Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software In June 2009, the Secretary of the US Department of Housing Urban Shaun (US HUD), Development the Sustainable announced Donovan, initiative Planning Communities within the Federal coordinated as well as possible planning and design as possible planning and design as well go in to begin solutions when indices direction; (5) an online an undesirable system feedback public involvement can be workshops planning so scenario public through the broader by explored interfaces;on-line engagement and of 3D simulation (6) the integration softwaremodeling with the scenario with ESRI’s as compatibility (as well 3D future softwareCityEngine for goals of the project The modeling). planning for make scenario to are and the US, more Texas, sustainability in (3) user friendly, (2) more (1) accessible, powerful of more of the range in terms an adaptable for and (4) more analytics, GIS platform. open source Sustainable Communities The and ScenarioPartnership Planning about various sustainability indicators sustainabilityabout various indicators systems to streamline scenario planning scenario streamline to systems system wizard (2) a GIS data applications; repairs that on an Arc-GIS platform data in creating errors data common planning scenario for needed layers user transaction (3) a costs; reduce to scenario interactive user friendly, more software package array with a broader of sustainability metrics and analytics software Tomorrow built on the Envision package as the backbone; (4) a social solutions interfacelearning and design planners and laypersons teaches that and experience of a UT team of faculty team of a UT and experience the next been developing have that software planning of scenario generation under a HUD Sustainable Communities project aim The Implementation grant. software corrects many that create is to shortcomings professional of current project The software. planning scenario freeware source, an open is creating planning software of scenario suite important several and have that tools (1) a standardized elements: innovative planning information schema for data This presentation reports on the design presentation This 1 School of Architecture Work School of Social [email protected] School of Architecture [email protected] PhD Elizabeth Mueller, Professor Associate PhD Robert Paterson, Professor Associate Developing the Next Developing Generation Softwareof Scenario Planning Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software to chart a vision for the region’s future. future. chartto the region’s a vision for faculty Austin at Texas of University The of those in many involved been have as both project leaders and as processes influential participants. One of the more the 1995 Community was examples UT faculty led by members Project Vision the network of partners formed that will that the software suite develop to the end of 2013. It by be completed the next that describes the problems the from identified team research Central their own and from literature planning experience scenario Texas will address. the softwarethat design section describes third of the essay The developed the software components The date. to or under development a discussion of the with concludes essay the software on objectiveslong-term for with internet platform an open source accessibility. browser 1. Next Scenario Planning Generation Texas Central from Needs? Lessons Tool Experience Scenario Planning several Over decades, the last two used have communities Texas Central alternative explore planning to scenario as as well options land development 4 An additional $67 An 2 Figure 1. 2010-2011 Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Planning Regional 1. 2010-2011 Sustainable Communities Figure (2012) Grantees

3 governments, NGOs and interest NGOs and interest governments, one of the 2011 received groups Partnership Sustainable Communities ConsortiumThe grants. implementation prior region’s build off the to proposed develop to planning ventures regional based a next scenario generation help the to planning software suite counties 20+ cities and five region’s vision regional the preferred implement Central the Envision through adopted describes the essay This process. Texas and collaboration regional Texas Central completed and adopted a regional a regional and adopted completed sustainability plan. funds became available million in grant of the program. year the second for of recipients were regions Seventy-four (see grants the Sustainable Community the Interagency however 1 below), figure Sustainable Communities for Partnership itself boasts $3.5 billion in directed in the support regions metropolitan to US. Texas A consortium of Central In the initial US HUD expanded 2011, include a to program planning grant recipients-- categorysecond of grant and Programs Plans Detailed Execution had already that those regions for the environment and reducing energy energy reducing and the environment fuels. on fossil dependence to affordable housing, have access to access have housing, affordable to transportationmore options with lower all while protecting transportation costs, overarching Livability Principles. Livability Principles. overarching help to aim Livability Principles The access American families gain better EPA) and US HUD--committed and focus to EPA) and infrastructure their major grant six help advance to investments $100 million grant program. Three Three program. $100 million grant US Department agencies--the federal (USDOT),Transportation the US of Agency (US Protection Environmental to the creation of the new Office of the creation to Sustainable Housing and Communities the initial coordinate within HUD to that propose to collaborate and define collaborate to propose that vision of sustainability through a shared led initiative That planning. regional better interagency coordination and interagency coordination better planning and providing cooperation, regions to grants and implementation and programs facilitate sustainable facilitate and programs practices in US development creating by regions metropolitan government’s Interagency Partnership government’s The Sustainable Communities. for to goal was Obama Administration grants federal the way transform Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software concentrating the greatest amount of amount the greatest concentrating and towns in existing development greatest the offered scenario That cities. and transportation of housing range preserved the most open space options, extensive An scenarios. other three then process public engagements for land use, transportation land use, and open for scenarios four The preservation.space were: explored model), (sprawl Trend Scenario - A Scenario (with growth - Corridors B within one mile of major concentrated transportation corridors with greater infill and of mixed-use, amounts Scenario than A), redevelopment (concentrated Towns Scenario -New C in new and development clustered the region throughout towns existing and redevelopment more and slightly than Scenario development mixed-use greater a B). Scenario C also offered jobs- of housing and better diversity in all partshousing balance of the region than the prior scenarios. two concentrated Scenario D - Centers in the most mixed-use growth while patterns, development Texas’ future. Since “sprawl” was the was “sprawl” Since future. Texas’ pattern development predominant time, that at occurring in Austin scenario’s this became the baseline baseline That many). title (by pejorative served scenario as the basis for growth future alternative comparing participatory through scenarios planning these scenarios, create To processes. dispersed a series of geographically were public workshops region-wide collectconducted to and opinions shape to on how residents from data of Hundreds development. future parts Central of of different residents and with facilitators worked Texas options different explore planners to face of rapid growth. Findings from this from Findings growth. of rapid face to the need phase confirmed outreach as as well future, the region’s plan for community involvement the need for the process. throughout scenario- Tomorrow the Envision Using developed based planning software tool scenario FCA, a baseline or trend by on the first modeled premised was would trends current assumption that if no furtherlikely prevail actions or Central alter taken to were initiatives the scenario planning process, including planning process, the scenario of sustainability the development Over the next four indicators. feedback develop to worked the group years a regional Texas, Central for Vision The additional 1.25 million plan for growth 20 new jobs over and 800,000 residents The in the five-county 40 years to region. ECTformal began with planning process groups Focus of the region. an inventory conducted surveyand a telephone were most Texans Central out what find to preserve or change in the to wanted important planning effort scenario in the 2012, was prior to Texas Central planning visioning and scenario regional undertaken was that the non-profit by (ECT).Texas Central Envision group ECT of coalition in 2001 by formed was business and government community, Hays, Caldwell, Bastrop, leaders from discuss to counties Williamson and Travis vision of a common the development the for growth Texas’s the Central for ECT Fregonese nextyears. 40 employed manage to (FCA) Associates Calthorpe interests (Clark-Madison, 1998). It (Clark-Madison, was interests with explored alternatives the creative broke eventually that Calthorpe Peter neighbors the city, the impasse between member of the Several and developers. these attended team UT faculty research and participated the at as citizens events tables. fourth, most The and undoubtedly (1996) explored four four (1996) explored 6

5 compromise land use scenario that met that land use scenario compromise neighborhood and developers city, Group (Tampa, Florida) and Fregonese Fregonese and Florida) (Tampa, Group The (California). Associates Calthorpe goal in both effortsto seek a was Triangle Park project which involved project which involved Park Triangle under processes charrette separate two firms—Genesis design different two Another important Central Texas Texas importantAnother Central the was planning experience scenario The project provided alternative land alternative project provided The for and data values goals, use scenarios, Montopolis adopted the subsequently Neighborhood Plan. planners and landscape architects planners and landscape architects working with community residents center. within the community recreation development scenarios for the for scenarios development explored discursively community were of architects, with interdisciplinary teams was being impacted by the relocation the relocation being impactedwas by airport commercial to of the regional Alternative border. its southeastern alternative development scenarios scenarios development alternative a participatorythrough planning process neighborhood that income a low for A second effort, the Montopolis Land Use effort, Land second A the Montopolis Bob Paterson Professors led by Study, Butler and Kent guidance to the City of Austin’s crafting the City of Austin’s to guidance of a Neo-traditional Development ordinance. context (e.g., greenfield edge, suburban edge, greenfield (e.g., context corridor and urban infill development). guiding principles provided The process in the Austin City Coliseum City Coliseum Austin in the process development exploring alternative land use different several for scenarios alternative land use and transportation land use and alternative Texas. Central models for development 300 people over event, the largest At participated planning in the scenario authority—CapMetro—the UT team charrettes regional conducted two explore to groups up focus with follow Kent Butler, Bob Paterson and Susan Bob Paterson Butler, Kent transit the regional by Sponsored Handy. Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software exact context specific answer to that to that exact specific answer context require would Texas question in Central currently that modeling and analysis is not part of generation of the current Moreover, planning software. scenario “Can questions like core cases, in many that kind of land development afford we A third limitation of the scenario of the scenario limitation A third planning efforts the was that in indicators, sustainability or feedback relative limited quite were cases, many and of the communities, the interests to be reported in most cases had to back to since up meetings, participants in follow not be computed the analytics could setting. time in the workshop in real participant if a workshop example, For know much more to how wanted mixed walking or biking in a denser, the usual realize, use community might in a community workshop response had been what reference be to would another community in like experienced A reasonably or Sacramento. Portland ECT’s consultants did regional market did regional consultants ECT’s make to with developers groups focus types modeled the development sure market the Austin for reasonable were ideally, Nonetheless, in the near future. planning the next of scenario generation software needs help in curbing planning or untethered utopian is overly that incorporating by realities economic to the fully into market based analysis land use and infrastructure future proposals. Figure 2. The Envision Central Texas Preferred Growth Scenario (2005) Growth Preferred Texas Central Envision The 2. Figure planning efforts scenario has been Texas based not really are the scenarios that In market limitations. world real on any of the projects two accomplished reality, Triangle (1) the some degree: this to the did have planning process Project the the table running at developer verify to numbers on the alternatives and market feasible were proposals that and (2) margins; profit sufficient offered Firstly, Firstly, 7 A second common critique of the Central critique of the Central common A second software should help to reduce GIS data GIS data reduce software should help to and cleaning transaction preparation costs. dedicated largely to analysis, mapping analysis, to largely dedicated and visioning efforts). the Ideally planning next of scenario generation that used an earlier version of Envision of Envision used an earlier version that three close to took software, Tomorrow year (with the first complete to years using GIS databases, a significant a significant using GIS databases, just cleaning of time can be lost amount for compatible and making layers data ECTThe process planning purposes. to explore consequences of scenarios of scenarios consequences explore to since Moreover, under consideration. planning is completed and more more public services conditions, scenario public services scenario conditions, planning adds some additional effort in or assembling analytics of creating terms to assemble current information on on information assemble current to economic, housing, social, land use, and and infrastructure environmental preparation for the scenario planning. planning. the scenario for preparation of land use planning all forms While time and energy considerable require that have been identified elsewhere in elsewhere been identified have that planning literature. the scenario extensive involved examples all four collection stages in data and analysis examples were ultimately considered considered ultimately were examples all varying to stories success degrees, limitations significant from suffered four transportation plan. scenario-planning all four While to preserve the open space networks preserve open space the to as vision riskclearly in the preferred at the MPOs regional as the basis for well Texas. This was an important was This moment Texas. preferred as that Texas Central for became the impetus for vision regional greenprint of a regional the creation elements from scenarios C and D led to C and D led to scenarios from elements the ECTthe adoption by of the board Central Scenario Regional for Preferred solicited feedback no the scenarios and scenarios no the feedback solicited taking scenario a hybrid the best liked Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software The Governments of (ECT)Texas (a Austin, at Texas Council Area university cityuniversity south of Austin) Sustainable Development for Center Advanced (lead Texas The center), and the Center Center, Computing and Research, Transportation for (Lead Fiscal Agent) Fiscal (Lead (the regional (CAMPO) Organization transportation authority) organization 501(3)(c) nonprofit planning and regional for implementation) transportation housing, planning, development and economic departments city in MSA) • (growing City of San Marcos • of University collaboration of public, private, academic private, of public, collaboration Central stakeholders in the and nonprofit Rock MSA) (Austin-Round region Texas build on the to assembled was that sustainability efforts previous region’s plan and the region’s implement and to At sustainable development. vision for the start members of the project the core and partners of the consortium included: • Capital • Planning Metropolitan Area Capital • Central Envision • including its City of Austin, • City of Round largest Rock (second planning tools will seamlessly link to link to will seamlessly planning tools plan implementation on information techniques. section the describes how following The Sustainability Consortium Texas Central been working to have and Partners as part limitations these address of Communities their US HUD Sustainable Implementation grant. Regional and Pieces Team the 2. Assembling of the Next of Scenario Generation Tools Planning Sustainability Texas Area Capital The Consortium is a broad-based (CATS) environments. Thus, the next generation Thus, environments. planning softwareof scenario ideally 3D realistic reasonably for will allow ideally futures, of alternative simulation workshops. time at in real is and final limitation A seventh to scenarios connectionsthat from often are choices implementation will scenarios alternative lacking. Many infrastructure new regulations, require to systems and incentive investment approaches. implementation name a few Ideally the next of scenario generation many of the place making of the place principlesmany under discussion in of the scenarios participants informs that a format look might really the future about what least rudimentarily is at or that like, of the Many in most cases. convincing architects, did have in Austin charrettes help and others to urban designers of land use ideas. make quick sketches these were cases, in most However, an idea of how give really crude to too in compare futures those alternative landscape and built 3D in the existing tools should enable on-line interactive interactive should enable on-line tools If time. in real perhaps even sharing, least learning then at time, not real from results scenario about completed – such as is done with the a workshop proprietary services— MetroQuest as the possibility of browser as offering well other are supported painting, scenario means of wider public engagement. A sixth the scenario to limitation much is that date planning conducted to Color is 2D in character. of the work land use maps do not convey coded must follow from a multi-stakeholder a multi-stakeholder from must follow same situation The process. negotiation in public participationexists in scenario or more the hundred where planning, to a charrette attend that residents undertake often planning scenario learn but their the workshop, deal at a great left are neighborhood constituents Thus, learning process. behind in that planning the next of scenario generation the lead negotiator(s). N-table refers to to N-table refers the lead negotiator(s). other subsidiary many how negotiations round of negotiations that must happen that of negotiations round who have constituents among their own as not learned about the deal as well common problematic after negotiators after negotiators problematic common they find a deal is that crafted have or fourth third, second, they have that community planning, not just scenario not just scenario community planning, is This N-table problem. is the planning, a where theory, negotiation from drawn about planning and design solutions for solutions for about planning and design consequences. adverse of all forms A major challenge to software should take advantage of software should take advantage electronic media linking, and the use of users inform better pop-up to windows the impervious impacts of cover the Thus, denser urban development. planning next scenario of generation was an ability to pull up examples of an ability pull up examples was to best practices impact low development some degree to ameliorate might that the known adverse water quality impactsthe known water adverse impervious with runoff from associated Lacking experience that from cover. about possible solutions to problems. So, So, problems. about possible solutions to in the ECT the issue example, process, for of impervious came up often in a cover because of planning workshop regional does not enable users to quickly does not enable users to access on important information greater learn more or to or issues, indicators possible consequences of alternative of alternative possible consequences the current However scenarios. software planning of scenario generation At all four scenario planning workshops workshops planning scenario all four At about questions arose interesting greater use of existing analytic models use of existing greater can be on scenarios feedback so that facilitate to time in real accomplished dialogue and learning. of scenario planning tools. Thus the Thus planning tools. of scenario planning next of scenario generation as make should extend as well tools pattern?” are generally not possible to not possible to generally are pattern?” generation the existing with answer Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software use activity center over time. time. use activity over center the CATS HUD, to proposal In its grant the development on Consortiumfocused of the next of scenario generation planning software in conjunction partnerswith regional bring the to and social equity and opportunities for revitalization. funding is Concept, Under the Centers public the region’s expand to targeted (including buses and system transit a network of high implement to rail), build and to lanes, capacity roadway new arterials serving use the mixed a create to intends CAMPO centers. sets aside 50 that program specialized Transportation Surface of future percent Mobility Metropolitan funding Program support projects that for the activity Concept on the Centers shown centers be available funds would Those map. enhance of projects to wide range a to transportation and livability in Activity bicycleincluding and pedestrian Centers, demand travel improvements, projects, transit projects, management selection Project and planning studies. to on the extent be based is expected to which the transportation project would local planning and investment leverage mixed successful a create to resources The ECT vision and preferred growth growth ECTThe vision and preferred in turn informed and Greenprint scenario 2035 Long- of CAMPO’s the creation which Plan, Transportation Range being growth regional future envisions a network in of 37 accommodated walkable, mixed-income, mixed-use, connected and supportivetransit a balanced provide that Activity Centers housing and services, mix of jobs, primarily of existing within the context ActivityThe 4). (see figure communities improve to is designed concept Centers in livability outcomes the region’s as transportation such areas system quality, performance, air and water

11

9 and (2) the CAMPO 2035 and (2) the CAMPO 10 Long Range Transportation Plan. Transportation Range Long technical support to craft centers plans, supporttechnical plans, craft centers to and land development CIP programming to implement modifications code in their own scenario the preferred jurisdictions. those limitations Despite the of local effortsin terms to advance importantvision, two accomplishments in the years completed were the ECT following plan immediately and stronger added both credibility that planning of regional coordination Texas Central (1) the efforts:were those Greenprint ECT assessment undertook a progress efforts to implement on regional plan and vision, and the adopted remained while there that concluded vision supportstrong the regional for land use coordinated and the need for a major planning, and infrastructure that was barrier implementation to to localities lacked the resources many plans in their own plan and implement jurisdictions. localities lacked the staffing and Many biking and pedestrian systems. Inbiking 2008, and pedestrian systems. The preferred preferred The 8 Figure 3. The Central Texas Greenpoint Texas Central The 3. Figure (replacement firm for a portion firm of (replacement the IBM role) licensing concerns) licensing Planners and Criterion Associates COGNOS software program (IBM software program COGNOS the from dropped voluntarily later and containment cost due to team the University of Utah, Metropolitan of Utah,the University Metropolitan Institute multimodal choices including transit, including transit, multimodal choices concentrate substantially more growth growth more substantially concentrate community centers existing in largely transportation regional move and to more toward investments infrastructure participation than 12,000 more by Texans. Central plan reflects efforts to physical scenario’s growth scenario developed between between developed scenario growth Texas Central Envision 2002-2004 by (ECT), community had extensive that foundation of the CATS Consortium of the CATS foundation sustainability effort implementation vision and preferred is the regional As noted in the prior section, noted As the • HDR and Associates, Fregonese • its Smarter IBM, through and Cities Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software etc), street-centerlines-to-parcel-rights- etc), multi-part checks, alignment of-way proper split issues, parcels demographic boundary-to-land-use and topology ensure to coordination design technical data cleaning and other forms of and other forms cleaning data projection differing (e.g., manipulation enough with be compatible to systems) the ARC be accurate GIS software to planning scenario and usable for Consortium CATS The purposes. Inc., Planners with Criterion contracted planning of the scenario (also owners software package known as INDEX), schema data a standardized create to (1) reduce to qualityand data wizard uncertaintytime loss due to about to and (2) and fields, formats GIS data correct to routines automated provide such cleaning problems data common null, bad geometries (e.g., as removing slices, polygon irregular self-intersecting, Figure 4. The CAMPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Plan Transportation Range 2035 Long CAMPO The 4. Figure Map (2010) Concept Growth use of scenario planning softwareuse of scenario the substantial are the local level at with transaction associated costs needed layers getting ARC GIS data use and for ready do the analysis, to imported format in a compatible a great Although with the software. social, economic, deal of land use, and environmental, demographic, available is readily data infrastructure a formats, in ARC GIS compatible number of issues can arise and require Sustainable Places Analytic Tool that that Tool Analytic Sustainable Places the nextwill be discussed in section. Data Project Sustainable Place The A. Schema and Wizard the Central with groups During focus local planning directors, region’s Texas of one learnedthe project that team barriersto the significant the more assembled a team of planning academics assembled a team the to accomplish firms and consulting integration of local comprehensive plans. of local comprehensive integration ConsortiumThe and its partners other jurisdictions the to committing planning elements adoption of common and supporting and the coordination 4. Development of, and ratification of a and ratification of, 4. Development Compact cities and between Regional Activity Center demonstration sites) to to sites) demonstration Activity Center around and consensus build awareness and sustainabilitythe Livability Principles strategies. 3. Broad-based community engagement community engagement 3. Broad-based around engagement (along with focused balanced jobs and housing linked to jobs and housing linked to balanced multimodal the local and regional transportation network. implement best practices for, and best practices for, implement compact, mixed- to obstacles overcome with development mixed-income use, 2. Demonstration Projects (applying, (applying, Projects 2. Demonstration tool) the analytic and refining testing to sites selectedat Activity Center well as furtheringwell local implementation vision and activity of the regional centers plan. host localities and their Activity centers. host localities and their Activity centers. that of software tools a suite Creating as planning enable local scenario better based planning at multiple levels with multiple levels based planning at responsive sustainability are metrics that within the and concerns local values to Analytic Tool in partnership with Tool Analytic partners and Texas of the University scenario for allows that contractors on software development. The core core The on software development. of the project include: elements a Sustainable Places of 1. Development volunteered to partner to software with the volunteered help and planners to developers feedback and provide development Activity Centers concept to fruition. to concept Activity Centers communities demonstration Local Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software A major enhancement over existing existing over A major enhancement software packages of is the addition each sustainability pop-up for windows the theory explains that indicator the connections behind each indicator, and livability the indicator between be calibrated to each locality). to A housing be calibrated will and transportation estimator costs between of the interplay analysis allow the and estimate elements, the two housing and transportationcombined An air scenarios. different from costs gas estimator quality and greenhouse based on changes in been created have and mode shifting alternative from VMTs other Many scenarios. land development with under development analytics are the softwarethe idea being that will functionultimately like an apple iPhone, the for allows code open source where the by of useful apps additional growth ideal has already This user community. in an application been accomplished of analysis to of the software system a tract of for land use scenarios existing City of Austin The Lake. land on Lady Bird metrics infrastructure green adapted Neighborhood for the Center from sustainability metrics Technologies planning a recent inform handbook to workshop. the communities’ specific values and specific the communities’ of the University at Teams interests. of Utah the University are and at Texas working add new functionality to and in the areas in analytics improvements a 7D of land-use transportation (e.g., exploring mode changes in model for and other metrics on the VMTs choice, as transportationwell fly as accident and fatality It variations). is expected of 40-45 on the order somewhere that will be usable sustainability indicators some models although most users, by some additional local will require be meaningfully applied to calibration impact a local fiscal is being model (e.g., to some work but will require developed community metrics that can be viewed community can be viewed metrics that with the scenario format in parallel time enables real This development. of learning of the consequences through multiple land use choices University The display. an interactive the University Austin, at Texas of of Utah and other partners have of sustainability a new suite created can that and indicators analytic tools explore localities to be selected by of alternative the consequences on schemes depending development the version that had been used for the had been used for that the version earlier. ECT years ten process of the ET major advantage A second between software the interplay was and information building Excel Thus, formulas. sustainability indicator and begins workshop a design once land use and transportation alternative in ARC being painted are alternatives being dynamically are GIS, the results enabling the spreadsheets to relayed of sustainable on the fly calculations completed, land use classes or place classes or place land use completed, a cross types can be constructed from section reflecting of building types, in land use densities and variations urban, suburban and rural for intensities is called the This market conditions. System Analysis Return on Investment of group which is an interconnected to linked are that spreadsheets excel Professor tables. the ARC GIS attribute of Utah the University Chris at Nelson it make the ROI model to has upgraded than and sophisticated nuanced more library, it becomes possible to create create to possible it becomes library, each for formas pro development market that building type ensure to the model from into is built feasibility a library of 30- Typically the beginning. each for forma pro 40 buildings with a as background building type is created based development scenario to work with groups on a series of focus is step that Once developers. area or place based typology. By basing land based typology. or place on a building use planning scenarios undergoing changes in terms of changes in terms undergoing a from modeling land use scenarios building typology of a land use instead result of an existing collaboration with collaboration of an existing result of Utahthe University Metropolitan the ET Institute, software already was and Associates because it came the because it came the and Associates of the CATS meeting many closet to as a consortium First, objectives. discussing the project with multiple team the CATS software vendors, (ET) Tomorrow selected the Envision Fregonese software by package created considering going open source so they open source going considering of the US HUD meet the terms could meeting and After recipients. grant The CATS Consortium considered a Consortium considered CATS The software productsvariety of alternative already were with that work to B. The Sustainable Places Project: Project: Sustainable Places The B. Software Plus Tomorrow Envision templates that can be the foundation of can be the foundation that templates efforts. standardization data However, it will provide metadata metadata it will provide However, and an easily portablestandardization the for system storage geodatabase planning and of scenario preparation not supplant the intergovernmental the intergovernmental not supplant get to needed to is that coordination of standardization. level Portland’s minimize planning costs and improve and improve planning costs minimize The geodatabase efficiency. government will with Criterion created system working for over 20 years at creating a creating at 20 years over working for system planning information uniform schema to data with a standardized transparency and ease of use for the new transparency use for and ease of software system. has been region Metro Portland The become more viable in the coming years. years. viable in the coming more become is designed schema and wizard data The uncertainty reduce to and increase the software can be ported an open to as those GIS options platform source Sustainability on the UT Campus: A Symposium Developing the Next Generation of Scenario Essays Planning Software Concept_07_516Revised.pdf Concept_07_516Revised.pdf 10. Between 2006 and 2009, the Trust for Public Public for Trust 10. Between 2006 and 2009, the and City Texas, of University The CAPCOG, Lands, Texas in the Central governments and County (i.e., undertook process region a Greenprinting and preservationopen space lands suitability lands necessarymapping) taking account into quality (especially riparian water protect to areas); karst and quantity (i.e., zones) recharge such as endangered areas sensitive ecologically prime farmlandsspecies habitat; and ranches; lands; cultural resource important recreational assist corridors to and scenic sites, and historic localities in defining priority for protection lands an project created The land development. from and enables state that GIS map system interactive query to and local governments land development against the proposals development infrastructure prioritize protection maps to open space regional sewer water, avoid to and measures; programs and transport would decisions that infrastructure plan, and infrastructure conflictgreen with the of the highest priority enable acquisition to lands See continued. in the region as development summary http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/ at: content/case_studies/central_texas_greenprint_ for_gr/ can be accessed Greenprint Texas Central The 11. http://envisioncentraltexas.org/resources/ at: 2035 RTP and the CAMPO for CenTexReport.pdf http://www.campotexas. at: can be accessed org/pdfs/CAMPO%202035%20Growth%20 use-transportation and planning: promise scenario Holway, pp.397–412; 34(4), Transportation, reality. Scenario Planning to 2012. Opening Access et al., J. Institute of Land Policy. Lincoln Cambridge: Tools, https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/ at: accessed dl/2027_1352_Opening%20Access%20to%20 [Accessed Scenario%20Planning%20Tools.pdf January in US DOT, noted 22, 2013]. and limitations Peer ScenarioPlanning 2012. National FHWA/FTA, Report https://www.fhwa. Exchange at: accessed dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/ scenario_planning/resources/peer_exchange_ report/peer.pdf http://envisioncentraltexas.org/ at: 8. Accessed resources/ECT_visiondoc.pdf http://envisioncentraltexas.org/ at: 9. Accessed resources/TIP%20VPA%20External%202008-07- 21%20FINALwcover.pdf project reports: R. Paterson and S. Handy, and S. Handy, project reports: R. Paterson Principles,” and Planning “Design 1996 (fall). of University The Project, Vision Community S. Handy, K. School of Architecture; Butler, Texas Workshop Design “Final 1996, and R. Paterson, University The Project, Vision Community Results,” S. and K. Butler, School of Architecture, Texas of Community “Pilot 1995. and R. Paterson, Handy, The Vision Community Project, Workshop,” Design School of Architecture. Texas of University Land 1999. Montopolis 6. K. Butler and R. Paterson, Report. A Report Final the City of to Study, Use Austin. K., Bartholomew, 2007. Land example 7. See for Brigmon, and ACC Faculty Member Sean Moran. Faculty and ACC Brigmon, $67 Million for Award Will 2010, HUD 2. US HUD, at: PlanningAccessed Sustainable Communities http://www.p4sc.org/articles/all/hud-will-award- 67-million-sustainable-communities-planning http://www. at: 2012, accessed 3. US HUD, sustainablecommunities.gov/pdf/psc-2012- priorities-and-demand-chart-march%202012.pdf http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ at: 4. Accessed documents/huddoc?id=Mapofy11Chal_ RegGrantees.pdf in three produced were outcomes 5. Project References UT faculty of many consists project team The 1. the CSD by is written essay This and centers. the UT CSD from project team The faculty. Michael (PI), Dr. Robert Paterson of Dr. comprised Ming Chun Lee, Dr. Elizabeth Mueller, Oden, Dr. Thomas Ming Zhang and doctoral students Dr. Nathan CRP students MS Torado, Hilde and Marla in 2013. It is hoped that the system will will in 2013. It system the is hoped that eventually and grow evolve to continue GIS environment source the open into is There wiki a new through system. among the Consortium interest strong grant seek out additional members to evolving this and improve refine funds to software system. growing the software system well well the software system growing period the end of the HUD grant beyond Perhaps the most important partPerhaps of Consortium the CATS this project from in interest perspective is the shared D. The Sustainable Places Project Into Project Sustainable Places The D. Future The more persuasive as a picture is clearly persuasive more or graphs. worth a thousand words the fly in workshop settings. Although workshop settings. the fly in important future analytics are inform to discussions, land use and infrastructure even dimensional models often are three to export alternative scenarios into export into scenarios to alternative to city 3D modeling system engine ESRI’s enable high quality on 3D visualizations city. Although it was not expected, the not expected, was it Although city. Sustainable for and the Center TACC a method developed have Development limited fashion into a web based browser based browser a web fashion into limited can explore so citizens environment their for themselves scenarios “what if” ported to a web template for on-line for ported template a web to public participation. objective A second take the ETis to software in a more the Texas Advanced Computing Center Center Computing Advanced Texas the an on-line public create to (TACC) where softwareengagement system can be easily charrettes products from dialogue on those planning results in a dialogue on those planning results this issue, address To meaningful way. consortium with contracted the CATS question is how does a community get question is how envisioned that its public to from by-in and engage the public in a future, design workshop process and created created and process workshop design for scenarios development 2-4 alternate the area, or other focal its downtown and Participatory Engagement Template Template and Participatory Engagement System a a community has completed Once a bibliography. a bibliography. Browser Project Sustainable Places The C. concerns, and links to design solutions solutions design to and links concerns, and via hypertext sources online to links