Archinect
anchor

programming and architecture

shellarchitect

in the "Architecture in 10 years" thread there is a lot of talk about programming becoming important for architects to know.  Forgive me for a possibly stupid question, but can someone explain why this is so?

Thanks...

 
Jul 23, 12 1:20 pm
RH-Arch

From what I observe, it has a greater focus on digital fabrication and some parametric design. Right now it is still very much a niche, not utilized by the majority of firms but either the really large ones or the small boutique firms that do installations, residential interiors, and retail interiors. People are drawn to whatever cool fad is around at the time, and complex curvatures and blobs are back in, and for fabrication and production to be expedient knowing scripting can help a lot. Its also another means for people to derive a design, be it intentional or "intuitive", which I don't by the other and would substitute it as merely coincidental. 

 

Xenakis will be here shortly to dispute my claims or further clarify.

Jul 23, 12 1:27 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

it will be about as important as knowing LISP when autocad 2000 came out - so, if you're planning on being a life-long production monkey - yes, helpful (until you get replaced by the next generation of interns) - but hopefully by the time you're management all interns will know how to "program."  then you can have some intern write you scripts to automate stuff for the entire office so you don't have to hire more production staff and you can take a bigger chunk of the profits!  kind of like back in the days when there were only a handful of  "3D artists" who charged and arm and a leg for a crappy looking rendering - now you can get decent-looking renderings out of a minimum-wage summer intern and still charge the same rate.

 

so - kids!  keep learning to "program!"

Jul 23, 12 1:51 pm  · 
 · 
design

you guys are right, when things change we shouldn't change with them, let's just stay the same and default to generic white boxes. Can't we slow things down a bit? My arthritis is starting to really kick in.

also Randy, equating computation to blobs and curves is pretty ignorant.

Jul 23, 12 1:55 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

view

Is "generic white boxes" the only thing that is possible to design without "programming architecture"?

Jul 23, 12 2:04 pm  · 
 · 
design

do a search, this topic has been killed.

Jul 23, 12 2:07 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

Not really - the only argument that is repeatedly posted in favor of programming is that it's "new", and that it therefore will get you an advantage when looking for employment. There's very little critical analysis or showcases, or anything that extends into a discussion of what it could actually be of use for the discipline itself. Except for the tired argumentation of sustainability. But there is already analysis software for this.

Jul 23, 12 2:12 pm  · 
 · 

I was probably guilty, back in the day, of touting the latest fad.  It's enlightening to have seen a couple run their course.  Architecture is a service profession, and computational techniques should be evaluated in relationship to that mission.

Jul 23, 12 2:17 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

@view:  let me know when custom fab components cost less than stock crap you can get at home depot.  last I checked buildings still cost money.  unless you develop systems that dramatically cut down on (union) labor, we'll just keep using BIM to VE out doors and windows.

Jul 23, 12 2:18 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

I guess I'm ignorant. Then I shall re-state, blobs and curves with a gratuitous rhetoric backing it for the sake of artistic egotism as opposed to design intent. 

Jul 23, 12 2:25 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

Architecture is about the building.  That's what we do, we design buildings.  Anything outside of that like process or pretty hand drawings is a side effect or a means to the end.  So keep in mind, it's about the building, whether that's from a watercolor drawings or computational whatever.

We use computers as a tool to design and communicate so that our building can get approved and built.  Even if it's a simple white box, most of us still use a computer.  This isn't a fad anymore.  It's not 1970 anymore and we're not programming on punch cards.  It's gotten easy.

Computers are a tool we use, just as a screwdriver is a tool your contractor probably uses.  If your contractor uses a hand screwdriver while his competition is using electric screwdrivers, he's not going to get much work.  It's hard for a contractor to live in the past.  Architects should learn how to use the tools they have.  Being stupid or ignorant should not be something we celebrate.  Saying you can't use the tools your profession requires because some kid can do it just doesn't make you sound competent.  If all you provide is an opinion on whether you like curves or not, you just aren't worth much.

Jul 23, 12 2:27 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

I think all of you are worth something. It is always important in any type of discourse to avoid personal attacks of people's character or intelligence. You should show some ethics and manners.

Jul 23, 12 2:31 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

im mostly with curt on this one.

if you can't see that computation (not "computers") are a way of magnifying skills, then you're going to have a horrible time finding a job in 5 years...

Jul 23, 12 2:47 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

I have no problem with scripting at all, but when people see it as the most important issue for the future of building, it's pretty narrow-minded. Like curtkram wrote, it's a tool, but not more than that.

Jul 23, 12 2:49 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

also, all architecture is artistic ego boosting. otherwise we'd be engineers. stop pretending this isn't about our err.. egos..

Jul 23, 12 2:51 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

I see plenty of jobs asking for just AutoCAD, Sketchup, and Photoshop skills. I believe some people are stuck within a certain mindset. If programming and scripting ever became fully widespread, I could see that as another milestone toward the end of our profession. 

Jul 23, 12 2:53 pm  · 
 · 
design

the more architects design the better.
the problem with people writing off computation as just a tool, is that they then have to rely on home depot to design for them.

If programming and scripting ever became fully widespread, I could see that as another milestone toward the end of our profession. 

It will end if you don't keep up.

Jul 23, 12 3:01 pm  · 
 · 
aphorismal

Just a side note, I absolutely hate that every thread on this forum quickly gets sidetracked into people complaining about how whatever topic is being discussed is either ruining their professional lives or architecture in general.  Get over yourselves.

 

In my personal opinion, if you aren't using programming/scripting in any profession that makes THINGS (not just architecture), you are shooting yourself in the foot.  Computers are good at two things: following instructions in a repetitive manner, and analyzing and sorting large amounts of information, both very quickly.  I hope that any architect can obviously see why these features can be useful.  Whether its a facade pattern, optimally aligning the screws in a detail assembly, or whatever, a quick script can cut your work time by HOURS.  Scripting is useful in the same way Revit is useful: it automates a lot of the bullshit monkey work, leaving more time for thoughtful design.

 

One other thing: literally every other profession that has any semblance of technical production (engineering, computer hardware design, automobile design, anything) has been using scripting for DECADES.  Scriping isn't the future, its the past; archtiects are just catching up.

Jul 23, 12 3:01 pm  · 
 · 
design

^--- hell yes!

funny when people call it a "fad"

Jul 23, 12 3:05 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

When you replace manufacturing with mechanical automation what happens? The need for the workers no longer exist. I've worked in engineering firms that didn't use scripting and were still turning a heft profit. Your argument takes a minority and assumes it as the majority.

Jul 23, 12 3:05 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

view

There are plenty of manufacturers of building products out there except home depot. I don't really understand what computation would be if it isn't a tool. 

Jul 23, 12 3:07 pm  · 
 · 
zonker

Aphorismal

I have been using scripting and parameteric modeling in both flight simulation and video games before architecture - that's 30 years worth before I got into architecture only to find out that architecture was just now(2007) getting into it. 

Jul 23, 12 3:11 pm  · 
 · 

Are we talking about computational techniques as a tool in the tool box, one capable of producing efficiency in design and production, or are we talking about a technique that allows designers (not many architects currently) to produce organic form for it's own sake?

Jul 23, 12 3:12 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

Possibly we are referring to both. But, when scripting becomes fully mainstream, I would assume there would be alternatives that provide a visual interface like grasshopper, which lessens the learning curve.

Jul 23, 12 3:17 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

Producing organic forms is easy, getting it buildable is still difficult. Scripting (or parametrization) can aid you in finding efficient solutions to problems of cost, production, material tolerances. But that's a very small part of the designing/building process.

Jul 23, 12 3:20 pm  · 
 · 
aphorismal

Henry,

Frivolous form-making has been around long before scripting and will continue to exist with or without its implementation.  Just as scripting streamlines productive and meaningful architectural work, it also streamlines pointless shape manipulation.  One fact shouldn't detract from the other.  Obviously, the end result is reflective of the skill and creativity of the designer, but isn't that true of...anything?

a-f,

Architecture, just like fabrication, can be parameterized.  Views, environmental factors, site constraints, code (just ask SHoP about that one), form, and even cultural factors can all be converted to a set of constraints, which is all a parameter really is.  Being able to generate hundreds of solutions for each individual constraint, or a combination of them, very quickly can obviously be hugely beneficial in the design process.

Xenakis,

Yeah, I worked at a web development firm through college.  The simplicity of the programming that gets one by in architecture at the moment is ridiculous...

Jul 23, 12 3:33 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

dear rand,

please read more about creative destruction. because if you're going to argue that mechanization and automation hurts the majority, you're one seriously dumb dude.

come at me bro.

Jul 23, 12 3:44 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

I am just going to assume you have never worked in an industrial setting. Lets take a look at a hypothetical situation: If you have 100 people on an assembly line producing a series of products, that's 100 people in that industry right there, now when you replace it with automation you now have a dozen people. The majority of the people working are no longer necessary and are let go.
 

Failing to value the opinions of others cheapens your own. Resorting to personal attacks only reflects poorly on you.

Jul 23, 12 3:50 pm  · 
 · 

Parameters, algorithms, and scripts have also been around for a long time.  Think of building code as a set of parameters, think of ornamental pattern as an instance of algorithmic production, think of a Sears Robuck house with an assembly manual as a kind of script.

What is relatively new is that processing power has allowed these techniques to be used to produce complex form.

Is complex form the most interesting thing we can do with it?  Is using this technology to produce complex form it's end state or just another aesthetic fad?

Jul 23, 12 3:52 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

yeah ok, let's look at things in a superbly unidimensional fashion, rand.

what happens when that happens? costs go down. then whoever owns the company slashes prices to force the competition out of business. then what happens? consumers enjoy lower prices. 

countless papers cite that the net magnitude of that effect far outweighs the temporary unemployment of those people initially let go, and in the end it helps bring up the overall quality of life of everyone involved in the system.

 

you really need to read more than archishittytheory.

Jul 23, 12 3:56 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

Frivolous form-making has been around long before scripting and will continue to exist with or without its implementation.  Just as scripting streamlines productive and meaningful architectural work, it also streamlines pointless shape manipulation.  One fact shouldn't detract from the other.  Obviously, the end result is reflective of the skill and creativity of the designer, but isn't that true of...anything?

 

IMO - most people actually do some form of "computation" on a daily basis whether they recognize it or not - i think where the confusion is that what's being touted as some sort of new "computation aesthetic" is really just pointless formal manipulation.

 

I'm mostly wary of the people who treat computation as some kind of new aesthetic religion - but my first post above was more joke about how what happens when these sorts of skills cease to become unique - all you scripting kiddies will wish that you hadn't spent all this time proselytizing.

Jul 23, 12 4:00 pm  · 
 · 
aphorismal

Henry,

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways.  The processing power is what's new, but its not ONLY being used to create complex forms.  It is also being used to iteratively design, rapidly prototype, and quickly adjudicate various scenarios.  This has nothing to do with form.  Yes, some groups produce wild forms under the auspices of parametricism, but these groups have always existed, regardless of the tools at hand.

All of those things you mentioned are their own type of algorithm - we can just add a new type of rigor and refinement to their production than was previously possible.  I see this only as a good thing.

toasteroven,

I totally agree with you.  But all skills that are worthwhile cease to become unique, that's all the more reason to learn them and not get left behind.

Jul 23, 12 4:06 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

aphorismal,

I think we covered the technique of genetic algorithms, which your description is a bit similar to, in another thread. The problem is that architecture isn't really quantifiable to that extent. Even in if would be possible to convert for example cultural factors to a set of constraints (the amount of research of which would be enormous - in fact probably an academic discipline in itself), a building isn't an optimization of a set of given constraints. But even if it would be possible, weighing and programming these factors against each other would be time-consuming to the extent of extreme overkill, for the financial (un)importance that architecture really has. Parametrization as a style is often venturing in this kind of automatism, a kind of extreme modernism without social pathos, without the grittiness and primitivism, stripped bare to the optimization of a set of factors. It would shut off the discipline from society even more I'm afraid.

If we compare architecture to car design, perhaps a few points can be made on the importance of parametricism. But with art, literature, music, cinema? Even Xenakis was wise enough to only make his stochastic tonal bursts only last a few bars, not totally dominate the whole score.

Jul 23, 12 4:10 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

@ i r giv up

You really need to learn how to talk to people properly. And its a personal interest, I'm referring to our profession, not how awesome it would be to quickly produce cheap architecture for the masses that holds very little value. Most of your comments in this thread are composed of insults, I feel that says something about you.

Jul 23, 12 4:18 pm  · 
 · 
toasteroven

I totally agree with you.  But all skills that are worthwhile cease to become unique, that's all the more reason to learn them and not get left behind.

 

right - but if it's all you have to offer, you'll quickly become redundant - you have to be careful with any kind of production-orientated skill.

Jul 23, 12 4:22 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

yeah, it says i have little e-tolerance for hipster stupidity.

Jul 23, 12 4:23 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"
-Eric Hoffer

Jul 23, 12 4:41 pm  · 
 · 
metal

here we go again...
a-f

The problem is that architecture isn't really quantifiable to that extent. Even in if would be possible to convert for example cultural factors to a set of constraints (the amount of research of which would be enormous - in fact probably an academic discipline in itself),

Cultural factors that are relevant for an architectural project can be defined to a set constraints, keeping mind that the architect is also an urban thinker. I'm also guessing  your "other" academic discipline would rely on computational demographics

a building isn't an optimization of a set of given constraints. But even if it would be possible, weighing and programming these factors against each other would be time-consuming to the extent of extreme overkill, for the financial (un)importance that architecture really has.


Enough with the architecture inferiority complex, looking at this problem as time-consuming is ultimately self-defeating


Parametrization as a style is often venturing in this kind of automatism, a kind of extreme modernism without social pathos, without the grittiness and primitivism, stripped bare to the optimization of a set of factors. It would shut off the discipline from society even more I'm afraid.

this argument is often thrown at parametrics.
You are basically wishing for steampunk novels to come true, only, they won't. at least not so dystopic.

Jul 23, 12 4:47 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

"i like turtles" -anonymous

Jul 23, 12 4:47 pm  · 
 · 

There are a lot of factors (e.g. changing stylistic trends,  the bespoke nature of most architectural design, etc.) working against computer programming having any real, longlasting impact on the profession of architecture.  But here's the biggest (and most obvious too), few architects have any real interest in doing programming.

For example, a long, long time ago I wanted to go into computers and I took some programing classes but it was abysmal.  Didn't take long to realize that I would rather work with people and use my hands (yes, we still drew with real pens and paper in those ancient days).  I suspect that I'm not the only architect with little interest in actually doing programming.  And if someone does enjoy programming, it's unlikely they choose a career in architecture because it's just not as lucrative as other avenues available to such people.  Why spent the time programming a low margin building when you could probably write a half dozen iPhone apps and strike it rich in the meantime?

Lastly, if programming does become a must-have, paradigm shifting revolution within the practise of architecture, then that means that Per Corell is a genius of the first order.  Don't hold your breath, yo!

Jul 23, 12 4:57 pm  · 
 · 
curtkram

"i like turtles" -zombie kid

Jul 23, 12 4:59 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

I KNOW IM LAZY

Jul 23, 12 5:01 pm  · 
 · 
RH-Arch

@HandsumCa$hMoneyYo

agreed, and coming from a youngin

Jul 23, 12 5:04 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

metal,

Genetic algorithm and artificial intelligence is a discipline in itself, with problems and constraints. Let's not go into oversimplifying things by saying that everything everywhere can be boiled down to a set of constraints, since not even the best researchers in the field have come this far yet. I'm not even sure what cultural quantifiable factors would be. "Preference of vernacular style: 0.8?". I agree it might sound pessimistic, but that's just because I'm pessimistic about quantification as a method. 

The "grittiness and primitivism" doesn't refer to steampunk, but to the early experimental stages of modernism at the Bauhaus. What I mean is that parametricism is basically a continuation of the low-end architecture of late modernism - which ended up as streamlined, rapid production of mass housing. Interesting in some ways, but strangely unable to communicate with people. At least this thread is a proof of that.

Jul 23, 12 5:10 pm  · 
 · 
design

No point in working for a luddite.

I would hire you guys to do grunty CA work, so I can spend more time developing design iterations - digital and analog, and maybe promote the firm.

Jul 23, 12 5:11 pm  · 
 · 
aphorismal

a-f, I think almost anything can be at least BETTER understood through constraints, even if some are more ephemeral and subjective than others.  Plus, it doesn't compare too unfavorably to other methods of cultural analysis utilized by architects.  By and large, all but the most academic analysis of culture is going to be superficial and reductive.  It usually comes down to "culture X utilizes this pattern a lot," or "this is a collectivist culture!  Let's make big, open meeting spaces."  My point is rapid algorithmic analysis is certainly not any worse than this method of cherry-picking.

And as for your comment that parametricism is basically modernism with a whole lot more tools, then yeah, I guess I agree, it is a sort of modernist revival.  But calling it asocial seems a little silly in that context.  Modernism was a social reform project after all; granted, it was a largely failed one, but taking the lessons learned from that experiment plus knowledge gained from new fields (behavioral economics, sociology, mathematics) may yield better results.  With the right goals and motivations, parametrics can be ONE key element in very socially responsive design.

Also, for the argument that parametrics are unnecessary in the world of professional practice, anything that can use data to make an argument about the tangible benefits of a design seems like a winner to me.  Clearly demonstrating how a building reduces energy costs, creates a psychological primer for consumption, or manipulates light to set a certain mood can be very relevant to selling the design.

Jul 23, 12 5:19 pm  · 
 · 
i r giv up

a-f, wash all that dirty phenomenology off of your head. read up on back propagation and neural nets. everything can be quantified. the issues are in the codification of inputs and outputs portion of the game, not computing power.

Jul 23, 12 5:25 pm  · 
 · 
metal

The "grittiness and primitivism" doesn't refer to steampunk, but to the early experimental stages of modernism at the Bauhaus. What I mean is that parametricism is basically a continuation of the low-end architecture of late modernism - which ended up as streamlined, rapid production of mass housing. Interesting in some ways, but strangely unable to communicate with people. At least this thread is a proof of that.

This might have been true of early iterations of parametric urbanism, but that won't last for long. Schumacher writes on this extensively, society and culture are essential components

Best example I can think of when an architect speaks of cultural production is decent city planning: density, green/open spaces, public transit, etc. The more info you have to feed on the better, its impossible to do this as "pure people"

Jul 23, 12 5:29 pm  · 
 · 
metal

I'm also willing to bet, that for all the caution waved around due to Modernism, there are a lot of people here that love Modernism.

Jul 23, 12 5:34 pm  · 
 · 
a-f

Fair enough, aphorismal. At least you point out problems with both methods. But still I can only think of that quote about evidence-based design "it all ends up looking like the lobby of a Marriott hotel anyway" (can't remember who said this... Wouter Vanstiphout?)

As for i r give up, I can't take "read up on" arguments seriously, sorry. We're not seeing fully developed AI yet. And when/if it's here, I don't think application in architecture is going to be the number one priority.

Jul 23, 12 5:35 pm  · 
 · 
design

but you are seeing transhumanism.

what are the "other" priorities?

Jul 23, 12 5:40 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: