Tommy L Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 http://www.skyscraperpage.com Never heard of it before, but it seems very current, and very busy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotten42 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Great site... I'm on it all the time. Not just from a render point of view but there is a lot of great information on there for keeping track of what is going on in your city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jophus14 Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I go there all the time to get actual floor counts and building heights. It's a great site. http://www.skyscrapercity.com is another great site too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 One of my favourites too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Here is an excellent forum on skyscrapers: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Here is an excellent forum on skyscrapers: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29 With all of those site, but especially WiredNewYork, you can find lots of new renderngs that you may not have seen. Don't always expect much respect for your artist's credit on those sites, though. It's been a sore point for me for a long time. Years ago I joined wirednewyork just to post that I didn't appreciate them posting my renderings and those of my NYSR friends without bothering to include a note on authorship. Needless to say, they weren't very responsive. What's also weird about those forums is that its mostly architecture groupies. I bet you didn't know we have a 'public'. Well we do, and they're strange folks. Where these sites become most useful is when there is a thread discussing a project you are or have been working on. You get to see what people are saying both in favor and against it (usually 'for', with 'against' quoted in disgust). When you've been working with the designers and developers you know where they're coming from, so seeing how it all plays in the public realm is very educational. It helps you see the marketing and PR aspects of our work, whether or not we're trying to do marketing or PR work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Where these sites become most useful is when there is a thread discussing a project you are or have been working on. You get to see what people are saying both in favor and against it (usually 'for', with 'against' quoted in disgust). When you've been working with the designers and developers you know where they're coming from, so seeing how it all plays in the public realm is very educational. It helps you see the marketing and PR aspects of our work, whether or not we're trying to do marketing or PR work. urbanplanet.org is another good site to this type of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 .....and for us Chicagoans: http://www.newcityskyline.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 When you've been working with the designers and developers you know where they're coming from, so seeing how it all plays in the public realm is very educational. It helps you see the marketing and PR aspects of our work, whether or not we're trying to do marketing or PR work. Good point. Our renderings have a social effect. It's great to see the community react to them from a completely different perspective (no pun intended). If they hate it, it's not because of bad lighting. It's because it represents something that will affect their community in ways they don't want. These are usually issues that, as artists, we are normally not aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 This is very true. Ive written a couple of papers on the importance of clarity in the public domain planning phase. Architectural drawings are not made to be read by everyone, they are a technical document and it requires an architectural education to read them correctly. So Joe Public cannot be expected to use them as an informative tool for what is happening in his neighborhood. Renderings are vastly important for all parties, especially communities and this is where we rarely get a direct response as renderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Yep. They can be pretty powerful and can even help determine whether or not a project gets approved. That's why I just "love" it when a client wants us to fudge a perspective or under-scale a building We just did one where we had to make an expressway disappear and place the building on the site of another competing building. Is this something that only happens in Miami? Shouldn't we be bound by a code of ethics or something? Should we just do what the client wants? Isn't it unhealthy to confuse the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner04 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 We just did one where we had to make an expressway disappear and place the building on the site of another competing building. Is this something that only happens in Miami? I've fudged colors before or maybe changed the dimensions on windows to look a bit better. I don't think I've ever rendered a building on a completely different site, without existing elements, that's pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Shouldn't we be bound by a code of ethics or something? Should we just do what the client wants? Isn't it unhealthy to confuse the public? I don't like faking any more than anyone else. But sure, we've all been asked to lie a little or a lot. But we are not public servants, we serve our clients. As architects or developers they may have some liability for what they present to the public. But renderings are not stamped, filed CDs and often are tagged 'artist's rendering' as an added CYA move. Now if your firm is doing the marketing, you may be assuming more responsibility for what's put out there for the public. Think about advertising and the vague limits put on ads saying 'this stuff will make you a better/slimmer/brighter (whatever)'. The US Federal Trade Commission might slap your wrist for stretching the truth. But with a rendering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Now if your firm is doing the marketing, you may be assuming more responsibility for what's put out there for the public. We don't do any marketing. Renderings and animations are enough to deal with I agree with what you are saying. We will give our opinion, but we let the client decide how they want to show their project. This is great because we have absolutely no liability. It just feels kinda odd sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 We don't do any marketing. I said 'your firm' in the general, not directed at your firm. I did want to draw the parallel between the liability our clients--architects and developers--might have for misleading renderings presented as 'real' (another pitfall for photoreal work) and what might be an un-intended but natural consequence of renderers becoming marketing firms. Since I have to re-invent my business model this is a good discussion to be having. Our industry may be re-inventing itself. As they say, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I said 'your firm' in the general, not directed at your firm. Since I have to re-invent my business model this is a good discussion to be having. Our industry may be re-inventing itself. As they say, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. I know. I just wanted to stress the point that we haven't gone down that road (yet). On that note, I guess there are a few ways a 3d company can evolve and diversify. We can either go into advertising/marketing (DBox & 7th Art), or we can go into film/entertainment (Chris Nichols or KD Lab). It seems Heartwood has done a good job of going into non-arch work, such as Aerospace. I personally think there is still plenty we can do within AEC. On the service side I think there are ways we can better integrate and service our clients. On the tech side, I think there are more services we can offer, such as BIM. These are things that can strengthen our core abilities and possibly grow our industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Yep. They can be pretty powerful and can even help determine whether or not a project gets approved. That's why I just "love" it when a client wants us to fudge a perspective or under-scale a building I often 'fudge' a visual in a way to emphasise a point about the building and its surroundings, or as a way to divert attention away from something, which is perfectly fine and wouldn't be classed as missrepresentation. However, to underscale a building is wrong, and I wouldn't be able to do that. I notice on many car adverts that the glass is often shown as smoked glass, presumably so that the viewer's eyes are not distracted away from the overall form of the car with what's inside it. I think this falls in the 'fudge' area and not in the missrepresentation one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieLeon Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 However, to underscale a building is wrong, and I wouldn't be able to do that. The large majority of clients wouldn't ask us to seriously fudge a rendering. But, if a client that has brought you a significant amount of revenue asked you to scale a building up or down 10% you wouldn't o it? Assume that you wouldn't be liable for any misrepresentation. I think it's not easy to say no. Although, I do respect you for not doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The large majority of clients wouldn't ask us to seriously fudge a rendering. But, if a client that has brought you a significant amount of revenue asked you to scale a building up or down 10% you wouldn't o it? Assume that you wouldn't be liable for any misrepresentation. I think it's not easy to say no. Although, I do respect you for not doing it. I understand what you're saying, but I think I would say no, and if it's a longstanding client I would try and suggest an alternative to achieve something similar, such as an elevated viewpoint etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now