Misrepresenting Reality by Dominic Davies

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)

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

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].

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

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”.

•

“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.

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.

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].

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/DisputeRes olution/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].

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.

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].

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].

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].

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

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].

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].

“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].

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].

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

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.

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.

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

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].

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

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.

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.

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].

•

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)

•

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.

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.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

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. No computer modelling speeds up the development stages. However it may slow down ideation due to designers inability to sketch thoughts quickly. 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 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. 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. Yes Yes. The computer should never limit the designer's creativity. 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. 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. No No, it only limits creativity when used incorrectly. it can limit and it can expand creativity. depends how you use it. zaha could not do anything without it. No 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?

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. Yes more extensive software is available

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

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. Yes 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 Yes It won't as long as they don't let the software limit their creative ability. 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. 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. No Yes but most students realise the limitations of computer software and learn to avoid them. Not necessarily. Should always learn to sketch and make physical models regardless. No 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.

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. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

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. Bad it can give a false interpretation of reality. However renders can a used to give a glimpse of ideas It helps designers to show exactly what they are thinking about however it may mislead a client. Yes. This can be a bad thing as it shows buildings in the perfect light and moves away from realistic imaginings of buildings. 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. Yes Bad 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. 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. 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. Anything that can aid the 'normal' user to interpret architectural design is a good thing. 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. Depends how they are created. you need to sell your ideas and if your ideas are crap the cgi will reveal this. good thing Yes – Good 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.

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

No No No No http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/nyregion/architects-‐renderings-‐as-‐a-‐weapon-‐ in-‐real-‐estate.html?_r=0 No Skidmore Owings and Merrill's Penn Station. Could this possibly built? No The basketball arena by Wilkinson Eyre in London's Olympic park. In reality it has the potential to make eyes bleed. No No No. I would have thought this is easily protected against. may be more of an issue with planners. No No