CAD and  Conceptual Development 

Thesis:

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 from drawing, 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

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.

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.

Clear, N. (2013), Drawing Time. Archit Design, 83: 70–79.                                     doi: 10.1002/ad.1637

Graves, Michael. “Architecture and the Lost Art of Drawing.” The                      New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Sept. 2012. Web. 22                Jan. 2015

Asanowicz, A. “Evolution of Media for Early Design Stages.” (2002):                 n. pag. CuminCAD. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.