What needs to be done to address misapprehensions?
Vasilena Bocheva, 3D Architectural Visualiser, Lanpro
As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is particularly applicable in planning and development as without a visual depiction it can be very difficult for local residents at a consultation or potential purchasers to envisage any development.
But CGIs are sometimes criticised as being unrealistic and depicting too positive an image. What needs to be done to correct misapprehensions?
Is it wrong that CGIs present schemes at their best – with mature landscaping and blue skies – and should these circumstances change, is it right to label CGIs dishonest? To engender trust in the process, I believe it is important that audiences understand exactly what a CGI is and how it is created.
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.
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.
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 certain changes, the shading resulting from buildings of varying heights, or the visual impact of features which may not be well known to the community. 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.
The graphic presentation must be realistic. Different surfaces are suitable for different uses – so it is entirely appropriate. 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 previously, 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.
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 energy scheme might disrupt the existing character of a neighbourhood.
I recently produced a selection of CGIs for a client who was proposing a recycling centre. With large bins, trash and trucks, recycling centres rarely have a positive impact on the local environment from an aesthetic point of view. The purpose of the CGI was to depict the impact of the facility from several key viewpoint locations. The process was used to determine the height of the planting and the fences that surrounded the facility, and ultimately enabled the client to plan for, and gain the local residents’ support for a planting scheme which entirely shielded the recycling centre and in fact considerably added to the landscape character and biodiversity of the neighbourhood.
Whether a fully rendered 3D model or a sketchy artist’s impression, it is crucial to first clarify the purpose of the CGI that’s being used. This would determine the level of accuracy that’s required and the use of site data, vegetation growth data, sun analysis, human scale and surrounding context. Higher accuracy visualisations are normally accompanied by environmental reports that detail the sustainability measures being implemented and are a result of an entire team working behind the scenes, being very purposeful in what they want to communicate. Transparency and communication are the key factors here, as ultimately the goal is to create a collaborative design process where communities feel heard, understood and confident that the visualisations they see today will become the reality they experience tomorrow.
