Dissertation Topic : Is CG Changing Design?

[liquid7]

Dear all interested,

 

I am in my 3rd year of university and am studying 3D Digital Design. For my dissertation i have decided to look at the develpment of CGI in the Architecture industry and how it is affecting design. What i am looking for is input from 3d designers and architects to try and get opinions from people in the industries and i thought that CGtalk and CGarchitect would be a great place for posting as it contains some of the best work i've seen.

 

These are brief paragraphs from my synopsis of my dissertation to give a brief idea of the argument. Please feel free to give C&C about my idea or any relevant information that may prove useful

 

"This dissertation is going to investigate the development of CG within architecture and how it has affected the design of buildings and structures. It will look into how computers have been able to make design a more efficient, fast and better looking process but also been subject to much criticism. It will explore computers influence on design and how procedural objects in programs are simplifying some areas of design"

 

"The main argument raised in this dissertation is between the CG designers and architects. Although the two are somewhat combined there are many who frown upon the computer techniques and are still using conventional drawings. There are many reasons why we should use computers as they are more reliable, accurate and efficient but the computer is a third wheel in the process of design so is it controlling it in someway? Before, it was just a designer and his pencil. Does the use of CG restrict designers or liberate them?"

 

if you are really interested please request and i will send you a copy of the whole synopsis and outline.

 

Any help is greatly appreciated as i want to demonstrate the power of online discussions and use them as primary evidence in my dissertation.

 

Many thanks

Liquidswords

 

Christiaan Klaassen

[anvaraziz]

******** u r welcomed....**********

[3dp]

bottom line yes it is

bear witness to fosters gerkin/glc or gerhy

when i'm not doing the glossy gfx i'm working for a major building consortium on a hospital in manchester

although originally beyond my remit i began to introduce simple 3d cad models into meeting with clients/user groups last year to assist in the explanation and exploration of designs within the hospital clinical areas

the public and many design professionals cannot read drwgs but show them a 3d sketch/realtime model/or a glossy backed up with other info and you can see the ideas reach home

and thats whats it's about communication of concepts

as for design i think we are still some way from the true 100% digital design concept to completion in architecture it's still easier to grab a pen and paper and scrawl and get someone to iron the bugs out

you can bet the big design guns are still starting from paper and physical models

the nearest i could get is using alias studiotools but you need a lot of practice to get to a point where you can create and not think where the icon for a tool or a command line is to get the idea out

[DAN212222]

im doing a similar dissertation next year....

you may wish to add how.. archigram was the new thing back in the 70s.. and even tho the designs of the archigram team were wacky and some times fantasy, the buildings of today are beginning to look more and more like there work from back in the 70s....

 

may be abit off topic that though lol

 

a book to try and get your hands on which may help is archilab

very conceptual stuff in there... which may give you some ideas for points to raise in you dissertation

 

dan

[mbr]

Search for similar discussions or my name, there have been several discussions on this that I've written a bunch on.

 

1. The digital design is an evolution, not a revolution, for architecture

2. For the building industry, it is a revolution (and will be for architecture soon)

3. This has been discussed for at least 10 years with many experiments

4. The names to remember for this are Frank Gehry and Greg Lynn, but for completely different reasons

5. I know of no firm that still only draws by hand, some of the old timers still do, but not often

 

There is a gradual change occuring as BIM gets implemented at the larger firms. Once it trickles down and really becomes a design tool, not just a production optimization tool, then the evolution will pick up pace.

 

Look at Revit and Generative Components (Morphosis was testing this for Bentley).

 

I would also look at prefab. It's hot these days, but relies on old technologies for the building itself. The interesting part is that the technology becomes more of an integration between parties, not just design to building, as BIM does.

Look at other industries, such as ship building, clothing (think Nike), airplanes, etc. They have all implemented 'Process Engineers' to stream line production.

 

Good luck. You should be able to find countless papers to reference for this topic. Look at the late '90s, that's when it was really big and all the schools were implementing high end 3D.

[Tommy L]

I reckon your going to get a lot of people on this forum voicing their opinions over this, but a more profitable approach may be from the other direction. If i were you, I would try and find different (recent) building types and trace the paper trail back through the design process, finding out how computers were used along the way. This will give a more accurate, less plarized over-view of the role of computers. Your question in this particular forum is in a way a bit like asking a goalkeeper; "which is the most important position on the football pitch?"

See what i mean?

Anyway, my stance would be that in the modern architectural practice, 3d isnt used proficiently as a design tool, but when it is, the 3d team moans "I wish they wouldnt keep coming back with loads of changes!"

Tom.

[Frosty]

I think your dissertaion topic is far too broad. You need to focus it down onto something much more specific. Your critics/advisors will probably be telling you this.

 

There have been some great suggestions in this thread so far and you should consider them thoroughly. Read Archilab as suggested. HybridSpace too. Animate Form is another.

 

Absolutely look at the work of Archigram and Bucky Fuller. Gehry, Lynn, Novak and Rashide (among others) are the modern versions of avent garde work - the digital strain anyway. They relate through techinque and vision to their predicessors. I'm sure I'll think of other refernces for you check out later.

 

Like Neil Spiller

[liquid7]

Hello Guys,

 

Thank you for all your replies, you have given me much to look at. I understand that this might not be the most unbiased views that i get from here but i am already finding it beneficial just from information.

 

Tommy L: I have arranged a visit to a local architects firm in London as one of my friends dad is the director and i hope that i will be able to review the design process all the way through. This way i hope to see how much they are used for design.

 

Will get on Archigram asap.. Seems to be coming up a lot already.

 

Will keep updating as my work progresses. If possible could you please state Who you work for and job position..

 

Many thanks

Christiaan klaassen

[liquid7]

Ok after much putting off i have come back to my dissertation. Sorry i haven't been posting on here for a while, updates have been slow with computer crashes and unreliable internet.

 

I will be writing up the bulk of it over the next few weeks and just wanted to post again incase anyone didn't see the topic last time.

 

I will be mainly looking at Frank Gehry for 1 of the main case studies and also Norman Foster's Gerkin. I am also interested in finding out more about the history of modelling in particular Gaudi and his techniques of modelling.

 

If anyone would like to add to this discussion then please post.

 

Kind Regards

Chris Klaassen

[DrunkenMonkey]

I am doing my dissertation on a similar subject I am looking at architecture in computer games . From text driven narratives to fully interactive 3d environments. How does the architecture in a game give the player a sence of space.

 

I must admit though i am finding it very hard to find any previous writings on this topic. Yes there are books on digital design and yes there are books on game design but i have yet to find any on the combination of architecture and computer games.

 

 

so any hints or links would be greatly appreciated.

 

cheers

[bricklyne]

...........

 

"This dissertation is going to investigate the development of CG within architecture and how it has affected the design of buildings and structures. It will look into how computers have been able to make design a more efficient, fast and better looking process but also been subject to much criticism. It will explore computers influence on design and how procedural objects in programs are simplifying some areas of design"

 

"The main argument raised in this dissertation is between the CG designers and architects. Although the two are somewhat combined there are many who frown upon the computer techniques and are still using conventional drawings. There are many reasons why we should use computers as they are more reliable, accurate and efficient but the computer is a third wheel in the process of design so is it controlling it in someway? Before, it was just a designer and his pencil. Does the use of CG restrict designers or liberate them?"

 

..........

Christiaan Klaassen

 

 

Hi,

 

I just wanted to add to what was already said ( I believe it was Frosty) and agree that as of now, the topic is rather broad and probably needs to be re-focused somewhat. But if I am to comment on the above quotes which I believe come from the dissertation (and these are merely my own opinions from my experience working in an Architectural firm and also working in Architectural Visualization (CG), and as such should not be taken as a position of authority), I think you are also confusing issues somewhat. If my understanding is correct from what you have written and what you are explaining, then when you say CG you are referring to Computer Graphics (which is after all what the CG stands for in CGarchitect). And in this this sense you would really be referring to Computer 3D modelling and Visualization to produce Computer Renderings.

 

If this is so then, here is where I find that you're confusing issues; part of what you have said seems to indicate that you are actually referring to the role of CAD as opposed to CG in Architectural design and these are two very distinct things, even though they largely complement each other. The former actually plays a larger role in design DEVELOPMENT ( and not actual DESIGN), whereas the latter is more of a complementary role with respect to building design and more so to the marketing side than the design side. By this I mean that, although no architectural firm absolutely needs either one to survive as an architectural firm, most firms need CAD (much more so than they would absolutely need CG), to survive in the competetive nature of today's construction industry market. The reasons being as you had pointed out; increasing effeciency, productivity and economic benefit, particularly when compared to companies that output all their drawings traditionally by hand. CG on the other hand has largely gained importance recently in the architectural field by virtue of the power of its marketing capacity but also in they sense that it helps the architect elaborate his design to the client through visualization of the unbuilt structure - much like scale models except to a more greater degree of photorealism.

 

That being said, it's my personal opinion that neither one (CAD or CG) play as important a role in the actual design of most buildings or in most architects offices that I have worked at, as most people tend to think. That process (actual design) remains confined to good ol' yellow tracing paper, HB (or #2) pencils, and maybe mock-up styrofoam, wood or clay models. In other words, most architects still design their buildings much like they used to at Architecture school (by hand), and only bring in computers once all the ideas are down on paper (or scale mock-up model) and only to facilitate and expedite the documentation (Construction drawings) process. This is even less so for the examples you mentioned ( Gehry, Foster...et al) who despite their status (statii?) as the most pre-eminently technologicallly savvy architects of our time by virtue of their form-defying architecure, are known to personallly hate working with computers. Gehry once confessed that, left on his own, he probably would never ever know how to turn on a computer. Part of their genius in my opinion is the fact that they have been able to accomodate and integrate cutting edge technology (CAD and specifically CATIA) into their design production process without letting it compromise the integrity of their actual design or the actual creative process, which, for Gehry, for example, emanates from the wood workshop. At the end of the day, I believe that the death of the purity of creative design in the architectural field, as caused by the encroachedment of Computers, and computer technology, has been greatly exaggerated and will probably never be the case as long as people know how to sketch and draw. This is even despite the introduction recently of intuitive software like Sketchup that allow modelling and visualization with the same degree of ease with which architects are used to manipulating actual models.

 

So, does CG ( or for that matter, computers and computer software and technology) affect the design of buildings and structures in architecture? It certainly does, particularly when you consider how many changes go into some design decisions, once the architects see the renderings and the effect of the rendered image of their design compared with what their original vision was, albeit minor changes inthe overall picture. But it does not significanly affect the design concept or the underlying drive behind an actual design, because most of that tends to be done already by the time the process gets to the computer stage and more so to the CG visualization stage.

 

If on the other hand I misunderstood the thrust of your argument and just rambled on and on, then please excuse the long response.

[liquid7]

Hi Clarence,

 

I think that you have pointed out some very worthy errors in my synopsis. Those statements were taken from my first draft in the early stages of research so that i could get as many replies as possible.

 

Since actually collecting research i have found that iyou are correct in your statement that i am somewhat confusing things.

I have looked at Gaudi and how he uses models to help convey the feeling of space and how CG is able to help portray that with real time environments etc. And also Gehry with his use of CATIA and Rhino to develop his models. The importantance is conveying space.

 

What i am having trouble with is that i have misused the Term CG. I am looking into CAD aswell as Computer Graphics but you seem to think that my topic is too broad. Is there a valid argument between the use of computer graphics and not? and has it changed architecture?

 

I apologise if i seem ignorant but as a 3D designer/Artist i do not have as much knowledge on this subject, but it fascinates me.

 

unfortunatly my dissertation tutor has not been very helpful with my topic. I got an A for my synopsis which i can see is flawed.

 

Thanks for your help. If possible i would appreciate it if i could ask more specific questions on this topic at another time as you have been very helpful already.

 

Many Thanks

Chris

[liquid7]

oh and also looking at the availability of 3D software which might be making deisgn more procedural. With the ability to just add doors etc you can become just another user instead of a designer?

 

hmm that might not have come out right.. am very tired, long hours.

 

I am also working on a CGshortfilm which if your interested you can see updates at;

 

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?p=1985959

 

back to work

Chris

[bricklyne]

............

 

What i am having trouble with is that i have misused the Term CG. I am looking into CAD aswell as Computer Graphics but you seem to think that my topic is too broad. Is there a valid argument between the use of computer graphics and not? and has it changed architecture?

 

I apologise if i seem ignorant but as a 3D designer/Artist i do not have as much knowledge on this subject, but it fascinates me.

 

unfortunatly my dissertation tutor has not been very helpful with my topic. I got an A for my synopsis which i can see is flawed.

 

Thanks for your help. If possible i would appreciate it if i could ask more specific questions on this topic at another time as you have been very helpful already.

 

Many Thanks

Chris

 

 

No problems Chris, and no need to apologize

 

I'll try to answer any and every questions you may have to the best of my knowledge.

 

If you were indeed looking at both CAD and Computer graphics then that's just as well; but I think you should then re-word the question or hypothesis of your dissertation from the position of " the effect of CG on architectural design" to "the effect of computer technology in architectural design" , since CG is specific to modelling and visualization whereas CAD is limited ( not exclusively, though) to documentation and preparation of Construction drawings. Hence Computer technology is a phrase that will not only cover both aspects, but also others (such as digitization, scanning, calculation, computerized facility management and the like) that you allude to but don't specifically mention. That way, it will also be possible to highlight what the focus of the dissertation will be and then proceed to break it up into various sections discussing and assessing the different areas that computer technology comes into play.

 

For example; the first part would look at the effects or the degree to which computers have affected conceptualization (Sketchup, Rhino, and other mass modelling software), the next part could look at the effect of CAD on the practice of architecture as well as any negative (or positive) impact it may have on design decisions versus traditional hand-drawn methods; and lastly you could look at the effects of CG or computer renderings on the later stages of the desing process or even it's effects in making a firm completely revise or restate their design intents.

 

 

As I pointed out before and as you no doubt probably found out on your studies of Gaudi and Gehry's methods, my personal position tends to be that the impact for the present generation of senior architects, is probably nil. ( this is not to say the same of tomorrow's generation, myself included, who receive a much lower quality of preparation in fundamental design training -owing to more computers in the classroom and less focus on the drawing board and workshops - than the generations that came before us did due to their lack of technology. Perceptively, they are more sound than we are) Gehry's team only uses computer's to adapt his model and his design to practical (Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing etc) standards and well as to facilitate the various component and factory manufacture procedures so that the budget is reigned in and costs are kept low. Very rarely do his model sor designs change due to limitations in the computer software and technology. And in this way he is like Gaudi who, despite not having the computer technology that Gehry has, still made his designs work without compromising his artistic vision by adapting the process to accomodate his iconoclastic style. So the difference comes into play in that Gehry ( thanks to computers, technology etc) is able to get his design done more effeciently, more economically and with a greater degree of ease, relatively speaking, of course.

 

I hope this helped ( without being too confusing).....

[bricklyne]

oh and also looking at the availability of 3D software which might be making deisgn more procedural. With the ability to just add doors etc you can become just another user instead of a designer?

 

hmm that might not have come out right.. am very tired, long hours.

 

I am also working on a CGshortfilm which if your interested you can see updates at;

 

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?p=1985959

 

back to work

Chris

 

I understand what you mean

 

.....and actually, that's a very important question or at least phenomenom that you have pointed out. You might be familiar with the increasingly popular "Home Architect" computer programs that allow average Joe to desing his dream home from a massive library of basic layouts, window types, door types, floor finishes etc. Certainly in North America they are becoming more and more popular as home-ownership increases and with the popularity of TV shows like "This old house" or the innumerable "Home Makeover" shows and all its lludicrous clones on the TLC, Discovery or Learning Channels. Architects hate these types of things not just for the basic reason that they tend towards eliminating the architect from the process of designing or redesigning a house, but more so for the statement made that what they do as a profession is reductible to a few computer algorithms coupled with a generous component library, which could be further form the truth. For one thing, most of these programs ( and the shows too) leave little or no room for pure creativity as most components are already predesigned and custom-prepared with "rules" limiting their use. The Irony of the whole situation is that if you look at most cutting edge CAD software out there, they seem to be following this same trend with Autodesk's ADT and Revit, Graphisoft's ArchiCAD, Microstation, and Vectorworks all coming with custom parts libraries or families. And while these libraries are part of what make the design process more effecient ( and automated, if they are parametric) they likewise have a certain sense of removing the architect formt he craetive process when all he has to do is ocik the parts off of the libraries and place them where he pleases on the plans.

 

So in this sense, what you said is absolutely true. But like I said, before, I think that's more of a danger for my generation (tomorrow's architects) than it is for the present generation of architects since we are more heavily weaned on computers for designing buildings in school these days than they were. Most of the work I get to do at the office from the Senior associates in the firm usually comes in the form of tracing paper sketches which then get transposed by the younger architects into CAD format.

[liquid7]

Hi Clarence,

 

Once again you have come back with some very pleasing comments. Is it possible for you to state a few deatils. like your current job role and history in the industry, and do you mind if i use your comments as quotes in my dissertation?

 

If its ok i will prepare a list of questions and send via email? or on here?

I have a meeting with my tutor tomorrow and i'm sure he will be pleased that i am finding more primary sources of evidence.

 

once again many thanks, i am pleased that my expectations of CGarcchitect have come off with good results.

 

Cheeers

Chris

[bricklyne]

Hi Clarence,

 

Once again you have come back with some very pleasing comments. Is it possible for you to state a few deatils. like your current job role and history in the industry, and do you mind if i use your comments as quotes in my dissertation?

 

If its ok i will prepare a list of questions and send via email? or on here?

I have a meeting with my tutor tomorrow and i'm sure he will be pleased that i am finding more primary sources of evidence.

 

once again many thanks, i am pleased that my expectations of CGarcchitect have come off with good results.

 

Cheeers

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

I'll just give you the abridged version of my professional details (for more details you'll have to e-mail me). I've been in architecture for the last 4 years and the plan obviously involves taking the registration exam sometime in the near future once I complete my internship requirements soon. I originally come from a creative and traditional arts background (painting,drawing sculpture, that sort of thing), which partially explains my interest in CG and computer rendering. And although I quite love computer 3D modelling and visualization, Architecture remains my first love (since I was about 8 or 10) and also remains the primary goal. My current or primary job role like most at this stage of the architectural career is, well, a CAD monkey; to put it bluntly. However, because I work for a relatively small firm, I get a lot more design work, and certainly more responsibility which is one of the advantages I have found in working for a small firm over a large firm. The learning curve is less steeper. I also have the added role of being the offfice 3D-VIZ guy as well as general tech guy, a role that is default to me, in part, due to the fact that I'm most well-versed in most computer software and hardware, and I guess in part because I'm also the youngest and hence least intimidated by techno-babble and techno-speak.

 

If you want you can either post the other questions you had here or e-mail them to me at bricklyne@hotmail.com; whichever is more convenient for you.

 

cheers,

 

Clarence

[JamesTaylor]

off the top of my head..... designs have to come from the head they can be translated to reality via a computer and this process will definately effect the final product as the computer is a tool used for production. the tool gives access to possibilities that weren't there before and yet they will also make older techniques almost redundant - probably because its less fashionable, or time effective to do things the old way.

 

Due to people now expecting computer files rarther than paper drawings - probably subconciously, as presenting a computer is file is more technoligical advanced and therefore has a greater wow factor, which ultimately is part of the sales process and winning a contract - everybody is expected to use a computer even if they don't know how to use it correctly. as a result the most creative person will become restricted by a lack of ability in translating their ideas into a digital form. this can lead to a design altering as they don't know how to achieve what their after and opt for a simpler solution that they can draw on cad.

 

i work as architectural visualiser and it never stops amazing me how people that use a computer for 8 hrs a day every day struggle to get to grips with their basic functions, particularly older generations - no offence to anybody!!. next time you get chance just sit and watch people using a computer and notice how long some will spend trying to achieve a simply task or how hesitant they may be when doing something their not familar with.

 

sorry if that waffles a lit getting late now!

 

my basic point is designs have to born from a persons creative element the computer is merely a tool for achieving the design - a tool which many people are afraid of or don't know how to use sufficiently well to achieve their goals.

 

......on the other hand maybe a person who is less creative from the mind but can use a computer well is able develop their design skills as it allows them to visually see and therfore develop their ideas and designs in which case the computer becomes a benifical design tool , which is paramount to the success of their ideas!

 

a computer at its basic level is dumb, it can only proces yes or no, 1 or 0. software ppackages may be complex and suffisticated but they themselves are coded by us. its is us that determinds the end result that a computer outputs by the data that we input. the computer will do no more.

 

its a very deep argument with many points of view to consider.

[liquid7]

Ok,

 

So i have been looking at Greg Lynn and he uses computers in his (paperless) practice, And even used a metablob program from the very creation of one of his designs. OK he thought of the idea in his head but went straight to the computer to design it. Now although he is controling the program there are many background calculations that are affecting curves etc. Is this not affecting his design in someway?

 

MBR mentioned this in his post but didn't really go into details.

 

Thank you for all your help everyone

 

Cheers

Chris

[evanmoses]

Clarence's comments are certainly accurate for most architects and most firms working today. However, people like Greg Lynn, Asymptote architects (you should really check them out, they would be an excellent case study for your dissertation) or pretty much any architect graduating from Columbia in the last few years are increasingly having their designs informed, and even altered by, the computer itself and its processes. Designs are not just masterworks in their head but are actually physically shaped endogenously by the iterative processes of the computer. Of course, architecture as an industry is not much changed, because very few of these buildings have been built, though the number is increasing. With the spread of BIM technology and a decrease in "slippage" from computer blob to built work, I'm sure this will become more prominent in the possibly near future. That said, this kind of work requires very adventuresome clients and will probably always be restricted to very few of the buildings we actually see.

[imagine-z]

I think animation software will become a more and more powerful tool for architecture. Jet it is only a digital avant-garde using these programs. You need a lot of know-how about techniques and even scripting. The software is used for purposes other than intended. Is it possible to modify animation software to be an easy to use tool for architectural design?

 

The design-method differs completely from classical (analogue) architectural design:

In digital design there is no spatial idea at the beginning, but a conception of a design process. It is a more media-theoretical approach.

[xelan]

as a result the most creative person will become restricted by a lack of ability in translating their ideas into a digital form. this can lead to a design altering as they don't know how to achieve what their after and opt for a simpler solution that they can draw on cad.

 

I'd generally disagree with this. Even though it is possible scenario, most of the time it does not happen.

Today every school (of architecture) is teaching both CG and CAD at undergraduate level so architects are very fluent with the technology. As for the older persons, maybe Frank Gehry might be an example, since he makes just the physical model of the building, while CATIA and 3d-stuff is left to those that know that well.

It is still qustionable whether you just translate into digital form what you've designed in your mind, or the computer is playing equal part in the process (in many cases those surfaces are too complex to be desicribed intelectually)?

There are architects who just run a dynamic simulation and leave to the computer to design the building.

Maybe the 3d virtual space altered the way we think. Now architects start to think in terms of revolution, extrusion, loft, birail surfaces..