>before you come to this type of statement, what is the state of
>research? and how widespread is the use of these systems in practice?


A few of the models that I have analysed working with Computational Intelligence and which are affiliated and comprised of Cellular Automata include:


1. The Greensboro Simulation used to simulate urban development in Greensboro, North Carolina (1948-1960)


2. The Systems Analysis Model of Urbanization and Change developed by the Harvard School of Design (Spring 1968) which focused on Southwest Boston.


3.Latrop and Hamburg (1965) worked on a model for Buffalo, NY


4.Waldo Tobler (1979) used geographic Cellular Automata to create a simulation of Detroit and built in autoregression based on Markov processes. This model is also called the autoregression model.


5.Roger White and Guy Engelen (1993) developed a "constrained CA model  of land-use dynamics" for the city of Cincinatti.


6. Ferdinando Semboloni developed a three dimensional CA model in 2000 but I am not sure if the simulation was based on an existing city.


7. Batty and Yichun Xie ( 1997) used dissipative structures of Prigogine in 1997 for a polycentric city representation


8. My personal favourite is the SLEUTH model (Slope, Landcover, Exclusion, Urban, Transportation and Hillside) developed by Keith Clarke (2000)


9. OBEUS by Torrens and Benenson that I mentioned earlier is a hybrid where the landuse is based on irregular cellular automata and multiagent simulations are run through them.


>hope this is not a theodicy :-)


The smiley helps in terms of dissipating some of the condescension. My present Ph.D. research is a look at the connections made between complexity science and cities.  Originally these connections were based on the work of Juval Portugai "Self Organization and the City". My approach is based on my ontological belief in radical constructivism that has been strengthened by second order cybernetics. Niklas Luhmann is one of the chief people that helps look critically at Complexity and a good source for "theodicy" is 'Observing Complexity' by Rasch and Wolfe.


>yes, the technologies are cumbersome, but i hope you are not hammering
>peanuts worth of research. is usability even a concern with these
>technologies as yet


I think that my listing of the above models show that they are chiefly directed at usability.  As to me hammering peanuts worth of research, I am lost as to how I should respond and in what light? Anecdotal to the metaphor of peanuts, Gregor Mendel discovered a theory of genetics by growing peas in the cloisters of his abbey.


>your other comment, 'not impressed by this book...' interests me, i am
>thinking about quality of editorial processes in commercial publications.


I wasnt impressed by the book based on the way I see complexity sciences being marketed as cutting edge scientific research and thereby in the process being privileged by our obsession with science. These impressions are my own, in much as the same way you might choose not to agree with me.



Leon Morenas


Urban Designer/ Architect





From: "Anand Bhatt." <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "Architexturez: Enaction-L" <[email protected]>
To: Architexturez: Enaction-L <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [in-enaction] book: Cities and Complexity (MIT)
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:26:42 +0530
>leon morenas wrote:
>
> > What is remarkable in the descriptions of both these models is that
> > although they build upon Complexity Science on the one hand and Dynamic
> > Systems Theory on the other, the simulations abstract complexity or
> > represent it in such a manner that most of the vitality is lost.
>
>before you come to this type of statement, what is the state of
>research? and how widespread is the use of these systems in practice?
>
> > The
> > model
as a result is not immanent in the very reality that generates
> > it.
>
>hope this is not a theodicy :-)
>
> > These technologies are so combersome (although they claim
> > otherwise) that they are like trying to open peanuts with jackhammers!!!
> >
>
>yes, the technologies are cumbersome, but i hope you are not hammering
>peanuts worth of research. is usability even a concern with these
>technologies as yet?
>
>your other comment, 'not impressed by this book...' interests me, i am
>thinking about quality of editorial processes in commercial publications.
>
>- anand.
>
>_______________________________________________
>in-enaction mailing list
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction