You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Computer-generated images can bring architectural models to life – we need to trust them
Computer-generated images should be utilised in planning, so it is important that people understand what a CGI is and how it is created, writes Vasilena Bocheva, 3D architectural visualiser at planning consultancy Lanpro
Vasilena Bocheva is a 3D architectural visualiser at Lanpro
Computer-generated images can bring architectural models to life – we need to trust them #UKhousingComputer-generated images should be utilised in planning, so it is important that people understand what these are, writes Vasilena Bocheva at Lanpro #UKhousing“Do architectural models lie?” was the question posited by Professor Mary Beard writing in the Times Literary Supplement, as she shared her concerns about discrepancies between the visualisation for Station Square in Cambridge and the completed development. Specifically, a large taxi rank that was omitted from the computer-generated image (CGI).
For housing associations and developers, CGIs are a valuable communication tool that can bring architectural ideas to life. While some people may struggle to understand plans, everyone can understand a picture.
However, if CGIs are too positive in their depiction of a housing scheme, trust with local residents or future occupiers can break down. To engender trust in the process, I believe it is important that audiences understand exactly what a CGI is and how it is created.
CGI includes still or animated visual content produced by individuals with the help of computer software. The process starts with the masterplan or 3D model (usually developed using computer-aided design, or CAD) and utilises various sources of information to assist their accuracy. By using CGIs in planning and development, professionals are able to experiment with different layouts and orientations, materials and textures, and other options to deliver realistic visualisations.
Read more
It’s important that CGIs, especially those used in public consultation on housing schemes, show different scenarios – for example the impact of shadows at a specific (rather than optimal) time of day, or a view of a less attractive part of the scheme. In reality, most visualisations we create are actually intended to demonstrate how a scheme wouldn’t be visible from a specific viewpoint location ie that it has a low impact on its surroundings.
It is particularly important in consultation that audiences understand the benefit that CGIs can bring to an open and honest planning application process.
The optimal use of CGIs is to adapt them to show alternative scenarios. For example, residents may want to understand the impact of smaller front gardens on the overall provision of public spaces in the scheme, the shading resulting from buildings of varying heights, or the visual impact of energy-efficient features such as heat pumps.
“It is particularly important in consultation that audiences understand the benefit that CGIs can bring to an open and honest planning application process”
When CGIs are used as a tool for dialogue rather than as a ‘finished product’, it opens the path to honest and transparent communication.
The graphic presentation must be realistic. Different surfaces are suitable for different uses – so it is entirely appropriate, for example, to depict a child on a scooter on an asphalt surface, but it would be inaccurate to depict this on grass. The comparison enables local residents to evaluate the design options with great understanding. The use of humans in such circumstances is also important in communicating scale and atmosphere.
Like artists’ impressions that were used before the advancement of CGIs, these images need not look like the finished product. We frequently produce quite ‘sketchy’ images and find that this is popular in the consultation process, as the consultees often prefer that the scheme isn’t presented as one which has already been determined.
I believe that some of the mistrust of CGIs could be abated if there was greater understanding of the veracity of the information used to produce them. This, of course, depends on the original purpose, but CGIs usually start with the 3D architectural model and also utilise data including topographical surveys, daylight and shading analysis and photographs of the wider context.
Another considerable benefit of the advance in technology is that this data can be made accessible, such as on a consultation website or in a data room, to enable consultees to understand the level of accuracy.
Sometimes developers are criticised for depicting public open spaces featuring attractive, mature trees. While this is not dishonest as a depiction of the scheme several years after construction, there is a preference to show the impact of planting in years one, five and 15, so that it is clear that while the image is realistic, it is also a long-term aspiration. This helps manage expectations and demonstrate a long-term commitment to landscaping and biodiversity.
“I believe that some of the mistrust of CGIs could be abated if there was greater understanding of the veracity of the information used to produce them”
Overall, a successful visualisation is one that includes surrounding context, often using photomontages that combine real-world photography with CGI elements. This addresses the concern that a new development might disrupt the existing character of a neighbourhood.
So was Professor Beard right to criticise the developers of Cambridge’s Station Square for omitting the taxi rank? Our approach would be to depict the scheme as realistically as possible. Where there remains an element of choice which can be determined (even if only to an extent) by public opinion, that choice should be presented in the images. After all, some local residents may be encouraged by the fact that taxis are easily available at the station.
Ultimately, CGIs do not exist solely to represent a beautiful scheme, but a workable scheme. Design is more than aesthetics alone.
Vasilena Bocheva, 3D architectural visualiser, Lanpro
Related stories
