Daniel Kaplan - Portail documentaire du Ministère de l'Ecologie

Introduction
We are more familiar with physical than with
virtual space both as users and as practitioners.
Physical space is the material object of spatial
planning and urbanism. It comprises, traditionally,
zones adapted to activities and channels of
communication providing links between zones,
catering to transport. Or various types of buildings,
if one includes architecture. Physical space, by the
way, covers both urban and rural space.
Virtual space, on the other hand, is less familiar.
This partly explains the frequent use of spatial
metaphors to describe it: web site, information
superhighway or electronic highway,teleport, virtual
community or electronic neighbourhood, virtual or
digital cities, the city of bits, etc. These spatial
metaphors need to be handled with caution as they
tend to obscure issues or even turn into ideologies
[Graham, 1998].
Metaphors are to be avoided when the issue is
how to deal with the interactions between physical
and virtual space. In other words, they must be
defined as distinct entities.
Virtual space, the less familiar of the two is,
after all, “no more than abstract flows of electronic
signals, coded as information, representation and
exchange” [Graham].
Physical space can be visualized in virtual
space. Planning or design can be carried out online.
Virtual space can be analyzed spatially or mapped.
Virtual space can also inspire the design of new
concepts of physical space.
Visualization
Conventional urban and architectural design is
design by drawing, enriched by composite pictures
and models. They are manual tools in draftsmanship.
Visualization as it is understood here
includes digital plans, maps and pictures, computer
animation and the like. Some architects even
consider computer-aided design and computer
graphics as manual tools in draftsmanship as
opposed to “the computer as a thinking-support
tool” [Watanabe, 1995].
PHYSICAL AND VIRTUAL SPACE.
HOW TO DEAL WITH THEIR INTERACTION?
Prof. Paul DREWE
Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
pdrewe@bk.tudelft.nl
ICT-aided visualization has a number of
advantages over conventional tools:
– ICT outranks human capacities by far as speed
and (often) precision are concerned,
– the possibility of reproduction and recycling is
practically unlimited,
– complex chains of effects can be illustrated in a
simple and intelligible way,
– the free choice of the observers point of view in
real-time animations equals a comprehensive
visualization,
– dynamic visualizations can create the illusion of
movement in space,
– one can show past as well as possible and desirable
future developments and consequences,
– in the case of studying variants (alternatives) or
changing projects, flexibility is guaranteed; hence
the possibility of eliminating project deficiencies
in time and thereby saving costs.
The examples of visualization tools are
innumerable. Several research projects of CASA, the
Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, illustrate the
possibilities: http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/casa/
Most of the examples are academic or scientific
initiatives. Visualization has been taken up by
private companies, too. The tools are for sale, if one
“needs a map in cyberspace”.
Dealing with (ICT-aided) visualization, one has
to keep in mind that it has not only advantages over
conventional tools. There are also some warnings:
– visualizations never are a purely technical
problem,
– a good command of visualization techniques
alone does not turn urbanists, planners or
architects into allrounders
– visualizations never are objective even if they are
“photo realistic”,
– visualization may facilitate evaluations, but
cannot replace them,
– whether digital visualizations really stimulate
active participation or whether this participation
is really asked for are questions that, at least, have
not been sufficiently studied.
Hence any visualization tool advertised by
either academics or private companies needs to be
taken with a pinch of salt.
229