Conclusion on digital humanities tools

Digital humanities tools such as Neatline timelines, Omeka exhibits, and Harvard Map Collection archives offer platforms for us to both explore the layers of history and culture in one place thoroughly, as well as repackage and communicate this complexity towards fellow urban planners and explorers. With the capacity to store and display various forms of media, these tools begin to accommodate the magnanimous thing that is a city’s “urban poetics.” Yet, they are also structured tools which help to organise the information in a way that can be quickly understood, offering direct comparisons of a space’s use and look across time, or offering comparisons of different places at one time. 

            In a rapidly urbanising world where many urban populations grow denser and property becomes scarce, it has become more and more challenging for proponents of urban public space to justify the opportunity cost of leaving a place for all citizens rather than earning some profit from a privatised building. This is why it is so important to employ digital humanities tools, such as the ones we have used in this class, in order to communicate the utility of public spaces. In making these arguments, planners must draw on and understand all the elements of a public space’s value: its aesthetic, historical layers, present-day usage, relation to urban poetics and depictions of the city. The digital humanities tools which we have been introduced to in this class allow us to both capture the essence and beauty of a public space, but also demonstrate its benefits to society and significance to the city’s character step-by-step. I can imagine the Project for Public Spaces, the Hong Kong Public Space Initiative, and other organisations with similar missions benefitting a great deal from the use of these tools.