Making effective 3D
visualization better for more operative decision-making in town planning
systems
Kirill Zavrazhin,
Moscow Architetcural Institute
(State Academy),Moscow, Russia
Contents
·
Abstract
·
Introduction
·
Process
or final result?
·
Conclusion
·
References
Abstract
To confirm this direction of
our researches, we propose a sample of video clip as one of the first examples
of this topic. In our opinion, it is an
indisputable instance of application of computer animation. The idea is to show how one of the
visualization techniques has been used for large town-planning project in
Moscow. It also exploits speculative
question about comparison of two different ways of space simulation: endoscopes
and computer tools. This kind of
comparison has been made, for example, in Conferences of the European
Architectural Endoscopy Association (EAEA)
[1 – 3, 5 -7]. Our line of thoughts is
in this direction – for each context of problem and project a suitable
instrument for space simulation must be considered. A suitability issue is a
matter of understanding particular case of practical or scientific task.
Introduction
The paper tends to analysis
recent architectural work in light of current debates about which method of
visualization is more convenient for procurement of town planning projects and
for decision making during their design – computer visualization (‘virtual
reality’) or physical modeling with endoscopes use? On the one side, ‘virtual reality’ has
presentation advantage, on the another side physical modeling is truly scaled
3D object has obvious proportion and perception view. First of all, as it will
be shown below, this speculative question shouldn’t be considered without
practical objectives of decision-making context.
It is essentially to have
clear formulated needs and criteria of evaluation of the final quality of
product design. Because the main argue point in the debates is a problem of
comparing different categories of quality and scope of presentation material –
which is wrong, since each case requires solution of specific problems. This is the situation where the process is
more important than final product, since the result of the dialog of
Client-Architect is a realized building [4].
The attempt of the paper is to
explore existing visualization tolls in contemporary architecture, which were
used during one recent project in Moscow for operative decision making of
realization of one of the largest town planning projects. (Fig.1 )
Process or final result?
Making comparison
and analysis of all possible tools for maximum perception of project concept by
Client, it is possible to define logic dependence between priorities of project
and instruments of its visualization.
Each stage of project procurement requires from Architect extraordinary
approach for expectation framing of Client, project strategy and its process of
realization.
However, it is clear that how
quick and effective the method of draft physical modeling with use of
endoscopes may be for decision making
among the architects, but not for the clients.
A certain extend of generalization by draft model provides operative
solution of emerging project problems that is satisfies to design conditions,
both in practice and in study processes.
However, according to today’s practices, draft model is not proper tool
to communicate with Client. (Fig.2 ).
Fig.2. Today Clients want to see their
future building environment as much as real
The Client, a company, asked
to expertise and analyze proposed project (by another architect) for 140Ha of 1
000 000 sqm of housing, 250 000sqm offices, plus supporting
infrastructure. (Fig.3) Afterwards, when analysis has been done, plus
alternative proposal, the Client invited to develop our alternative proposal up
to the town planning concept stage.
Fig.3. Bird eye view on the development
During the process the needs
and requirements were articulated, including the particularities of the site
and local authorities whishes. The
Client was a multi-headed company, which is specialized in developing top market
countryside houses and prefabricated urban housing. This particular project was its first and
pilot one, and was strategically important.
The structure of the Client’s organization was extremely dispersed, that
made a decision-making process more problematic for design progress. That is why, to choose the most effective way
to communicate and present design ideas has been extremely important
requirements for the Architect. This
issue of the right choice to communicate with the Client to deliver project
information has been strategically vital.
Among other traditional
project documents, a video movie presentation has been required, as a task for
architect to present his design proposal.
In the design brief this way of visualization was described as the most
mature tool, due to its ‘fly through’ possibility to see human scale future
environment. (Fig. 4)
Fig.4. Many architects ideas needed to be illustrated through human scale view
At the beginning, when the
strategy and methods of planning, as well as the types of houses were agreed,
we built several draft movie clips to describe solution of future streets and
squares, what took about a week. These were
mock up movies, but with obvious characteristics of future scale and urban
environment. The objective of this stage was testing of proposing space,
methods and principals of planning. All
information has been presented in video format with enough details to
understand future design. On the basis
of the draft clips and Clients corrections the changes were done in
project. The advantage of this way of
working was a combination between quantity and quality of information about
project. This solution for a such scale
saved our time tremendously and advanced our presentation versus traditional
way with physical model.
Calculating expenses, we
compared that alternative procurement of design proposal by traditional
physical model in scale 1:2000 (the model base size 1000x2000mm) would have been
taken two times longer with less details development due to impossibility of
the work in a such scale. Since the time
factor and error level were important for reliability of decision-making, the’
virtual reality’ on this stage was a very suitable tool to suit needs and
requirements of the project process.
(Fig.5 )
Fig.5. For such a scale environment testing physical
modeling is extremely time consuming
and expensive.
On the final stage, when key
performance of the project were articulated, the final release clip movie has
been created. This clip allowed visually
evaluating whole project, starting from the ‘bird eye’ and up to streets and
squares views, developed to the level of landscape design. (Fig.6, video)
Nevertheless, this method has
disadvantages appearing during the process of preparation of computer
visualization of project. In terms of time and finance expenses, effective
‘virtual reality’ may be quit a costly tool to communicate for design proposal. As it was mentioned above this factor, a
quality of presentation, from different Clients may be vary and expecting
special visual effect for movie creating may prolong the process of rendering
and calculating of animation up to several days (however, this problem is much
more relevant to past). In addition, in
comparison to traditional physical modeling, video clip, as a result of
computer visualization remains to be a virtual subject for Architect-Client
dialog, that is psychologically difficult to assess for many inexperienced
Clients. Exactly because of this, in
case of final decision to realize this town planning project the idea to build
a physical presentation model of “Pavshino” has been approved. (video)
Conclusion
In addition to all above
problems, the issue of changes during the process of design makes the question
more topical. Indeed, working with
changes in physical model is much harder than re-rendering of digital model in
computer. However, it also a matter of
question - what sort of changes
and how many of them needs to
be done? In case of large space zoning
and design, we can work with draft physical model, with its generalization of
details. While for environment and human
scale details design to work with scale and to test the solutions using this
tool is unrealistic. Possibly, that the
different stages and different objectives, in accordance to their priorities –
long term or short term – must be overcome by using proper and suitable methods
and tools or their combinations, refer to the context of problem.
References
1.
Aura, Seppo; Alavalkama, Illka; Palmquist, Henry
(editors) (1993): Endoscopy as a Tool in Architecture, Chapter III "Future
of Endoscopy". Proc. of the 1-st Conf. of the European Architectural
Endoscopy Association. University of Technology, Tampere, Finland
2.
Martens, Bob (editor) (1995): The Future of Endoscopy,
Chapter II "The Choise of Appropriate Technology". Proc. of the 2-nd
Conf. of the European Architectural Endoscopy Association. Vienna University of
Technology, Vienna, Austria
3.
Van der Does, Jan; Breen, Jack; Stellingwerff, Martijn
(editors) (1997): Architectural and Urban Simulation Techniques in Research and
Education, Chapter I "Current Developments and Use of Endoscope- and
Computer Techniques". Proc. of the 3-rd Conf. of the European
Architectural Endoscopy Association. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands
4.
Van der Does, Jan; Giro, Hector (1999): IMAG(IN)ING, a
fresh look at design, presentation and communication, in Proc. of the 4-th
Conf. of the European Architectural Endoscopy Association. Dresden University
of Technology, Dresden, Germany
5.
Matalasov, M.; Lapshina, Je. (1999): Modelling
(Simulation) and Reality, in Proc. of the
4-th Conf. of the European Architectural Endoscopy Association. Dresden
University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
6.
Schmidt, J. Alexander; Schloemer, Natascha (2002):
Digital and Analogue Environmental Simulation. New Impulses In Planning
Processes. Proc. of the 5-th Conf. of the European Architectural Endoscopy
Association. University of Essen, Essen, Germany
7.
Matalasov, M.; Matalasov, E. (2003): Our views on
actual researches of 3D-modelling in architecture, in Proc. of the 6-th Conf.
of the European Architectural Endoscopy Association. Slovak University of
Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, pp. 48 - 58