Fellow developer here was wondering if your underlying architecture would allow for more control over the result of the generation considering you already can regenerate parts of the result post generation via the warp tool and the like, what I was thinking is the following
1- editable district types: what i want several castles in my city, or an inside city garden and maybe less dense buildings for a "rich" area or another plaza etc.
2- changing roads to waterways or walls, and editing the thickness of roads, walls, and waterways allowing for more intricate networks around the city
3- IDK if this is already planned but since you already have the integration with the other procgen Arcana projects why not make it so you can save the buildings made in PM into the actual JSON file of the city considering you can already open individual buildings in it anyways

I looked over some of your code on github and the JSON files the generator spits out and I dont see a reason any of this would be impossible after a short glance so was wondering if any of it is planned cuz this is an amazing tool and i would like to implement it into my workflow for world building , keep up the great work

1. The current version of the generator works pretty differently from the one on github and changing the nature of individual parts of a district would be a bit harder. For example, after a district is generated, it's quite difficult to spawn a new plaza or a castle in it. Not impossible of course, but difficult. This is done in favor of more "continuous" street patterns
2. I planned to implement something like this long time ago (sort of related: link), but first I am going to rework the whole sea/river subsystem.
3. I am not sure I get your idea. Why would we need this? To show more detailed buildings in City Viewer? In any case it is not possible with the current architecture of my generators. They all are purely client-side applications, so MFCG for example can't ask PM to create a building for it.