Graphics in Urban Design – Possibilities of Hand-Drawn Images and Computer Techniques
Publicado en línea: 27 ene 2021
Páginas: 31 - 44
Recibido: 01 sept 2020
Aceptado: 03 dic 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2020-028
Palabras clave
© 2020 Lucia Štefancová et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Comparison between hand-drawn images and computer graphics from Masterplan 1:1000
| Masterplan 1:1000 10 chosen project – average value of 3 evaluators | sketching technique |
computer based technique |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation category | Description | Average value of 5 projects | Average value of 5 projects | ||
| 01. FIRST IMPRESSION/subjective/ | First impression from the drawing | 3.27 | 3.47 | ||
| 02. ACHIEVEMENT OF GRAPHIC DISPLAY PRINCIPLE/objective | SPACES | 3D Effect | contours, terrain, shadows | 3.20 | 3.40 |
| Differentiation of Lines of Terrain and Surfaces | pedestrian and car communications, cycle paths | 3.33 | 3.40 | ||
| Hierarchy of the Spaces | distinction of the main spaces, public, semi-public, and private spaces | 3.47 | 3.40 | ||
| Static Traffic | rendering of parking lots | 3.60 | 4.13 ! |
||
| Active Areas | playgrounds, sport/leisure dedicated areas | 2.00 | 3.60! |
||
| OBJECTS | Differentiation of Greenery | park, garden, alley, aesthetical greenery, wild greenery | 2.87 | 2.60 | |
| Typology of the Objects | differentiation of the character of the buildings | 3.93 | 3.73 | ||
| Small Architecture | characteristic elements – pavilion, podium, kiosk, art elements | 2.87 | 3.20 | ||
| COMPLEMENTS | Additional Markings of the Use of Objects and Areas | cycling lanes, public transport elements, entrances/passageways to the objects | 3.00 | 2.87 | |
| 03. CLARITY/subjective | understanding the main idea and content | 3.47 | 3.13 | ||
| OVERALL RATING | 35.00 |
36.93 |
|||
Comparison between hand-drawn images and computer graphics – strengths and weaknesses (inspired by Meeda, 2006: 14 and added by the authors of this paper)
| Hand-drawn images | Computer graphics | |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths |
quickly communicating simple ideas emphasizing the provisional status of proposals create a unique personality Explaining concepts without being over-precise conveying the ambience and vibrancy of a place encouraging participation – tools and materials are inexpensive, and usable by all |
accurately mapping information presenting definitive solutions simulating complex views making changes easier storing and retrieving many complex images linking to external databases and information replicating and transmitting information to others photorealistic renders |
| Weaknesses |
may not be accurate not easy to update drawing in series changing views or designs generally means redrawing can lack clarity limits the collaboration within the team |
can be expensive to set up difficult to share access have a finished/revolved visual feel extensive training may be required systems failures can be difficult to handle limited by available software tools |
Table diagram of the procedure
| no. | part of the procedure | explanatory notes |
|---|---|---|
| 01. | selection of urban design students proposals based on the evaluation | “A” grade only |
| 02. | selection of the 10 proposals | 5 sketched and 5 done by computer |
| 03. | selection of the researched outputs | masterplan (M = 1:1000) and perspective views |
| 04. | creation of set of criteria – evaluation factors | based on the theoretical background |
| 05. | evaluation of all outputs from the perspective of the chosen criteria | average of 3 independent experts |
| 06. | correlation analysis | between the results of the different categories |
| 07. | interpretation of the results | focused on the most remarkable findings |
| 08. | recommendations for practice | possibilities for improving the graphics |
Comparison between hand-drawn images and computer graphics for Eye-level perspective
| PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (scale not specified) 10 chosen project – average value of 3 evaluators | sketching technique |
computer based technique |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation category | Description | Average value of 5 projects | Average value of 5 projects | |
| 01. FIRST IMPRESSION/subjective | First impression of the drawing | 2.67 | 2.60 | |
| 02. ACHIEVEMENT OF GRAPHIC DISPLAY PRINCIPLE/objective | SPACE AND MASSING | suitability of chosen view – main public space, accents, dominants | 3.87! |
2.53 |
| CHARACTER OF THE SPACES AND MASSING | characterization and presentation of the surfaces (pedestrians, cars, main public space); of the objects depending on the program, choice of the scale | 2.93 | 2.27 | |
| AMBIENCE | usage of shadows, greenery, staffage – correct measure according to the nature of the space | 2.60 | 2.27 | |
| 03. CLARITY/subjective | understanding the main idea and content, clear localization of the perspective on a masterplan drawing | 2.93 | 2.27 | |
| OVER ALL RATING | 14.20! |
11.93 | ||
Content advantages and disadvantages of the master plan and the eye level perspective (inspired by Meeda, 2006: 41 and added by the authors of this paper)
| Masterplan 1:1000 | Eye-level perspective | |
|---|---|---|
| What it shows |
indicative built form and blocking landscape structure urban grain and orientation overall character morphology hierarchy of city axes, streets, public spaces active places – playgrounds, sport spaces functional and operational structure |
intended character of places accents and dominants of space indicative building form without detail ambience instead of architecture sense of scale between buildings life between buildings by using people, animals, cars, buses etc. illustrates specific urban-architectural details |
| Why it is graphically right |
proposed buildings are shown with shadows all extraneous detail removed trees and vegetation have a hierarchy drawn to a level of accuracy that is measurable – all extraneous detail removed? showing the whole urban proposal |
bright colors and contrast enhance the energy and positive ambience of the image a mix of people and uses emphasise the importance of activity to the success of the new place user-friendly and accessible view explains specific solutions |