Posted by Per Corell on October 11, 2002 at 00:02:44:
In Reply to: Re: future of profession posted by Peter on October 10, 2002 at 15:36:42:
Please remember that my main objective is the huge impack from a cirtain way of thinking. My critic about what I call Lego thinking are much older than the 3D-H, I joined the CAD madness since the start and seen how software became better and better, untill suddenly for me anyway, the picture of a very narowing tool was what I saw.
Please remember that every time I write about this issue, I accept that it is very practic ,that you save informations about each block, and I do not complain about how nice a projecting tool most new applications became, my point though are about how you se this influence the architecture. As who decide the tools somwhere decide the final result, if you only have a strait rule you can only draw strait lines.
I just find the world are bigger than what a programmer can add the toolbox, I find it allright to save informations while building with blocks, but this also make this kind of projecting a very dangouras one if you forget ,that designing is not just about having good figures. Now some of my complains in this forum also been about the tools with CAD, that offer you more "organic" or geometric tools shaping a building, ------ now I don't know if I described my arguments right as this is a difficult issue to explain. But please remember that 15 years ago ,I saw these fancy domes, globes and free-form mesh entities ,and while they didn't offer the flexibility I needed for boat design, I had to write my own rutines, to even draw AutoCAD entities with more than the max 4 defination lines forming an edgesurf ; I needed 30 or 40 defination lines in one direction and maby 12 in the other direction and as AutoCAD didn't offer this just like that, I also needed to program a rutine to flat unfold a fancy mesh, to be able to cut the unfolded panels for a boat hull.
-------- All this brag only to tell that I wondered why architects were satisfied with the simple dome and mesh entities that caused that much trouble, when a fancy roof shuld be produced ; please se that I don't question the design of the roof, but the CAD tool that produce a zero thickness entity with trouble if you don't know about double curved surfes versus single curved surfaces.
My point with this critic are, that I find it wierd that when you can acturly program the computer to acturly produce the roof with foundations and everything, then why is it enough to write informations in a collun and then trust the craftman to bend steel rods by hand, when there are a new method where no fiddeling by hand are needed, as nothing shuld be bend into shape as everything are cut from sheet materials that in an assembly form a round shape or a triangle or square shape, as soon the building sections are just assembled.
Now If I were just shouting about Lego thinking and square minded architects, but this I am not doing ; I complain that Architects _could_ become this ,with the tools that support this kind of thinking, I put up an alternative that I to know is not perfect, ----but is it that you want, a perfect tool that make aprentic to master by a flip of a finger ; but this is not possible ,as first you must learn to know _more_ about our 3 axis architectural world ,so you know that turning your planes 45 deg, will create an assembly of sections . You need to "know" this structure as a material, and you need the feel that I find much modern architecture fail. Or is it a natural result of the develobment in architecture, to cover ugly concrete boxes with fake decor brick. Is this the top of funktionalism to project heavy mirrored ugly concrete boxes and add fake decor to make it into those nice house they acturly become.
---- My point is, that this is a new form language , that you skip the spreadsheet as just a projecting tool, but offcaurse you need the number of windows and types of doors but the structural issues about the actural building structure, are much easyer and designed with _much_ more artistic behaviour ; it don't become 4 times the cost to make a curved wall, acturly it will only make the building structure even stronger. It is no drawback that a frame that support the wall panels work as a huge "F" carrying a floor and a flat roof , not compared with the multible building elements that othervise would form the "F" .
Now thise issues hountet this group for quite some time, and ti is my foult that I rush from the theoretic issues for those I don't know the words ,to describing the develobment in CAD, and then start fighting a phenomanar I start calling "Lego thinking". But please remember that when I critic ,I do this with a few alternatives to explain my points. I don't think that 3D-H shuld replace all ,but I think that many modern applications only work in a very narrow direction esp. when you se the trends the masses of standard houses that "look like this" , becaurse a huge software firm decide the expression. ---- Sure most of these houses are nice, and you can place one stribe of light bricks or even two yellow stribes along each floor, but when you know the possibilities with a new form language ,know the limitations with zero thickness mesh domes and free-form entities that don't give any instructions about the structure on screen but only a nice rendering, then where are the fancy new technology gone ?
Free 3D Models