City Engine

As an introduction: CityEngine® is a standalone software and a conceptual design and modelling tool for professional users in entertainment, architecture, urban planning, GIS and general 3D content production. It is primarily aimed at time-efficient creation of 3D cities and buildings. The main concept of CityEngine is the "procedural" approach towards modeling. The computer is given a code-based "procedure" which represents a series of commands - in this context geometric modeling commands - which then will be executed. Instead of the "classical" intervention of the user, who manually interacts with the model and models 3d geometries, the task is described "abstractly", in a rule file.

Coming across Bekerman's experiments with City Engine on his VenICE project, I was wondering whether Procedural Inc.'s approach for further development of their flagship product goes to city modelling or city planning. The example mentioned above is a modelling practice, while recent cooperation among Procedural Inc. and ESRI is a true evidence of their interest in stepping more deeply into the planning realm.

That is in fact the choice that many other practitioners such as Agency 9 have also made in recent years. Agency 9 AB which is a privately owned Stockholm-based visualization firm was founded in 2003. The firm started as a game design group and then shifted to production of online 3d maps and visualization tools. Their planning application, City Planner is a user-friendly and web-based tool for creating, sharing and communicating of future urban plans. The inputs to the program are 3d models of planned urban entities constructed in SketchUp, Maya or 3D Studio Max. Proposals are located in their surroundings and are made available to all stakeholders. This software provides the infrastructure required for adding geo-referenced feedback to a developing urban plan.The most dominant characteristic of CityPlanner is user-friendliness, simplicity and ease of communication through web. The tool has its focus on providing 3D visualization for planning procedures and does not include so many analytic functions or data-processing capabilities.

Sources: 

City Engine Help manual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJLvawS_5lA

Academia

In September, I had the opportunity to share outcomes of my recent studies with students of the master program "Sustainable Urban Planning and Design" in two occasions:

5th September, an overview of use of visualization in participatory planning was presented. This was in fact a revised version of my thesis work complemented by more background information, less focused on web-basedness and altered to better reflect the entire picture rather than my personal approach.

On the 14th of September, I gave a speech on 3d city models and 3d city modeling titled as: "An Overview of Three-Dimensional City Models; Historical Perspectives and a Contemporary Debate: Beauty vs. Brain". This was a summary on - among all - basic concepts in the field such as DEM(1), DSM(2); DTM(3), LOD(4), a history of creation of digital city models, different approaches, the vanishing borderline between digital maps and digital models and contemporary debates namely semantic city models and widespread use of CityGML.

In addition, an introductory lab session was held on use of the digital urban creation tool, City Engine, and implementation of procedural routines and grammar-based modeling. This was mainly focused on getting acquainted to the interface, experimenting basic functions of growing a street network from a scratch with help of shape files, creating urban lots, rendering those lots and streets into photo-realistic urban features based on the rules imposed by CGA files and customizing individual buildings by manipulating a set of parameters...

The above-mentioned were parts of the course AG2119 (Applied Analysis and International Planning Practice), year 2011, KTH.

1) Digital Elevation Model
2) Digital Surface Model
3) Digital Terrain Model
4) Level Of Detail

Back to the topic

While searching avidly for pioneer practitioners in the field of visualization as part of my thesis work, I came across the visionary product of the Brisbane-based infrastructure visualization company, Urban Circus. Urban Circus is a powerful tool for real-time visualization of large-scale multi-disciplinary urban projects. Its interface is ideally user-friendly and to a great degree interactive. Base models are imported from 3DSMax, Maya, ArchiCAD, etc. Outputs range from 2d rendered scenes, 3d panoramic views, 3d videos and 4d planning environments to interactive web pages featuring all the above-mentioned. Created scenes are fairly realistic and delicately detailed. Urban Circus Company was founded by an urban planner, Dr. Ben Guy in 2004.

As part of a recent conversation among Dr. Ben Guy and me and in response to an inquiry on my opinion about key centres for 3D visualisation study and analysis around the world and where we are standing here at KTH, I made an effort to conclude my findings in the field as followed: 

Diagram 3

Diagram 4

Firstly, the definition and delimitation of 3d visualization is not fully agreed upon among scholars and practitioners. So, I try to delimit the term and clarify in which sense I would prefer to use it before proceeding. As depicted in diagrams 3 and 4, visualization may address the transitory process with an input from the modelling phase and an output for the simulation phase. The term can also be used in a wider sense describing the entire process. Throughout my studies, the latter definition has proved to be more appropriate when mentioning visualization as a means for participatory planning. 

Secondly, contemporary practitioners in the field take different approaches to the very nature of visualization tools and techniques. The variety of categories can - in my opinion - be summarized to two major groups. These two classifications are in turn derived from Raper, McCarthy and Williams' (1999)* categorization of virtual reality tools: Some institutes such as MIT Media Lab are mainly equipment-oriented which can correspond to Raper and others' immersive (egocentric) VR. Batty, Longley and others at UCL's CASA, on the other hand, are more focused on the through-the-window or exocentric definition of VR tools. Again, I find the latter better addressing contemporary needs for 3d visualization and more compatible with participatory approaches. 

Sweden is a pioneer in visualization in Scandinavia and among top ones in Europe with a number of active visualization centers such as those in Norrköping and Göteborg. They are however still more into immersive VR approaches and somehow more specialised in other uses of visualization such as medical applications rather than planning. In recent years, KTH has been offering various programs on visualization which are unique in the sense that they are closely linked to satellite imagery, semi-automated modeling and GIS utilities from one side and visualization of social aspects of planning using Space Syntax, Place Syntax, etc. on the other hand. 

There are in fact vast grounds and potentials for further developments, but still much to be done for integrating the variety of visualization-related activities and research programs within the department before strengthening our links with pioneers in the field. I have much hope and enthusiasm in our recent activities for better embracing the topic at our planning school in the future.

Sources:

Raper, J., McCarthy, T., & Williams, N. (1999). Georeferenced four-dimensional virtual environments: principles and applications.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , 22 (6), 529-539.

Ball, J., Capanni, N., & Watt, S. (2008). Virtual Reality for Mutual Understanding in Landscape Planning. International

Journal of Social Sciences , Volume 2 Number 2 2008 ISSN 1306‐973X.

Parsanezhad, P., (2010). Towards an Optimal Web-based Visualization Tool for Planning : A Comparative Analytical Survey over Visualization Techniques for Enhancing Stakeholders’ Participation in Planning. Master thesis report, KTH, Stockholm.

http://www.circus3d.com/

Villa Leipzig

Everything started with a simple three-dimensional model of the house we are living in to be located on Google Earth as a tribute to this lovely four-storied stately house. In fact, our landlord had previously lectured with a preacher's passion on the reputation of the edifice as one of the oldest buildings in the area. Nevertheless, it was just recently that I discovered that our house - which I had superficially called Örby House before - actually has a cordial historic name: Villa Leipzig!

Stockholm's Yellow Pages, 1922

According to Stockholm's Yellow Pages archive (above), the mansion dates back to latest 1922 and there was - among all - a bakery located in the house. Based on available photos, there has been a two-storied building called Villa Jennylund in the same location in 1910. This was consecutively replaced by current Leipzig House one decade later. It can be concluded that Villa Leipzig is at least 90 years old and has been almost in the same shape from the beginning.

Villa Jennylund, 1910

In 1945, there was a coffee and tobacco shop in the building which are now replaced by a residence and an office. Villa Leipzig undoubtedly deserved a 3d model on Google Earth! New features in Sketchup 8. have largely facilitated construction of new models by incorporating more accurate pictures from Google Map's Street View. Previously, Building Maker online application had been introduced by Google to construct digital models using enhanced oblique photos of the buildings from four different directions.

Villa Leipzig, 1945

Sources:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rby,_Stockholms_kommun
http://www.stockholmskallan.se/php/fupload/SMF/SD/SSMB_0023983_1922_12.pdf
http://www.hjle.se/

Optimal Web-based Visualization Tool

The following is an abstract of my thesis report titled as Towards an Optimal Web-based Visualization Tool; A Comparative Analytical Survey over Visualization Techniques for Enhancing Stakeholders’ Participation in Planning:

Use of digital visualization tools in planning is nowadays widely practiced around the world by various contributors to the field and in different planning scales. Visualization facilitates perception of underlying thoughts and objectives of planning alternatives and consequently assists with communication of the plan to stakeholders of different groups. This – in turn - enables them to actively and efficiently participate in the procedure from the very initial stages to the implementation phase thanks to the insight provided by user-friendly visualization tools.

Available visualization tools for planning, however, are either not integrated and efficient enough or too resource- or expertise-demanding and thus not entirely fulfilling the qualities mentioned above. This study is a search for a conceptual framework for the optimal web-based visualization tool. Web-basedness diminishes temporal and spatial distance among the users and planning agents and provides the possibility for more participation in and interaction with planning projects.

Within this study, major characteristics of an optimal tool have been investigated through literature and online resources, contacts with experts and practitioners, a survey over existing products and visual analysis of the outcomes. An evaluation cube was initially developed and then used as the basis for a set of duality criteria. A selection of visualization tools were examined against those criteria and results were demonstrated visually. Eventually, findings were used to provide a backcasted example of the optimal tool and suggestions were made for actual development of the package to be used by planning agents.