Virtual Reality As a New Tool in the City Planning Process

TSINGHUA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYISSN 1007-0214 41/67 pp255-260Volume 13, Number S1, October 2008Virtual Reality As a New Tool in the City Planning ProcessKaj Sunesson", Carl Martin Alwood, Dan Paulin, lona Heldal,Mattias Roupe, Mikael Johansson, Borje WesterdahlChalmers University of Technology, SE 412 96 Goteborg, SwedenAbstract: The introduction of vitual reality (VR)-models in the city planning process will cause changes inthe traditional roles of the involved parties. In order to better understand some of these changes, the eventsinvolving the use of VR-models in an architectural competition conceming rebuilding-proposals for the citylibrary in a Swedish city were analyzed. The study shows that VR was introduced into the competition as anextra add-on and that the VR-presentation was experienced as useful by the jury. The transformation of thearchitects' contributions into VR was experienced as problematic by the architects, partly because they lostfull control over the presentation. In the future architects are likely to have to produce the VR-models fortheir proposals themselves. This may make it more difcult for smaller architectural firmns to enter the marketbut their proposals will be more accessible to a wider group of stakeholders.Key words: architecture; architectural competition; city planning; construction planning; VR-models(reviewed in Ref. [1]) listed four relevant interest cate-Introductiongories in the urban planning process: (1) city planners,(2) architects working for clients, (3) the clients them-New technology often causes disruption and change inselves and (4) the general public (see Ref. [2]). Suchestablished practices. In the future the use of virtual re-broader participation may lead to better sustainabilityality (VR) models is likely to increase in the city plan-of the projected constructions since they might betterning process. This is likely to lead to cbanges in howmeet the needs of the future users.the activities and roles in the early parts of city plan-The goal of a broader participation in the buildingning processes are carried out. This paper describes theprocess is not easy to accomplish (see Ref. [3]). Foreffects of the use of VR-models in an architecturalexample, within the traditional and conventional wayscompetition evaluation process from the standpoint ofof working with the urban development process, manydifferent professions, and it discusses how VR can in-different types of communication- and decision mate-fluence the roles of concerned professions, e.g.,rial (e.g.. 2D drawings, sketches and perspective draw-architects.ings) are used by professional groups中and it is some-(1) Current developmentstimes dificult for the public and non-technical special-In modem, high-quality, professional city planning itists to understand from this material what the projectsis not only the visions of politicians that govern the de-entail.sign of urban development. A broader circle of relevant(2) Previous studies on VR in the constructionparties should be able to exert an influence. Hall 1996pro |中国煤化工Received: 2008-05-30In this iCNMH G's provide many.Y..benefits m uc Cly lulnww pIuccss by offering a rep-$$ To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: suneson@chalmers.seresentation that is closer to common experience than256Tsinghua Science and Technology, October 2008, 13(S1): 255-260other methods of presenting a concept5l. VR-modelsremaking of the library is an issue of great importancean make it possible for all interested parties to haveto the city. This is also evidenced by the lively debateaccess to a common representational medium, whichin the local newspaper that followed the outcome ofmakes it easier for them to achieve an understanding ofthe architectural competition described below.the planned building object on the basis of their ownVR-models have been used in urban planning andcommon sense. The issue of how VR functions as abuilding design projects in Goteborg for a number ofmeans of communication in the urban developmentyears.At present, the visualization studio at Chalmersprocess is insufficiently researched (also see Ref. [6]).University of Technology in Goteborg, works in closeAlthough exploratory usability-oriented studies involv-collaboration with the City Planning Authority (CPA)ing VR have been carried out (e.g, Ref. [7]), very fewin Goteborg to generate a large VR-model covering thestudies have been reported on the role that VR plays inmajor parts of the city. So far two specific projectsongoing city planning context (e.g., Refs. [8-12]). Thishave resulted. The first is associated with the redevel-research points to the need for “a more functional andopment of the city library, further described in thisflexible city model where various stakeholders can ac-study. To our knowledge, this is the first time that VR-cess and utilize the model according to their needs"2. technology has been used in this way for a publicTraditionally architects belong to a specialized pro-building in Sweden.fession and, sometimes, work in some isolation fromother parties in the building process. The production of1 Methodsketches and plans for new buildings in specific envi-1.1 Participantsronments is usually done according to profession-specifc criteria, like how best to combine aesthetics,In total, ten interviews with twelve informants from thefunction and form, how the features of the building in-different professions and groups involved in the com-teract with the properties of the environment, etc."3] Inpetition were conducted (CPA, 3; the Jury 3; archiects,a more pessimistic approach, Ref. [1] suggested tha4; the 3D-artists who made the VR. model, 2).architects bave a reputation for submiting non-realisticperspectives, omitting parts of schemes that are not1.2 Study design and interviewsfully designed and even hiding areas of schemes be-Semi-structured interviews were made at the infor-hind carefully placed trees and other features.mants' workplaces by two of the authors (except two(3) Present case studyinterviews). Each interview lasted 50 - 90 min and wasThis study analyzes a real event involving the use oftape-recorded. The common sections of the interviewsVR-models in an architectural competition evaluationincluded the following:about suggestions for a large rebuilding of the city li-The informants' prior experience of 3D modelingbrary in Goteborg, Sweden (population about 500 000).and VR. (For the architectural firmns the experienceThe focus lies on the implications for the architects ofof the whole firm was also asked for,)the use of VR in the evaluation process.A description of the process and communicationThe library (see Fig. 1) is placed at Gotaplatsen, awhen the VR-models were produced and used.square with great symbolic status for the city. Thus, theEvaluation of cons and pros of using VR.Implication of the future use of VR for professionsand evaluation processes.2 ResultsWe first briefly describe the main events in the archi-tecturd中国煤化工eported by one ormoreCNMHG:ws of each partici-viewsare pre-Fig. 1 The eity library in Goteborg, Swedensented as aggregated for each profession.Kai Sunesson et al: Virual Realty s a New Tol in the Ciy Panning Poces2572.1 Main events in the evaluation processpresented and discussed. At this meeting, which tookThe sarting point for the events was in 2003 when theplace at the visualization studio, tbe VR-model wascultural comitte and the city library of Goteborg de-shown on a power wall, and a stereoscopic effect wasscribed the need for bigger premises. In January 2006created by the use of crystal eyeglasses. The jury hadthe CPA in Gteborg was given the comission to de-two or three futher meetings that did not involvevelop a new plan for the city library and surroundings.VR-presentations.Four architectural firms were invited for parallel sub-2.2 City planning authority informantsmissions of proposals. Each of the firms would de-velop a proposal (also called contribution) for how aExperience of VR and 3D This was the first time CPArebuilt city library would be designed.used VR in an evaluation process. There is no wide-A jury of eight members was appointed to evaluatespread knowledge about VR in the CPA, but somehe proposals: two from the town council's culturalparts/persons have rather extensive experience ofVR.comitt; two from the town council's buildingUse of the VR-models in the evaluation processcommite; two from the CPA; one from a companyThe first intiative for using VR in this project camethat administrates fical buildings in Gteborg andftom the CPA and was put as a suggestion to the jury.one from the city library.The informants' experience was that the use of the VR-From the beginning the architecural firms were notmodels made a dfference for bhow the jury understoodasked to create any 3D or VR model. On September 29,the four contributions. The possilit to understand2006 the firms were asked by e- mail for digital mate-the interaction with the surroundings and to acuallyrial, including the CAD models that the firms had de-see the volumes was thought to have meant a greatveloped. AlI the firms agreed to send their material.deal for many of the jury members.The task given to the visualization studio by the cityEvaluation of cons and pros of using VR All theplanning office was to make VR- models with all con-informants pointed out the importance of being able totributions equal in quality. This was at least partly be-show the planned buildings in VR. One informant fo-cause of the late inquiry about the digital material. Acused on the pedagogical aspects of using VR, andcommon VR-model was formed as a surrounding envi-noted that it is important to find a quality level in theronment in which each of the models of the proposedVR-rendering which is good enough to really depictbuildings was put (one example in Fig. 2). Each of thethe content of a proposal but not so good that the gen-contributions could easily be presented while keepingeral public understands the proposal as completed.the surrounding environment constant. The systemFuture for VR and effects on professionals The in-supported on-demand switching between the differentformants thought that VR will be used much more inproposals when reviewed by the participants.the future. The CPA informants saw a potential for in-creased participation and communication with stake-holders due to the pedagogical potential of VR as acommunication tool. Furthermore, they also mentionedpossilities to simulate the effects of lights/shading atdifferent times during a day and over the seasons of aFig.2 VR-mnodel of the present library (left) and oneyear. In the future realistic simulation of noise, parti-proposal (right)cles in the air and other aspects will increase the qual-The four contributions were first presented to theity of the simulation.jury in August 2006. The task for the jury was to2.3 Jury informantsevaluate the proposals and to use ideas from one ormore proposals to recommend how to futher developExperiencanVR and nTwn nf the informants hada final idea. In this paper we sometimes refer to“com-some中国煤化工:asks similar to thispetition”as a synonym for this evaluation. To fulflloneTHC N M H Gree use computerstheir task the jury had nine meetings, and in one ofregularly but all had lttle or no experience ofVR orthese the VR-presentation of the contributions was3D-graphics.Tsinghua Science and Technology, October 2008, 13(S1): 255-260258Communication and preparation of the VR-public) to take into account.models None of the informants reported exerting any2.4 Architectsinfluence on how the VR- model was to be shaped.Use of the VR- models in the evaluation processExperience of VR and 3D All architects said that theirSome of the informants thought that it was somewhatknowledge about VR was“small". They did not knowinconvenient to have to travel to another part of townwhat possibilities the technique provides or what fea-to look at the model. The informants reported no par-tures they could ask for. All three architectural frmsticular expectations when atending to this meeting.bhad some knowledge about 3D-CAD and other 3DThe VR-presentation gave much information but thepossibilties. To some extent all firms used 3D on ainformants felt that it would have been too much efortdaily basis for presenting their jobs. One firm had per-to have used it in more meetings referring to having tosonnel for making its 3D-llustrations. A second firmuse the crystal eyes when viewing the model and hav-made some smaller ilustrations in bouse but bhired helping to pay attention to people pointing to the powerfor bigger ones. A third firm hired help for most of itswall instead of just discussing. They all also reportedillustrations.being satisfied with not having to manage the modelCommunication and preparatio of the VR-themselves during the show. None of the informantsmodels None of the firms criticized the use of VR toseemed to think that it would have been very importantvisualize the proposals. All the firms experienced thatto have used the model more than this time. One of thethe information about the use of VR as a tool for pre-informants mentioned that the model did not includesenting proposals and the request for the material camethe interior of the buildings and that this was an impor-abruptly and late. They had alt made the skeiches andtant part of the evaluation.drawings that originally were asked for when the in-Evaluation of cons and pros of using VR Thequiry about their 3D-material came. Before sending incredibility of the VR-models was rated high. Onethe material, one of the firms“cleaned" the model sostatement was that the VR-model was seen as giving athat less information could be misinterpreted AlI threegood presentation of how the contributions would ap-firms stated that it took them about 8 h of work to pre-pear in reality. It was also reported that the jury re-pare the material before sending it off.ferred back to the VR-model in later meetings whenthey discussed dfferent matters. All the jury infor-mants criticized the aesthetic aspect of the model. Onesaw a risk that even the foundations of the architect'sidea of the building could be missed, because themodel seemed finished in a sense but was not goodenough to“explain" what the architect had in mindrig,3 VR screenshots from one proposal showing thewhen designing the building. The informants all con-proposal inserted in the surroundings and examinedfirmed the 3D-artists' view (see below) that the VR-from different viewpointsmodel did explain the size, the volume of the building,Two of the firms recalled feeling worried about theand its interaction with the surroundings (as Fig. 3).lack of control over how their proposals would be ren-Future for VR and effects on professionals All in-dered. The communication between the firms and theformants thought that VR will be a part of future3D-artists when the VR models were produced con-evaluation processes. One of them thought that VR issisted of one or two e-mails with screenshots that thean important tool because it can explain the content ofarchitect firms could give a response to. Some phonethe blueprints for persons not used to these. Anothercalls were made to clarify particular questions.informant thought that VR use will place more de-None of the architectural firms saw the model beforemands on future contributions. This will put higherthe V中国煤化工: jury. Two of thedemands on the architects and how contributions arefirmsYHCNMHGtdojusticetotheirdeveloped. One informant stated that for the architectscon)ntrbution.VR will imply one more interest group (the generalUse of the VR-models in the evaluation processKaj Sunesson et al: Virtual RealityAs a New Too in the City Plarning Process259The architectural firms did not think that the use of VRevaluation when preparing the VR model. Overall, thewas important for the juny's decision which they3D- artists thought that the communication with the ar-thought was made according to other types of criteria.chitectural firms had worked well and they had re-Evaluation of cons and pros of using VR All theceived no feedback to the contrary.firms thought that the screenshots did not really showUse of the VR. models in the evaluation processtheir proposals in an aesthetic manner.During the VR-presentation one of the 3D-artists con-Future for VR and effects on professionals All thetrolled the showing of the model. The members of thefirms thought that VR will affect their work in the fu-jury could direct what perspectives and which parts ofture and that VR will be a common tool. Two firms ex- the model were seen by instructing this person, and theplained that it could be a better way to express theirjury used this possibility.proposals. The third representative said that it is notEvaluation of cons and pros of using VR in theclear what value VR will provide and that VR justcontest From the evidence of the communication be-means“'more of the same”of what is going on today.tween the jury members during the meeting, the 3D-He thought that it will be necessary to use VR in orderartists concluded that the use of the model had given ato be noticed.broader understanding about the size and volume ofthe contributions. Also, the interaction with the build-2.5 3D-artistsing's surroundings seemed to be clarified.Future for VR The 3D-artists predicted that VRCommunication and preparation of the VR-modelsThe quality of the material that was handed over fromwill be much more used in future city planning projects.the different architectural firms differed. Two propos-Widespread use of VR may demand that a commonals were made in Google Sketchup with a low level ofmodel of the surroundings is available. Without such adetail. One firm's model was made in architecturalmodel, the cost will be high for making VR-models ofdesktop and was of better quality, while the fourthevery proposal with surroundings and terrain. The pos-firm's model was made in Archicad and bhad high qual-sibility to compare proposals is also impaired if there isity. Due to the different levels of quality, different lev-no common terrain model.els of effort had to be put down. The Archicad modelEffects on other professionals The 3D-artists an-could be put straight into the VR-environment. Mostticipate that VR will be so common in the future thatwork had to be done on the Google Sketchup models.architects will have to use it in order to pursue theirAll the four contributions were rendered in VR inprofession and will have to make VR-modelsparallel.themselves.When making the models, the 3D-artists sent screen3 Discussion and Conclusionsdumps to the architectural firms and asked for feed-back, and in a few phone calls specific questions to theThe notion that VR will influence the architectural pro-firms were asked. The 3D-artists had 60 h to finish allfession is supported by our results, but exactly whatthe VR-models. The time was sufficient, except thatthe effect will be is not equally clear. The discussionbecause of the vast use of glass material in some of theby Ref. [1], reviewed in the introduction, about the fu-proposals, additional time had to be spent on imple-ture role of different professions in the urban construc-menting a better representation of glass.tion process, was to some degree well taken, but al-The communication between the architectural firmsthough VR may give the general public a better oppor-and the 3D-artists mostly concerned material. The 3D-tunity to understand the proposal and to influence theartists perceived a discrepancy between what was seenconstruction planning process, this does not imply thatas important in the conventional posters and in the VR-the architectural profession has to be“downgraded" asmodel. As an example they mentioned an entrance thatsuggeshitects in this studyin one sketch was depicted in a white and more blurredtended中国煤化工tol that givesaway than the rest of the building, but was consideredpossibi:YHCNMHGethanasathreatextremely important in the VR-model. .to their profession. However, the view from one ofThe 3D-artists were not aware of the criteria for thethem that VR might be a necessary demand for being260Isinghua Science and Technology, October 2008, 13(S1): 255-260noticed, without adding any substantial value, is worthOxford Surveys in Information Technology, 1987, 14: 257-309.considering as a sign that more may be at stake.Another important conclusion from this study is that[3] Bomning A, Freidman B, Kahn P H. Designing for humanvalues in an urban simulation system: Value sensitive de-there were many indications that VR could have beensign and participatory design. In: The Eighth Bienial Par-more efficiently used in the evaluation process. For ex-ticipatory Design Conference. Toronto, Canada, 2004.ample, the small amount of input to the production[4] Al-Kodmany K. Visualization tools and methods in com-process from the architects might be due to their lackmunity planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality.of experience of VR. As reported above, it was not ob-Journal of Planning Literature, 2002, 17: 189-211.vious to the architectural firms what response they[5] Westerdahl B, Suneson K, Wermemyr C, et al. Users'evaluation of a virtual reality architectural model comparedshould give to the screenshots they were sent from thewith the experience of the completed building. Automation3D-artists. Since the architects did not have a chance toin Construction, Elsevier, 2006, 15: 150-165.view the VR-rendering of their contribution before it[6] Lange E. Isues and questions for research in communicat-was shown to the jury, it is not clear whether theying with public through visualizations. In: Buhmann E,would have proposed changes. Better preparation ofPaar P, Bishop I, Lange E, Eds. Proceedings at Anhalt Uni-versity of Applied Sciences Trends in Real-Time Land-the architects and the jury for their participation in thescape Visualization and Participation. Wichmann Verlag,production and evaluation of VR models in the evalua-Heidelberg, 2005. www.masterla.e/conf/pdf/conf2005/tion process can help the architects to more fully real-llange_ c.pdf2006.ize their visions and the jury to better satisfy their need[7] Roussou M, Drettakis G Can VR be useful and usable infor information about the future building.real-world contexts? Observations from the application andOur study shows the importance for all parties in theevaluation of VR in realistic usage conditions. In: Proc.HCI Intermational 2005, lst Intemational Conference oncity planning process to be clear about how VR will beVirtual Reality 2005.used in the evaluation process. Clear information8] Caneparo L. Shared virtual reality for design and manage-should be given to all parties early in the process aboutment: The Porta Susa project. Automation in Construction,how the VR-models are to be produced and, on this ba-2001, 10: 217-228.9] Frost P, Warren P. Virtual reality used in a collaborative ar-sis, how they should best be interpreted. In this contextchitectural design process. In: Banissi E, Bannatyne M,it is noteworthy that the architects expressed worry thatChen C, Khosrowshahi F, Sarfraz M, Ursyn A. Eds. Infor-it was someone else who would transform their pro-mation Visualization. Proceedings, Fourth Internationalposals into VR and that the proposals could be dis-Conference on Information Visualisation (IV'00). MalmoUniv. Coll, Sweden, 2000: 568-573.torted in the process. To increase the efficiency of[10] Manoharan T, Taylor H, Gardiner P. Interactive urban de-similar evaluation processes, we recommend a meetingvelopment control with collaborative virtual environments.between the included parties prior to the process whereIn: Thwaites H, Addison L Eds. Virtual Systems and Mul-possibilities and limitations of the technology used aretimedia. Proceedings from the Seventh Intermational Con-ference on Application. Dept. of Computers & Electronics,presented and discussed.Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 2001: 809-818.VR is likely to be used much more in the future and[1] Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Kienast F. Participatory land-then architects will probably have to learm to producescape development: Overcoming social barriers to publicVR- model themselves. This could be a disadvantageinvolvement. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 64:for small architectural firms because more knowledge,29-46.time, and money will be needed to enter the market.[12] Fleming D, Home M, Thompson E M. Virtual reality urbanmodeling - An overview. In: 6th International ConferenceReferenceson Construction Applications of Virtual Reality. 2006.htp://it.scix.cg-bin/works/Show?b63c8.[1] Bourdakis V. Virtual reality: A communication tool for ur-[13] Svensson C, Tomberg E, Ronn M. Akitektivlingar,ban planning. In: Asanowicz A, Jakimowitz A, Eds.gestaltningsprogram och arkitektonisk kvalitet. WorkingCAAD - Towards New Design Conventions. Technical中国煤化Ikainerr 2006 1.University of Bialystok, Poland, 1997: 45-59.lsbygnad, Kungliga[2] Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R. Information systems failures--HC N M H Geden, 2006.A survey and classification of the empirical literature.