What needs to be done to address misapprehensions?
Vasilena Bocheva, 3D Architectural Visualiser, Lanpro
In a piece for The Times Literary Supplement, Professor Mary Beard raised the question ‘Do architectural models lie?’. She was concerned about discrepancies between the visualisation of Cambridge’s Station Square and her experience of the completed redevelopment – specifically the fact that a large taxi rank detracts from the architecture.
For planning consultants though, CGIs are a valuable communication tool which bring architectural ideas to life. Many people struggle to understand plans, but everyone understands a picture.
If CGIs are too positive in their depiction of a future scheme, trust with local residents or purchasers can break down, resulting in considerable delays, costs and reputational damage.
Perhaps some of the mistrust of CGIs is due to the fact that they have progressed rapidly in a short space of time. Only a few years ago, CGIs were blocky computer models – these rarely led to criticism of being overly beautiful. Today, with a combination of more sophisticated IT and visual artists, we can create an image which looks as genuine as a photograph.
CGI is used extensively in other sectors, from product design through to advertising. This is perhaps where the mistrust occurs, as CGIs used for a planning consultation should never seek to persuade using sometimes unrealistic images of perfection, as advertising does. Instead, CGIs used for planning purposes should depict a potential scheme as honestly as possible.
The fact is that CGIs have the capacity to create an image of perfection – using the perfect time of the day, lighting and happy, healthy humans. While this may be achievable, its potential to attract criticism is understandable.
So it’s important that CGIs, especially those used in public consultation, 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 – i.e., that it has a low impact on its surroundings.
In planning and development, there are three main uses of CGI: CGI masterplans (often in 3D), which give the audience a clear impression of the siting and context, along with an overview of the communal spaces and the flow of the development; internal and external CGIs –individual images showing what the inside and outside of a property will look like once finished, and thirdly, CGI films and animations – animated renders, allowing walk-through of a completed home or development. They give the audience a chance to explore a residence as if they were there in person, before a brick has been laid.
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. When CGIs are used as a tool for dialogue rather than as a “finished product”, it opens the path to honest and transparent communication.
Furthermore, CGIs can become a touchstone for the evolving design – ensuring that the developer is complying with the consented scheme.
Further down the development process, it is useful for developers to use CGIs to review the development’s success: is it as attractive as originally conceived, is it being adequately maintained, and if not, how can future designs avoid these issues?
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 quite wrong 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 which were used before the capacity for CGIs was as advanced as it is today, CGIs 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.
When using CGIs in consultation, we can both adapt design options at the touch of a button, and also take away the feedback from the community and, without considerable expense, create an alternative version.
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 easily accessible, for example on a consultation website or in a data room, enabling 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 fifteen, 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.
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 Mary 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.
Source link