Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs

2023, Volume 7, Number 1, pages 242–260

Original scientific paper
Urban Design Evolved: The Impact of Computational
Tools and Data-Driven Approaches on Urban Design
Practices and Civic Participation
*
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün
Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Türkiye
E-mail: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO: ABSTRACT

In recent years, the changing pattern of human activities, increasing data
Article History:
Received: 26 March 2023
regarding the spatial environment, and the possibility of collecting and
Revised: 5 June 2023 processing this data allowed us to reconsider how we approach urban design,
Accepted: 26 June 2023 with a focus on a digital-oriented and data-driven perspective. In this study, we
Available online: 30 June 2023 examine the evolution of urban design by analyzing the roles of designers and
citizen empowerment. Our analysis includes a literature review and semi-
Keywords:
Design Process;
structured interviews with computational design experts. In this sense, the
Computational Design; literature is reviewed to investigate previous discussions and findings about the
Design Tools and Technologies; topic, and semi-structured interviews were carried out with seven
Participatory Design; computational design experts. The experts were selected by considering two
Urban Design. criteria: (1) their experience with computational urban design subjects in
practice and (2) their academic research background. This study concludes that
technology-driven urban design solutions change designers' relationship with
data, opening new avenues for objective, data-driven & data-informed
decision-making. There are few differences between traditional and
This article is an open-access article computational design practices regarding user empowerment and participatory
distributed under the terms and conditions
of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
design. Moreover, technology-driven urban design tools and methods are still
International (CC BY 4.0) in their early stages and are rarely used in actual projects.

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS (2023), 7(1), 242-260.

Publisher’s Note:
Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n1-16
stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional www.ijcua.com
claims in published maps and institutional Copyright © 2023 by the author(s).
affiliations.

Highlights: Contribution to the field statement:

This study seeks to answer the following question: The use of computational design methods in urban design is a
“How do technology-driven design tools and strategies alter the relatively new research topic. This article contributes to
role and agency of actors and user empowerment in urban academia by exploring the impact of computational tools and
design?” data-driven approaches on urban design, shedding light on how
- This study analyses the literature to gain a deep understanding technology-driven solutions change designers' relationship with
of the conceptual and theoretical background and synthesize the data, promoting data-informed decision-making, and
basic concepts and critical insights about technology-driven highlighting the evolving role of citizens rights in urban design
urban design. processes.

*Corresponding Author:
Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, Türkiye
Email address: [email protected]
How to cite this article:
Gün, A. (2023). Urban Design Evolved: The Impact of Computational Tools and Data-Driven Approaches on Urban Design Practices and Civic
Participation. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(1), 224-260. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n1-16
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
1. Introduction
The studies of computational design methods in architecture can be traced back to the 1960s (Caetano
& Leitao, 2020). Over time, these methods have advanced from the use of Computer-Aided Design
(CAD) to code-based design allowing for a transition from top-down modeling to more generative,
bottom-up systems. It causes interest in nature-inspired systems that have led to the creation of new
design ecosystems around morphogenetic design systems and evolutionary software (Verebes, 2013).
On the other hand, in an urban design context, the use of computational design methods is still in the
experimental and research phase (Miao et al., 2020). Urban environments can be better managed,
controlled, and designed with the increasing amount and variety of data generated by cities in the last
decade (Kitchin, 2015). Moreover, with the increasing mobility of residents, studying cities has
become more difficult and so researchers need to utilize different data sources to gain new insights
(Balaban, 2021).
In contrast, traditional urban design methods that rely on static and sectoral approaches reach their
limits in adapting to the increasing complexity and dynamics of cities (Miao et al., 2017). To overcome
these limitations, designers need to find new ways to incorporate different data sources and cutting-
edge design approaches into their work. This will enable them to make more objective and data-driven
decisions in an effective way.
The use of computational design methods in urban design practices is a relatively novel research topic,
and most of the studies show that their use is still in the early stages. However, there is a significant
gap in the literature concerning the integration of participatory design approaches in these practices
and the changing roles and agencies of designers in the computational design process. Therefore, this
study aims to review the evolving urban design process in the digital age in terms of the role of
designers and the affordances of these tools and strategies for user empowerment. To do this, we
critically examine the paradigm shift in urban design practices in the digital age and provide some
suggestions for successful urban design practices. With these goals in mind, this study’s primary
research question is:
• How do technology-driven design tools and strategies alter the role and agency of actors and
user empowerment in urban design?
With this primary question in mind, we identify several secondary research questions as follows:
• What effects have computational urban design tools and technologies had on the traditional
roles and agencies of designers?
• In what ways have these tools affected the decision-making process in urban design practices?
• How technology-driven urban design solutions can change citizen empowerment and
participation in city-making practices?
• Lastly, what are the limitations of technology-driven urban design methods in urban
development practices?
In methodology, we analyzed the literature to gain a deep understanding of the conceptual and
theoretical background and synthesize the basic concepts and critical insights about technology-driven
urban design. Moreover, we interviewed seven computational design experts using a semi-structured
format to gain further knowledge1.

In the next part of our research, we provide a state-of-the-art critical overview of traditional design and
technology-driven design processes. We also briefly present the theoretical and conceptual background
of "Technology-Driven Urban Design.” The third section of our study will focus on the technology-
driven design process and will examine the roles of the designer and citizen empowerment. In the
fourth section, we will discuss our research findings and explore key factors and directions for future
research.

1
In this study, all information about interviewee are coded in order to protect their personal data.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 243

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
2. Technology-Driven Urban Design
Urban design is a vast field of activity, encompassing numerous processes from building site’s physical
design to participatory planning processes. Urban design is the tool for reshaping urban space to
accommodate new urban conditions (Madanipour, 2006, p. 191). In this study, we use the term “urban
design” as a study and practice area located at the intersection of architecture, urban planning, and
urban studies (Gün et al., 2020). Cozzolino et al. (2020) analyzed the 12 urban design scholars to
define urban design and its primary dynamics. After in-depth analysis, they define “urban design” as:
“a creative and purposeful activity with collective and public concerns that deal with the production
and adaptation of the built environment at scales more significant than a single plot or building.” As
Steino et al. (2013) argue, urban design practices should be situated as an interdisciplinary and inter-
scalar design activity. Urban design has been accepted as one of the collaborative design atmospheres
where architects, planners, landscape designers, and other disciplines work together.
Urban design processes involve different design and action phases. In literature, there is a different
kind of urban design phase classification. For instance, Carmona (2014, p.6-11) identifies the urban
design process as a “four active place-shaping process”: (1) design; (2) development—shaping the
physical public realm for use; (3) space in use; and (4) management—shaping the social public realm
through use. Boyko et al. (2005, p. 120) also identify four different urban design phases: forming goals
(1); design (2); evaluating/selecting/creating a plan; and finally implementing/monitoring and
following up on design solution (4). However, these steps can be useful for the traditional urban design
process. Thus, a new classification is required to include both traditional and technology-driven urban
design processes. In this study, we focus on the early stages of the urban design process (ideation and
conceptual design phases), where the collected data is analyzed, the main design criteria and evaluation
parameters are addressed, and the main design goals are identified accordingly.

2.1 Traditional Urban Design vs. Technology-Driven Urban Design

With the development of urban analytics and computational design tools, the types and amount of
urban data are increasing, and new possibilities to design cities emerge. The technological
developments in GIS, Big Data, Urban Analytics, the Internet of Things, and the possibilities of
collecting different kinds of data like authoritative, crowdsourced, and remotely sensed data open new
avenues for data-driven urban design practices (Gil, 2020). It is possible to track individually produced
data via sensors and mobile phones, social media posts, online activities of humans, and volunteered
crowdsourced data. Furthermore, the behavior and movements of residents are different compared to
the past, and cities need to be shaped with more complex objectives coming from industry, public, and
environmental requirements. Kitchen (2015) argued that this new era changes the structure of “data-
informed urbanism” that is replaced by “data-driven, networked urbanism.”
All of these changes require to rethink of urban design from the “digital age perspective.” This study
defined “traditional urban design” as a design process based on drafting-based (CAD) techniques that
are more heuristic, designer-oriented, and non-discursive. On the other hand, “technology-driven urban
design” can be defined as a design process that combines designers’ creativity with digital
computational techniques through rule-based systems involving measurable constraints, parameters,
and relations.
In this period, traditional urban design techniques have been criticized for being based on static and
sectoral approaches (Miao et al., 2017), non-dynamic, and time-consuming (Steino et al., 2013). This
approach also regards city-making as a non-flexible and static design process (Verebes, 2013). In this
sense, it is argued that traditional urban design techniques reach their limits to keep up with cities'
complex dynamics and growing demands from multiple stakeholders.
In the computational design process, the designer does not directly model the design object; instead,
he develops a graph or script whose operation/execution generates the model, and if a minor edit is
executed to the graph or script, it could have a significant effect on the generated object that enables
to the exploration of a wide range of design alternatives (Aish, 2013). For instance, the designer does
not expect to draw the line directly in the parametric design process. Instead, the designer specifies the

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 244

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
editable attributes of the line (the length, initial point, and direction of the line), and the model
generates its associative geometry (Çalışkan, 2017). In this process, urban designers are expected to
be involved in two primary design operations:

(1) Devising the core setting of the generative algorithms by design rules,
(2) Evaluating the emergent design forms in terms of the constraints set by the context
and the preliminary design criteria (Çalışkan, 2017, p. 436).

Thanks to computation, it is possible to produce contextual and actionable data that can be shared
across systems, enabling a more holistic and integrated view of urban areas. In the era of the digital
age, the computational design process offers many benefits in the city-making process, such as
managing complexity, optimizing specific criteria, incorporating a wide variety of data and
information layers from past projects, and offering a “live model” for post-occupancy adaptation
(Walmsley & Villagi, 2019). It also enables parallelizing design tasks, managing large amounts of
information, incorporating changes quickly and flexibly, and assisting designers via automated
feedback, such as mapping simulation results (Caetano et al., 2020, p. 290). Several tools have been
used in computational design practices as follows:
• Generative modeling interfaces such as Grasshopper 3D and Dynamo,
• Parametric urban design software such as CityCad and CityEngine,
• Optimization plugins to guide the generation of solutions such as Galapagos, Silvereye,
Radical, Opossum, and Goat (for single-criteria optimization) and Wallacei (for multicriteria
optimization) (Lima et al., 2021)
• Several analysis and simulation tools/plugins, such as EnergyPlus (for simulating energy
consumption), Ecotec (for analyzing daylight), Ladybug (for analyzing weather data),
Radiance (for lighting simulation), and Butterfly (for fluid dynamic simulations).
As explained above, the technology-driven design approach alters design practices in terms of many
aspects. To sum up, while traditional urban design relies on heuristics and capabilities of designers and
computer-aided design (CAD) techniques, technology-driven urban design integrates digital
computational design methods with objective & and measurable constraints and parameters. Table 1
summarizes the differences between traditional and technology-driven urban design approaches.

Table 1: The comparison between traditional urban design and technology-driven urban design
approaches (Prepared based on Verebes, 2013; Kitchin, 2015; Deutsch, 2015; Çalışkan, 2017; Caetano
et al., 2020; Gil, 2020).
Traditional Urban Design Technology-driven Urban
Approach Design Approach
The relationship with Computer-Aided Computer-Oriented
computer
Design object created Shapes, geometric relations Parameters, constraints,
with algorithms, rules, mathematical
relations, data structures
Design Process More heuristic, non-discursive, Discursive, script-based
draft-based
The relation with data Data-informed & Data-enabled Data-oriented & Data-centric
The Generation of Anticipated The generation of unanticipated
Design Object design objects is possible.

In this study, we focus on using one of the computation-based design approaches: generative design.
Compared with architectural design, using generative design solutions at an urban scale is a relatively
new approach (Miao et al., 2020). Its potential has yet to be comprehensively explored. This process

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 245

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
is based on several technologies involving: (1) parametric design software to model the space of
possible solutions, (2) simulation software to derive metrics for evaluating each potential design, and
(3) optimization solvers, e.g., Genetic Algorithms, that can automatically search through the design
space to find the most optimal designs (Nagy et al., 2018). Until now, a limited number of studies have
explored the application of the generative design approach at the urban design scale.
In recent years, there has been an increase in digital tools for urban design that apply computational
design methods and data analytics strategies, such as SpaceMaker, Giraffe, Digital Blue Foam, and
Scout (Calixto et al., 2021). The phases of generative design processes have been tried to be classified
in several studies. Wilson et al. (2019) developed a methodology for applying computational urban
design in four steps: 1) Define Inputs & Design Space, 2) Procedural Geometry Generation, 3)
Performance Evaluation, and 4) Analysis, Communication & Stakeholder Engagement. In literature, a
few design experiments have been conducted to show the potential of the generative urban design
process. One of the practice-based generative urban design studies was done in 2017 by the Dutch
development and construction company Van Wijnen. Nagy et al. (2018) presented this generative
design experiment in four steps as follows:

Step I. Creating a design space model that can generate various design solutions subject to the
problem's constraints (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Five steps of describing a parametric design model for generating each design option: (1)
create a mesh from the boundary; (2) generate streets; (3) subdivide into lots; (4) place housing units;
(5) place apartment buildings (Walmsley & Villaggi, 2019).

Step II. Defining design goals to evaluate the performance of each design. In this phase, the design
space model needs to include one or more metrics that can be used as objective targets during
optimization: the profitability of the project for the developer (financial goal) and the potential solar
energy that can be captured by the roofs of the residential buildings (environmental goal) (Figure 2).

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 246

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023

Figure 2: The definition of goals through metrics, development profitability (a), and potential for
solar gain (b) (Nagy et al., 2018).

Step III. Design space analysis through the use of metrics.

Step IV. Design optimization to find the best alternative that maximizes the values of the determined
objectives. In this phase, the optimization trial consisted of 200 generations with 200 designs in each
generation using the Genetic Algorithm (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Selected and refined high-performance design based on identified metrics (Gerfen, 2018).

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 247

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
2.2 Previous Studies in Literature and Filled Gaps by This Study
To review the literature, we did a state-of-the-art critical overview of using the computational design
approach in urban design processes. In this context, we reviewed the research to find out what is
already known about our study area by doing a systematic search of several databases (Scopus and
Web of Science) and some proceedings books relating to computational design, e.g., eCAADe
(Education and research in Computer-Aided Architectural Design in Europe) and CAADRIA
(Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia). A wide range of researchers have studied
computational urban design with a variety of purposes: (1) testing novel generative and analytical
methods in urban design practices (Bielik et al., 2022); (2) integrating participatory approach in
computational urban design (Daher et al., 2018; Knecht et al., 2019); (3) examining the effect of ICT
in professional urban design practices in terms of decision-making (Al-Douri, 2022); (4) critically
reviewing the use of parametric design in urbanism (Çalışkan, 2017).
One of the prominent works regarding applying generative design solutions in urban design is done by
Koenig et al. (2020). They developed a data structure accommodating flexible urban design problems
to overcome the challenges of integrating urban analytics and generative methods. This study also
generated urban design variants by combining urban analysis and evolutionary multi-criteria
optimization (EMO) methods.
Several authors have explored the use of optimization methods in urban design processes. Miao et al.
(2020) presented design optimization methods by reviewing them from historical development and
future trends, and they showed the advantages and challenges of design optimization methods. Lima
et al. (2021) conducted a series of case studies to evaluate and present the benefit of using optimization
tools to improve urban performance. This study compares the effectiveness of various optimization
algorithms in solving urban design problems and assesses generative approaches. Nagy et al. (2018)
showed the potential of the generative design approach for solving complex urban design problems
through a series of workshops for designing a residential area in the Netherlands. Knecht et al. (2019)
developed a computational approach that allows designers to share a subset of the design space with
citizens via an online interface named Beta.Speckle. This study evaluated the tool’s usability in
participatory urban design processes.
As seen in the literature, although the use of several generative design methods, e.g., design
optimization, dates back to the 1960s in architectural design, most of the research and experiments
have been carried out in the last years in urban design processes, so we can conclude that the use of
these methods in an urban design context is still in infancy phase. In literature, many studies have
carried out pilot studies to test and evaluate the affordances, limitations, and potentials of the
computational urban design process. As mentioned, a few studies focus on integrating a participatory
design approach in the computational urban design process. In addition, the studies in the literature
have yet to evaluate the role of urban designers and their agencies in computational urban design
processes. In this study, we aim to fill the gaps in the literature by tracing the changing pattern of the
urban design process in terms of (1) the role of designers and (2) citizen empowerment.

2.3 Methods of Data Collection

This research has been pursued in two phases: a literature review and interviews followed by a
discussion of the findings. This study aims to review the changing pattern of the urban design process
in the digital age in terms of the role of designers and the affordances of these tools and strategies
concerning user empowerment. We also aim to critically examine the paradigm shift in urban design
practices in the digital age. To do this, we need to review research findings in the existing literature
and address research gaps concerning selected research topics. To do this, we firstly conducted a
literature review as the first phase of our research methodology. The literature review has focused on
reviewing secondary sources to construct theoretical propositions. The second phase involves a semi-
structured interview with seven computational design experts. In this sense, we identified two criteria
for the selection of experts for the interviews: (1) having experience in using computational design
tools in design practices and (2) having academic expertise in computational urban design.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 248

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Based on the introduced research questions in the first section, in semi-structured interviews, the
experts were asked some questions under thematic topics as follows:
(1) how do computational design tools, methods, and strategies change the urban design process? What
are these novel methods' key similarities and differences with the traditional urban design process?
(2) the potential of cutting-edge computational tools in urban design practices;
(3) how the computational design approach changes the role of urban designers;
(4) their effect on citizen empowerment and design collaboration.
As the literature is not rich in the focus research area, we use expert interview notes as a complementary
source.
3. Toward a Technology-Driven Urban Design: Critical Reflection
Based on the theoretical literature review, similar research findings, and expert interview notes, we
critically discuss how the technology-driven urban design approach has altered the designers’ role and
actions in the design process and their relations with data. Finally, we examine whether this approach
changes the urban design process regarding user empowerment and participation.

3.1 The Designer’s Role and Responsibilities in the Design Process

Designers are expected to gain new capabilities and be responsible for carrying out new actions to
keep up with the recent developments in the “digital age”. Leach (2009, p.35) argues that the designer’s
role evolved from creative “form-giver” to the controller of generative processes in the digital age.
Due to the complex nature of computational urban design processes and their multitude of interests,
this process inherently requires complex workflows and a collaborative design approach (Steino et al.,
2013). In this sense, the following questions come to the fore:
• How do technology-driven urban design tools and methods change urban designers' roles and
responsibilities in the design process?
Although the discussions regarding technology-driven urban design have yet to mature, we discuss
this issue in light of several arguments proposed to answer this question. Liao (2015) argued that as
the clients demand more value from the projects and cutting-edge technologies, the designers are
expected to gain skills like data mining, automation, coding, etc. In this context, Deutsch (2017)
introduced a new kind of designer entitled “super-users” who is expected to take a role that is the
convergence of designer, data scientist, and algorithm builder (Figure 4).

Figure 4: New roles that are expected to be taken by designers (Deutsch, 2017).

However, for now, when it comes to the urban design context, which is inherently based on a
collaborative design process, urban designers rarely take on this new responsibility for several reasons.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 249

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Firstly, suppose urban designers try to take on a new role like an urban data scientist or a computer
programmer by processing different data layers or writing a script. In that case, they may not sustain
their inherent and heuristic design capabilities, and they need to reconstruct their way of design
thinking (Expert 3, personal interview). Instead, urban designers are expected to rationalize design
through explicit computational design elements, e.g., parameters, constraints, and design rules, to be
integrated into the algorithm by programmers, so urban designers are expected to have basic
operational knowledge of computation (Çalışkan, 2017).
Urban designers also need to collaborate and communicate with actors such as computer engineers
and urban analytics experts to write scripts and collect and process data (Figure 5). Moreover, urban
designers are required to learn to design processes through algorithms. For this purpose, they are
expected to develop their algorithmic thinking skills and externalize the design process by leaving
abstract definitions. In addition, as technology-driven urban design processes inherently depend on
structuring “well-defined problems”, urban designers need to divide design problems into sub-thematic
problems (Expert 1, personal communication).

Figure 5: The expected actions from urban designers in the digital age.

The urban design process requires using a wide variety of data sources. Traditional and technology-
driven urban design processes are expected to gather thematic data layers in different areas such as
walkability, liveability, physical environmental conditions (wind, thermal, etc.), urban morphology,
circulation, and accessibility. In the digital age, it is also possible to make use of novel types of data
in the design process, such as monitoring citizens’ unanticipated behaviour patterns in urban spaces,
tracing the quantitative data from apps and sensors (Balaban, 2021), and collecting users’ expectations
from the project (Jutraž & Le Moine, 2016; Falco & Kleinhans, 2018). The involvement of these kinds
of data requires using cutting-edge data analysing techniques. Thus, urban designers must
communicate with data scientists and find the best ways to integrate this data into urban design.
In addition, one of the main challenges of computational urban design processes is a suitable
representation of urban design problems. To overcome this challenge, categoric data classification is
needed to address problems (Koenig et al., 2020). The design of urban areas requires the involvement
of many design goals that influence urban development, and these goals are inherently conflicting and
necessitate preference-based decisions (Showkatbakhsh & Makki, 2022). As seen in the example
shown in the previous section, it is possible to face conflicting design parameters such as profitability,
sustainability, and interest of different stakeholders. It is a challenging task and responsibility to

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 250

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
identify, filter, and select design objectives for the urban designer. Especially in the “definition of
goals” phase and to identify each thematic subject's objectives, constraints, and metrics, urban
designers need to communicate and collaborate with different expert groups to make decisions. In this
process, they are expected to use these data and information sets to create a design solution space.
After that, they determine the “satisficing” solutions based on the predefined metrics and their
experience.
In this process, the most challenging situation faced by urban designers is sustaining their experience
and intuitive and heuristic way of design thinking and adapting themselves to the language of
“computational design thinking” simultaneously. It is difficult to carry out a meaningful urban design
process “just” based on successful data processing operations and well-integrated computational
design tools (Expert 4, personal communication). As seen in the example shown in the previous section
and generative design processes, urban designers actively create a design space model, define and
control design goals, and analyze the design space by using their intuitive power. Furthermore, the
urban design process is inherently based on solving many “wicked” problems that cannot be addressed
discursively, so computational design approaches can not be used easily in these cases.
One of the wrong assumptions about technology-driven urban design is that computational design tools
will take over the role of the designers. The question then arises as to whether the computational design
process, in which large portions of the design process could become automated, meets all criteria plus
common sense (Deutsch, 2017). The experiences gained from the practices show us that urban
designers will always be responsible in the design process by designing systems, defining rules, and
building algorithms. By doing these actions, designers formalize the design process and use built
algorithms for their design objectives (Dino, 2015). Unless urban designers build algorithms
sufficiently and involve required data layers in the design process, the computational tools will not
generate high-quality design output (Expert 7, personal communication). Even though designers may
take advantage of the full power of computation, their responsibilities will exist forever.

3.2 User Empowerment & Participation

Different from architectural design practices, many people are affected by urban design decisions, and
a wide variety of public issues are expected to be involved in urban design. However, traditional
participation methods, e.g., referenda, public hearings/inquiries, citizens’ jury/panel, consensus
conferences, public opinion surveys, and focus group meetings (Rowe & Frewer, 2000), are sometimes
criticized since their ability to the engagement with the public and the encouragement of exchange of
ideas were limited that reduce the effectiveness of tools and difficulty in evaluating decisions (Fares
et al., 2018, p. 1822). These methods generally depend on a particular place and time, and they are
generally insufficient in terms of time, economy, and user satisfaction (Innes & Booher, 2004).
Technology-driven urban design tools and methods bring new opportunities for user empowerment
and participatory design by removing the barriers of space, time, and technical issues in carrying out
participatory design actions and facilitating the analysis and evaluation of collected data. Today, a
range of digital media affect our lives and are increasingly embedded in the urban fabric, which
monitor or reproduce urban rhythms and be instrumental in reshaping and regulating the interactions
and practices of everyday urban life (Papangelis et al., 2023). These technologies also affect public
participation and design empowerment in urban design practices. Therefore, new concepts have
emerged with the effects of these developments within the intersection of participatory design and
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). We use the term “technology-driven
participatory design” to define the use of ICT-enabled tools for the involvement of citizens in design
processes. Technology-driven participatory design activities range from the passive participation of
users through the involvement of their data, called “participatory sensing,” to the collection of their
desires from the projects and involving them in the inquiry of design alternatives.
Participatory sensing can be defined as the integration of users in the collection and acquisition of
datasets about urban areas through the use of mobile devices and personal data sources to enable public
and professional users to gather, analyze, and share local knowledge (Burke et al., 2006; Höffken &

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 251

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Streich, 2013). Through this approach, it is possible to collect people-centric sensing, such as
documenting activities and understanding the individuals’ activities and behaviors by registering their
location information, such as GPS location and activity information (Keseru et al., 2019). While the
users have a more passive role in the participatory sensing approach, they can actively involve the
design process in other technology-driven participatory actions.
With the use of mobile participation apps, e.g., FixMyStreet and FlashPoll, and web-based platforms,
e.g., Maptionnaire and Qua-kit, citizens can enable to submit their desires and expectations from the
project (Hasler et al., 2017; Falco & Kleinhans, 2018). In addition, users can experience design
alternatives and contribute their design ideas to the process via immersive environments such as
Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality apps. Some studies show us that using these
environments enables us to benefit from spatial and contextual cues and motivate more citizens in
urban design processes (Saßmannshausen et al., 2021). They are useful in negotiating design decisions,
discussing the quality of design alternatives (van Leeuwen et al., 2018), and increasing users’
willingness to participate in the process (Boos et al., 2022). Additionally, the use of digital games is
effective in supporting civic learning (Devisch et al., 2016), useful in the co-creation of urban areas
and public places, motivates a broad audience (youth in particular) to participate in the design process,
and enables participants to develop and present their own opinions on the 3D environment (de Andrade
et al., 2020; Delaney, 2022). Table 2 shows a distribution of technology-driven participatory tools by
actions involving data types and examples.

Table 2: Participatory design actions and the type of data involved, possible tools and technologies
used in technology-driven urban design processes.
Participation Action The Type(s) of Data Possible tools and technologies Example
Involved
Participatory Sensing Users’ Locations & Static Sensors (e.g., Automated BeWell Project
(Kanhere, 2011; Balaban, Actions Counting and Other Sensors) BlueStates
2021) Measure Urban Mobile Sensors (GPS, CenceMe
Behaviour Accelerometer, Mobile Phone, WideNoise
Sensor data collected Specialized Sensor Device)
from public areas Big Data (e.g., Mobile Phone
Positioning (MPP)
Location Based Services (LBS),
Social Media)
Collecting Desires and Users’ placemarks and Mobile Participation Apps FixMyStreet
Expectations from the descriptive data Web-based Participation FlashPoll
Project (Ertiö, 2013; Hasler Tagged content based Platforms Maptionnaire
et al., 2017; Falco & on predefined categories Qua-kit
Kleinhans, 2018) Text-based comments
Collecting/Developing Drawing users’ Digital Games Participatory
Design Proposals (Devisch polygons on maps Mixed Reality Platforms Chinatown
et al., 2016; Delaney, 2022; Describe ideas on 3D CommunityPlanIt
Alonso et al.) models BlockByBlock
CityScopeAR
Public Inquiry about Text-based feedback & Digital Games NextHamburg
Design Alternatives (de tagged content on Virtual Worlds Second Life
Andrade et al., 2020; Boos experienced design Mobile augmented reality apps platforms (Terf)
et al., 2022). Reactions and UrbanCoBuilder
reflections of users on
design alternatives

However, technology-driven urban design approaches have several shortcomings regarding user
empowerment. First, the technology-driven participatory tools and methods are often ill-connected to
computational design processes due to the lack of common platforms and difficulties in integrating
this input (Knecht et al., 2019). Similarly, as computational design practices are based generally on

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 252

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
contextual and physical related constraints, the participation of users, which depend on the inclusion
of non-physical factors about human preferences, cannot be realized sufficiently (Daher et al., 2018).
In addition, expert interview notes reveal the other drawbacks concerning integrating participation
input in computational design processes. For instance, optimization methods depend on searching for
the “perfect fit solutions” based on predefined metrics. This kind of approach prioritizes effectiveness
and efficiency. However, the performative logic of technology-driven design may cause a conflict with
the desires and habits of citizens. In this context, several questions come into prominence regarding
urban life (Expert 2, personal interview). For instance, how effective is the creation of a cul-de-sac in
the city-making process, which is an essential element for privacy and security in Islamic cities,
regarding the metrics of accessibilities? Similarly, how efficient is planning organic city patterns and
designing blank walls regarding perceptibility, walkability, and visibility metrics? Moreover, what if
the users’ expectations and desires from the project contradict the rational logic of technology-driven
urban design?
Technology-driven urban design approaches still have some limitations in using “non-discursive” data,
e.g., socio-cultural data of citizens and non-visible/grounded values of the area, which can not be easily
parameterized (Expert 1, personal interview). Unless these data are integrated into the design process,
a technology-driven approach may reduce urban design to the basic optimization process where only
structured discursive problems can be solved through identified metrics. This may cause the creation
of generic cities where the unique characteristics of the cities are lost, and citizens’ space usage habits,
needs, and desires are excluded. As a result, the cities will possibly be developed and transformed
based on the goals defined by the collaboration of corporations and urban designers entitled “corporate
urbanism” (Expert 7, personal communication).

4. Discussion
Thanks to the increasing capabilities of computational tools, urban analytics techniques, and
possibilities to collect and process a wide range of urban data, technology-driven urban design
approaches have provided many opportunities to urban design professionals. Technology-driven urban
design tools enable examining the performance of existing areas or simulating produced urban design
solutions based on defined objectives and parameters. While the traditional urban design approach is
mainly based on more heuristic, non-discursive and draft-based design process, technology-driven
urban design lies on the script-based and discursive design process. While the former is a data-
informed and data-enabled approach, and the latter adopts a data-oriented and data-centric approach.
In this sense, it incorporates digital computational design methods with objective and measurable
constraints and parameters.
In the digital age, it is possible to involve many people in participatory design actions without space
and time-related barriers. Nevertheless, many new issues regarding urban designers’ role and user
empowerment in technology-driven urban design processes need to be discussed. In this section, based
on our research questions introduced in Section 1, we critically discuss how technology-driven design
tools and technologies alter urban design practices and give some suggestions.

The Roles and Agencies of Designers in the Decision-Making Process: Urban design is a
collaborative practice where architects, planners, landscape designers, and social scientists exchange
opinions and deliberate on project issues. In the digital age, the urban design process incorporates
different data sources such as physical and socio-spatial analysis of the area, environmental,
authoritative, crowdsourced, remotely sensed, and social media data. Urban designers need to
communicate and collaborate with urban data scientists and algorithm builders to extract meaningful
information from the collected data. In addition, urban designers need to collaborate with experts from
different areas so that they can properly define problems, identify goals through metrics, and create
design solution space.
Furthermore, it is possible to encounter problems in identifying design goals when some conflicts
happen in defining different parameters, such as environmental, economic, and social issues. Hence,

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 253

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
there is a need to provide a collaborative workspace; we use the term “expert collaboration platform”
in this study that not only (1) provides a data panel allowing different expert groups to upload data and
access the data pool, including different thematic data layers that collected by different actors in the
design process and take decisions based on the deliberations but also (2) ensures urban designers to
collaborate with data experts to extract meaningful information and knowledge from collected data in
one shared interface like data dashboards. This platform can open new avenues to juxtapose and
superimpose different data layers for data visualization and analysis. It can also be used for project
management by enabling responsible actors to monitor data flows and manage workflows (Gün et al.,
2021).
Defining design solution space based on identified problems and metrics is essential to carry out
successful technology-driven urban design practices. Urban designers must try to address urban design
problems discursively and identify thematic parameters accordingly. However, urban design
inherently involves many “non-discursive” issues that cannot be entirely codified by explicable
parameters (Çalışkan, 2017). For instance, citizens' sociocultural data, the area's local context, and
citizens’ needs and desires from the project cannot be easily defined as goals through metrics.
“Only “well-identified problems” can be solved perfectly through computational design methods.
What about the other types of problems? In this context, the leading role of the urban designer in
creating a solution space for overcoming “non-discursive” problems is important” (Expert 3, personal
communication).
Moreover, urban designers should avoid structuring urban design processes based on “only”
quantitative data because this approach may reduce the urban design process to an “engineering
optimization process” (Expert 4, personal communication).

“It is essential to benefit both from the discursive & rational power of computation and the non-
discursive, heuristic & intuitive way of design thinking.” (Expert 2, personal communication).
In this sense, it is necessary to balance them, so urban designers are expected to move between
traditional and computational design approaches like a pendulum (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The situation of technology-driven urban design: The pendulum moving between
traditional and computational design.

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 254

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
User Empowerment and Participation: As mentioned in the previous section, even though it is
possible to involve citizen input through different kinds of technology-driven participatory design
actions, e.g., participatory sensing and public inquiry about design alternatives, urban designers have
faced some problems in integrating participation input in computational design processes (Knecht et
al., 2019). Moreover, the nature of non-physical factors related to participation data can not be easily
parameterized (Daher et al., 2018). This may cause the exclusion of these data types in urban design
practices. In addition, as an interviewed expert noted:
“It is possible to encounter conflicts between the performative logic of the computational design
process and human desires and their daily living habits” (Expert 2, personal interview).
Thus, urban designers need to find new ways to integrate non-structured data in the process and control
the consistency of computational design inputs with user expectations and socio-cultural values of the
areas in the early design phase.
Based on these findings, developing an integrated collaborative and participatory framework that can
be used in technology-driven urban design practices is necessary. First, before creating a design space
model, both thematic physical data layers, such as walkability, physical environmental conditions,
accessibility, and non-discursive data sets, e.g., users’ actions and space usage habits, should be
collected and analyzed based on the consultation between experts. In defining design goals, the
participation of users is very critical. In this phase, users’ expectations and desires from the project can
be collected through technology-driven tools, e.g., web-based platforms, mobile participation apps,
and traditional participation techniques. This data should be used as one of the dimensions in defining
design goals. Additionally, design alternatives can be shared with participants in the design
optimization phase. Citizens can experience design alternatives by using digital games and immersive
environments and give feedback based on this experience. Therefore, urban designers can control the
consistency of their design solutions from the users’ perspective.

5. Conclusion
Technology-driven urban design tools empower urban designers by (1) helping the decision-making
process and enable reasoning, (2) producing a vast amount of design alternatives that would not be
possible through traditional ways. As a result, these tools also assist designers in finding data-driven
design solutions for complex situations. More people can participate in different participatory design
actions through ICT-enabled participation tools. As a result, the role of urban designers has changed,
requiring them to make decisions more collaboratively and possess a basic understanding of
computational design elements to identify design problems and goals. They need to find new ways to
integrate non-discursive data, e.g., unique characters of the urban areas that are not identified as
metrics, or participation data, in the computational design process. In addition, they are also expected
to examine the consistency of design output produced by computational design tools with participants’
satisfaction and unique characteristics of designed urban areas based on their intuitive design ability
as stated by Expert 2 in a personal interview.
Effective and inclusive urban design practices have faced challenges due to the lack of interaction
environments that enable urban designers to collaborate with other expert groups in identifying design
goals and creating design scenarios. Moreover, there has not been enough identification of how the
participants’ data and grounded values of the urban areas into computational design practices have not
been sufficiently identified yet. Currently, the incorporation of non-discursive data into computational
design practices is not well-established. Therefore, it is important to use a combination of intuitive
design methods and computational power. As pointed out by Çalışkan (2017), instead of considering
computational design tools as “Design Machine” they should be used as a “Design Support System”
to empower urban designers to create urban areas in a more holistic, integrated and consistent way.
An overall conclusion, it is currently too early to effectively and inclusively make use of the full
potential of technology-driven solutions in urban design practices due to several reasons:
• A lack of a comprehensive design ecosystem for data integration to extract meaningful insights
• Challenges in identifying specific design problems
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 255
 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023

• Potential inconsistencies in arising between the logic of computational design and participation
data
• Limited application of technology’s full potential in urban design practices
This study critically examines the paradigm shift in urban design practices in the digital age and
projects the future components of the urban design process in a general way. The critical perspective
and arguments presented in this study can be useful for future research. This critical discussion should
be held regularly because the affordances and potentials of technology-driven urban design solutions
evolve. There are limitations to this study. Firstly, it addressed the issues to some extent because it is
based on declarative knowledge: computational design experts' experiences and previous research
findings. Secondly, collaboration with urban design professionals was needed to carry out in-depth
field studies like protocol analysis to document their reactions and experiences. Thus, our future
research direction is to carry out an in-depth field study in collaboration with actual stakeholders to
examine varying cutting-edge urban design tools and methods, document the actors’ reactions, and
propose key success factors for developing an effective and inclusive urban design ecosystem driven
by technology for future practices.

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the interviewed experts for their contributions. The author also
acknowledges the editor and reviewers in the Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs for their
constructive feedback during the review process.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest
The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary
material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ethics statements
Studies involving animal subjects: No animal studies are presented in this manuscript.
Studies involving human subjects: No human studies are presented in this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

CRediT author statement:

Ahmet Gün: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft,
Writing—review and editing. Author have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References
Aish, R. (2013). First build your tools. Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural
Possibilities of Computational Design, pp. 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118653074.ch2
Al-Douri, F. (2017). Computational and Modeling Tools: How effectively are Urban Designers and
Planners using them Across the Design Development Process?, In Fioravanti, A, Cursi, S,
Elahmar, S, Gargaro, S, Loffreda, G, Novembri, G, Trento, A (eds.), ShoCK! - Sharing

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 256

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Computational Knowledge! - Proceedings of the 35th eCAADe Conference - Volume 1, Sapienza
University of Rome, Rome, Italy, 20-22 September 2017, pp. 409-
418 https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2017.1.409
Balaban, Ö. (2021). Measuring Urban Activities: A Review for Methods for Evidence Informed Urban
Planning and Design. Journal of Computational Design, 2(1), 357-377.
Bielik, M., Koenig, R., & Schneider, S. (2022). Adaptive master plans: Flexible modular design
strategies. In Artificial Intelligence in Urban Planning and Design (pp. 323-337). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823941-4.00011-1
Boos, U. C., Reichenbacher, T., Kiefer, P., & Sailer, C. (2022). An augmented reality study for public
participation in urban planning. Journal of Location Based Services, 1-30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2022.2086309
Boyko, C. T., Cooper, R., & Davey, C. (2005). Sustainability and the urban design process. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability. Vol. 158, No. 3, pp.
119- 125. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2005.158.3.119
Burke, J. A., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., Parker, A., Ramanathan, N., & Reddy, S. (2006). Par-ticipatory
sensing. Papers, Center for Embedded Network Sensing, UC Los Angeles. Retrieved July 17th,
2012, from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/19h777qd#page-3
Caetano, I., & Leitão, A. (2020). Architecture meets computation: an overview of the evolution of
computational design approaches in architecture. Architectural Science Review, 63(2), 165-174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2019.1680524
Caetano, I., Santos, L., & Leitão, A. (2020). Computational design in architecture: Defining
parametric, generative, and algorithmic design. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(2), 287-
300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.12.008
Çalışkan, O. (2017). Parametric design in urbanism: A critical reflection. Planning Practice &
Research, 32(4), 417-443. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2017.1378862
Calixto, V., Canuto, R., Noronha, M., Afrooz, A. A., Gu, N., & Celani, G. (2021). A layered approach
for the data-driven design of smart cities. In Projections-Proceedings of the 26th International
Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia,
CAADRIA 2021 (Vol. 2, pp. 739-748). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2021.2.739
Carmona, M. (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of
Urban Design, 19(1), 2-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854695
Cozzolino, S., Polívka, J., Fox-Kämper, R., Reimer, M., & Kummel, O. (2020). What is urban design?
A proposal for a common understanding. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 35-49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1705776
Daher, E., Kubicki, S., & Pak, B. (2018). Participation-based parametric design in early stages: A
participative design process for spatial planning in office building. In Proceedings of the 36th
eCAADe Conference-Volume 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 429-438). Lodz University of Technology; Lodz.
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2018.1.429
de Andrade, B., Poplin, A., & Sousa de Sena, Í. (2020). Minecraft as a tool for engaging children in
urban planning: A Case study in Tirol Town, Brazil. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-
Information, 9(3), 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9030170
Delaney, J. (2022). Minecraft and Playful Public Participation in Urban Design. Urban Planning, 7(2),
330-342. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i2.5229

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 257

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Deutsch, R. (2017). Convergence: The Redesign of Design. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119256267
Devisch, O., Poplin, A. & Sofronie, S. (2016). The Gamification of Civic Participation: Two
Experiments in Improving the Skills of Citizens to Reflect Collectively on Spatial Issues, Journal
of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 81-102,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1102419
Ertiö, T. (2013). M-participation: the emergence of participatory planning applications. Turku Urban
Research Programme's Research Briefings, 6.
Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2019). Digital participatory platforms for co-production in urban
development: A systematic review. Crowdsourcing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and
applications, 663-690. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8362-2.ch033
Fares, F., Taha, D. S., & Sayad, Z. T. E. (2018). Achieving public participation in inaccessible areas
using virtual reality a case study of Beit Hanoun-Gaza-Palestine. Alexandria Engineering Journal,
57(3), 1821-1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.07.010
Gerfen, K. (2018): Alkmaar Housing: The Living. Accessed at
[https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/alkmaar-housing_o]
Gil, J. (2020). City Information Modelling: Digital Planning for Sustainable Cities. Built Environment,
46(4), 497-500. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.46.4.497
Gün, A., Demir, Y., & Pak, B. (2020). Urban design empowerment through ICT-based platforms in
Europe. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 24:2, 189-215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1740707
Gün, A., Pak, B. & Demir, Y. (2021). Responding to the Urban Transformation Challenges in Turkey:
A Participatory Design Model for Istanbul. International Journal of Urban Sustainable
Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1740707
Gürsel Dino, İ. (2015). Tasarım ve Hesaplamanın Doğası (The Nature of Design and Computation).
The Special Dossier by Chamber of Architect.
Hasler, S., Chenal, J., & Soutter, M. (2017). Digital tools as a means to foster inclusive, data-informed
urban planning. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(6), 230-239.
https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050605
Höffken, S., & Streich, B. (2013). Mobile participation: Citizen engagement in urban planning via
smartphones. In Citizen E-participation in urban governance: Crowdsourcing and collaborative
creativity (pp. 199-225). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4169-3.ch011
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century.
Planning theory & practice, 5(4), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
Jutraž, A., & Moine, J. L. (2016). Breaking out: New freedoms in urban (re) design work by adding
immersive environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(2), 103-118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077116638922
Kanhere, S. S. (2013). Participatory sensing: Crowdsourcing data from mobile smartphones in urban
spaces. In Distributed Computing and Internet Technology: 9th International Conference,
ICDCIT 2013, Bhubaneswar, India, February 5-8, 2013. Proceedings 9 (pp. 19-26). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36071-8_2
Keseru, I., Wuytens, N., & Macharis, C. (2019). Citizen observatory for mobility: a conceptual
framework. Transport Reviews, 39(4), 485-510. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1536089

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 258

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Kitchin R (2015). Data-driven, networked urbanism. Programmable City Working Paper 14.
Maynooth University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2641802
Knecht, K., Stefanescu, D. A., & Koenig, R. (2019). Citizen Engagement through Design Space
Exploration Integrating citizen knowledge and expert design in computational urban planning. In
Blucher Design Proceedings (Vol. 7, pp. 785-794). Editora Blucher.
https://doi.org/10.5151/proceedings-ecaadesigradi2019_195
Koenig, R., Miao, Y., Aichinger, A., Knecht, K., & Konieva, K. (2020). Integrating urban analysis,
generative design, and evolutionary optimization for solving urban design problems. Environment
and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(6), 997-1013.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319894986
Leach, N. (2009). Digital morphogenesis. Architectural Design, 79(1), 32-37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.806
Liao A. (2015). The Journal of The American Institute of Architects in The 21st-Century Skill Set for
Architects. Accessed at < https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/the-21st-century-skill-set-
forarchitects_o>.
Lima, F., Brown, N., & Duarte, J. (2021). Urban Design Optimization: Generative Approaches towards
Urban Fabrics with Improved Transit Accessibility and Walkability.
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2021.2.719
Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design, Journal of Urban Design, 11:2, 173-
193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800600644035
Maxwell, L. (2018). From BIM to CIM: why building and city information modeling are essential to
the development of Smart Cities. Accessed at:
https://www.bimcommunity.com/news/load/917/from-bim-to-cim-why-building-and-city-
information-modelling-are-essential-to-the-development-of-smart-cities.
Miao, Y., Koenig, R., & Knecht, K. (2017). City Afforestation: Abstracting the Urban Geometries into
Tree Structures for Urban Fabric Optimization. In 15th International Conference on Computers
in Urban Planning and Urban Management (CUPUM 2017) (p. WedA51_35118). The University
of South Australia.
Miao, Y., Koenig, R., & Knecht, K. (2020). The Development of Optimization Methods in Generative
Urban Design: A Review. SimAUD2020. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3465085.3465152
Nagy, D., Villaggi, L., & Benjamin, D. (2018, June). Generative urban design: integrating financial
and energy goals for automated neighborhood layout. In Proceedings of the Symposium for
Architecture and Urban Design Design, Delft, the Netherlands (pp. 265-274).
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3289750.3289775
Papangelis, K., Saker, M., Leorke, D., Lee, J. H., & Jones, C. (2023). Introduction to Smart Cities in
Transition: Challenges of Participation in Urban Environments. International Journal of
HumanComputer Interaction, 39(2), 283-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2012385
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science,
technology, & human values, 25 (1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
Saßmannshausen, S. M., Radtke, J., Bohn, N., Hussein, H., Randall, D., & Pipek, V. (2021).
Citizencentered design in urban planning: How augmented reality can be used in citizen
participation processes. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (pp. 250-265).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462130

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 259

 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY URBAN AFFAIRS, 7(1), 242-260 / 2023
Showkatbakhsh, M., & Makki, M. (2022). Multi-Objective Optimisation of Urban Form: A
Framework for Selecting the Optimal Solution. Buildings, 12(9), 1473.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091473
Steinø, N., Yildirim, M. B., & Özkar, M. (2013). Parametric design strategies for collaborative and
participatory urban design, Proceedings of the 31st eCAADe Conference - Volume 1, Faculty of
Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 18-20 September 2013, pp.
195- 203 https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2013.1.195
Stojanovski, T. (2018). City Information Modelling (CIM) and Urban Design-Morphological
Structure, Design Elements and Programming Classes in CIM. Proceedings of the 36th eCAADe
Conference - Volume 1, Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland, 19-21 September 2018,
pp. 507-516 https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2018.1.507 6
van Leeuwen, J., Hermans, K., Quanjer, A. J., Jylhä, A., & Nijman, H. (2018). Using virtual reality to
increase civic participation in designing public spaces. In Proceedings of the 16th international
conference on World Wide Web (ECDG'18) (pp. 230-239).
Verebes, T. (2013). Masterplanning the adaptive city: Computational urbanism in the twenty-first
century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203428054
Walmsley K. & Villaggi L. (2019). Generative Urban Design: A collaboration Between Autodesk
Research and Van Wijnen. Accessed at <
https://www.autodesk.com/autodeskuniversity/article/Generative-Urban-Design-Collaboration-
Between-Autodesk-Research-and-VanWijnen-2019>.
Wilson, L., Danforth, J., Davila, C. C., & Harvey, D. (2019). How to generate a thousand master plans:
A framework for computational urban design. SimAUD 2019, 113-119.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3390098.3390126

How to cite this article:

Gün, A. (2023). Urban Design Evolved: The Impact of Computational Tools and Data-Driven
Approaches on Urban Design Practices and Civic Participation. Journal of Contemporary Urban
Affairs, 7(1), 224-260. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2023.v7n1-16

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Gün 260