When a proposed arena threatened to compromise Bath's UNESCO World Heritage status, imagery became a tool for civic discourse. This counter-proposal used visualisation not to sell, but to question.
In a World Heritage context, the question is never simply 'can we build this?' It is 'should we?'—and imagery is often the only language in which that question can be honestly asked.
This was not a commercial commission. It was an exercise in visual responsibility—using the tools of architectural visualisation to test assumptions and expose risks.
The imagery deliberately avoided seductive rendering techniques. Instead, it prioritised clarity: showing massing in context, testing sightlines, revealing what a development of this scale would mean for Bath's distinctive skyline.
Visualisation can serve persuasion or it can serve truth. In contested civic decisions, we believe it should serve truth.
The counter-proposal imagery allowed citizens and decision-makers to see what promotional renders would not show—the true scale, the real context, the actual impact on views that Bath's residents value.
