Generating editable 3D urban scenes from a single image requires detailed building assets with a coherent spatial arrangement. Occlusion and perspective ambiguity make it difficult to infer complete building geometry together with consistent relative scales and positions. We present CityLift, a framework that generates individual textured building meshes from an urban image by coupling scene-level spatial modeling with building-level synthesis. CityLift first learns building shape and placement jointly through coupled scene and instance streams, producing coarse sparse structures in a common coordinate system. We then introduce generative spatial inheritance, which maps each building's coarse occupancy and scene-conditioned 3D feature field into a local volume to guide a flow model that generates finer structure. The same coordinate mapping places the generated meshes back into the scene, preserving their spatial relationship to the scaffold. To address the scarcity of urban data pairing scene images with individual 3D buildings, we construct CityLift-5K, comprising 4,997 synthetic scenes with instance masks, building meshes, and placement annotations. Experiments on CityLift-5K and scene blocks from UrbanScene3D and InstanceBuilding demonstrate improved building geometry and scene composition. The project page is available at https://ranhaogong.github.io/CityLift/.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of CityLift. Given a single urban image and building instance masks, CityLift generates individually editable building meshes in a shared scene frame. (a) A shared scene–instance generator predicts coarse occupancy in a common scene frame, implicitly modeling building placement, scale, and geometry. (b) A scaffold-derived coordinate map Ti deterministically resamples occupancy and contextual features Fi into each building’s local volume, forming the aligned condition Ai . (c) Conditioned on Ai and building image features ei , a local flow model regenerates finer sparse structures from noise. These structures guide mesh generation, and the resulting buildings are mapped back into the scene using the inherited transforms.
Building level
Scene level
Runtime ↓ (s/scene)
Method
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
TRELLIS.2
—
—
—
—
—
3.327
3.274
3.380
0.318
0.517
39.2
SAM 3D
2.761
2.565
2.956
0.397
0.595
2.595
2.501
2.689
0.387
0.597
83.7
Pixal3D
2.547
2.206
2.889
0.396
0.603
2.617
2.306
2.928
0.380
0.592
1482.4
3D-Fixer
2.701
2.533
2.870
0.403
0.602
2.832
2.853
2.811
0.385
0.590
310.3
SceneGen
9.352
10.092
8.612
0.126
0.223
4.973
4.795
5.151
0.214
0.368
231.9
Table 1: Geometric evaluation on CityLift-5K. An em dash denotes unavailable building-level output.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on blocks extracted from CityLift-5K testset. We slightly adjust the viewing angle to better showcase the generated scenes.
Building level
Scene level
Method
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
TRELLIS.2
—
—
—
—
—
2.809
2.766
2.851
0.401
0.616
SAM 3D
1.789
1.794
1.785
0.576
0.776
2.112
2.112
2.111
0.466
0.685
Pixal3D
1.490
1.303
1.678
0.600
0.818
2.067
1.666
2.469
0.473
0.693
3D-Fixer
1.797
1.497
2.098
0.489
0.708
2.507
1.973
3.042
0.422
0.641
SceneGen
13.376
13.634
13.118
0.083
0.158
8.017
5.566
10.467
0.147
0.248
Table 2: External evaluation on UrbanScene3D. Quantitative comparison on blocks extracted from a synthetic urban scene, assessing the geometric accuracy of individual buildings and assembled scenes.
Building level
Scene level
Method
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
CD ↓
Acc ↓
Comp ↓
F@1 ↑
F@2 ↑
TRELLIS.2
—
—
—
—
—
3.667
3.324
4.009
0.200
0.385
SAM 3D
1.995
2.421
1.570
0.366
0.620
2.418
2.887
1.949
0.351
0.594
Pixal3D
1.768
1.720
1.816
0.428
0.711
2.012
2.116
1.909
0.422
0.694
3D-Fixer
1.983
2.186
1.780
0.369
0.637
2.192
2.403
1.982
0.387
0.648
SceneGen
10.321
10.835
9.807
0.098
0.195
5.801
6.034
5.567
0.178
0.325
Table 3: External evaluation on InstanceBuilding. Quantitative comparison on scene blocks from real-world reconstructed meshes, assessing the geometric accuracy of individual buildings and assembled scenes.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on blocks extracted from UrbanScene3D and InstanceBuilding. We slightly adjust the viewing angle to better showcase the generated scenes.
Method
L
G
A
M
Overall
TRELLIS.2
84.2
75.2
71.7
74.8
77.6
SAM 3D
80.8
67.9
69.2
68.3
72.8
Pixal3D
79.6
64.2
63.8
64.6
69.5
3D-Fixer
80.8
65.8
58.5
65.6
69.6
SceneGen
44.0
55.8
53.1
54.8
51.0
Ours
87.3
81.2
77.9
81.7
82.8
Table 4: MLLM-as-a-judge visual evaluation on UrbanScene3D. ChatGPT 6 Astra scores the input image and four rendered views of each output. Results are averaged over all blocks shared by all six methods. All values are on a 0–100 scale, with higher values better. L, G, A, and M denote layout and completeness, shape and proportion, appearance and detail, and multi-view structural quality.
Building
Scene
Method
CD ↓
F@2 ↑
CD ↓
F@2 ↑
Coarse decoding
1.15
0.85
1.22
0.84
w/o scene guidance
3.22
0.35
2.59
0.46
w/o aligned injection
2.51
0.47
2.41
0.50
w/o hidden-feature injection
2.21
0.56
2.17
0.58
w/o occupancy injection
1.18
0.85
1.26
0.83
Table 5: Quantitative results of the ablation study on CityLift-5K.
Figure 5: Qualitative results of the ablation study.