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—testing whether alternative approaches could better respect the city's irreplaceable character.
The project demonstrated how visual analysis can contribute to planning debate, offering stakeholders a means to evaluate competing visions on equal terms.
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, expose risks, and offer alternatives that the formal planning process had not considered.
The imagery deliberately avoided the seductive rendering techniques that characterise promotional CGI. Instead, it prioritised clarity: showing massing in context, testing sightlines, and allowing viewers to form their own judgements about appropriateness.
The most powerful planning images are not those that persuade. They are those that reveal—allowing communities to see what is proposed before it becomes irreversible.
The counter-proposal contributed to wider public discourse about the arena's appropriateness, providing visual evidence that alternatives existed. While the final planning outcome remains contested, the project demonstrated that visualisation can serve civic interests, not just commercial ones.
It also reinforced a core Advent principle: that imagery carries consequence, and those who produce it bear responsibility for what it enables—or prevents.
