Great Places are Planned
February 26th, 2007
Last weekend, Eric and I began designing a map for Counter-Strike. Counter-Strike is a team-based online computer game where players must complete an objective (rescuing the hostages or detonating a bomb) or eliminate the other team. While the game includes dozens of official maps, each a different physical setting for the game to occur, map-making software allows players to create customized maps of their own.
Before we began designing our map, we analyzed the popular maps for strategic patterns and logical layouts. For example, the number and placement of choke points, or locations where the teams collide after a round begins and players rush to the objective, may affect if the map is balanced fairly for each team. In our evaluation, we began to wonder if the designers of the official Counter-Strike maps took the time to plan the layout, anticipating how players may use their maps. Or, did they merely design an attractive environment and leave it to the players to decide how to use it?
I recently heard somebody claim that Great Places are Planned. As a planner, I like to think that I contribute to the design of great places, but I do not believe that my contributions are necessary. Surely, there have been unique and distinct places that were not deliberately planned. Furthermore, how insulting it must be to hear that your place is not great, only because it did not employ the expertise of a planner.
Certainly, planning and forethought may enhance the usability and sustainability of a place (or the playability of a Counter-Strike map), but to imply that all great places are planned is inaccurate. The people that live, work, and play in place ultimately determine its greatness. How people use space and how culture shapes it is an act greater than planning and cannot always be anticipated.
