Architects using 3D software to create new designs?

[mzagorski]

Hello All,

 

I'm working on my architecture thesis just now and I want to do 3 case studies on architects that are using computer software to allow them to design buildings that couldn't have been designed without IT. Gehry is one, Foreign Office Architects are another I've the main got in mind... Anyone able to suggest any others.

 

Thanks

[quizzy]

Yes I have one, and I don't think its a problem to convince the architect to give you all the information you need. The images of this project are here:

 

http://mmquist.netfirms.com/groenmarkt.html

 

well, the architect did make his first sketches on paper, but at some time we spend several hours behind 3d studio max to adjust a lot of corners and other things....

 

Well, maybe you like the building or maybe you don't, just tell me if you want to use it, and i'll talk to the architect..

 

cheers

[mzagorski]

Hey Quizzy,

 

Thanks for the info. At this point, Im not too sure how suitable that design would be. I am interested in the more radical designs. At the moment I've got 3 planned building all done in the last 3 years. Gehry's Exp. Music Project (modelled using cardboard models then inputting them into CATIA, Foreign Office Architects' Yokohama Terminal which was a design that came about from using Origami and computers, and the NY Presbyterian Church by Greg Lynn... designed with some technique that put more pull on points of an object in areas where there were more peope walking etc... Kind of 3 wierd designs... with hardcore computer usage.

 

I'm looking for something a bit more than a standard design with a twist of computer influence..

 

Maybe I'll post the introduction to my dissertation sometime this week.

 

Thanks

[mbr]

I would suggest Thom Mayne and Morphosis. I had the 'pleasure' of having him for a study professor and a thesis advisor (UCLA 2000 grad). He uses Form-Z to push his formal investigations beyond what could be done with models. Unlike Gehry, who designs completely with models and uses technology to buid it, he designs with the computer, tests it with models, and goes back into the computer. Our classes were completely paperless, with the exception of sketches and a model milled out of particle board. Lynn (also a UCLA professor, oh, and Gehry and his engineer teach there occassional) relies more on the capabilities of Maya's (before that Alias) dynamics systems to generate form.

Look at http://www.morphosis.net and their newest book (a few years old, but still the best). Unlike Lynn, his buildings look like they do in the computer, helping to validate his process, which is still the approach I take in my personal designs.

I would go with Mayne, Gehry, and Mayne, which would cover all aspects of computer design in architecture. If you need any more info, have questions, let me know. I studied with these guys for 3 years and have a pretty good understanding how they work.

Good luck.

[roly]

Check out Coop Himmelblau, def one of my favorite arch firms. couldent be done without 3d.

 

www.coop-himmelblau.at

[nisus]

Checkout Ben Van Berkel & Caroline Bos at http://www.unstudio.com/ and Kas Oosterhuis at http://www.oosterhuis.nl/

or try to find things on Lars Spuybroek / NOX

 

rgds

 

nisus

 

[ October 14, 2002, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: nisus ]

[nisus]

Hi Jack,

 

Good thoughts! Communicating your message is of course more important than the tools we use. Personally I think it's a shame that empty/uninteresting/wrong messages are being told (and excepted) through the use of trendy and hype images or visualisations as these often lie.

These trends only distract us from our main goal: value/content, which many seem to forget at this time (or think it's not necessary because they can earn a lot)

 

rgds

 

nisus

[Christopher Nichols]

Mike:

 

I guess I should chime in a bit based on my history. In fact, unfortunately it is ancient history, and I just do boring corporate architecture to pay the bills. But there was a time when I did some fun stuff.

 

My undergraduate degree was in Mathematics. I enjoyed Non-Euclidian geometry and Topology, but when I saw what architects were doing to it, it really pissed me off. While I admire Greg Lynn's ability to push the envelope and be a poster child for the cause, I think he (and others) butchered Mathematics.

 

For my thesis, I looked at a field of Mathematics that is traditionally no visual and even non-spatial, and used it as a start to developing a system. I looked at Abstract Algebra and the very basics of Group theory. I developed elements and developed means of operation. Basically the elements were "rods" and the operation was MetaBalls. The system took a while to develop but once it did, it took on a life of its own. I released myself as designer and accepted myself as observer. In fact my role almost became that of decorator. I would add texture and light to find the best means of expressing the space, which the system has created.

 

Spending many a late night looking at what was going on, had realized that I achieved an architectural nightmare: I lost control. It was not until my professor told me that I should accept the fact that my computer, and my project had become a Duchampian Bachelor Machine that I realized what had really happened. The Bachelor Machine keeps turning and turning, making me crave it, and seeing more, wanting more, building up every day... My frustration was not that I had lost control, but that I could never climax. Sound crazy? Well with the amount of sleep that I had over that period of time... it made a lot of sense... and it still does.

 

In essence, my project was not something that would ever "BE." It is something, that is. It could never have been designed by my vision, but could be designed by my system. I think that was the greatest revelation that I had. My personal trauma turned ecstasy was the enlightenment I was looking for at the conclusion of my education. I wish you the best.

[mbr]

The computer has become an integral part to many contemporary architects. It is just a tool to further their studies and investigations, and to do so without limits. In my opinion, there are examples that have gone too far, but in many cases the architecture could not have been created without a computer. I should note that Gehry does not design - at all - in the computer, it's all models. CATIA is only used for the construction analysis. Others, such as Morphosis, use Form-Z to experiment with space, then they test it in model form, then go on. The computer allows for things to be tested, and retested a million times faster than constructing models each time. This results in more experimentation, and more results. It allows for things to be discovered.

As Christopher says above, it is the process of discovery that makes it special. The process is a critical part of good design, and anything that aids in this discovery will further the final product (even if it is just the process itself). No one 'needs' a computer, but without it architecture will not progress to another level. For those of us that wish to experiment, to push new designs, both for our personal agendas or for the profession, the computer has become a great resource.

[jackb602]

" I want to do 3 case studies on architects that are using computer software to allow them to design buildings that couldn't have been designed without IT."

 

Mike,

 

I'll probably sound like a crotchety old man here, but I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that computers allow architects to design buildings they otherwise couldn't. While I'm really excited about Gehry's new Disney concert hall in LA (much less so about the EMP in Seattle), it owes quite a bit to Hans Scharoun's Berlin Philharmonie. This was built in the 1960's without computers, and Scharoun was developing his organic language decades before that. Gunther Behnisch (http://www.behnisch.com) is another architect building very humane yet spatially complex projects without relying on computers. I'm fairly certain that Enric Miralles didn't rely on computers in his brilliant but tragically short career either. Frank Lloyd Wright and Gaudi were dead long before architects even dreamed of using computers to design. Of course, there are many ways that 3d software and modern computers can help execute projects (and I admit I'm still new to the craft of digital rendering myself) but I think it's a mistake to assume that the projects you mention couldn't be conceived without them.

 

A few years ago, when I was still in architecture school, and just starting to get excited about 3d modelling and rendering, I asked a brilliant but sarcastic professor if he minded my doing an assignment on the computer. He asked me why I wanted to. I responded "because it will make it easier to visualize the project in three dimensions." His humbling response was "if you need a computer to help you visualize in three dimensions, then you're in the wrong profession!" I wouldn't put it as harshly as he did, but I agree with the general idea. I don't think any piece of software can help us design radically different spaces. The best programs are tools that get out of the way and let us communicate and explore ideas.

 

Hmm, I didn't mean to write a manifesto, but I've gotten a bit long winded. Anyway, good luck with your thesis project. I hope you'll share your findings with us as you work on it.

 

cheers,

Jack

[mzagorski]

Wow.. I forgot all about my post and never realised that there were so many valuable replies.

Thanks to you all.

 

Im just about finished writing the paper.. still some fine tuning and the conclusion to finish... but basically, I see the computer as an extra tool in the box... not a replacement.

 

The computer HAS changed architecture.. in many ways (will post my work when Ive got in finished...) Stuff like using Computational Fluid Dynamics to test what happens in the even of a fire... check out evacuation similations.

 

Sure, non-Euclidean architecture was done in the past by the likes of Gaudi.. but I think that today, the computer is allowing this type of geometry to be realised with more ease and in a shorter time. It is also creating a more accurate architecture by going from "file-to-factory" like in the aerospace industy... maybe in a few years time we're going to see the first "all-digital-building" just like the first all-digital aircraft from Boeing.

 

Computers also allow customised components for a specific project. No longer do components have to be made in huge quantities to justify costs. Maybe this will end up in building being like kit form.. like an Airfix model kit.

 

Anyways... just some ideas. My deadline is Feb 10th 2003... so sometime after then I will post a link to my dissertation. Its only an undergrad paper so it might not cover everything... (so much that I could talk about and only 8k - 10k words ( )

 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

 

Mike

P.S. My 3 case studies ended up being:

Gehry's Bilbao Guggenheim

Foreign Office Architects' Yokohama Ferry Terminal

and

Sir Norman Fosters Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank HQ.

All chosen for various reasons.

 

[ December 21, 2002, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: mzagorski ]

[liquid7]

Hey Mike,

 

I have been reading your replies on this post for some time now. I am doing a very similar idea for my dissertation. Though i study 3D Digital design and not architecture. I would be very interested in reading your thesis or having your opinion in my post.

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8613&highlight=Dissertation

 

I am mainly looking at Frank Gehry and Norman Foster's Gerkin that was able to design the building without air conditioning using the shape of the builiding and windows to ventilate the offices.

 

Please let me know if there is anything i should not miss looking at

Cheers

 

Christiaan klaassen

[Elliot]

Mike,

 

You remember when we went to LS training in Montreal with the profesor, I don't know how many years ago.... Nothing has changed....! It is still a group of high tech kids trying to make this useful but unfinished softwares too work.

 

My main architect, presonal friend, and client finally decided to try Sketch Up. He doesn't even know ACAD. That why he has a bunch of young architects and architectural technicians. He doesn't want to waste his time in the addictive challenge of trying to make an un-finished bunch of software work. He maintains that his creativity energy can not be wasted on nerdy technical issues with LS, ACAD or Viz. In a way what Christopher is describing on his response. He is an extraordinary architect with a very profitable practice.

 

I am doing an extra effort to remain out of the computer. About two years ago my partner convinced me that I was wasting to much energy on this experimental technologies. SolidWorks (baby Catia) is a little bit better but still a very strange program to use. Lately I have devoted more time to talk with our clients, to listen to what they want, to manage the office, to please our clients and our business has flourished.

 

Ah....! One last thing.... Yes, we still need computers....! However, Our lives can not revolve around the inefficiencies of Autodesk, Discreet, Maya, Allias and others....

 

You remember 5 o 6 years ago, we are still doing the same things, trying to make models and illuminate them....! Isn't it a little bit too much...!

 

Congratulations on your thesis.....!

Elliot