Beyond the Drawing Board: How Augmented Reality is Reshaping Architectural Design Review

Over the last decade, architectural design has relied on 2D methods of representation, such as elevations, sections, and floor plans, paired with digital renderings of 3D models. While these tools are essential to convey geometry and intent, they remain limited by their two-dimensional format. Even the most realistic renderings, created through programs like SketchUp, Revit, or AutoCAD, still flatten space and distance the viewer from the lived experience of a project. Recently, architects have begun to explore immersive technologies as a way to bridge this gap between drawing and experience, offering new ways to inhabit and assess spatial proposals.

+ 4

What are AR, VR, and MR?

Extended Reality (XR) can be classified into three main types: Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR), each offering varying levels of immersion in digital environments. At one end of the spectrum, AR enhances the real world with digital content, while at the other, VR fully immerses the user in a completely virtual environment, blocking out the physical world. MR lies between these extremes but is essentially a more detailed classification of AR based on the type of display used. Their research proposes the following classification: Class 1 display refers to monitor-based systems, where users view the real world through a screen equipped with a camera that captures the environment and overlays digital information, such as in the Apple Vision Pro, which uses passthrough cameras. In contrast, Class 2 and 3 systems use head-mounted displays (HMDs) with see-through lenses that superimpose 3D models onto the user’s view, like the Microsoft HoloLens. In 2020, Trimble combined the HoloLens with a hard hat, creating the Trimble XR10, which makes this technology usable in the construction site. For clarity, this text will refer to Class 1 systems as AR and Class 2 and 3 systems as MR moving forward.

How do Users Perceive Space?

Architectural design is not only about defining space, but also about anticipating how people will perceive and move through it. The way users interpret a space depends not just on geometry, but also on intuition, their individual knowledge, and experiences. Kevin Lynch described this as a space’s “legibility,” or how easily it can be understood and organized mentally, while Ittelson (1978) emphasizes how users explore, categorize, and systematize spatial elements into a coherent whole. The user first explores an area to orient themselves and move around, then they will develop a taxonomy of the space elements to mentally organize it, and finally, they put everything together into a system that tells the brain why things are happening and how they relate to each other. Research suggests that immersive environments such as mixed reality can simulate this faithfully, allowing architects and clients alike to engage with a design not as an abstract plan, but as a place to walk through, observe, and interpret.

Which One Improves Design Understanding: 2D Drawings or MR?

Based on the above, a study made by the National Taiwan University in 2021 explored this topic by conducting an experiment where participants were brought to a room and were divided into two groups. The first would analyze an interior design proposal of the space using printed architectural drawings and colored renderings. The second group was asked to do the same but only used the explorable MR 3D model seen through an MR headset, in this case: The HoloLens. After the exploration was done, users would sit down, and researchers would ask questions about the space. For example, the general understanding of the elements in the architectural program, how well people perceive length and sizes of objects, perception and understanding of textures and materials, and knowledge of demolition or renovation of specific elements. A total of 42 people participated in the research, with an average age of 26 years, various ranges of architectural drawing understanding, and from diverse cultural backgrounds, including Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Americas, and Europe. The results shed light on several topics for architects looking into implementing this technology in their work.

First, the study suggests that MR technology allowed users to understand around 85% of the overall design proposal compared to 2D methods (which allowed participants to obtain only around 75% of the information). At the same time, they also concluded that MR does not fully replace 2D; in fact, it’s about balance. Both MR and 2D are suitable for identifying spaces and general layout, identifying where activities can be performed, and identifying heights. However, 2D plans are especially good for specific measurements of the space (Length and width), understanding the demolition plan, and identifying countable elements in the design, like the number of lamps, switches, or sockets. On the other hand, MR was better for understanding how elements in the space interact with each other (Like if the columns were wrapped by a specific material). MR  was especially useful for quickly identifying the specific materials and textures of the design and visually understanding size in terms of width, and mentally perceiving certain properties of materials like roughness, smoothness, warmth, or coldness.

How Can We Integrate MR into our Current Design Review Workflows?

MR has the potential to facilitate inclusive and interdisciplinary collaboration by bridging the gap between technical and non-technical stakeholders. Clients or end users with limited experience in reading architectural drawings often struggle to visualize how a space will look or function. AR, especially through Mixed Reality headsets, can mitigate this by allowing them to engage with the space intuitively. Given the transparent property of the MR lenses, non-architect users can experience the spatial and material qualities of a design proposal directly on-site, making it easier to identify potential issues such as circulation conflicts, scale misinterpretations, or material inconsistencies. This allows them to give feedback that is grounded in their own perceptual experience rather than abstract interpretations. This can help to democratize the design review process and can lead to more informed, client-centered decisions. For architectural teams, combining MR with traditional tools might mean that their detailed technical evaluations (e.g., clearances, counts, and demolition plans) are complemented by a richer experiential understanding from the client, which can lead to more holistic and user-validated design outcomes.

This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: What Is Future Intelligence?, proudly presented by Gendo, an AI co-pilot for Architects.

Our mission at Gendo is to help architects produce concept images 100X faster by focusing on the core of the design process. We have built a cutting edge AI tool in collaboration with architects from some of the most renowned firms such as Zaha Hadid, KPF and David Chipperfield.

Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.