to be on the web nowadays.

And plus you can hide all sorts of stuff from the elderly that way :)
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I like em both too. The first one, while simple, really doens't convey all the information that I would like to see. Number two contains more information, but may be confusing to the general public. I guess if I had a plan, I would like both. I would like number 1 to help visualize what is existing and proposed and I would like number 2 to find out more details about what is actually going on.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
Are you sure #1 is not computer generated.

We've had a few proposals come through here that were hard to tell if a person drew them or a computer did.

The other important thing is audience. When I worked in an even more rural area, we quickly learned that computer generated items were frowned on and people tended to trust hand drawn things more.
 
Last edited:

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,491
Points
41
donk said:
The other important thing is audience. When I worked in an even more rural area, we quickly learned that computer generated items was frowned on and people tended to trust hand drawn things more.
I agree with Donk but my expereince has been in urban settings.

The computer-based graphics look finished and if you use them in a neighborhood planning meeting, you are likely to be met with skepticism -- an attitude of "Why should we comment, you already have it done!" whereas the hand-drawn graphics don't seem so "finished".
 

martini

Cyburbian
Messages
678
Points
19
#1 'cause it's clear and concise. BUt all it shows is the community, not potentail. This is where #2 comes in. On Electronic media, it seems easier to show areas for potential growth in a more dramatic fashion. The map shown for #2 though, is difficult to read and decipher. It takes more studying to figure out what is where.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
I like things clear, concise and well presented. Option #1 is closer to what I like than overly detailed almost unreadable #2. IMHO.

But, I must say that digital maps are way better than the olde hand drawn maps, because you can have several layers of information that you can put or take to improve readability.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
Given a choice between the two examples, I think the first is far superior. Still, I am in agreement with the others in saying that a combination of approaches is the most effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top