The Finnish daily HS recently published an article on the difference between conceptual images of urban planning, and the “real thing”. A similar exercise had been done earlier, in a similar, critical vein by YLE. In his recent blog post, prof. Kimmo Lapintie dissects the reasoning in these articles. One important insight from his post: concept images in town planning differ fundamentally from concept images used for the planning of specific buildings – the first category gives general information about such things as the height of buildings and their location, but not, for example, about facades or balconies and the like. While I agree with the blog that concept images are indeed not to be taken at their face value, and are not intended to be so, I disagree with the implication that most citizens do possess the necessary “reading skills” with which to approach conceptual images. In this sense, adding disclaimers (such as “this building is not going to be really constructed, but simply shows the approximate height, location and size”) could in fact act as a genuinely useful act of public education, rather than as a joke.
source: HS.fi 11.1.2015