Thursday, January 17, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Reflection on BIM
In my limited experience with BIM, I can see the potential for BIM software having a big impact on many aspects of design. One of the biggest changes is the ability to rapidly output a variety of drawing types. Drawings that would take a long time to draft individually are now instantly created, which certainly speeds up the SD and DD process. The ability to switch rapidly between orthographic and 3d views definitely made it easier to design more quickly. The many ways of viewing the project improved coordination between floors at an earlier point in the design process.
I can see that I have not yet utilized BIM as a pre-schematic design tool in the way that it can be useful. It is difficult when our previous architectural training has emphasized the plan and hand drawing as the major tool for preliminary design. The act of sketching conceptual floorplans in Revit I found to be cumbersome and difficult, perhaps because I did not know the best way, but in general I think it can be said that Revit wants projects to be detailed and correctly modeled from the beginning. It didn't seem to deal well with the conceptual phase, and for that reason I felt that my design process was hindered because I felt that in order to make the program function, I needed to immediately model walls and floors accurately. I also believe that something is lost when the hand's role in creating a drawing is reduced to clicks of the mouse. At least until input devices advance farther, it seems that a process which integrates hand drawing should remain a part of the early phases.
Throughout the design process, the software has definitely affected the design of the building I am working on. I tend to shy away from design possibilities that I know will be very difficult for me to model. For this reason, it seems crucial that architects using BIM must have complete knowledge and mastery of almost all aspects of the software so that they do not feel this limitation.
The speed with which Revit advances the building project, with regards to specific materials and construction types certainly requires that problem solving relating to specific elements happen upfront rather than at the back-end after the entire design is laid out.
As a tool for representation, I can see that Revit has fantastic opportunities. It can do so much more than produce 2d construction drawings. The 3d views generated can become crucial tools for communicating design intent to clients.
I can see that I have not yet utilized BIM as a pre-schematic design tool in the way that it can be useful. It is difficult when our previous architectural training has emphasized the plan and hand drawing as the major tool for preliminary design. The act of sketching conceptual floorplans in Revit I found to be cumbersome and difficult, perhaps because I did not know the best way, but in general I think it can be said that Revit wants projects to be detailed and correctly modeled from the beginning. It didn't seem to deal well with the conceptual phase, and for that reason I felt that my design process was hindered because I felt that in order to make the program function, I needed to immediately model walls and floors accurately. I also believe that something is lost when the hand's role in creating a drawing is reduced to clicks of the mouse. At least until input devices advance farther, it seems that a process which integrates hand drawing should remain a part of the early phases.
Throughout the design process, the software has definitely affected the design of the building I am working on. I tend to shy away from design possibilities that I know will be very difficult for me to model. For this reason, it seems crucial that architects using BIM must have complete knowledge and mastery of almost all aspects of the software so that they do not feel this limitation.
The speed with which Revit advances the building project, with regards to specific materials and construction types certainly requires that problem solving relating to specific elements happen upfront rather than at the back-end after the entire design is laid out.
As a tool for representation, I can see that Revit has fantastic opportunities. It can do so much more than produce 2d construction drawings. The 3d views generated can become crucial tools for communicating design intent to clients.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Report on Integrated Practice #5
In this article, Renee Chang tackles the difficult issue of BIM in the architectural curriculum. I agree with the anaysis that the academy must be wary of the potential for BIM to erode the teaching of true design thinking. BIM, while a powerful tool, is not currently appropriate for beginning design students. The software is in fact too smart and rigid to be used by students who need to use tools that allow complete flexibility. BIM is beginning to be adopted at schools of architecture, but I believe that it should not occur before at least two entire years of design studio in which students are limited to simpler, more flexible tools. The rush to teach students BIM could, in my view, hinder their ability "think outside the box." Curricula in most universities are already full, and adding BIM will require cutting out other aspects. In the first years of design studio, there is simply not enough time to throw students into software programs of such depth and steep learning curve. I think students need to have a solid foundation of hand drawing and modeling skills before they even begin using 2d CAD software, let alone BIM programs.
The graph showing the strengths of various schools of architecture throughout history shows that the pendulum with regard to construction has finally swung back from the time of the Gothic master builder. But integrated practice today has compromised the emphasis on composition and proportion, two critical aspects of good design. For students, these two aspects must be stressed early in studio, and then the emphasis can move towards the practical issues of design and construction through the integration of BIM.
The graph showing the strengths of various schools of architecture throughout history shows that the pendulum with regard to construction has finally swung back from the time of the Gothic master builder. But integrated practice today has compromised the emphasis on composition and proportion, two critical aspects of good design. For students, these two aspects must be stressed early in studio, and then the emphasis can move towards the practical issues of design and construction through the integration of BIM.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Response to "Change or Perish: Report on Integrated Practice"
Thom Mayne's talk is an attempt to give the architectural profession a wake up call that the design process has permanently changed through the computerization of design and production and that architects who do not adapt will, in his words, "perish." I felt that his rhetoric was too dramatic for the points he was making, and that his points did not apply universally across the profession at this time. Mayne operates in the world of high design, competing for high profile projects that get on the covers of magazines. This is a tiny fraction of architecture as it is currently practiced, and I am not convinced that Mayne fully understands the average architectural practice in the U.S.
His office's workflow, which is entirely digital, is still beyond the reach of the vast majority of firms. Mayne clearly prides himself on being ahead of the curve, and it does seem that eventually many more firms will reach his level of technology and 3d-dominated design process, but I think it will be many more years than he expects before his way of working becomes more widely adopted.
His comments show his biases quite clearly, which also makes it hard to take him as seriously. He seems to critique architectural education for continuing to teach students to draw plans and sections. I have never heard this raised as a critique of education before. It is almost shocking to think that an architect has completely discounted the 2d methods of representation that have been the backbone of the discipline for its entire history. But considering Mayne's further comments, particularly where he says, "One of the problems with our profession ... is that it's so overly invested in incredibly antiquated ideas and style and history and notions that should have been gone a hundred years ago," his radical views about what schools should be teaching seem to fit within his broader perspective which is anchored by its rejection of the history of the discipline.
Putting my deep philosophical differences with Mayne aside with regards to the importance of history and tradition in the practice of architecture today, his description the design process of his office is exciting for the extent of his iterative process. The 3d printing of physical models from rapidly produced 3d models allows him and his designers to test their designs more than would have been possible in the past. For his way of working, this seems to be a great process that will lead to a more innovative and adaptable architecture. I disagree with Mayne with the cavalier way he assumes that his way of working is the way that all firms will need to adapt to in order to survive. It could more accurately be rephrased, I believe, to say that all starchitects will need to adapt to these changes in design process in order to survive at the top of the architectural heap. There will always be a vast amount of "ordinary" buildings built by "ordinary" firms that just don't require the kind of exclusively digital and 3d process that Mayne advocates. I am convinced that 2d drawings will remain an integral part of the profession for the duration of my career and well beyond. While there are certainly exciting new opportunities that will emerge, I don't think technology is going to turn the profession on its head in the way that Mayne envisions.
His office's workflow, which is entirely digital, is still beyond the reach of the vast majority of firms. Mayne clearly prides himself on being ahead of the curve, and it does seem that eventually many more firms will reach his level of technology and 3d-dominated design process, but I think it will be many more years than he expects before his way of working becomes more widely adopted.
His comments show his biases quite clearly, which also makes it hard to take him as seriously. He seems to critique architectural education for continuing to teach students to draw plans and sections. I have never heard this raised as a critique of education before. It is almost shocking to think that an architect has completely discounted the 2d methods of representation that have been the backbone of the discipline for its entire history. But considering Mayne's further comments, particularly where he says, "One of the problems with our profession ... is that it's so overly invested in incredibly antiquated ideas and style and history and notions that should have been gone a hundred years ago," his radical views about what schools should be teaching seem to fit within his broader perspective which is anchored by its rejection of the history of the discipline.
Putting my deep philosophical differences with Mayne aside with regards to the importance of history and tradition in the practice of architecture today, his description the design process of his office is exciting for the extent of his iterative process. The 3d printing of physical models from rapidly produced 3d models allows him and his designers to test their designs more than would have been possible in the past. For his way of working, this seems to be a great process that will lead to a more innovative and adaptable architecture. I disagree with Mayne with the cavalier way he assumes that his way of working is the way that all firms will need to adapt to in order to survive. It could more accurately be rephrased, I believe, to say that all starchitects will need to adapt to these changes in design process in order to survive at the top of the architectural heap. There will always be a vast amount of "ordinary" buildings built by "ordinary" firms that just don't require the kind of exclusively digital and 3d process that Mayne advocates. I am convinced that 2d drawings will remain an integral part of the profession for the duration of my career and well beyond. While there are certainly exciting new opportunities that will emerge, I don't think technology is going to turn the profession on its head in the way that Mayne envisions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)