@coachjoeyandrada @coachfaithbroussard
When we prepare an urban analysis for a set of potential sites to evaluate the pros and cons, one of the things we can focus on is the “connections available” at each site. Would it not be the case that a site’s relationship to open space would be worth considering and would also belong in the category of “site connections" ? All things being equal, if one site is adjacent to a developed network of connected open spaces that stretch on for miles of walking and the other site has no such immediate connection, then, from a connections standpoint, the first site is superior.
I’m not arguing for the idea of open space being worth the consideration of an architect doing an urban analysis - I’m arguing for the idea that that consideration logically belongs to the “site connections” set more than any other category in an urban analysis.
Your thoughts?
@aidenjh Thank you for your patience in our response. Just to clarify - is your question related to a specific study material in the PPD course?
Either way, I completely agree — a site’s relationship to open space absolutely belongs under the category of site connections. “Connections” in urban analysis extend beyond roads and transit to include all networks that link a site to its context — pedestrian, ecological, and social. Open spaces and greenways are connective tissue in the urban fabric, enabling movement, activity, and continuity.
So, if one site ties directly into a broader open-space network while another is isolated, the first site is indeed stronger from a connections standpoint, not just in terms of amenities or environmental quality. It’s about how the site participates in and extends the city’s larger systems of access and interaction.
Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles