Architectural Visualisation

a longtime friend of mine is a model maker. not the long leggy types but the small card, plastic or wood types. with everybody designing models on computer and doing computer simulated fly-throughs (should that be walk-throughs?), he went the traditional route and stayed with making the models by hand, even putting small lights which can be switched on and off. while computer work is great, when you have a degree show of 30 computer generated models and one traditional built model, which one do you think stands out? some architects seem to be moving away from cgi and like to go back to a more arty hands on look (but still want emailability). this quote comes from the independent:

Peter Jarvis, from the Society of Architectural Illustration (SAI), says some architects still prefer traditional sketches instead of the "all-singing, all-dancing software", especially when they want to woo a client in the early stages. He feels watercolours have more "integrity" than computers, but agrees that these days visualisers are more likely to be using 3D programmes.

there is something really cool about being able to hold a whole apartment block in the palm of your hand or knock down a tree with a swish of a finger. call it my godzilla complex. :)

he had a client who wanted an architectural visualisation (which is fancy speak for sketch) of a building. usually my friend would draw out the wireframe model, and outsource it to someone else. instead he asked me if i wanted to have a bash at it. the drawing below is what we sent them. we didn't get the gig but it was enjoyable to do as it was the first time i had used the software painter. quite different from oil paint. mix it with a bit of photoshoppery and hey presto:

what do you think?