Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
logo of JHTR

Research articles

Vol. 4 (2026)

True Enough Renderings? The Ethics of CGI Visualizations in Urban Design through Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin’s Lens

DOI
https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2026.4.8015
Submitted
February 2, 2025
Published
2026-11-03

Abstract

CGI visualizations are central to decision-making in the built environment but are often criticized for their potential to mislead, especially when the projected outcomes do not align with the final built reality. Unlike most CGI applications in entertainment, which rely on similar visual techniques but lack epistemic stakes and truth value, visualizations in urban and environmental planning raise significant ethical concerns. These concerns are particularly acute as they influence public perception and trust. As CGI visualizations advance in aesthetic realism, technological developments, and their capacity to shape public decision-making, addressing these issues becomes increasingly urgent. Drawing on the philosophical work of Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin, this paper examines how their concepts of projections, relevant conditions, and "true enough" models illuminate the complexities and ethical concerns surrounding CGI visualizations. By applying these frameworks to visualizations of public projects, the study explores the epistemic and ethical challenges inherent in projecting future environments through digital media.

References

  1. Abdel, H. (2022, April 10). Renders vs. reality, comparing recent project’s original vizualization to their built result. ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/942700/renders-vs-reality-projects-from-renowned-architects-before-and-after
  2. Alexander, Z. Ç., & May, J. (Eds.). (2020). Design technics: Archaeologies of architectural practice. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvtv938x
  3. Baillieu, A. (2021). Rendering versus reality. Architecture Today. https://architecturetoday.co.uk/rendering-versus-reality-mvrdv-marble-arch-mound-london-uk/
  4. Bardt, C. (2022). Recapturing meaning: Toward a new material-based design theory for architecture. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(4), 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2022.03.005
  5. Chaos, & Architizer. (2025). The State of Architectural Visualization 2024-25. https://www.chaos.com/the-state-of-architectual-visualization-2025?utm_source=Enscape-Blog&utm_medium=summary-blog-post&utm_campaign=report-2025-h1-state-of-archviz
  6. Degen, M., Melhuish, C., & Rose, G. (2017). Producing place atmospheres digitally: Architecture, digital visualisation practices and the experience economy. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515572238
  7. Downes, M., & Lange, E. (2015). What you see is not always what you get: A qualitative, comparative analysis of ex ante visualizations with ex post photography of landscape and architectural projects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2014.06.002
  8. Downey, A. (2024, September 23). Uncanny Returns: Trevor Paglen and the Hallucinatory Domain of Generative AI. The MIT Press Reader. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/uncanny-returns-trevor-paglen-and-the-hallucinatory-domain-of-generative-ai/
  9. Elgin, C. Z. (2001). The Legacy of Nelson Goodman. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(3), 679. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653547
  10. Elgin, C. Z. (2017). True Enough. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11118.001.0001
  11. Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
  12. Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, fiction, and forecast (4th ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  13. Houdart, S. (2006). Des multiples manières d’être reel: Les représentations en perspective dans le projet d’architecture [Multiple ways of being real: Perspective representations in the architectural project]. Terrain, 46, 107–122. https://doi.org/10.4000/terrain.4023
  14. Kahane, H. (1965). Nelson Goodman’s Entrenchment Theory. Philosophy of Science, 32(3/4), 377–383. http://www.jstor.org/stable/186534
  15. Karvanen, J., Tikka, S., & Vihola, M. (2024). Simulating counterfactuals. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 80, 835–857. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.15579
  16. Lange, E. (2011). 99 volumes later: We can visualise. Now what? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.016
  17. Lewis, J. L. (2012). More art than science: The sources and effects of stylistic variation in visualization for planning and design. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(3), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1068/b37148
  18. Loukissas, Y. A. (2012). Co-designers: Cultures of computer simulation in architecture (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123065
  19. Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Warren-Kretzschmar, B., & Von Haaren, C. (2015). Using 3D visualization methods in landscape planning: An evaluation of options and practical issues. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2015.02.021
  20. Luz Rodrigues, H. (2025). On the Ambiguity between 3D visualizations and Physical Spaces. In D. Calabuig Domingo, M. Fernández Guardado, & M. Muñoz Aparici (Eds.), CA2RE VALENCIA EXPERIMENTATION Book of Proceedings (pp. 100–107). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/CA2RE_Valencia.2024.20450
  21. Matsola, A., & Matsola, V. (2020, December 3). Archviz Lies [Broadcast]. State of the Art Academy.
  22. May, J. (2019). Signal. Image. Architecture. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City.
  23. McDonald, E. (2012). From China, Without Love. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 32–33). CLOG.
  24. Nathaniel Mayer, A. (2012). Urban Fantasies in China: Architectural Visualization. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 30–31). CLOG.
  25. Olsson, P. (2024, January 3). Fake Views – The Contrast Between Renderings and Reality. The Architectural Uprising. https://www.architecturaluprising.com/debate/fake-views-the-painful-contrast-between-renderings-and-reality/
  26. Phadke, R. (2010). Steel forests or smoke stacks: The politics of visualisation in the Cape Wind controversy. Environmental Politics, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396051
  27. Piedmont-Palladino, S. (2018). Into the Uncanny Valley. Places Journal. https://doi.org/10.22269/180428
  28. Raaphorst, K., Roeleveld, G., Duchhart, I., Van der Knaap, W., & Van den Brink, A. (2020). Reading landscape design representations as an interplay of validity, readability and interactivity: a framework for visual content analysis. Visual Communication, 19(2), 163–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357218779103
  29. Ravenscroft, M. (2018, August 30). By failing to represent diversity in CGIs, we are normalising whiteness and othering everything else. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/30/Diversity-Architecture-Cgis-Opinion-Margaret-Ravenscroft/
  30. Reidel, J. (2012). Showing It Like It Is. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 24–25). CLOG.
  31. Sériès et Sériès, & Labtop. (2012). Just Saying. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 26–27). CLOG.
  32. Sheppard, S. R. J. (2001). Guidance for crystal ball gazers: Developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00135-9
  33. Sheppard, S. R. J. (2012). Visualizing Climate Change : A Guide to Visual Communication of Climate Change and Developing Local Solutions. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776882
  34. Sigg, D. (2012). Let’s Fool Ourselves. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 36–37). CLOG.
  35. Stenslund, A. (2021). Collaging atmosphere: Exploring the architectural touch of the eye. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(9), 2761–2774. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320986559
  36. Tsu, V. (2012). Rendering Tries to Transform Architecture into an Expendable Commodity, Ready for Consumption. In K. May, J. van den Hout, J. Reidel, H. Wu, J. Franklin, & A. Lee Coates IV (Eds.), CLOG Rendering (pp. 106–107). CLOG.
  37. Turkle, S. (2019). Simulation and Its Discontents. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8200.001.0001
  38. Wergles, N., & Muhar, A. (2009). The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2008.12.010
Update cookies preferences