Posted by Jacques Pochoy on March 14, 2000 at 00:59:02:In our computer literate world, there are many ways to build what is called a "model".
In the "old practice" time, when models where made of cardboard or wood or even plastic sheets, architects used them mostly for "conception" reasons, to design the very special spatial design they wanted. It was often only part of the original building, just the "difficult" spot.
When the design was complete, somebody, out of the office did a model that in France we call "maquette de Promoteur". That is a "doll house" for the uncultured condominium man.
With computer modelling, the story is about the same one. Architects need what I once called an "Apple menu 3D soft" (on Macs of course) as a designing tool. The "outside guy" doing a finished object could use "heavy" tools to achieve the doll house.
In twenty years, I've seen and used most of the 3D softwares (I even conceived one before the PC era on a small Sharp calculator!) I've been beta testing for some, and I went mostly arguing that most where inneficient for architects ( an architect "thinks" in 3D and transcript his "mental image" through 2D drawings).
There is also the "myth" that an early stage designing model, will show stress problems, or even weather wearing. In fact, a "concept" goes by several stages of designing to finish by the works stage (le chantier).
Our craft (architects) is to get people "happy" in living in our buildings (we are not sculptors). All the process in between the mental image and the people living in, is just incidental crap! It changes through time and history.
For today, I can really understand why an architect would prefer softs like Exception or DesignWorkshop than 3DSMax, or Zoom, or TurboCAD etc...
Even the very popular Form Z is not so "crafty" in quick architectural designing. In fact we don't even need the "image" as a "photoreality", we only need it for the natural light transcription, because light IS one of our concept tool.
Another very important point is that, when I hire somebody in my office, I don't give a damn if he's a "computer technician", I hire the best architect I can find at a given price. The computer he will use as an "helping hand" for his talent, not the contrary...
In 2D as in 3D, there is a tendancy today to draw a "precise" representation of reality, when in fact, nobody cares about this precision. Most tool users argues about zooming and Booleans and complicated tool (most precise ones) when we only want the feeling of the heat emitted by a sun burned stone wall...I often recall to my student the best book about architecture, The little Prince of Saint Exupery... Please, draw me a sheep! says the kid and there goes the pilot (who is also a mechanic technician)...No, this one is much too fat!...This one looks sad!...This one is sick! Then the mechanic becomes an architect and draws a wooden crate with holes in it..There! Your sheep is inside!...That's perfect, it's the one I dreamed of! answers the child....
As an architect, my craft is to deal with dreams....