Toward a New Architecture: The Hypermodel

[frame]

A revolution in how computers are used to model buildings is taking place, and at the heart of this revolution has been a debate about what three letter acronym to use that best describes the technology driving the revolution forward. The default term is currently BIM (Building Information Modeling), although there have been many other attempts, and recently a proposal was made to call it PEN (Parametric ENabled) . The search for a three letter word is clearly tied to the legacy of CAD (which stands for Computer Assisted Drafting or Design) even though the essence of this new technology makes a decisive break with the CAD paradigm. That CAD can have such a grip on the thought process is evidence of a conservative tendency in the AE profession that manifests itself even at the high-tech fringe. The BIM apologists have begun to see and imagine new opportunities and methodologies as a result of emerging technology, but have fallen short when trying to come up with a catch-all acronym that rolls easily off the tongue and embodies a new spirit.

 

References to bygone tools have no place in the realm of next generation design tools. The world has moved on, the information age, the post-industrial society, is here and now, and continues to expand. The machine age, having run its course, is coming to and end. Likewise, the age of mechanical drafting and tireless abstract revisions is primed for extinction. The computer has been freed from the mundane task of representing lines in a banal coordinate space. No longer can the computer be thought of as a device that simply mimics the conventions of hand drafting. The floor plan is ceasing to be an end in itself, and instead becoming a mere by-product of a hyper-coordinated design process. The great modernist Le Corbusier stated that the plan is the generator of form. In the post-industrial era, it is form that generates the plan, and the section, and the elevation, and the perspective, and the schedule…on and on, all in real time. The list of possible deliverables and consequences of using the computer to truly model buildings is nothing short of mind blowing.

 

Today, we have new ways of creating architectural representations, and the information built into these representations exceeds the implied meaning of lines projected onto a 2D surface. Every object can be imbibed with and described by parameters that inter-relate with other objects and their parameters. The information, stored in centralized database that can manage and negotiate changes, allows the creation of “live” models that are always in sync, and represented as explicit graphical and textual controls. This technology enables the age-old process of building physical models to be intimately tied to all other means of representing a building. Now, 2D, 3D and 4D co-exist in single design environment and are all linked together.

 

These tools are the tools that can, and will ‘do it all’, tools that enable total collaboration across disciplines. Tools that provide total syncopation of a single database of parametrically related, intelligent components that can be analyzed, modified, and published--on the fly. A tool that can do that much--allow for creating truly virtual models of a system--is more than Building Information Modeling, it is HYPERMODELING. Model are referred to as HYPERMODELS, not BIMs. The Hypermodel is a way of interfacing with information, not modeling it. Who wants to model information? No, we want to Model, and have information become a dynamic expression of modeling. Also, the hypermodel is not reserved for mere “buildings”—it can be atomized. Is a window a building? No, but one can imagine entire companies that do nothing but crank out Hypermodel content. Hypercomponents that work in the context of a building, but are not themselves buildings. A photorealistic rendering, or walkthrough, is not really building information modeling—but clearly that is a critical piece of this new paradigm. Think of visualizations as an aspect of hypermodeling; or better, as an opportunity that hypermodeling provides.

 

The chains of the three letter acronym now broken, we can imagine a new paradigm taking hold. We can imagine a new generation of HYPERMODEL designers emerging, while simultaneously, ‘CAD technician’ becomes an obsolete pursuit. We can imagine a whole new definition of labor divisions, of highly collaborative design-build firms, of new types of hybrid AE companies coming into being. We can imagine using the HYPERMODEL to redefine how projects are bid upon, how they are won, how they are implemented, how they are administrated, how they are evaluated. Ask yourself this, do you want to be known a BIMMER or a HYPERMODELER? Will your firm gain leverage by promoting the use of BIM tools, or HYPERMODELS?

 

To embrace Hypermodeling is to finally take the step into the current of the Information Revolution: to take advantage of it, rather than shy away from it. In doing so, we open the door to new processes, new business models, new methods, and ultimately, a New Architecture.

[ch83575]

Wow, very prophetic. Sounds like the kind of thing I might have read (or wrote) in design class at school. Please email me a demo copy of your HYPERMODELing program for evaluation. Untill you can do that your post is simply an argument of semantics.

 

-Chad

[frame]

Wow, very prophetic. Sounds like the kind of thing I might have read (or wrote) in design class at school. Please email me a demo copy of your HYPERMODELing program for evaluation. Untill you can do that your post is simply an argument of semantics.

 

-Chad

 

for starters, go try Revit. Revit, and tools that follow in its footsteps are hypermodelling platforms.

[kid]

hypermodel eh!?

 

when polygons and vertices can offer the same tactility and seductiveness as offered by wood, metal, plastics, plaster, resins, paint, paper, cardboard and so on, then I might regard revit, et al, as design tools, till that day, they will remain communication tools in my mind.

 

the cad technician might be communicating with a 'hypermodel' instead of representations of 2-d lines...sure, a massive step in communication! but not a huge step in design...

[maranello55]

I think this is the beginning of the Parametric Age. Revit is an example of this evolution. Updating 2D tender drawings one by one is not only tiring and inefficient, but there is better way of doing it coming to be. This is a good chance to breed a new group of pioneers in this field, definitely.

[IC]

Is it just me or is all this grandiose terminology a bit ott?

You sound like Scientologists.

As with every revolution, I'll believe it when I see it.

[mbr]

Is it just me or is all this grandiose terminology a bit ott?

You sound like Scientologists.

As with every revolution, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

 

I've got a thing about 'trendy' words, which I think are fine, but the term 'hyper' has been played out many years ago. "Hypersurfaces" (see Marcos Novak, a great teacher and influence, at http://www.centrifuge.org/marcos/ ). His stuff was 'new' about 8-9 years ago and he introduced myself and others to abstract 3D (in Form-Z). There were others, Lynn, Rashid, Stan Allen, etc., etc., that all looked at surfaces and hyper this and that. Same kind of thoughts about technology changing everything. Well, it didn't, not really. It was trendy and came and went. Certainly influential, but not revolutionary.

 

Perhaps programs like Revit and Generative Components (Bentley/Microstation) will revolutionize the industry, but it's a long ways off. I just see a red flag when I hear this approach, as it seems slightly out dated and almost too easy. Of course technology will change the future, but how? Why? Too much of this thought seems like an add for the software and not a true theoretical investigation (or technological, as the case may be).

 

This is just a general opinion, though. But there have been many posting similar things here for thesis projects or whatever. Just be careful that you are not just writing what you've read.

[4DM]

I know what you mean about trendy words, mbr. Personally, I am immediately dismissive of any article or manifesto that includes the word "paradigm". And this one does it three times !

 

OK, so some software updates everything as it goes along. That's nice!

[frame]

I am not trying to alienate anyone here, only to paint a picture of a possible future to look toward. To be sure, we have a long ways to go, but the seeds have been planted. If we are not willing to explore and extrapolate on the future of technology that directly influences the profession, then we miss an opportunity to influence the development of such tools. The consumer must be proactive, and begin to request, if not demand, hypermodality. Is using CAD that much of a pleasure? Isn't it time we moved on? Isn't it time we started using technology to push architecture forward, and at the same time actually make money doing so?

 

The word paradigm may have left a bad taste in your mouth, and I do apologize. The point here is not that of semantics; call the new technology what you want, the point is that a new era of connectivity is surrounding us, and extending the concept of the model to take account of this is a necesary step, and one that will re-define the art and science of building.

[Sawyer]

Sounds just like the stuff I was thinking the first time I saw ADT. I thought - GEZZ BOYS THIS IS WHERE ITS AT.

 

Now I want to go back to paper and pencil. I have a top of the line computer, cutting edge software and I am pretty damn good at what I do but the problems at work are that 2 people are never able to communicate to each other. Give me a software that does the consultants work for them & I will be happy.

 

I am serious I dont need more or newer software I need to know people can communicate and understand information.

[frame]

The Hypermodel has yet to emerge in the capacity that I am imagining--I think of that tool as the "next" horizon. However, there are tools that represent the "now" and the "new".

The "now" is simply autocad, and continuing to move to a strictly digital method of representing and communicating design data. I think of Revit, or what is being called "BIM", as the New. The New must become the Now for the industry to really push ahead. I would start by reading all the existing literature on BIM, and then get a demo version of Revit and start your own personal revolution in work methodology. Doing so will help you imagine what must come Next, and you could then be an informant, an activist in the process.

[kid]

the thing that puts me right off these revit, archicad, et al. types of programs is the fact that they present you with a floor slab tool, a wall tool, a window tool, a door tool, a roof tool, etc...

 

balsa-wood, or strawboard, or pencil on paper, or even autocad, rhino, et al., do not discriminate this way. a wall can be roof, a roof can be a floor slab, a roof can be a wall, etc...

 

a single surface, whether it be balsa or a NURBS surface can act as the floor, wall, roof, window and door all at the same time. revit, archicad, et al. do not let you explore architecture in this way...

 

just my humble thoughts.

[Richard McCarthy]

I agree Kid, Revit, ArchiCAD, or other BIM solution are NOT "flexible" enough to give the user the TRUE power and freedom of design, and this is inheritary because these tool are really meant for production drawings. The starting point should still be a piece of paper, some balsawood, or sketchup (yep, I am in looovvvveee with it)

[frame]

Achieving the flexibility you speak of is only a matter of time. I don't expect tools like Rhino or Sketch up to catch up with the core technological power of Revit. On the otherhand, it is not hard to imagine Revit being imbibbed with more robust modeling tools. For Revit, this is a natural evolution, one that these other tools are simply not engineered for.

 

Like it or not, that free-form shape must make its way into an integrated model that can be used to build it. Would you rather import your rhino forms and sketch-up shapes into old-school ACAD, or a BIM platform? The answer seems all too obvious. It will be up to the user community to continue to demand more robust design tools that will make the hypermodel a reality. Comrades, do not look at a limitation and then assume nothing can or will be done to remove it--Be active and profess you needs, your desires!

 

Let's also be aware that the digital model may never eliminate the yearning to construct form by hand using an exacto blade and some chipboard. I spent countless all-nighters doing precisely that. None the less, moving from the abstact to the concrete is a reality, and using tools that immediately force designers to Model ideas, rather than draft them, is a step in the right direction. Thsi step is critical and should be encouraged at all levels of the profession, from early studio years, on to large-scale production in the office.

[Richard McCarthy]

I think no matter how good a tool is to communicate a design, it can never BE the starting point of design. The genesis of design simply cannot happen in such a sterilised virtual environment of a computer. The computer does not permit "accidental design" to happen. With some balsa wood, cardboards, these kind of things happen all the time. The real world is still giving you endless possiblities than the zero-and-one of the binary world computer constructed no matter how much we try. We can never simulate, or create a PURELY random 'accident' in a virtual environment, and the amount of data that comes with computer can never communicate the full extent of senses, and experience we can receive in real world.

 

 

I do dream of a better tool to model, and to construct my idea though once it's conceived. Imagine be able to model a building by just raising your hand, zoom, a wall is raised! Push and the wall is push to desired location. Pinch and the wall thickness change as desired..... Grab and rotate, mould, draw all in a virtual reality environment! Tool like this has been invented before (I remember reading about it in BYTES magazine.. something called "D-VICE" or something to that extent) but never been fully commercialised. So I perceive the next evolution of CAD/CG world would be IMMERSIVE design tools, that let the designer IMMERSE in the subject he/she is designing, and thus he can better experience his design and find faults in it. The designer also breaks away the normal constraint of the 2D design tools, and fully appreciate a power like no other, devoid of physical constraint, and become virtual superman who can move mountains at the wave of his arm. This combine with the power and accuracy of BIM, will truely revolutionalise all facet of design.

[Brian Cassil]

The debate over whether the "Hypermodel" method of developing a design and communicating that is not really a debate because it IS going to happen. I agree that it just makes too much sense. The debate is how long will it take, and in whose hands will the tasks be. This may take a long time indeed to sort out.

 

I remember about 4-5 years ago reading a series of articles in cadalyst where the writer boldly pronounced the extinction of not only the CAD draftsman in 5 years, but also the extinction of the architectural engineering consultant in 10! I think it's pretty clear that neither of those things are going to happen in the near future, if ever. Let’s not kid ourselves here, that’s really the goal with all of this. This technology is about cutting out the tasks of taking a design that is in place schematically and turning it into a set of documents that can be used for construction and thereby reducing the overhead cost of and architectural office and making more profit. (Whether that is true or not is a debate unto itself, but that’s the idea.) Ideally, the design architect would be creating the CD set at the same time as doing the design development. All the “drafting” would happen automatically.

 

Some of the hurdles will only be surpassed when the current generation of experienced designers fade away into retirement. The level of technical know-how is more than almost any established designer is willing to engage, let alone master. There are those of course, who are willing but they represent a tiny fraction.

 

I know for a fact that most offices who have gone ahead and made the investment in ADT do not use most of the technology already in place there. Like it has already been stated it is simply too restricting. Even the simplest deviations from the set design tools are painful. But beyond that, there is no way, that a designer in his 40’s or 50’s is going to embrace an all new way of doing things at this point in his/her career.

 

In my opinion I would see the “Hypermodel” become used as a standard in production by a production staff in maybe 5-10 years. But for it to be used in a way where a designer or even a team of designers can produce a set of working drawing seamlessly during the design process all by himself or themselves is off at least 20-30 years. It may never happen. It will all depend on how transparent the technology becomes. If a designer has to think at all about the nuts and bolts of the technology it has failed.

 

These are all humble opinions based on my experience which is perhaps not as vast as others out there so please let me know where I am off.

[Richard McCarthy]

Some of the hurdles will only be surpassed when the current generation of experienced designers fade away into retirement.

 

I think you are right, people tends not to take the risk of trying out new things, especially when related to work and something that's as complex as architecture where millions of things can easily go wrong. People stick to AutoCAD because it is tried and proven. And it's basically just a digital drafting table.

 

 

The whole "generation" thing is another good topic add to this discussion. I think current generation (is it the Y or the Z generation?) are immersed in complex 3D stuff daily. Games they play, movies they watch, computer programs they use. It is a norm for these kids ..(that almost includes me)

They have taken 3D for granted, where 20 years ago, 3D is really a fancy stuff in CAD world.

 

 

 

 

I think to enable the whole industry to change, it really requires the whole industry to change at the same time. The drawing and presentation convention would ALSO need to change too! For example, we are STILL using the same orthographic drawing convention for DA since the dawn of time (?! haha, maybe not, but close, anything before I was born is dawn of time)

I mean, we are already in the 21st century, and yet, we are still using these CRUDE drawings to intepret, determine what is there, what's there to build, and I must say it isn't easy to read these drawings, and understand what's going on. The orthographical way of presenting drawings also limits most designer's understanding and innovation in creating more complex architecture because drawing in plan view limit your mind to that frame of thinking. I think if there is going to be a change, city councils around the world would need to adopt new standard for architects/engineers/designers to submit their drawing, maybe in a digital format rich in 3D information.