In this project I approached, to some extent, two different ways of designing. The first is implemented in the city generator program, the second in the genetic lab. Both use the possibility offered by the computer of creating some sort of automatic design, which the user doesn't control to its full extent.

The first way, gives a lot of control to the designer. It's based on pre-designed objects whose parameters are only subject to some randomness. The number of possible combinations is reduced (49), allowing the user to test and tune most of the results. But randomness still plays a role, and when observed in detail, the whole composition couldn't be carefully designed, and also the repetition of some cities doesn't offer the same experience again. These aspects are characteristic of cities, of their life and evolution, and it's important to incorporate them in virtual environments. In this way of designing, the richness of the environment is directly related to the quantity and quality of the elements available, and the complexity of the structure that combines them. Being both designed, most of the production work is still done by the designer.

The second way, takes some of the control over the end result away from the designer. He doesn't have to worry so much about the design of individual objects, since they are going to be mixed and transformed. And he also doesn't have to create so many objects, since they can be transformed via parameters, with data coming from the chromosomes. This way he can have a few primitives originating many different objects. But he still manipulates all these ingredients by hand, designing the structures and shapes, depending the success of the results mostly on the quality of his design.

Another aspect that has to be considered is how changes introduced into an objects appearance or structure influence the perception of the object. By running the program several times while constrained to certain structures or chromosomes I could experience different levels of recognition or of surprise. It would depend on the type of change and on how profound they were.

The objects could be considered:

1- Same object- even suffering some changes in appearance and/or structure, they were so subtle that weren't necessarily perceived. The shapes used were the same.

2- Same object, at a different stage/time - structure would change significantly, but appearance and the shapes used were still the same.

3- Different object, but of the same family - appearance would change significantly, but the shape and structure used remained the same.

4- Different family, but of the same species - appearance and structure didn't change, but this time a different shape was used by the structure.

5- Of a different species - appearance, structure and the shapes used were very different from the previous object.

This is purely subjective observation and cannot be taken as a general rule. But this aspect plays an important role in the control of the diversity of the elements of the city. A designer should consider how to deal with these levels to achieve the desired result.