Posted by Kevin Matthews on October 08, 1999 at 23:04:52:
In Reply to: Re: computerintegrated architectural design methods posted by Jacques Pochoy on October 06, 1999 at 16:39:47:
Jacques, well put! I do think the question is well intentioned, but also, I agree with you broadly. Only in the case of a poor architect and/or poor tools will the tools determine the architecture.
At least, only in those depressing cases will the tools determine the architecture in any obvious way. However, I also believe that a good kind of tools (such as DW, of course) can subtly enhance the work of a good architect.
Design time is limited for many real-world projects. And while a good architect can visualize in 3D, it is very hard to visualize everything -- the problems as well as the successes of a series of interacting forms in space -- especially in a limited amount of time.
Designing in live 3D with live 3D software can add to the good architect's mind's eye, allowing more, and more accurate, 3D seeing to take place during a limited practical design process.
How would this show up? Only in a few less spatial mistakes, in a few more spatial perfections. Only in the good architect being a little better, in the bits and pieces of everyday practical projects.
That would be tough to quantify, analyze, and report on! But I think it's there. Also, I think it shows up more clearly in the acccelerated 3D comprehension of design students working with DW, and in the improved student/student and student/teacher communication which becomes possible using live 3D. More architecture per student per design studio course. And more fun and satisfaction, too!