Can a rendering influence an architecture competition? Helsinki, Chamartín and Shengshan show how images clarify ideas without replacing the design.

JVA Renders · Architectural visualization research · 2026

In a competition, an image cannot stand in for architecture. But it can determine what a viewer understands first. A station may read as a shiny object or as a place people actually want to move through. A museum may appear as a monument or as a new part of the city. Those distinctions matter when a jury is assessing a building that does not yet exist.

So the interesting question is not whether a rendering “wins” a competition. We found no evidence that would justify such a claim. It is this: which design decisions does an image make visible, and which does it leave out? We looked at Helsinki, Madrid-Chamartín and Shengshan, then at a fourth case that shows why the date of an image matters.

Helsinki: a camera that helps compare architecture

The competition for Helsinki’s new Museum of Architecture and Design admitted 624 proposals, with five finalists. The organizers published proposal images and requested 3D models for 21 first-stage entries to help assess their fit in the city. The jury also had drawings, written submissions and technical criteria. A summary of 1,412 public comments was presented during the second stage. Representation mattered to the process, but it was one part of a much larger body of evidence. [1][2]

A particularly useful comparison is between City, Sky and Sea, which took second prize, and the winner, Kumma. Their aerial views show the same harbour edge from a broadly similar distance. Because the camera and context are not dramatically different, we can look at the architecture: how much public ground each proposal opens, how it meets the square, and how it occupies the waterfront.

Aerial view of City, Sky and Sea, a Helsinki finalist proposal, with the harbour and historic centre around the museum.
City, Sky and Sea, finalist and second prize. Image from the official final-stage documentation; the consulted page does not separately name a visualization studio.
Aerial view of Kumma, the low, faceted museum proposal beside Helsinki harbour.
Kumma, image from the proposal submitted in the final stage. The jury selected it unanimously; this is the competition image, not a later design-development rendering.

The lesson is not that one atmosphere defeated another. It is that a useful image makes architecture easier to discuss. The jury praised Kumma for urban integration, preserved views, identity, and its potential to meet the programme and climate goals. Some of this is visible in a rendering; some requires the full submission. [1][3]

After the award, JKMM / MIR produced a visualization of the terrace as an inhabited lookout. It may be the most seductive image in this section, which is exactly why its date matters: the museum credits it in 2026, after the 2025 decision. It communicates the developed project; it cannot explain how that jury voted. [4]

Museum terrace looking towards Helsinki Market Square, visualized by JKMM Architects and MIR.
Post-award visualization credited by the museum to JKMM Architects / MIR. It illustrates how the project’s public experience is presented today; it is not evidence of the image that decided the competition.

Chamartín: an image as an urban promise

ADIF did explicitly mention the complex’s “image” among the factors considered when choosing Chamartín Ecosistema Abierto, by UNStudio, b720 and Esteyco, from nine finalist proposals. It listed rather less photogenic demands alongside it: rail and commercial functionality, feasibility, accessibility, urban integration, sustainability, and gender-sensitive design. That tells us something significant. The station’s future presence in Madrid mattered; ADIF did not say the beauty of a single rendering was scored separately. [5]

Exterior view of Chamartín at dusk, with the station roofs, public space, and towers.
Proposal image published by UNStudio and credited to Play-Time in the asset name. Winning team: UNStudio, b720, and Esteyco. Image source: official project page.

Play-Time’s exterior view makes a simple, effective choice: it starts at the station’s public ground, not with the towers. The lit canopy, movement and planting bring an enormous infrastructure down to human scale. A second view takes us underneath that canopy. Rather than repeating the same effect, it asks whether trains, structure, landscape and places to stay can coexist. [9]

View from beneath Chamartín’s canopy, with platforms, trains, planting, and the city beyond.
Second view of Chamartín’s proposal published by UNStudio and credited to Play-Time. The frame makes the relationship between rail circulation and places to stay easier to read.

Together the images make a proposition that one heroic view would tell less well: Chamartín wants to be a station and a piece of city. Drawings and operational criteria can test that ambition. This is what visualization can do for a competition: make a design argument legible and leave it open to scrutiny.

Shengshan: atmosphere should belong to the place

On China’s Shengshan Island, EMBT describes its fishing-culture pavilion as a first-prize proposal and credits Playtime for the renderings. One view places the metallic silhouette among mist, sea and terrain. Another clarifies the platform and route along the water. The first sparks curiosity; the second answers a practical question: how do we arrive at and inhabit this coast? [6]

Shengshan fishing-culture pavilion between mist and sea, visualized by Playtime.
Atmospheric view of EMBT’s Shengshan project. The architects credit Playtime for the renders and state that the proposal received first prize.
Elevated view of the Shengshan pavilion, showing the waterside platform and approach.
Second image of the same project, also credited to Playtime by EMBT. Low-angle light clarifies the arrival and the maritime edge.

Mist is more than decoration when it situates architecture rooted in maritime culture. It should not, however, obscure the building altogether. This pair balances feeling with spatial clarity. We have not found a detailed public jury report that connects the images to the vote. We can analyse what the images say, not credit them with the prize.

A striking image we cannot place before the jury

Wilmar Headquarters shows why visual research needs more than a sharp eye. According to Singapore’s Economic Development Board, Eric Parry Architects won an invited competition in 2017. DBOX presents an image of the project in its competition portfolio, but dates the entry to 2020. Without the original submission boards, we cannot establish whether this particular view was assessed three years earlier. [7][8]

Wilmar Headquarters framed by green terraces, warm light, and street-level activity, in a DBOX image.
Wilmar Headquarters, Eric Parry Architects; DBOX classifies the image as competition work and lists 2020. The source does not link this exact view to the boards assessed in 2017.

We can discuss its visual language. We cannot claim “this render helped win.” The distinction sounds minor, but it is central to the credibility of the argument.

Can a rendering influence a competition?

It can influence how a project is understood; we cannot measure how much it affects the result. Helsinki shows the value of a comparable camera for reading architectural differences. Chamartín shows that a complex’s image can be an explicit criterion, alongside verifiable performance. Shengshan shows how a place-specific atmosphere can connect a building with its landscape. None isolates the rendering from the design, documentation and deliberation.

For a team preparing a competition, this changes the brief. Before asking for an “impactful” picture, ask: what should the jury grasp in ten seconds, and what should it be able to verify afterwards? If urban integration is central, a contextual view may be more useful than a close-up hero. If the project depends on a journey, perhaps two images should answer one another. And if atmosphere matters, it should emerge from the site and use, not hide an unresolved decision.

A good rendering does not dress up the argument. It concentrates it. The strongest outcome is not simply an unforgettable image, but an image that makes someone want to inspect the drawings as well.

How we made this reading

We reviewed official records and publicly available or credited images from the three competitions, with Wilmar as a contrast case. We compared framing, light, people, context and the question each view helps answer. The eight images reproduced here include one MIR view made after the Helsinki award and one DBOX view that cannot be tied to the original jury submission. This is a small, purposive reading. It does not measure a probability of winning or rank visualization studios. Review closed on 1 October 2026.

Sources

1. Finnish Association of Architects (SAFA), Jury Evaluation Report: New Museum of Architecture and Design, 2025. https://www.safa.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JuryEvaluationReport_DIGI_ADM2025.pdf

2. Architecture & Design Museum Helsinki, “Five developed proposals revealed in final phase…”, 17 June 2025. https://admuseo.fi/en/five-developed-proposals-revealed-in-final-phase-of-design-competition/

3. City of Helsinki, “JKMM Architects’ Kumma wins competition…”, 11 September 2025. https://www.hel.fi/en/news/jkmm-architects-kumma-wins-competition-to-design-finlands-new-museum-of-architecture-and-design-in

4. Architecture & Design Museum Helsinki, “New Museum Building”, image credit JKMM Architects / MIR. https://admuseo.fi/en/new-museum-building/

5. Adif, “Adif AV confía en Chamartín Ecosistema Abierto…”, 2022. https://www.adif.es/w/adif-av-conf%C3%ADa-en-chamart%C3%ADn-ecosistema-abierto-la-culminaci%C3%B3n-de-la-transformaci%C3%B3n-de-la-estaci%C3%B3n-en-referente-de-la-movilidad-del-futuro

6. EMBT, “Fishing Culture Exhibition Hall at International Sea Fishing Base”, credit: Renders Playtime; 1st Prize in competition. https://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project/fishing-culture-exhibition-hall-at-international-sea-fishing-base/

7. DBOX, “Competitions” portfolio, Wilmar Headquarters; usage: Competition; copyright notice. https://www.dboxcg.com/portfolio/competitions/

8. Singapore Economic Development Board, “Futuristic workspace – S’pore a hub for corporate headquarters including Wilmar”, 18 April 2022. https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/business-insights/insights/futuristic-workspace-spore-a-hub-for-corporate-headquarters.html

9. UNStudio, “Chamartín Station”, proposal images credited to Play-Time. https://www.unstudio.com/projects/chamartin-station/

Related service

Architectural visualization

Explore service →