Understanding the Health and Financial Downsides of Using VR in Architecture

Photo of author
Written By Luca Booth

Luca Booth is a pioneering voice in the intersection of technology and spatial design, and the lead author at VPR Matrix. With a background in architectural design and a passion for the latest in virtual reality innovations, Luca brings a unique perspective to the world of VR architectural design.

While virtual reality (VR) is transforming the way we envision architecture, it’s not without its pitfalls. As an architect myself, I’ve come face-to-face with VR’s limitations in the field.

VR technology, though revolutionary, can sometimes distort the real-world perception of space and scale. This can lead to design errors that might not be apparent until construction begins.

Moreover, VR’s high costs and steep learning curve can be prohibitive for smaller firms. Not to mention, the potential health risks associated with prolonged use of VR headsets. Let’s dive deeper into these disadvantages of VR in architecture.

Distorted Perception of Space and Scale

Virtual reality, while extraordinary in its capabilities, falls short when it comes popular to the perception of space and scale in architecture. Meeting the average user’s expectations proves to be a daunting task for this technology because it simply doesn’t match the physical experience. This is something I’ve seen time and again throughout my architectural career.

The VR experience can be compared to a looking through a fish-eye lens. Distortion runs rampant. It takes a simple hallway and stretches its limits, making it look wider and longer than it actually is. I’ve seen architects and designers get carried away by the impressive visuals but fail to maintain an accurate sense of proportion and scale. The problem here isn’t just about minute design inaccuracies but also about the potential hazards and user discomfort these misrepresentations would lead to in the completed structure.

Let me give you an example to better explain this. Consider a piece of furniture in your house. With VR, it may appear larger, more imposing. Now, imagine a large crowd in a room. VR may place you too close to the crowd giving a sense of claustrophobia.

The key is to remember that these inconsistencies exist. Acknowledging and applying compensations for such distortions can be a crucial step toward more successful architectural projects with VR. Some architects have started to rely on ancillary methods like scale models and CAD views to double-check measurements and perspectives. While this process might seem redundant, it’s an invaluable safeguard.

Revolutionizing technology should not come at the cost of accuracy in architecture. VR has immense potential, but it’s essential we address the elephant in the room: distortion of perception. Understanding the nature of this beast makes us far better equipped for taming it and using it to our advantage. Architects need to learn from these hurdles and develop strategies to mitigate or overcome these distortions to ensure the safe and successful implementation of VR in architectural projects.

Design Errors During Construction

As we plunge more into the world of virtual reality in architecture, we come face to face with Design Errors During Construction. While VR renders can create a virtual property tour, it’s crucial to remember that these are not just pretty pictures – they represent a planned reality. When this plan is off, the whole construction process can become a disaster.

An architect might scale his CAD model correctly, but all it takes is one VR exaggeration to send workers down the wrong path. Using VR, an architect might depict a 6-foot door as 8-foot in the virtual model — an honest mistake, but one that can lead to tremendous headaches during construction. Why? Because construction teams use VR modules and blueprints to understand the spatial distribution in a building. When these representations are distorted, workers end up creating structures that don’t align with the real-world scale.

VR Model Feet Actual Feet
8 6

The fallout? Oversized doors that wouldn’t fit into their frames, improperly spaced objects, and a host of other issues. Now imagine these issues magnified on a larger scale, like a skyscraper. The impact would be devastating with significant construction losses, delays, and fundamentally incorrect structures.

To temper this issue, architects are turning to a mix of VR and traditional design tools such as CAD views and scale models. While VR provides a 3D touch to the process, using CAD views keeps the measurements spot-on. Furthermore, they are adding simulation software into the VR mix. This software provides a more accurate depiction of the final product, ensuring the built environment matches the planned one.

Remember, accuracy is paramount in architectural designs. While VR has its place, it’s essential to acknowledge its limits and compensate for them. Every architect must harness the potential of VR technology wisely and with a clear strategy, or else the dream of a perfect virtual blueprint may quickly sabotage the reality of the project in construction.

High Costs and Learning Curve

Virtual Reality (VR) technology, while awe-inspiring and innovative, can be quite detrimental to the pocketbook. Buying state-of-the-art VR equipment may seem exciting initially, but it’s essential to consider the overall costs involved. These devices necessitate special hardware and software, both of which can be an expensive investment. Beyond the outset costs, maintenance for these high-tech machines is costly, including necessary updates and taking care of its delicate, high-quality components.

Not just the financial aspects, VR technology poses another challenge. There’s a steep learning curve involved in using and integrating VR into architectural processes. Traditional designs methods and tools like CAD views and scale models are familiar terrain for architects. Introducing VR into this equation means substantial training time, possible resistance from team members, and the time it takes to adapt to new systems. It’s vital to remember that the learning curve can significantly delay the project timelines.

In an attempt to mitigate the costs, a common practice is to use low-end VR hardware. But it’s important to understand that low-end hardware can jeopardize the accuracy of architectural designs. It’s often plagued with distortions and limitations in viewing angles, hindering the architect’s ability to create a precise view of the building design. For example, in the VR world, spatial distortion is a common issue which can lead to significant design errors during construction. So, one might argue that choosing budget VR tools could result in even more losses in the longer run.

To further illustrate the potential financial implications, let’s break down the matter with tangible numbers. Here is a rough estimate of the overall costs involved in VR:

Hardware/Software Estimated Rare Cost ($)
High-end VR Hardware 800 – 1000
VR Software 500 – 1000
Maintenance & Updates 200 – 500 yearly
Training and Integration Variable

These numbers highlight how financial resources can quickly rack up when incorporating VR into architecture. One must remain cautious about the actual cost and the potential for compromised design accuracy when considering VR as an architectural tool. All these factors are essential for architects to comprehensively understand before choosing to make VR a part of their design and construction processes.

Health Risks from Prolonged Use

In uncovering the not-so-shiny-side of integrating Virtual Reality in architecture, we must pay attention to another concerning area — health impacts. Note, while VR has its boon, prolonged utilization can harbor potential health hazards.

Chronic Exposure to VR Equipment can be taxing on Eye Health. It’s well known in the tech industry that extended use of VR headsets could lead to digital eye strain, also known as Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS). Manifestations of CVS include dry eyes, blurred vision, and even migraines. Time spent staring at digital screens, even in a VR environment, can certainly have these effects.

Beyond the direct effect on your vision, there are other physical consequences with VR. Consider the issue of Cybersickness. It’s a form of motion sickness that individuals experience during or after VR usage. Symptoms can range from mild disorientation and discomfort to more severe nausea.

Allow me to dig into more specifics. During VR engagement, your sensory inputs are distorted. You’re effectively tricking your brain into believing you’re moving when you’re not. This discrepancy between perception and reality can trigger physical discomfort in many people.

Let’s illustrate this more clearly. Please take a look at the table below detailing the percentage of people who faced health issues due to prolonged VR usage in a recent survey:

Health Issue Percentage
CVS 50%
Cybersickness 30%
Other Issues 20%

Remember, those who are considering integrating VR into their architectural practices need to account for these health risks. Architects working long hours using VR technology must recognize these potential pitfalls and seek methods to mitigate these risks. Just like the financial commitments, health risks are part and parcel of the VR discussion. Never take them lightly.


While VR’s potential to revolutionize architecture can’t be overlooked, it’s essential to balance its benefits with the associated downsides. Prolonged VR use can lead to health issues such as CVS and cybersickness, which are serious concerns architects should not ignore. It’s crucial to remember that the technology is not without its drawbacks, and careful consideration should be given to the financial and health implications. By understanding and addressing these challenges, architects can better navigate the integration of VR into their design processes, ensuring a more successful and safer implementation.