Upload
dominic-davies
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The shortcomings of computer modelling and rendering in the pursuit of architectural perfection.
Citation preview
1
Misrepresenting Reality
What are the shortcomings of computer modelling and rendering in the pursuit of architectural perfection?
Architecture BA Honours
Stage 3
Dissertation In Architectural Studies (ARC3060)
Module Leader
Andrew Ballantyne
Dominic Davies
(120052046)
2
Misrepresenting Reality
What are the shortcomings of computer modelling and rendering in the pursuit of architectural perfection?
Contents
• Introduction
• Outline
• The Birth of Computer Modelling
• The Computer Modelling Revolution
• The Industry view of Computer Modelling
• Architectural Rendering – An Introduction
• The Idealization of Architecture
• The Industry view of Architectural Rendering
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
3
Introduction
“While we accept the conventions of traditional architectural drawing
and the stylizations of the first generation of digital rendering as
artistic devices that invite us to participate in imagining an
architectural product, buildable or not, our eyes are trained to believe
that a photograph is a true representation of an existing condition.
Thus in the digital age the graphic representation of architecture has
moved beyond an exercise in persuasion; it has become an exercise in
deception.”1
This quotation by award winning architect Belmont Freeman implies that we
should think critically about the current forms of architectural representation
and whether they portray a realistic depiction of architecture. This thesis will
look at the different ways in which the computer is used to envisage architecture
and what affects this has on the design. It will also take a critical look as to
whether on balance the recent developments in computer modelling and
rendering have had a positive or negative impact on the design process.
Outline
In recent decades the ways in which we present architectural ideas has evolved
dramatically. Computer software has been the driving force of this change with
the introduction and evolution of computer modelling and rendering software. In
conjunction with this software, other physical modelling techniques have been
introduced the forefront of which is now 3d printing. These technologies are
increasingly used in most, if not all elements of the architectural process and will
inevitably have an impact on the way we present our designs and the design
process. Research has enabled me to present a clearer picture of the impact of
these technologies, and whether the positive developments in this technology
1 Freeman, B. (2013). Digital Deception: Architectural Photography After Photoshop. [online] Places Journal. Available at: https://placesjournal.org/article/digital-‐deception/ [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014].
4
are outweighed by the negative impacts. I have also considered the ethical issues
surrounding the use of these technologies.
My research has been done using multiple sources including both primary and
secondary research. I have created a series of questionnaires to analyse people’s
personal opinions about architectural modelling and rendering. There are many
demographics, which I have targeted with these surveys. These include
practicing architects, architectural students and journalists. In my secondary
research I have read and studied relevant books and articles, which gave me an
insight into what the current opinions on this topic are in the academic world.
At this point I the need to make it clear, that although I have looked at both the
positive and negative impacts I have primarily focused on the latter as I believe
these are less obvious. I have co-‐ordinated this thesis by initially looking at the
history of computer modelling and rendering to understand how they were
introduced into the profession, and have been increasingly integrated into the
way in which architects operate. I have split the main discussion into two parts,
computer modelling and computer rendering. The two are very much engaged
with each other but each have their own set of attributes and implications.
I have looked at computer modelling and rendering in a critical analysis to
determine whether or not computers have become too involved in the way in
which architects design and illustrate ideas. My research into computer
modelling has looked at cases including my own experiences where perhaps
computer modelling has limited creativity, acting to inhibit the architect instead
of facilitating the project. My research into computer rendering has looked at
how it is used to illustrate an idea to the client. This looks at the negative
implications this technology could have. I have also linked this into a discussion
on the effects this has on the students of architecture.
5
The Birth Of Computer Modelling
Computer Aided Design software (CAD) is widely recognised as the starting
point of computer modelling and in 2009 was voted by the readers of ‘Architects
Journal’ as “the greatest advance in construction history2.” The origination of
CAD is uncertain as no one can really pinpoint where and when the idea was
conceived. The most accepted theory is that Adams Associates in Bedford,
Massachusetts, developed the first CAD system in 1959.3 In the same year General
Motors with help from IBM started to develop their own CAD systems for use in
the design of automobiles. From this point on, the implementation of CAD
systems was deployed rapidly throughout engineering firms. IBM was at the
forefront of development and became the dominant supplier of digital computers
that were built for the use of CAD.4
Initially CAD systems were limited to 2-‐Dimensional design and representation.
Throughout the 1960’s the need for accurate 3-‐Dimensional modelling was
necessary for designing non-‐uniform surfaces such as those required for
airplanes and cars. This advancement was attributed to Pieree Bezier, an
engineer at Renault who developed the Bezier Spline thus allowing surfaces to be
accurately manipulated into free flowing 3 Dimensional forms.5 At this early
stage the technology was simply too expensive for architecture firms to
implement. When computers and CAD systems became more cost effective
architects started to supplement and then replace their traditional drawing
boards with computers.
Autodesk Limited, founded in 1982 by John Walker, is widely accepted as being
responsible for the availability and wide scale use of CAD that we see today. They
are still the industry leaders, with their original flagship product, ‘AutoCad’. This
iconic software, known to all in the construction industry, was introduced to the
2 Architectsjournal.co.uk, (2012). CAD -‐ The greatest advance in construction history. [online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/cad-‐the-‐greatest-‐advance-‐in-‐construction-‐history/1996442.article [Accessed 13 Jan. 2015]. 3 Peddie, J. (2013). The history of visual magic in computers. London: Springer, p.102. 4 Ibid, p.103. 5 Ibid, p.89.
6
market and suitable for the new affordable computers that emerged in the
1980’s. 6 The program was so successful as its versatility catered for all
professions that required drafting. 7 The program was a huge success and
superior to other products, which were competing in the same burdening market.
The worldwide acceptance of this product became a significant factor in
convincing architecture firms to embrace the digital revolution.
At the turn of the new millennia we have seen the same thing happening with
computer modelling software. Autodesk are again one of industry leaders of this
technology with their array of industry specific software, with Autodesk Revit
being the principal product of choice for architects. Currently there is one
computer modelling software ‘SketchUp’ that is perhaps the most commonly
used and most widely known globally with over 30 million activations in 2011.8
SketchUp was first conceived in 2000 by a company called ‘Last Software’ with
the basic concept of making a computer modelling software that was easy to use
and more engaging than others on the market. In 2006 Google acquired “Last
Software” giving them the rights to SketchUp. Google acquired the company, as
they wanted to expand one of their other projects, ‘Google Earth’ to encourage
people to use SketchUp to model buildings that could then be located on their
digital earth. To allow this to happen they made the software extremely easy to
use and most crucial of all, made it freely available. More recently the company
‘Trimble’ has bought the software with the intention of advancing its capabilities
and potential. This software has been proven to be immensely popular within
the architecture community and has provided a gateway for many into computer
modelling. 9
6 Ibid, p.105. 7 AAA CAD DRAFTING SERVICES, (2013). AutoCad -‐ The worlds most popular drafting software. [online] Aaadrafting.com. Available at: http://www.aaadrafting.com/autocad.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. 8 Bacus, J. (2012). A new home for SketchUp. [Blog] SketchUpdate. Available at: http://sketchupdate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/new-‐home-‐for-‐sketchup.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. 9 Nath, D. (2013). History of SketchUp. [online] Sketchup-‐ur-‐space.com. Available at: http://www.sketchup-‐ur-‐space.com/july11/history-‐of-‐sketchup.htm [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015].
7
The Computer Modelling Revolution
Computer modelling is used in many professions from the construction industry
to the gaming and film industries. It has revolutionized how we envisage our
creations and allowed us to work more quickly and efficiently. Architecture is a
clear example of a profession that has been subject to this revolution.
Computer modelling has many advantages for a designer but arguably can also
inhibit them in many ways. If used too early in the design process the software
could restrict the creativity of a designer by constraining the design to what is
possible to be created on the computer. This limitation is also determined by the
individual’s capability within the specific software. Arguably this is not present
when designing through drawing or physical modelling which is much more
open in its possibilities.
“Even if usual 3D modeling systems are designed for a specific task or
domain, they are still tedious to use and generally shackle creativity of
users. This problem principally arises because 3d modeling methods
and interactions are far from designers’ habits and environments.”10
This extract from a paper written about how we use 3-‐Dimentional modelling
software highlights the users limitation with the software’s interface. It also
introduces the idea that the limitation is due to the variance between human
nature and the digital world. It leads us to the question: if we exist in reality
should we not design in a way that adheres to the same rules and expectations of
reality?
At the early stages of a design it could be argued that we should start with as few
limitations as possible and then develop the idea into something more original
and creative. I have had first hand experience with this type of limitation in my
own studies where I have allowed my designs to progress to a stage where I can
effectively model it on the computer. Unknowingly, I was preventing myself from 10 Huot, S., Dumas, C. and Hegron, G. (2015). Toward Creative 3D Modeling: An Architect' Sketches Study. Human-‐computer Interaction, INTERACT '03. Zurich: IOS Press, p.785.
8
designing the architecture that I really wanted to, as I was not allowing my
designs to be as ambitious as I wanted them to be. The computer may also
restrict this first stage of design, as it is too accurate, prohibiting any sense of
imagination and interpretation. This reduces the different directions that a
design can progress and ultimately makes it harder to develop and change the
idea at a later stage. This leads to a process whereby a building originates only in
the computer, and the design becomes potentially far too detailed, at a stage
where it should be allowed to grow and change in an unlimited amount of
directions.
“the computer came to the architect as a tool for absolute accuracy in
his work. This has led him to the infinite detailing, which no longer
allows uncertainty or procrastination in the name of accuracy to be
achieved later.”11
Burelli implies here that when we design using computer modelling software, we
become too involved with minor details of a building that are perhaps not
important at such an early stage. He explains this by stating, “the conceptual
representation of an idea of architecture is no longer needed; clients demand
the “real” from the beginning of a project.”12 In short we work to this detail
from the start of a project because the client demands it. Arguably clients are
uninterested in the conceptual workings behind a project, they respond to
reality; the computer can provide this quickly and effectively.
In a profession as competitive as architecture it is understandable how the
computer has become so dominant, as it enables the architect to fulfil the needs
of demanding clients. Later in this thesis I will consider the ethical
considerations of using elaborate drawings at the consultation stage of a project.
It could be argued that computer modelling is an essential part of designing
buildings of a certain style of architecture that would be very difficult to design
11 Schillaci, F, Burelli, A. and Avella, F. (2009). Architectural renderings. Berlin: DOM publishers, p.74. 12 Ibid, p.74.
9
by hand. Zaha Hadid’s buildings are a good example of this where she uses
complex geometry to form organic and fluid forms. Mentally trying to envisage
these forms can be difficult and thus a computer needs to be used, to show the
form, to allow it to be developed and constructed. Below is an example of her
work, ‘the Abu-‐Dhabi performing arts centre’. This building uses many sweeping
curves that move in many directions that are virtually impossible to draw
accurately, let alone design by hand. In general most buildings do not have this
type of form and arguably could be designed and developed through hand
sketches or physical models.
The Abu-‐Dhabi performing arts centre, Zaha Hadid.13
When using computer-‐modelling software purely as a way of envisaging our
design efficiently and quickly there is potentially nothing negative that is being
introduced into the architectural process. However what is becoming more
common is its use within the design stage of a building, where innovation may
become inhibited. Prior to computer modelling, drawing, physical modelling and
watercolour perspectives were the recognised tools of architecture. They are
tools that allow us to form spaces by constructing a gateway between our
13 Zaha Hadid Architects, (2007). Rendered image of Abu Dhabi Performance Art Centre. [image] Available at: http://www.zaha-‐hadid.com/architecture/abu-‐dhabi-‐performing-‐arts-‐centre/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2014].
10
creative minds and reality. When using a computer to act as this gateway can we
really use it effectively as a way to communicate the forms that we imagine?
“The craft of drawing has traditionally been the hallmark of the
architect. Involving as it does the mind, the eye and the hand, it builds
understanding of its object on several levels. An idea that originates in
the mind is expressed by the hand in such a way that the visible result
is the product of both thought and action”14
Here Scheer implies that by drawing an idea we gain a greater depth and
understanding of the concept, which will enhance our ability to develop it. The
idea that this gives a “product of both thought and action” is very interesting
as he claims that part of the design comes simply from the task of drawing. It is
difficult to apprehend the validity of this idea, as we cannot compare the
designer’s mental ideas to what they draw. What I do think is that often
architectural ideas that we create, come from errors whilst drawing. These ideas
have come purely from drawing and are absolutely necessary to create original
ideas about design.
Burelli expands on this idea simply stating that, “It is not true that you ‘think’
the architecture the way you would like to represent it.”15 This idea reinforces
the concept of how important the representation of ideas can be, as it tends to be
contrary to the way we first envisage these ideas.
At this point I question if this connection between the mind and the pencil is so
exclusive? Surely the pencil is just a tool that we use to interact with paper just
like the keyboard and mouse is a tool that we use to interact with a computer?
Just because the computer is a new entity in design surely doesn’t mean that we
need to treat it with hostility, instead should we embrace it? As a compromise we
start to see the successful outcome when combining the computer with hand
drawing to present our ideas. This can be done in many effective ways when the
14 Scheer, D. (2014). The death of drawing. New York: Routledge, p.6. 15 Schillaci, F, Burelli, A. and Avella, F. (2009). Architectural renderings. Berlin: DOM publishers, p.76.
11
computer model is most commonly used to give an accurate perspective to
representations making them more readable and familiar to the viewer. Helen
Castle, editor of Architectural Design states, “Architectural drawing is alive,
kicking and positively screaming” and is being, “Infused by technologies and
techniques”, “leading to numerous different combinations of hand-‐computer
hybrids.”16 The computer model allows this new hybrid representation to exist,
and shows us that to get the most out of a computer we should use it alongside
hand drawing.
Physical modelling is equally important in the design of architecture and perhaps
is more at threat from computers compared to drawing. Physical models provide
us with a physical connection to our designs that is not possible through drawing
or computer modelling. It would appear that the use of physical models is
something that has diminished in professional practices. In my experience often
no physical model of a building will ever be built and shown to a client in the
design phase. Most architectural models are only made at the request of property
developers to market a development at a stage where the design has been
finalized. These models are generally made via third party model making
companies, and not by anyone who has been involved with the design of the
project.
“Too often architects who embrace computer design technology
abandon manual design processes that are still effective, from a belief
that new technology must be leveraged to maximum advantage.
Effective use of computer modeling should compliment, rather than
replace, physical three-‐dimensional models. Each can have a role in
studying or communications a particular aspect of design intent, and
together may describe a proposed building more accurately than if
used separately and exclusively.“17
This exert from the ‘The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice’ broadens
my last point about hand drawing, by telling us that we should use the computer 16 Spiller, N. (2013). Drawing Architecture AD. Hoboken: Wiley, p.5. 17 Demkin, J. (2001). The architect's handbook of professional practice. New York: J. Wiley.
12
model as a tool used in conjunction with traditional methods and not replace
them.
Possibly the convenience of producing computer models has resulted in the lack
of physical models in the common architectural practice. The well-‐known
architect Peter Zumthor describes the architectural model as something,
“to look at and imagine, and see and read. To see how the light comes.
It’s not representation; it’s like Giacometti making a sculpture. He is
not representing something with the first sculpture, it is the work, it
just gets bigger and bigger and bigger! It’s physical that’s what it’s
about.”18
What can be gained form Zumthors’ views are that physical models of a building
are the closest representation that we can get to architecture before the building
is actually constructed. This highlights the importance of designing a project with
the use of physical models as we live in a physical world not a computer screen.
New technologies are starting to emerge which enable the computer to connect
with the realm of physical modelling. 3-‐Dimentional printing is something that is
now commonplace within the profession and in architectural schools. 3-‐
Dimentional printing is a way of bringing a computer model into reality
accurately and quickly. However it does have limitations and is an expensive
process compared with the traditional hand made balsa and mount board
representations that we are all used to. This technology has great potential but it
may have similar problems to computer modelling software, making it restrictive
during the creative design process. This is due to the fact that models are over
accurate, lacking in interpretation and restricting further development. It is
worth considering however that it is necessary for certain kinds of design, with
the work of Zaha Hadid again being a pertinent example. The multi directional
18 H, N. (2015). An interview with Peter Zumthor. [Blog] Thinking/Making Architecture. Available at: http://thinkingmakingarchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/interview-‐with-‐peter-‐zumthor.html [Accessed 4 Dec. 2014].
13
curves in her work are simply not possible to model effectively by hand and thus
the 3-‐Dimentional printer is the only viable solution.
Computer Modelling in Education
As access to computer modelling is relatively recent, a high percentage of current
practicing architects did not have access to the technology during their education.
The initial stage of the architecture process is supposed to engage our creative
minds and to experiment with different ideas of architecture. As previously
discussed the limitation of the computer could be detrimental to this part of
architectural education. As we start to see the next generation of architects
qualify it may become more apparent what effect, if any, this digital revolution is
having on the way we design.
14
The Industry view of Computer Modelling
When looking at the limitations of the computer people have a huge array of opinions on their contribution. Using a computer comes more naturally to some than others, which will directly affect their ability to use it as a tool in design. I created a short survey to gain some insight into the different views people have to obtain a more informed conclusion. Three of the questions in the survey relate specifically to computer modelling. The first of which was,
‘Do you think that computer modelling has become too involved in the design process? Has it limited creativity?’ The responses to this question were very varied the main points made were :-‐
• “That it will only limit creativity when used incorrectly”. • “Computer modelling will only limit creativity if we let it”. • “The computer is both limiting in some ways but also allows us to be
more creative in others”. • “If it used purely as a way of communicating where absolutely necessary,
then it will not affect the creative process”. My interpretation of the results is that computer modelling has probably narrowed the creative process for some people but has simultaneously improved the creative process for others. There was certainly a view that we have to be cautious and not allow the computer to drive the creative process but its use should be controlled and complementary to what we do. I think this is certainly true and is compatible with points made earlier about the work of Zaha Hadid. Indisputably the computer has made it possible for certain types of architecture to exist. When looking at any trends that arise from the survey it was interesting to see that the majority of those who disagreed with the statement were practicing architects. In contrast most of the respondents who have been in agreement with the statement were still studying. This leads me to an earlier point I made about computer modelling being a relatively new technology in the profession. It is interesting to see that those who most likely studied at a time when computer-‐modelling software was far less available seem to be more receptive to using computer-‐modelling software as a design tool. Whereas those who are currently studying with a far greater accessibility to the technology tend to be more critical and cautious when using it.
15
The second question in the survey was, ‘Free Software such as Google sketch-‐up have made computer modelling very accessible and easy to use meaning that it is now used by many students at the beginning of their architectural studies. Do you believe that this will inhibit their ability to design effectively as they may have limited themselves to what is possible on a computer?’ I used this question to elicit some more feedback relating to the use of computer modelling in education. The responses were similar to the first question however some new ideas were introduced.
• “The only limitation is imagination. It would very much depend on the student. It should enable students to explore realms not even considered a decade ago”.
• “Most students come to university adept in hand drawing and little knowledge about computer software. So instead of focusing their efforts in learning how to design, they spend a disproportionate amount of time learning new software”.
The general consensus was that the computer can be detrimental to some students but conversely it can open a whole new list of possibilities for others. One point raised about the time required to learn how to use the software was interesting stating that it is not necessarily the software itself that limits us but rather the time it takes to learn how to use it effectively. Some students would be constantly playing catch up throughout their education, never quite realizing there potential. For the final question relating to computer modelling I wanted to encourage people to think about the extent to which we use computers in design and any limits to their involvement that we should adhere to. The question reads, ‘Furthermore do you believe that the design process should be purely a hand drawn exercise and if not, in what stage of the design process should the computer become involved?’ The responses to this question were again varied with some people claiming that it can be used from the conceptual stage where as others firmly believe it should only be used at the presentation stage. Some examples of the responses were:-‐
• “Drawing is a necessary tool for architects to have and this skill needs to be well developed before we start using computers”.
16
• “The two should run hand in hand and compliment each other and what is lacking in hand drawing can be made up for using the computer and vice versa”.
• “Hand drawn process is very flexible and allows lateral thought more easily. Computers tend to be lineal and detailed in process terms. Therefore ideas by hand, solutions by computer.”
I think the responses help us form a view as to how we should use computers in design. Possibly we should use sketching as a way to form creative and original ideas, which can then be developed more efficiently using computer modelling. This would ensure that the limitations of the computer do not influence our ability to design.
17
Architectural Rendering – An introduction
Architectural renders are something that have existed for many years and can be
considered pieces of art in their own right. Designed to show a semi-‐realistic
representation of a building, these renders were historically a hand drawn
exercise usually brought to life using watercolours. The idea of a render is to
show a representation of a design showing its materiality under a realistic
interpretation of natural and man made lighting. Along with the development of
computer modelling a by-‐product has been the birth of computer rendering.
Computer rendering has the same objectives that traditional hand drawn
renders do, and have developed to, where they are becoming highly realistic and
commonplace in architectural practices. They are a very effective way of
marketing architecture to clients and give a proposal a sense of prestige and
quality that may or may not be inherent in the final building.
I want to explore in this section of the thesis any negative implications that have
arisen from the use of these architectural renders, and to what extent this has
affected the way we market and present our designs to clients. This is a very
important area to look at when discussing new technologies in architecture, as
computer rendering is a relatively new technology that is being used by firms
worldwide for the smallest of projects to huge sky scrapers.
18
The Deception Of The Render
I now return to the opening quotation of this thesis to explore in more detail the
question of misleading renders.
“While we accept the conventions of traditional architectural drawing
and the stylizations of the first generation of digital rendering as
artistic devices that invite us to participate in imagining an
architectural product, buildable or not, our eyes are trained to believe
that a photograph is a true representation of an existing condition.
Thus in the digital age the graphic representation of architecture has
moved beyond an exercise in persuasion; it has become an exercise in
deception.”19
In a competitive marketplace architects are often under time pressures and have
limited time and opportunities to market ideas to clients. The role of an architect
is evolving from being just a designer into an entrepreneur. I do not think this is
detrimental as ultimately we are in the business of selling, and more than ever it
is necessary for us to improve the ways in which we market our skills. The issue
lies in the way in which we instigate this to ensure we are not deceitful to our
clients. In the previous quotation, Freeman argues that the use of ultra-‐realistic
renderings ‘deceives’ rather than ‘persuades’, raising an interesting moral and
ethical dimension. Just as if you were selling any household goods, the consumer
expects to get the product they see on the box; architecture needs to be held to
the same expectations.
“Where members are engaged in any form of competition to win work
or awards, they should act fairly and honestly with potential clients
and competitors. Any competition process in which they are
participating must be known to be reasonable, transparent and
19 Freeman, B. (2013). Digital Deception: Architectural Photography After Photoshop. [online] Places Journal. Available at: https://placesjournal.org/article/digital-‐deception/ [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014].
19
impartial. If members find this not to be the case, they should
endeavour to rectify the competition process or withdraw.”20
This extract from the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct states that we must be
‘honest’ with potential clients. If an architect offers a design that they know is not
possible to be built in its current form, then they are being deceitful to their
client. I raise this idea of deceit as some of the renders that are being produced
show an unrealistic view of the buildings that they try to represent. There are
many reasons for this ranging from monetary factors to the over idealisation of
architecture. I will explain how architects have used renders, which have been
deceitful by giving examples of certain projects, comparing the renders to the
finished project.
The first way in which these renders are being misused is highlighted through
the use of the ‘Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct’ held by, ‘The American
Institute Of Architects.’ This states that,
“Members shall not intentionally or recklessly mislead existing or
prospective clients about the results that can be achieved through the
use of the members' services, nor shall the members state that they
can achieve results by means that violate applicable law or this
Code.”21
The article then gives an anonymous example of one architect who presented a
set of overly finalised drawings, models and renders compared to a competing
architect who only presented preliminary drawings, in order to win a contract.
The argument made by the competing architect was that there was not enough
information available to realistically present a building to the detail that the
other architect had.
20 Code of Professional Conduct. (2005). 1st ed. [ebook] London: RIBA, p.5. Available at: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/ProfessionalConduct/DisputeResolution/ProfessionalConduct/RIBACodeOfProfessionalConduct.pdf [Accessed 9 Dec. 2014]. 21 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. (1987). 1st ed. [ebook] New York: The American Institute of Architects, p.3. Available at: http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias077541.pdf [Accessed 10 Dec. 2014].
20
He made the point that
“A person who lacks experience in dealing with architects or the
schematic design process would reasonably conclude that an elegant
and detailed presentation of a single design scheme is intended by the
architect to describe a building that meets the owner's requirements
and can be built.”22
Due to this the first architect was found to have violated the code of ethics as his,
“method of detailed presentation would likely mislead an unsophisticated
client to conclude that a fully thought out plan was being proposed.”23
What we can conclude from this case is that it is unethical to use overly detailed
ways of presenting architecture to a client without the relevant information, as it
can give an unrealistic expectation of what the architect can actually produce.
This unethical practise unfortunately is seen time and time again in architecture
through the use of computer renders. Amazing new designs represent buildings
that are absolutely absurd in their ambitions and give a false sense of realism
through these renders. We need to keep in mind that the computer does not
follow the same laws of physics that we do. It could be argued that these designs
can only exist in the world of science fiction and potentially architects could let
their imagination run away with themselves.
A more practical example of this is a proposition by SOM for the re-‐imagination
of Penn station and Madison Square Garden, which sits above it. Seen on the next
page this project, although very impressive, has absolutely no grounding in
reality. Its form is reminiscent of a space ship hovering above the ground, with
its only supports being at each corner. The expanse of this bridging design is
massive and clearly impossible with the current technology that we have.
22 Ibid, p.4. 23 Ibid, p.4.
21
Proposition for Penn station by SOM Architects24
The focus of this project is two giant glass domes shown as solid pieces of glazing
which, is completely unrealistic, and would need to be made up of multiple
pieces of glazing with a significant structure to hold them together. This
highlights the problem where a project is brought into reality before its ready,
where the conceptual can be easily misunderstood for reality.
It could be argued that SOM are just presenting an idea at this stage but this is
where the problem lies. The client may not understand that realistically the
building could never look like this. At this stage of the design should it be
presented in a less developed and more casual form to more closely resemble the
stage at which it currently sits? This example also clearly shows how shinny
images can be used to influence clients with a false sense of idealisation in the
building environment, an idea that I will now research in the next chapter.
24 SOM Architects, (2013). Rendered images for proposition of Penn Station. [image] Available at: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/som-‐proposes-‐to-‐fanastically-‐expand-‐penn-‐station/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2014].
22
Similarly these renders can also be used to sell interior ideas to a client. A good
example of this can be found in a current BBC article where there has been some
controversy over the newly completed tower at 22 Fenchurch Street in London.
The public roof garden of the skyscraper, famously dubbed ‘the Walkie-‐Talkie’
was one of the main selling points of the project. Seen in the rendered image25,
the garden was meant to have tall trees dotted around an open public space. The
completed garden seen below26,was far from this promised vision and has been
open to much criticism.
Richard Reynolds, a respected garden critic had this to say about the completed
garden, "Frankly this garden is yet another scandal." "It's not what we were promised, is it? This was meant to be a public place -‐ a place which we could
visit for free and the visualisations made it look amazing."27
This example acts to support this idea that these images are used to
misrepresent what is possible in order to win over a client.
25Rafael Vinoly Architects, (2015). Rendered image of, 'Sky Garden.'. [image] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-‐design-‐blog/2015/jan/06/londons-‐sky-‐garden-‐walkie-‐talkie-‐the-‐more-‐you-‐pay-‐the-‐worse-‐the-‐view [Accessed 11 Jan. 2015]. 26 BBC News, (2015). [image] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐england-‐london-‐30709757 [Accessed 11 Jan. 2015]. 27 Reynolds, R. (2015). Walkie Talkie skyscraper's public garden opens amid criticism. [online] BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐england-‐london-‐30709757 [Accessed 11 Jan. 2015].
23
The Idealization of Architecture
“The idealized view seems to be the enemy of architecture. It sets the viewer
up for disappointment.”28
The pursuit of perfection in architecture is common in modern architecture
today. In reality creating a building is a dirty and labour intensive process so any
idea of perfection is absent in the finished product. This is not something that a
computer can take into account easily and so digital representations are
commonly overly idealized and faultless as a result. Although not as clearly
deceptive as examples discussed earlier it can be argued that using a render that
shows a building with an unachievable level of quality is still deceptive to the
viewer. We need to ensure that the client understands this and that ultimately
the finish quality of a building is determined by the budget they set. If this is not
understood it can lead to the client being unsatisfied with the end product.
28 Verghese, M. (2013). Idealised Architecture. [Blog] Thinking In Practice. Available at: http://thinking-‐in-‐practice.com/idealised-‐architecture [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014].
24
An example of this is a Brooklyn project that is currently being constructed by
Levenson McDavid Architects P.C. Portrayed on the previous page in both
render29 and completed form30 it is clear to see how different they are from each
other. The project focused on using terracotta panels to match the brickwork on
the surrounding buildings but with a contemporary minimalist twist to it.
Needless to say the finished building does not live up to this and is completely
out of place with a very contrasting red façade. The original render has
misrepresented the material finish of the terracotta panels having drastic effects
on the overall appearance of the building.
During the course of my research I talked to Inga Saffron who is currently the
architecture critic at the Philadelphia inquirer. She won the Pulitzer Prize for
criticism in 2014. She is one of the leading architecture critics in the US and has
voiced her opinion of many misleading renders for major developments in the US.
During a telephone conversation with her she gave me some examples of where
she thought the use of architectural renders had exceeded ethical boundaries
and lead me to some relevant articles she had written on the subject.
One such example shows how renders can be used to idealize very large
developments extremely persuasively. The Liberty Property Trust proposed
development of a 70-‐acre site at the former Navy Base in Philadelphia. Liberty's
extensive renderings showed an extravagant set of buildings that in Saffron’s
view is a “monumental arrangement of buildings that looks a little too much
like Stalin's Moscow.”31 She claimed that,
“Architectural renderings are often misleading, and this one fails to
convey the admirable ambition of Liberty Property's vision for the 1,100-‐acre
Navy Base”32
29 Levenson McDavid Architects P.C, (2010). Rendered image of Brooklyn Project. [image] Available at: http://www.heresparkslope.com/home/2010/9/9/rendering-‐of-‐137-‐5th-‐ave-‐actually-‐looks-‐good.html [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014]. 30 LoopNet, (2011). [image] Available at: http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17582588/137-‐5th-‐Avenue-‐Brooklyn-‐NY/ [Accessed 13 Dec. 2014]. 31 Saffron, I. (2003). A vision of suburbia at the Navy Base. The Inquirer. [online] Available at: http://www.anupa.org/navyyard.php [Accessed 23 Dec. 2014]. 32 Ibid
25
The plans showed extensive boulevards based on La Rambla in Barcelona. However in Saffron’s view no consideration had been given to the demographics
of the area and whether the development was appropriate. In her view the
planners had become caught up in the euphoria of the scheme created by the
elaborate render.
Images showing the proposal for development at Philadelphia Naval Base33
Looking at the scheme we can understand what Saffron is saying and you can see
how the planners have become far too interested in a creating a romanticized
scheme more akin with European culture than Philadelphia’s. This scheme is
made to look impressive and aesthetically pleasing with the use of these renders.
33 Proposals images for Naval Base. (2013). [image] Available at: http://www.navyyard.org/master-‐plan-‐2013/files/assets/seo/page11.html [Accessed 2 Jan. 2015].
26
Its not until you see the plans, that you see in reality the proposal is potentially
failing to relate to its surroundings. We start to see that renders can be not only a
misrepresentation, but also act as a false veneer to architecture giving it a level
of prestige that it perhaps isn’t deserving of.
These examples give credence to the idea that architecture is becoming too
commercialised. It is too easy to make any proposal seem attractive and
significant with the use of idealistic images making it hard for the client to really
understand what they are buying into. These images use clever tools in
Photoshop and tactical angles to achieve this outcome. They show us what they
want to show, concealing any negative impacts the architecture may have; a
selling tactic that is abundant in commercialism.
“Developers use architectural renderings as a form of storytelling -‐
highlighting what they want us to notice in their projects, obscuring
what they don't. Some buildings are shown standing alone in the
world, while others appear as mere specks in a crowd. At night, the
lights are always blazing, as if electric bills didn't matter.”34
Saffron picks up on how the renders are tactically used to conceal aspects of
buildings that developers do not want planners or neighbours to the project to
pick up on.
A project that she was highly critical of, that highlights this, was the Philadelphia
Children’s Hospital development on the Delaware waterfront. She considered
that the renders did not provide a ground level view and gave a completely
misleading view of the effect the large towers would have on the surrounding
neighbourhoods. She is quoted as saying,
34 Saffron, I. (2013). Details still fuzzy on Children's Hospital's research center. The Inquirer. [online] Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-‐12-‐28/entertainment/45629531_1_renderings-‐research-‐center-‐hospital-‐officials#Ke4QA31IuW1bshC6.99 [Accessed 3 Jan. 2015].
27
“Because of the lack of street-‐level views of the project, officials from the local
civic group, the South of South Street Neighbourhood Association, say they
only just learned that the garage facing the row of houses on 27th Street and
Schuylkill Avenue will form a solid blank wall, 17 to 38 feet high. No amount
of lavish landscaping can put lipstick on this pig.”35
Rendered image and Image of the mode l for the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital development.36
35 Ibid 36 Cooper, Robertson & Partners., (2012). [image] Available at: http://www.cooperrobertson.com/what_we_do/projecttype/institutional/medical/chop.php [Accessed 9 Dec. 2015].
28
When looking at the render that shows the side of the building, which faces these
houses, it is deliberately made to look distant from any surroundings. Choosing a
view that does not show the surrounding buildings is responsible this. People
have also been inserted into the scene completely out of scale, making the overall
space look bigger and more open than it actually is. It is not until you see the
model that the close proximity of the houses to the proposed building becomes
apparent.
This idea of adding people to a render tactically is something that was also
picked up by another journalist who I talked too, Robert Behere. In response to
the question, ‘Is it ethically rights for an architects to use these tools as part of a
marketing exercise?’ he wrote, ”Yes, but the public should be aware of
unnecessary embellishments that soften a building’s look, such as girls on
nearby sidewalks carrying balloons.” This again reaffirms that these renders
are used purely to sell architecture, in this case using an over romanticized
context to distract from the architecture.
Rendered images showing proposed Greenpoint landing development37
Before concluding on my findings, it is important to mention that computer
renders are not always used to show architecture in a positive light and can be
37 Handel Architects, (2013). Rendered images showing proposed Greenpoint landing development. [image] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐weapon-‐in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=3& [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
29
used in a way to negatively impact projects. A clear example of this can be seen in
a recent New York Times article about a Brooklyn project, ‘Greenpoint Landing.’
This project has been on running for several years and focuses on constructing 8
towers along the Brooklyn waterfront.
The article describes one of the architect’s render with the following, “eight
silvery towers perch at the waterfront of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, like a fleet of
sailboats waiting peacefully for their captain.”38 Whereas activists against
their construction who made their own version gathered an equally visual
response,
"swollen and clearly exaggerated buildings the color of sickly
flamingos loom over a diminished Manhattan skyline, threatening to
swallow their neighbors in a gluttonous fit.”39
It is interesting when you compare these images they really do show how
images can be altered to show a building in both positive and negative ways to
suit the different agendas. This makes it clear that we have to be wary of these
images and keep in mind the agenda behind them.
Looking at these examples it is possible that to some degree the architects’
judgement is being reduced in determining what these rendered images show.
The extent of which is most likely determined by the practise that they are
affiliated with. Commonly the creation of these renders is outsourced to third
party companies whose only intention is to make a glossy image that is
aesthetically pleasing and have no interest in the actual design of the building.
Perhaps it is this that is responsible for the disconnection that is apparent
between these computer generated images and reality?
38 Harris, E. (2013). Idealized or Caricature, Architectural Renderings Are Weapons in Real Estate. The New York Times, [online] p.A18. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐weapon-‐in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=3& [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. 39 Ibid p.A18
30
Computer Rendering In Education
The use of computer renders in education is very common in architecture
schools. Computer rendering is an extension of computer modelling and thus is
used by students once they have become reasonably competent with modelling
software. As computer modelling has become common amongst students so has
computer rendering. It can be argued that if a student interacts with their design
through the use of these renders they will get an unreasonable expectation of
what is realistically achievable. This could potentially mean that when they do
start to realise their ideas in practice they will expect too much from the building
contractors and generally be disappointed with the outcome.
31
The Industry View Of Computer Rendering
Computer rendering is a very common tool in practices today and used on most
commercial projects worldwide. Their use has become so commonplace that it
could be argued that a lot of the architects are ambivalent to the problems that
are associated with them. To test this argument I sought feedback from
practicing architects as well as architecture students. This allowed me to gauge
the current attitude towards the use of these programs within the profession.
I created a set of questions designed to gather these opinions as well as any other
examples that people wanted to mention.
‘Do you think that architectural renders act to produce an idealized view of
architecture? If so, is this a good or a bad thing?’
Some of the responses were
• “It's too easy to assume that a building will actually look like that. Not
enough is left up to the imagination.”
• People won't stop to think whether the materials will actually look the
way they do in the image. They'll forget it's not a photograph.”
• “When selling an idea to clients, it's great for tricking them into thinking
they're getting their money's worth.”
Most of the respondents were in agreement that architectural renders can show
an idealised representation of architecture. The verdict on whether this was a
good thing or not was split with a variety of different views. Those who felt it
was a bad thing generally picked up on the idea that they are used as a selling
technique primarily with the intention of enhancing the presentation for a client.
Others talked about, “false advertising” claiming that they, “paint a utopian
landscape, sometimes one that can't actually be built.” This again reaffirms the
idea that architectural renders can often be harmful to a project rather than
helpful as they can show architecture that it is not possible in reality.
32
Those who disagreed also had very valid views on the matter, one stated that
they are only, “one form of representation and there should be no moral
judgment placed on this.” This raises the idea that we should keep in mind that
renders are only one of the many ways that a building is represented. It can be
argued that technical drawings, diagrams and models should be used alongside
renders to ensure that a fair representation is given. In this way they should not
be judged individually but as a whole; only then can it be seen if
misrepresentation or false advertisement has occurred.
‘In the eyes of a client do you feel that being presented with a photo realistic
render could raise their expectations of the building, which may result in
disappointment?’
This question was designed to gauge reactions on whether using these renders
acts in the client’s best interests. Are clients really going to appreciate that they
are only artistic interpretations? Will they feel deceived when they see the
finished building in comparison with the renders? The responses to this question
were less varied with 10 of the 14 respondents agreeing that these renders can
indeed lead to the client being disappointed with the finished building.
Other comments were
• “Yes, this can occur, especially if a render is done early on in a project
without bearing on costs which may later inhibit the final building. “
• “As an Architect we are prone to tweaks to the CGI to make it look better
that may not make it back to the drawing board!”
• “Defiantly yes. As when in construction things may change all the time “
There is a lot of effort put into images just to make the image itself look good
and not the building. In this way the render has become disconnected from the
building serving a separate agenda instead of a tool to understand the
architecture. As buildings change throughout their construction, the original
renders may become invalid. This raises the question of whether computer
33
renders are used far too early in the process. It could be argued that they act to
sell a project before ample information is known to determine its plausibility.
Should such an accurate form of representation be used when the project is
likely to change considerably over its construction?
To try and gain some more examples I also had a section in the survey that asked
for any cases where the client had been disappointed with the outcome of a
project in comparison with the render and specifically if any legal action had
taken place. Unfortunately this didn’t lead to that many examples but the ones
that were given were useful. One that was suggested was the S.O.M Penn station
project, which I coincidently have used as a key example in this thesis. Another
example that was given is the London Olympic basketball arena designed by
Wilkinson Eyre. This project seen below evidently ended up being quite different
to its render as the canvas skin that it uses is much more opaque in reality. The
respondent has described the result as having, “potential to make eyes bleed.”
This is perhaps a slightly exaggerated response but it is arguable that the project
is less aesthetically pleasing in comparison with the computer render.
Images showing a render40 and completed Olympic basketball stadium 41
40 Wilkinson Eyre Architects, (2010). Rendered image of London Olympic Basketball Stadium. [image] Available at: http://www.taringa.net/posts/deportes/6062976/JJOO-‐Londres-‐2012-‐-‐-‐Estadios.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. 41 Wilkinson Eyre Architects, (2012). London Olympic Basketball Arena. [image] Available at: http://darkbrownhairs.org/basketball/basketball-‐arena-‐wilkinson-‐eyre-‐architects-‐london-‐2012-‐basketball-‐.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
34
Conclusion
Throughout this thesis I have looked at many ways in which computer modelling
and rendering could have negative implications in architecture. I have given
more emphasis to the negative implications, as it is the area that is more
contentious and stimulates debate. As someone who uses these technologies
regularly I have found it very interesting to critically analyse their use within the
profession that I am pursuing. I will now form a conclusion that not only focuses
on the negative implications but also makes a comparison to the positive
attributes of the software. The positive attributes of the software are universally
recognized and in all the responses I received there was a clear view that
everyone who has used or experienced the results to the software recognizes
their contribution. Nevertheless it is crucial that they are weighed up against the
negatives to form an evenly balanced argument throughout this final conclusion.
Throughout my research into computer modelling I found that there are many
ways in which computer modelling could act to hinder a designer rather than
benefit them. One view is that it could limit creativity and originality that occurs
when the free flowing nature of hand drawing and model making is taken away
from design and replaced with the limitations of a computer. The computer acts
to replace these traditional methods with a tool that has a much higher level of
accuracy that doesn’t reflect our imagination. Dependent on how and to what
extent we use the computer there is a danger that the project will become inert
inhibiting development. This is because the design starts to live within the
computer where it is harder to make any substantial changes. It was interesting
that during my applications to university there were some architectural
departments that gave significant importance to a hand drawn portfolio whereas
others did not. This may imply that there is already an acceptance within certain
faculties that the ability to hand draw an idea may not be as important as it once
was.
Computer capability is evolving at an astonishing rate and the software is
developing along side it. We are starting to see many new and exciting ways of
35
designing that without computer modelling would simply not be possible. These
projects use the computer not only as a way of presenting work but to drive the
design process itself. In this way computer modelling can allow architecture to
stretch beyond the previously conceived limits. The computer has become a
source of creativity for those who use it to stretch the boundaries of architecture
and its technology. To allow the computer to be used in this way a huge amount
of skill and experience are necessary in the specific software. For those who are
simply not as well equipped with a computer this form of creativity is not
achievable and they must seek creativity in more manual ways perhaps using
traditional tools.
Computer modelling is obviously not as useful to some people as others but
undeniably it has its place in architecture. It is a very diverse tool and can be
used to varying degrees within a project. How we should use it depends on the
project and the architect. There is no clear set of guidelines that we can follow in
the same way that there is no right or wrong way to draw or make a model. The
primary objective we need to ensure is that we are using it to enhance the way
we design and not impair us in anyway. It is clear that a number of people see the
ability to draw as a key skill for an architect, and it would be detrimental if it was
absent from the design process.
Computer rendering has been the other main focus of this thesis in particular
whether its use is complementary or detrimental to the way in which architects
perform their professional role in the design of a building. The feedback from my
surveys indicate that generally people feel that the use of renders are beneficial
in that they extend the benefits of computer modelling and allow the user to gain
a greater appreciation of what is in the mind of the architect. What is also
apparent is that there is a growing feeling that the use of certain renders such as
sky line views are exploiting the technology to where it can be misleading.
Architects in general appear to be relaxed as they feel they have the self-‐
discipline to control their use. Architectural critics on the other hand are
probably moving towards the view that a number of architects have already
pushed the boundaries too far and are struggling to separate reality from fiction.
36
It was interesting that during the course of my research there seems to be a lot
more criticism emanating from the USA where there are a lot of architectural
critics employed by the main newspapers. My conversation with Inga Saffron
confirmed that the issue of unrepresentative renders was high on the agenda of
critics. This does not seem to be the case in the UK. I have tried to find a legal
case involving the misuse of architectural renders but I have not found any
relevant examples. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before someone takes this
up and then a greater emphasis will be placed on the professional ethics of using
inappropriate renders.
Professional bodies seem to have considered the issue in the context of
presenting ideas to clients and perhaps this is the start of a more detailed set of
rules to police the use of renders in the wider community.
My overall conclusion is one of caution both in terms of education and the
practising architect. Computer modelling and rendering are here to stay and will
inevitably progress further. It can open up whole new ways of designing to
certain people who embrace its potential and continually push the boundaries of
architecture. However as architects we must retain our core skills to draw and
not let the computer restrain our artistic capability. We have to be cautious in
our use of modelling and rendering and not create unrealistic expectations for
clients and the public. Our role like every professional should be to promise
reality and then exceed it.
37
Bibliography
Books
• Peddie, J. (2013). The history of visual magic in computers. London: Springer.
• Scheer, D. (2014). The death of drawing. New York: Routledge.
• Code of Professional Conduct. (2005). 1st ed. [ebook] London: RIBA.
• Schillaci, F, Burelli, A. and Avella, F. (2009). Architectural renderings. Berlin:
DOM publishers. • Demkin, J. (2001). The architect's handbook of professional practice. New York:
J.Wiley. • Spiller, N. (2013). Drawing Architecture AD. Hoboken: Wiley.
• Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. (1987). 1st ed. [ebook] New York: The
American Institute of Architects. • Huot, S., Dumas, C. and Hegron, G. (2015). Toward Creative 3D Modeling: An
Architect' Sketches Study. Human-‐computer Interaction, INTERACT '03. Zurich:
IOS Press.
Articles
• Freeman, B. (2013). Digital Deception: Architectural Photography After
Photoshop. [online] Places Journal. Available at: https://placesjournal.org/article/digital-‐deception/ [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014].
• Saffron, I. (2003). A vision of suburbia at the Navy Base. The Inquirer. [online]
Available at: http://www.anupa.org/navyyard.php [Accessed 23 Dec. 2014].
• Saffron, I. (2013). Details still fuzzy on Children's Hospital's research center. The
Inquirer. [online] Available at: http://articles.philly.com/2013-‐12-‐
28/entertainment/45629531_1_renderings-‐research-‐center-‐hospital-‐
officials#Ke4QA31IuW1bshC6.99 [Accessed 3 Jan. 2015].
• Reynolds, R. (2015). Walkie Talkie skyscraper's public garden opens amid
criticism. [online] BBC News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐
england-‐london-‐30709757 [Accessed 11 Jan. 2015]. • Harris, E. (2013). Idealized or Caricature, Architectural Renderings Are
Weapons in Real Estate. The New York Times, [online] p.A18. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐
weapon-‐in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=3& [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
38
• Architectsjournal.co.uk, (2012). CAD -‐ The greatest advance in construction
history. [online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/cad-‐the-‐
greatest-‐advance-‐in-‐construction-‐history/1996442.article [Accessed 13 Jan.
2015].
Blogs
• Bacus, J. (2012). A new home for SketchUp. [Blog] SketchUpdate. Available at:
http://sketchupdate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/new-‐home-‐for-‐sketchup.html
[Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
• H, N. (2015). An interview with Peter Zumthor. [Blog] Thinking/Making
Architecture. Available at:
http://thinkingmakingarchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/interview-‐with-‐
peter-‐zumthor.html [Accessed 4 Dec. 2014].
• Verghese, M. (2013). Idealised Architecture. [Blog] Thinking In Practice.
Available at: http://thinking-‐in-‐practice.com/idealised-‐architecture [Accessed 8
Dec. 2014].
Websites
• AAA CAD DRAFTING SERVICES, (2013). AutoCad -‐ The worlds most popular
drafting software. [online] Aaadrafting.com. Available at:
http://www.aaadrafting.com/autocad.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
• Nath, D. (2013). History of SketchUp. [online] Sketchup-‐ur-‐space.com. Available
at: http://www.sketchup-‐ur-‐space.com/july11/history-‐of-‐sketchup.htm
[Accessed 5 Jan. 2015].
Images
• Zaha Hadid Architects, (2007). Rendered image of Abu Dhabi Performance Art
Centre. [image] Available at: http://www.zaha-‐hadid.com/architecture/abu-‐
dhabi-‐performing-‐arts-‐centre/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2014].
• SOM Architects, (2013). Rendered images for proposition of Penn Station. [image]
Available at: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/som-‐proposes-‐to-‐
fanastically-‐expand-‐penn-‐station/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2014].
(Image also used as front cover)
39
• Levenson McDavid Architects P.C, (2010). Rendered image of Brooklyn Project.
[image] Available at:
http://www.heresparkslope.com/home/2010/9/9/rendering-‐of-‐137-‐5th-‐ave-‐
actually-‐looks-‐good.html [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014].
• LoopNet, (2011). [image] Available at:
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17582588/137-‐5th-‐Avenue-‐Brooklyn-‐NY/
[Accessed 13 Dec. 2014].
• Proposals images for Naval Base. (2013). [image] Available at:
http://www.navyyard.org/master-‐plan-‐2013/files/assets/seo/page11.html
[Accessed 2 Jan. 2015].
• Cooper, Robertson & Partners., (2012). [image] Available at:
http://www.cooperrobertson.com/what_we_do/projecttype/institutional/medi
cal/chop.php [Accessed 9 Dec. 2015].
• Handel Architects, (2013). Rendered images showing proposed Greenpoint
landing development. [image] Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐
weapon-‐in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=3& [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
• Wilkinson Eyre Architects, (2010). Rendered image of London Olympic Basketball
Stadium. [image] Available at:
http://www.taringa.net/posts/deportes/6062976/JJOO-‐Londres-‐2012-‐-‐-‐
Estadios.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
• Wilkinson Eyre Architects, (2012). London Olympic Basketball Arena. [image]
Available at: http://darkbrownhairs.org/basketball/basketball-‐arena-‐
wilkinson-‐eyre-‐architects-‐london-‐2012-‐basketball-‐.html [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015].
Special Thanks
I would to thank all who have helped and guided me throughout my research of
this thesis. Special thanks go Wan Yau and the whole team at Dexter Moren
Associates who were very obliging when asked to take my survey. Special thanks
also go to the Pulitzer award-‐winning critic Inga Saffron for allowing me to
interview her and for giving me key examples that have been fundamental to my
research. I would also like to thank Simon Hacker for assisting me with this thesis
and for being so patient and accommodating these last few months.
40
Survey Response Here is a full set of responses for the survey that has been used throughout this dissertation. The numbers (1-‐14) relate to specific anonymous respondents. Question 1: Do you think that computer modeling has become too involved in the design process? Has it limited creativity?
1. I think that computer modelling is both a hindrance and a help. It allows for instant access of swathes of building information at the touch of a button and has made the process more efficient. However, looking towards the work of many students currently graduating from the Bartlett and the AA, it's actually resulted in a style of architecture that takes data analysis and uses algorithms to distort and stretch figures, previously incapable before computer aided design. Although, it could also be argued with new students -‐ a reliance on computers rather than hand drawn imagery is limiting in the design process as they aren't fluent in the software during the early stages of their education.
2. No computer modelling speeds up the development stages. However it may slow down ideation due to designers inability to sketch thoughts quickly.
3. The computer modelling has certainly made life a lot easier however I do believe that it has become too involved in the design process. As designers we should be creative explore things by doing it by hand. Experiencing differed materials however with programs like revit if you don't have time you can just use a standard door and not even thing about the design side of it
4. To an extent yes, and people only tend to design as well as they can use the program. However it can be a facilitator when designing as the experiential elements of 3D modelling on the computer can allow people to experience a space more.
5. I don't think it is clear-‐cut. My sense is that it has narrowed the process for large numbers but has simultaneously resulted in huge gains in creativity for a select few.
6. Yes 7. Yes. The computer should never limit the designer's creativity. 8. I think that computer modeling can be a useful tool but can also run the risk of too much
detail at an early stage, before concepts are fully developed. 9. Only if we let it. If it is used purely as a way of communicating where absolutely
necessary then it won't affect the creative process. 10. No 11. No, it only limits creativity when used incorrectly. 12. it can limit and it can expand creativity. depends how you use it. zaha could not do
anything without it. 13. No 14. No
Question 2: Free Software such as Google sketch-‐up have made computer modeling very accessible and easy to use meaning that it is now used by many students at the beginning of their architectural studies. Do you believe that this will inhibit their ability to design effectively as they may have limited them selves to what is possible on a computer?
1. I think that during the early stages of architectural education, a reliance on computer modelling can be a hinderance rather than a help. Most students come to university adept in hand drawing and little knowledge about computer software. So instead of focussing their efforts in learning how to design, they lose time to learning new software.
2. Yes more extensive software is available
41
3. Personally I think sketchup is a very good modelling tool as it can be used to understand scale, perspective views etc. A tool like sketchup should be used for reference only rather than designing.
4. Yes 5. I think that this may well be right, but it is not universal -‐ there are some for whom the
software actively aids in testing and exploration of ideas 6. Yes 7. It won't as long as they don't let the software limit their creative ability. 8. Yes, unfortunately I think an ability to design and draw free hand without resorting to
the 'safety' of sketch up is a danger however you cannot fault its contribution to the design process.
9. I am glad I didn't know how to use sketch-‐up at the beginning of my degree. I still don't know how to use the software well, which means that if I were using it as a design tool I'd shy away from creating anything i don't know how to make.
10. No 11. Yes but most students realise the limitations of computer software and learn to avoid
them. 12. Not necessarily. Should always learn to sketch and make physical models regardless. 13. No 14. No. The only limitation is imagination. It would very much depend on the student. It
should enable students to explore realms not even considered a decade ago.
Question 3: Furthermore do you believe that the design process should be purely a hand drawn exercise and if not, in what stage of the design process should the computer become involved?
1. I think it depends on the person and how comfortable they feel on their chosen medium. However, as architects -‐ we should be competent at hand drawing to explain designs to clients and engineers, a reliance on computer generated imagery can mean discussions in person can be hindered.
2. Cad should be introduced when looking to compare no more than 5-‐10 ideas. Sketches must be used to narrow ideas down first.
3. I defiantly believe that computers are a good way to speed up the design process, however it should be combined with hand drawing.
4. At an advanced stage of designing a computer model could be used to present and explore a design in much finer detail, and work at multiple scales all at once.
5. I don't. My own experience is that the two often happen most effectively alongside one another.
6. No computers for final presentation work only. 7. The first stages definitely should use the drawing method, because this is more free
flowing. The computer will slow and limit this initial stage unless the tools become much more intuitive.
8. They should, in my opinion, run hand in hand. 9. Certain softwares allow us to understand complicated structures that we would not be
able to create purely by thought, however if it can be avoided, computers should be left out of the design process and only used in the presentation process.
10. Later on in the student's career, learn to walk before running. 11. No, CAD can be involved from the conceptual stage to generate sketch 3D models from
initial ideas/drawings/physical models. 12. Hand drawn process is very flexible and allows lateral thought more easily. Computers
tend to be lineal and detailed in process terms. Therefore ideas by hand and solutions by computer.
13. Completely dependent on the project 14. No. CAD is only another form of a pencil or implement to express your ideas.
42
Question 4: Do you think that architectural renders act to produce an idealized view of architecture? If so, is this a good or a bad thing?
1. Yes, and it definitely has the potential to be a bad thing. Mainly because if there is an idealised version of reality it can make the reality of a project appear unsuccessful, despite actually being well resolved building.
2. Bad it can give a false interpretation of reality. However renders can a used to give a glimpse of ideas
3. It helps designers to show exactly what they are thinking about however it may mislead a client.
4. Yes. This can be a bad thing as it shows buildings in the perfect light and moves away from realistic imaginings of buildings.
5. It is often a bad thing. It essentially constitutes false advertising. However you do increasingly hear folk within the building procurement process admitting that the building (design) looked rubbish in the render and the reality has done nothing to improve their opinion.
6. Yes Bad 7. Yes, they will never represent reality. They are never going to truly represent reality. As
long as the viewer understands this, then there is no problem. 8. They are a very useful tool for planning and client purposes but they can paint a utopian
landscape, sometime one that can't actually be built. 9. No. It's too easy to assume that a building will actually look like that. Not enough is left
up to the imagination. People won't stop to think whether the materials will actually look the way they do in the image. They'll forget it's not a photograph. Of course, when selling an idea to clients, it's great for tricking them into thinking they're getting their money's worth.
10. Anything that can aid the 'normal' user to interpret architectural design is a good thing. 11. They do, it is good for business as clients want to be entertained by shiny images.
Although, in the past, renders were drawings/watercolours which produced the same level of idealised and abstract graphic for a client.
12. Depends how they are created. you need to sell your ideas and if your ideas are crap the cgi will reveal this. good thing
13. Yes – Good 14. Of course. It is only one form of representation and there should be no moral judgement
placed on this. Question 5: In the eyes of a client do you feel that being presented with a photo realistic render could raise their expectations of the building, which may result in disappointment?
1. Yes, I believe that it could, and looking at many reality vs. render examples it's obvious that this does happen fairly often.
2. Yes. 3. Defiantly yes. As when in construction things may change all the time 4. No. 5. Absolutely it has this potential. People don't experience buildings in reality just by
utilising their eyes... 6. Yes. 7. Yes it does, and they come to expect a 'perfect building' because of it. 8. Yes, this can occur, especially is a render is done early on in a project without bearing on
costs which may later inhibit the final building. Also as an Architect we are prone to tweaks to the CGI to make it look better that may not make it back to the drawing board!
9. Yes. 10. No, previous forms of representation could have given a false impression of the
completed product.
43
11. Yes assuming a certain stupidity level of the client. 12. Possibly. Depends how it’s delivered and how much their budget is. Never hurts to raise
your ambition though. 13. No 14. If the building is built correctly and represented correctly this should not happen.
Question 6: Do you know of any examples of projects where this has been the case? If so has this led to any legal action being taken against the architect?
1. No 2. No 3. No 4. No 5. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐weapon-‐
in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=0 6. No 7. Skidmore Owings and Merrill's Penn Station. Could this possibly built? 8. No 9. The basketball arena by Wilkinson Eyre in London's Olympic park. In reality it has the
potential to make eyes bleed. 10. No 11. No 12. No. I would have thought this is easily protected against. may be more of an issue with
planners. 13. No 14. No