Thesis: More focus should be placed on the design and construction of navigational tools in urban design in order to create environments that are informative, legible, and authoritative.
We understand cities and buildings by creating mental maps. According to Kevin Lynch, these maps consist of our understanding of paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks; a patchwork of images from our memories that give us a comprehension of where we are, where we are going, and how we could and should get there. Wayfinding as a principle is user-oriented and derives its approach from the behavioral and psychological foundations of navigation. This spatial orientation relies heavily on the built environment; therefore, architects and designers must be held responsible to create spaces that are easily understood and informative.
The role of Computer-aided design in architectural practice should be reevaluated to promote, and not hinder, the development of architectural ideas in the early phases of the design process.
Publishing Venue:
ArchDaily
Abstract:
Before the advent of computer-aided design, the architectural design process relied heavily on paper, pencil and the architect’s creative intuition. Ideas that existed in the designer’s mind were fluidly translated from the brain’s synapse. Conceptual design gestures manifested themselves at the tip of the pencil as lines that become motivating design ideas. Preliminary sketches and conceptual diagrams are gradually being replaced by the advent of computer-aided design (CAD) software such as AutoCAD, Rhino 3D, and Revit as a means of formulating early conceptual drawings and diagrams that express one’s design ideas. While useful for other phases of the design process such as the schematic and the design development phases, the conceptual phase is a critical phase of the design process where one generates architectural ideas. I argue that the inherent limitations of design software such as predetermined geometries and materials, stifle one’s creative potential that would otherwise be explored through the medium of pencil, or other physical media, and trace paper.
Currently, the conveniences of 3D modeling incentivize the use of CAD software in all design phases, compelling many architecture students to begin their conceptual brainstorming in aforementioned programs. The question of when to begin 3D modeling in the design process is a relevant and recurring question in studio environments. In a setting that incentivizes efficiency, students, including myself, often substitute 3D software like Revit in favor of lead and paper. But such software are based on a rigid set of pre-programmed parameters and materials, which limit one’s choices to a catalog of materials and shapes, and therefore suppress creative potential.
Drawings are not merely a means to an end: they are part of the thought process of architectural design. Drawings express the interaction of our minds, eyes and hands. Architecture cannot divorce itself fromdrawing, no matter how impressive the technology gets. Research must be done on what exactly makes hand drawing so successful in devising early conceptual ideas. The integration of those strategies into CAD later in the design process can in turn promote the development of conceptual ideas and not limit them.
The primary objective of this article:
1) Establish that a problem exists. Cite empirical data/case studies that suggest the negatives associated with CAD in the design process. Explicitly outline positive and negative results that arise in studio environments when CAD is the primary design vehicle, and when traditional discrete drawings/sketches are the primarily vehicle: what are the outcomes?
2) Propose solutions. Once inherent dangers are detailed, establish measures that may be taken to avoid the pitfalls of CAD. Outline potential solutions, detail benefits and disadvantages of each, and propose best solution.
A Problem Exists: Case Study
University of Calgary Architecture department. Photo by Shane Motley
The faculty of environmental design at the University of Calgary has been involved with computer applications in architecture for the past 25 years. In the past five years, a concerted effort has been made to move the computer out of the lab and into the architecture curriculum, introducing the computer to a wider audience at a more junior level. In the late 1980’s (1987-89), three architectural studios comprising of 50 students had been conducted using computers as the primary graphic tool.
The studios encompassed approximately fifteen junior level students and undertook projects of standard programmatic complexity. This paper presents a “…critical evaluation of the experience gained in these three studios and brings about a number of significant issues as a result of integrating this technology with the concerns of architectural design” (Brown 1987).
The benefits from generating a three dimensional model instead of a series of discrete drawings was seen as the most positive result. This endorsed greater mindfulness of the “inter-relationship between the various orthogonal views and produced a much ‘tighter’ final project” (Brown 1987). Additionally, there was general agreement that the use of CAD was more efficient than traditional methods without factoring in the considerable amount of time required to learn the software.
Of the relatively easily reparable, negative aspects encountered were: Difficulties with modeling processes often led to students simplifying their idea to facilitate their input into the computer. Additionally, there was a tendency for students to work by determining specific areas or problems as discrete entities without concern for the whole design, making solutions less integrative.
During the course of the studios, two observations were made regarding the nature of CAD representations. First, an “unreasonable amount of faith seemed to be placed in the rationality and objectivity of computer generated representations” (Brown 1987). There seemed to be a greater inclination among both the students and faculty to indisputably accept drawings produced from the model, as appropriate representations of reality. The predominant attitude seemed to reflect a reluctance to “challenge the sufficiency of these representations or engage in a critical discussion of their nature” (Brown 1987).
The second observation made was a tendency for students to forego the usual and important step in a design project of determining the appropriate type of representation and the nature of their presentations in lieu of the mass production of those drawings easily made by the computer. “There was desensitization to the meaning and appropriateness of drawing types” (Brown 1987).
In the studios it was found that, in addition to plans, sections and elevations, most presentations consisted primarily of perspectives, not because they were the most appropriate form of representing the students’ ideas, but due to convenience. In accordance with this attitude, the tendency for the modeling procedure to have a direct effect on the student work was prevalent. Many decisions and solutions seemed to be more a consequence of, “having the ability to make multiple copies, mirror, scale, rotate, or extrude, than as a response to some architectural issue” (Brown 1987).
To a degree, the problems identified in the studios were a result of these underlying assumptions being taken for granted. The situation is made worse because of the apparent cultural preference in Western society to believe in the ultimate rationality and objectivity of the computer. The result has been the implicit acceptance of these assumptions without the necessary critical investigation into their nature.
Image by Robert Levlin
Solutions
Three options arise:
First, this discussion and its philosophical implications could be ignored, this would run the risk that CAD would play an increasingly smaller role in the creation of architecture and eventually become little more than an efficient production tool for construction (Asanowicz 2002). Though the most efficient option, it runs the risk of diluting the manifestation of architectural ideas.
The second option would be to “reject the computer on philosophical grounds as the ultimate manifestation of Cartesian determinism”, a framework in which to create meaningful architecture (Asanowicz 2002). On the one hand it directly avoids the pitfalls associated with CAD, but also its inherent (aforementioned) benefits, which do exist.
The third alternative, seems to be the best course of action: “maintain the viability of computers in architecture by critically examining, understanding, and, altering the theoretical framework within which they are used so as to make them more compatible with the mainstream of architectural thought” (Asanowicz 2002). This approach offers more promise than the previous two because it emphasizes a greater understanding and awareness of the biases of CAD, and underlying assumptions one makes when using CAD. Through this type of critical evaluation, and discussion, users will be better able to avoid some of aforementioned pitfalls of CAD.
Works Cited
Lewis, Roger K. “Roger K. Lewis – Computers Are Great Tools for Architects, but Don’t Let CAD Go Wild.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 25 Jan. 2015.
Van Schaik, Leon. “How can Code be used to Address Spatiality in Architecture?” Architectural design 84.5 (2014): 136- 41.ProQuest. Web. 25 Jan. 2015.
ArchiMarket: Designing the experiential revival of the traditional suburban grocery store.
Publishing venue: CityLab
Thesis: The historically stagnant suburban-style grocery store should utilize the advancements in smart-phone applications to re-imagine a store design that maximizes the consumer experience.
The first American grocery store opened its doors in 1910’s Memphis, a move responsive to the growing population of consumers settling in residential pockets within driving distance of the city. The ‘suburbs’ as they were later coined utilized these mega-stores stocked with shelves of groceries as a functional neighborhood hub that was constructed along the highway. It was a place to see and be seen by neighbors, and where impromptu socializing took place in an area that was saturated with single-family homes. Today, urban dwellers continue to weave in and out of conveniently-located grocery stores in sustained twenty-four hour cycles. However, the suburbs of the 21st century are a more dynamic place than they were in the 1940’s. Both men and women are pushing the shopping cart and while the grocery store remains in consumerized shopping plazas, it has evolved from a social destination to a painful and necessary stop on the way home.
“Fundamentally, architecture is something you build and put together, and people walk in and they like it. But that’s too hard. Pretty pictures are easier.”Philip Johnson
From the moment the partition spins, your project’s critique has already been decided. Despite the requirements of numerous plans, sections, and elevations, one drawing reigns supreme: the render. As architecture students, we spend days splitting up our time to finesse our drawings, for a single image to determine our fate. The essence of your design lies in a detailed look at your technical drawings, which are the most commonly overlooked images on your board.
The development of space and engineering within the architectural design has become a detail only to be realized at the critical moment when we graduate and are faced with licensure. There is no section in the licensure exam which asks for a beautiful rendering of the design. Instead, we will be load tracing and designing space. These are goals we should be striving to achieve with our design work in school, but instead we are overlooking them and striving to create beautiful pictures. The crutch of pretty renderings is synonymous with the crutch of pretty drawings, however it has been reworked to reflect the notorious term “rendering”, which we hear at every crit we attend. The renderings we see today are created by computers, and while the word “rendering” is used to include the action of drawing and adding details such as shading, it has become infamous for a computer exported image meant to wow your audience with its realism.
In Britain, there has been a movement to create accurate renderings. The renderer visits the site and photographs it from a certain spot, and then insert their design without altering the rest of the image. By presenting an actual vantage point, the design is not dramatized and it does not mislead the client. This realistic form of rendering is required by local councils and the London Boroughs. (Reidel Clog 25) The image is then submitted to authorities with accompanying documents to attest to its accuracy. On occasion when a client, a developer or architect, wishes to modify the image, it is no longer “verified” and is stripped of the supporting documentation. Whilst this method may lack the touch of ‘whimsy’ clients want their building’s to achieve, the images ensure that the buildings and context are accurately represented.
In juxtaposition to the British method of verifying renderings, the Chinese have set their goals to advance China’s architectural future as quickly as possible without concern for accuracy. Renderings of shop stalls will have signs saying Gucci, although they will contain dumpling shops in reality. Affluence is of no concern when achieving a convincing rendering, and neither is the skyline. Although the skyline of China can be dark and gloomy, or cluttered with buildings, the rendering has no concern for these realities. Instead, they insert beautiful sunny skies. Most of the rendering work is also outsourced to gigantic three-dimensional modeling studios. They mass produce these fantastical representations, inventing their own contextual reality. These specialists are concerned with the marketing of urban fantasies to government officials. To present them in their contextual reality would destroy the fantasy.
Advancements in computer aided design, 3d digital modeling and rendering have contributed to photo realistic depictions of architecture. Images of people participating in various activities are included to add life and atmosphere to the renderings, enabling the clients to better envision what the spaces could achieve and represent. It’s completely acceptable for architecture students and practitioners alike to go as far as adding flying birds, crowds, falling snow/rain, headlight streaks and holiday decorations in renders. These elements add a touch of whimsy to the renders, and create atmospheres that entice clients by going after their interests. There is no way of guaranteeing the success and effect that a project will have, and so these representations are false. Buildings are rendered from angles, colors and lighting that will never be experienced by a client, however, they visually depict the building in the best light possible which is incredibly misleading. Renders essentially control the fate of a project, with minute details such as lighting, and liveliness making all the difference in the success of a project, and its impression on the client.
As the world advances digitally, so does the culture of consumerism. Digital renderings have become a means of ‘consuming’ architecture as we consume everything else today. Those who could afford to travel, would experience great works of architecture as physical objects in space. (Tsu Clog 107) One would pay to travel and experience the colosseum, Bilbao’s Guggenheim museum, or Sydney’s Opera House, whilst those who could not afford to do so would experience those spaces by looking at images and photographs of those spaces. This method of experiencing architecture applies to modern buildings constructed today, where digital renders are consumed by clients and the masses alike, leading to the final product of the building seeming dated and obsolete, as the renderings of the building have already been ‘consumed’. Furthermore, ‘Renderings are to architecture what a trailer is to a movie’. (Tsu Clog 107) Whilst renderings may give the client an idea of what the building will look like, it subtly conceals the amount of work required to construct it, the difficulties the construction process will go through, as well as any social, political and economical factors that may be involved in the architectural negotiations. The Chinese renderings of certain buildings for instance could conceal the economic difficulties of an area, resulting in the contextually insensitive designs.
Architectural Visualization has dominated the architectural field, so much so that it has become it’s own career path. One example is Alex Hogrefe, who has become renowned by architectural students across the country for his style and tutorials. Many students have come to mimic his style, and rightfully so for its extreme effectiveness at crits. Even an illegible rendering has come to impress the judges. It has become it’s own artform, no longer informing us about any sort of architecture and instead turning us into artists, highlighting a focal point of the project which negates the rest of the design. While different places employ different strategies, the British regulation of renderings would prove beneficial to all. Although the Chinese fantastical renderings serve a purpose, they disregard reality. How the design affects the public has become secondary to selling the design. The rendering reflects this change in priority and furthermore is a frontrunner in supporting it. By regulating renderings and supporting the realistic representation of design the true effect and usage of buildings becomes a priority over how cool it looks and its development as an icon.
Sources:
Quirk, Vanessa. “Are Renderings Bad for Architecture?” 06 Jun 2013. ArchDaily. Web.
Harris, Elizabeth A. “Idealized or Caricature, Architectural Renderings Are Weapons in Real Estate.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2013. Web.
Thesis: Architects’ detail to digital production leads to misrepresentation of architectural projects.
Draft:
Architects use many mediums to express their designs, ideas, and concepts. They use orthographic drawings , physical models, as well as digital models. One common element amongst all these mediums is scale, a measurement of reality. What about when one considers architects’ abilities to render 3D images? How can we defferienciate between what is reality and what is a false and biased representation of a building? How about photographs of architecture?
When proposing a new design to clients, professors, or peers, an architect needs to find a way to express their ideas and sell them. One of the most successful ways to do this is to present a rendering, or photorealistic image of their project. This, however, has become a problem more recently with the advancement of digital technology in the 21st century with the introduction of 3D modeling, Photoshop, and CAD. Where in the past drawings by hand were clearly seen as “artistic” interpretations of a project, now we have images that are practically indistinguishable as either reality or make believe.This brings into question the validity of every rendering and photograph and whether it is pushed too far from reality or not.
Before the era of photography and CAD, architecture was an art that was practiced on paper with ink. The original notion to draw architecture in perspective or 3D views did not come about until the renaissance (Shkineva.) Throughout the years the progession of the field of architecture went from an idea of an imaging method, to a presentation method, which some may argue is synonymous with a deception method. In this presentation method, architects intentionally pick the most spectacular, brightly painted, lively views of their design to pitch to clients(Shkineva.) In this case, clients latch on to these limited and fantastical ideas and sometimes can blindly sign for projects.
More recently, as photography was brought into the world, photography became a new medium for architects to brand their buildings and present them. However, this sometimes became a very tedious task for the architect or designer when trying to get the perfect, or ideal, image across to illustrate their design intent. In order to get a beautiful picture , one had to clip out a design flaw with a tree branch, or get a shot at just the right angle. Photographers even use to take several shots with different exposures and focuses and overlay them on one another to mimic the reaction a human eye would have to a building, since a camera is not as precise as the eye (McGuigan.) However, now in the 21st century it is much easier to take quick photos on site and manipulate them even further to allow people to see what you want them to see. Between now and WWII photographs have transitioned from actual architecture to more theatric shots. Now images can be so re-touched that many people would not be able to depict if the image had been altered or not. These images come out just as fake as a rendering could. But what everyone needs to remember is that architecture cannot be fully understood in two dimensions. Architecture needs to be witnessed in all three dimensions (McGuian.) It is one form of deception that can trick people into seeing a beautiful design.
Of course then there is the deception of rendering three dimensional drawings through the of CAD. Many people now-a-days, especially students, get lost in this fantasy realm where they depict their designs as beautiful imaginations. Architects tend to find the most influential view of their design to work with. From there they adjust the image to what they want to make pop, fade, illuminate, and speak. Though some argue you cannot blame the architects for this because this is the nature of architecture’s natural obsession with its own image. The problem occurs though that the images became so muddy with artistic decisions that the project sometimes can be seen completely out of its context. Architects are in the same business as fashion designers and magazines. They are just as guilty for covering faults in their design for buildings as magazines are for Photoshopping out and touching up blemishes, as well as making models seemingly thinner than they truly are (Freeman.) With that in mind consider all the flack that those deceptive illustrators are receiving. It’s just as wrong for architectural illustrators to deceive their clients and the public, but it seems that no one is pointing fingers. Instead people are falling into the trap of these beautiful images.
An example of misrepresentation in architecture of a false reality can be seen in the renderings for the Barclays Center Arena drawings by SHoP Architects. The images below are renderings for a new arena in New York City on Atlantic and Flatbrush Avenues. There are many flaws to be contested in the images. The biggest question, though, is that of why 50% of the rendering is actually fast paced traffic. In actuality, the traffic on these avenues would be at a stand still. And how about when there are events going on in the arena? Would the traffic really be moving in such a fashion? The flow of traffic is even represented with a similar color scheme as the arena is represented, which is untrue as the two are separate entities. Furthermore, the rendering completely negates the fact that the project plans to shut down Fifth Avenue during events as well (Noticing New York.)
Rendering by SHoP Architects.
Rendering with true traffic.
The other large deceptive element in this rendering is the use of light. The arena is lit up so brilliantly and colorfully as are the cars moving by (only on Atlantic and Flatbrush Avenues.) The rest of the city is completely ignored and greyed out. There are no lights, no activity, its as if the whole city has turned their lights out just for the arena. Were this to be accurately represented, the lights from the surrounding context would make an overall affect on the aesthetic of the arena and communicate its relationship better with its context. It may even make the building pop more (Noticing New York.)
These may seem like harsh criticisms of architectural rendering, but with the advancement in technologies it is only getting easier to trick our clients into believing in a false reality. It’s not that architects want to be deceptive, but rather that they want to illustrate to clients what they see. Sometimes this can be taken too literally by clients, and in return they may feel deceived when the finished project is done. As the profession moves forward architects need to find a better way to bridge the gap between artistic representations and built reality.
SOURCES:
Abdelhameed, Wael. “Digital- Media Impact on the Representation Capability of Architects.” Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Asanowicz, Alexander. “Computer Renderings- “Reality Is Overrated”” Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Freeman, Belmont. “Digital Deception: Architectural Photography After Photoshop.”Places Journal. 1 May 2013. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. <https://placesjournal.org/article/digital-deception/>.
“Harvard Design Magazine: Who Pays for the Picture?” Harvard Design Magazine: Who Pays for the Picture? Web. 6 Feb. 2015. http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/38/who-pays-for-the-picture
Hopper, Tristan. “Architectural Illustrators Use Toolbox of Tricks to ‘manipulate’ the Way We Look at Buildings.” National Post Architectural Illustrators Use Toolbox of Tricks to Manipulate the Way We Look Atbuildings Comments. 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2015. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/09/architectural-illustrators-use-toolbox-of-tricks-to-manipulate-the-way-we-look-at-buildings/>.
