Tbilisi: turning a citywide question into spatial priorities

“Where should the city improve?” is an important question, but it is too broad to answer with one layer or one score. Streets, housing, retail, employment and public services interact. Each decision also requires evidence at a different scale.

The LGM Tbilisi investigation explored how a recursive geospatial workflow could narrow that question. It moved from citywide data to transport corridors, planning cells and candidate areas for more detailed assessment.

The scope of the investigation

The recorded research session covered 109,316 rows and raster samples, including 88,639 unique vector objects. It compared ten transport corridors and worked with 240 planning cells.

These figures describe the recorded analysis, not a complete inventory of Tbilisi or a count of independent real-world observations. The 18-minute, 8-second duration refers to the full research session. It should not be read as pure server processing time or a promised completion time for other studies.

The value of the exercise is the chain connecting a question to progressively more specific evidence.

Four patterns worth investigating

The study identified potential pedestrian-access gaps along Kakheti Highway. A major transport corridor may connect vehicles while creating difficult local crossings. The practical follow-up is to inspect pedestrian routes, crossings and barriers at specific locations.

In Nadzaladevi–Temka, several indicators pointed toward overlapping infrastructure deficits. This suggests examining multiple services together rather than treating each gap as an isolated problem.

Gldani–Mukhiani emerged as an area for additional checks on educational and sports infrastructure. Facility records can guide this screening, but capacity, opening hours and actual access are needed before deciding whether a new facility is justified.

For Varketili–Lilo, the analysis suggested investigating logistics and B2B-office functions. The next step would test that hypothesis against property availability, transport conditions and actual business demand.

Move from a district to a site

A high-priority district is not a construction recommendation. Choosing a location for a market with 10–20 stalls requires a much smaller unit of analysis.

A useful shortlist would examine candidate footprints, pedestrian access, nearby demand, competing uses and space for deliveries. It would then add municipal and site-specific evidence: ownership, permitted use, utilities, operating constraints and conditions on the ground.

This change in scale is one reason recursive research is useful. The first pass determines where to investigate. Subsequent passes ask more precise questions within those areas.

Make uncertainty part of the output

Public geographic records can be incomplete or outdated. A missing facility might be unrecorded rather than absent. A street shown as connected might be difficult to cross. A vacant-looking area might already have an approved development.

The Tbilisi results therefore remain exploratory screening. Their purpose is to guide further investigation, not to authorize construction, assess legal rights or replace local expertise.

A strong follow-up records what evidence would confirm or overturn each suggestion. That makes a shortlist easier for municipal teams, planners and investors to evaluate.

What this means for other territories

The transferable part of the investigation is its method: define a decision, discover available layers, compare areas, narrow the geography and expose the missing evidence.

LGM can support that sequence through geospatial tools and a shared backend, with results carried into visual and professional GIS workflows. Local data remains essential, especially when the decision moves from regional screening to a specific property or intervention.

Read the full Tbilisi research page for the case-study context. To frame a similar investigation, open LGM GIS and begin with one territory, one decision and the output you need to review.