Graphics in Urban Design – Possibilities of Hand-Drawn Images and Computer Techniques

Figures & Tables

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

	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

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

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

	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