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.
No comments:
Post a Comment