The process of architectural design and urban planning has been fundamentally transformed through digital media. While providing the opportunity to make the process more flexible and open to realize an extensive public participation, they also pose specific problems. Touching Buildings is a prototype for a multimodal, collaborative interface that integrates the various aspects of the planning and communication process through a platform for tangible interaction with an open communication system. This paper presents the results of a first implementation of this prototype.


Urban planning visualization touch interfaces natural user interface tangible interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hall, P., Tewdwr-Jones, M.: Urban and Regional Planning, 5th edn., p. 249. Routledge, London (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiener, N.: Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lefebvre, H.: The Production of Space, Engl. Edition, p. 11. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tranos, E.: The Causal Effect of the Internet Infrastructure on the Economic Development of European City Regions. Spatial Economic Analysis 7(3), 319–337 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meining, B.: Public Hearings: When and How to Hold them. In: Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (2013), (retrieved February 26, 2013)
  6. 6.
    City of Melbourne: Future Melbourne, (retrieved February 26, 2013)
  7. 7.
    Grynbaum, M.: Mayor Warns of the pitfalls in Social Media. New York Times (March 21, 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strickler, J.: Does GPS spell the end to maps?, November 27. Star Tribune, Minneapolis (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishikawa, T., Fujiwara, H., Imai, O., Okabe, A.: Wayfinding with a GPS-based mobile navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28, 74–82 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKinney, J.: Don’t Throw Away Your Paper Maps Just Yet, March 22. Pacific Standard, Santa Barbara (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, W.-C., Ma, M.-C., Cheng, B.-W.: Field Comparison of Driving Performance Using a Portable Navigation System. The Journal of Navigation 63, 39–50 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lobben, A.: Tasks, Startegies, and Cognitive Processes Associated With Navigational Map Reading: A Review Perspective. The Professional Geographer 56(2), 270–281 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hegarty, M., Montello, D., Richardson, A., Ishikawa, T., Lovelace, K.: Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence 34, 151–176 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, D., Groat, L.: Architectural Research Methods. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopkins, L., Ramanathan, R., Pallathucheril, V.: Interface for a sketch-planning work-bench. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28, 653–666 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiffany Chen
    • 1
  • Andreas Kratky
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaInstitute for Multimedia LiteracyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations