Given the changes technology has brought to the world, i predict that the architectural design process would be automated in the near future.
Such a system would have an interface usable by any layman. All the parameters( like building codes, zoning req, area calculations, optimum space relations and layouts,lighting, structural mep layout, construction documents, etc) could be done with algorithms and codes. You could walk the user through sets of design options for parts or whole, building it according to the clients needs.
Such a process would eliminate the need of architects.
You might think its far-fetched concept. But the archi fraternity had a similar reaction to the idea of computers replacing hand-drafting. Moreover with the arrival of BIM softwares and 3d printing , the amount of work traditionally required by an architect have reduced. Things might be getting easier , which in turns means our value is going down.
So im 23; planning to get licensed ; work for 15-20 yrs ; and start my own firm in my mid 40's. But that would be year 2035, how relevant would architects be by then?
We have seen death and birth of many professions in the last few decades, archi could have a similar fate. How could one dedicate ones whole life to something this unpredictable?
“””1991”
Jul 27, 14 12:47 pm
I think your "far fetched" idea has already been done.
Nithish.monson, that’s not possible in architecture. Creating the built environment is a collaborative process. It can’t be click-squirt, it takes people working together. Stakeholders all have input to designs, constantly shifting/changing things to fit needs and requirements.
You might be seeing things like deck design software…house design software, do-it-yourself things sprouting but those are rudimentary. I’ve seen some architects try to create standard building drawings and try to sell replications over the internet….but it does not work, never the same site, different code jurisdictions, licensing laws, too many variables and situations. The work tools we use may get automated but not the process of architecture.
You’ve chosen a safe path stick to it
Jul 28, 14 1:28 am
Um.... architects are idiosyncratic because architecture school teaches idiosyncratic design because it is part of the architectural values. It is the common houses/buildings and the vernacular buildings and houses that are not idiosyncratic or as much.
The very architectural value association to being "FINE ARTISTS" of buildings making expressionistic statements of the architects ideology that makes buildings idiosyncratic.
Idiosyncracy is how architects are trained in school to think. If they got out of that habit then that is another story.
If you want to be sure you are using the words idiosyncratic then you might want to know what the word means. Example of idiosyncratic.... Frank Gehry's works. It's his/her expression not the client's. I doubt the client envisions such a design... under most circumstances as most clients wants a customized ranch style but it would be Frank Gehry to turn the idea into an unusual contraption. Most clients really envision a more common line of thought not that individualistic or that creative. They want more of the same familiar house with some personalization to the themes of their interests.
Consider that 90% of housing needs of each person is largely the same. One person on a block might want a bricked faced backyard barbeque while another might not and want a spa while another might want a small swimming pool as to not be TOO cookie cutter and some personalization but otherwise it's still the same design used throughout the neighborhood.
This is because 90% of clients housing needs is covered by speculative housing and that is what people envision with maybe some personalized flair versus the worst of tract speculative development. As for non-housing needs, the clients only care that the design is functional and meets their needs and pleasant aesthetics (creating an improvement) but the architect has more free reign because the client is not emotionally attached as the clients are committees/boards/etc. not individuals that may be married to their idea and dream vision.
As for automated, computers do not automate "design". They can randomly or through some sort of algorithm.... select from a databases of "plans" based on input information. However, computers do not have emotions to draw from to create a design. Design requires emotions because we design by 'feel'. We can simulate with computers but it fails on its proverbia ass when it comes to trying to "express".
That is "art" of architecture. However, science is determined through mathematics and logic which computers do excellently. Computers will replace engineers before it will replace architects and artists. After all, engineers already don't really do much of anything anyway as the computers are doing the their work for them. With BIM, engineers can probably be totally replaced as we can do energy analysis with just a click of a button if the attributes of building components are known.
I don't think we can automate with computer/robots design. Computers/robots with A.I. can replace the most emotionally dead people in our society any day of the week.
I argue that the clients aren't the most idiosyncratic or the producers of idiosyncratic architecture. It is the architect who wants to express his or her own vision. It can be a problem when the architect gets carried away and makes the client's modest vision something into a Taj Mahal at the client's expense (ie. blowing the budget crazily).
Jul 28, 14 1:35 am
I'm with Carerra's point overall. Just to be clear, my previous message is not intended to imply all architects are idiosyncratic Gehry types. However, architecture school education does promote the idiosyncratic values. Therefore, there is a lean towards that. It can be good in that it provides character that makes the building distinctive but sometimes, some takes it a little too far or carried away which might be problematic.
I think and agree we do have an obligation to bring out ideas that the client has not considered or has not considered because the client is not aware other options and ideas. It is a collaboration.
I like the point of this collaboration process. This team work process with the client/stakeholders who are in some sense part of the "design team".
To add to the thought, I do agree that it is possible to automate construction like a production manufacturing and production. Anything that is described as "production" can be automated by computerization. Computers can replace hands and feet but not design by feeling because computers do not have feelings. They may simulate it but not inately embody it as we living beings do.
Franco Chen
Jul 28, 14 2:06 am
Well, I would have to say, amongst all of the good arguments made here, I personally believe a branch of architecture can be replaced by an automated system. Simply putting together a database of plans and then having the client tick off boxes to their desire(s) is not far fetched at all. From these set parameters, the client would get a list of possible built forms, and they could pick from those. So I am agreeing with what you mentioned there.
However, Architecture is here to stay. If a client wants a personalized building, then they want just that. The "automated system" will simply replace today's tract housing development. I am not in favor for the automation of architecture, but it would be naive to say that it can't or won't be done. "Architecture" will always be around.
toasteroven
Jul 28, 14 10:00 am
agreed with Carrera - plus I'd say the vast majority of the projects I've worked on have required a zoning variance - and I've worked on a handful of projects that have required code variances. Zoning, btw, is almost entirely political.
Carrera
Jul 28, 14 11:52 am
Richard, well done, I think you capped it well. I learned something today. Turning to Franco’s points I have seen this click-chose concept at a large tract housing development showroom where you just sat down and answered a bunch of questions and it printed out a variety of models that would fit. Too I was involved with the development/design of a 21st Century physicians office prototype where the hospital/owner hired a national software designer to create software/workstations that were part of the checking-in process…the patent was required to sit in the workstation and click answers to a myriad of questions about their ailment, took their temperature and blood pressure, place to weigh them. It eliminated the nurses completely….a $8/hr receptionist would come get you and take you to the exam room where there was another computer that had taken the input data and crunched it and created possible diagnoses and treatments – possible pharmaceutical choices. It did not (yet anyway) eliminate the doctor, it was still up to him/her to sort through it all and make the decisions. My doctor is a really smart guy and likes talking about this stuff….he got swallowed up by our local healthcare monopoly mega corporation, they took his paper pad away and gave him a laptop that largely does the same thing, he hardly even looks at me anymore…he does the input for me but its largely the same thing. The office prototype flopped and my doctor said “….they are trying to cookie-cutter this thing and it’s not going to work”. He also said “…people don’t want this….” And here’s why.
Richard and I were talking about personal relationships elsewhere. Making friends, collaborating and creation of ideas has been going on for 100 years in this profession and its going to continue for 100 more. Maybe this speculation is scientifically possible, but people will not want to do it that way. Look at email, thought to revolutionize/speed up communication/collaboration. People don’t want to use it; hell 50% of email that is sent doesn’t even get a simple courteous reply. People are afraid to put anything down in writing and communicate that way…takes days for some people to reply… I think this innovation will eventually go the way of the fax machine. People need/want face-to-face communication/collaboration.
Caveat: Architects by breed are largely socially inept, afraid to engage with people, unwilling to help people with small problems….I know most of the architects in my own community personally and they are mostly ass-holes. Most just want to hide in their converted Four-Square “studios” and draw houses for young fillies with rich husbands looking for granite countertops and such. They better watch out….the move has been on for many years, people are preferring to go to contractors first where they are more welcoming, warm, willing to start out with dumb questions and problems and build them into projects. These contractors have trained themselves to be open, responsive and helpful. They are not reluctant to do work for free to get things started. If this keeps up, and I think it will, in this regard Nithish may be on to something.
I close with Richard’s “Computers can replace hands and feet but not design by feeling because computers do not have feelings”. What’s in play here is where people are going to find those “feelings”.
proto
Jul 28, 14 2:03 pm
Architects by breed are largely socially inept, afraid to engage with people, unwilling to help people with small problems...the move has been on for many years, people are preferring to go to contractors first where they are more welcoming, warm, willing to start out with dumb questions and problems and build them into projects. These contractors have trained themselves to be open, responsive and helpful. They are not reluctant to do work for free to get things started.
The working for free part is the motivator, not welcoming, warm question-answerers. And I think if you ask them, you'll find contractors don't particularly enjoy working for free any more than anyone else...more of a necessary evil to get clients to pony up and do the project.
I'm sorry you only know asshole architects, but I think you're painting with a rather broad brush.
Jul 28, 14 3:20 pm
proto,
Sometimes just listening and answering questions A) gets you the job from which you would be paid on the very basis that the client likes you because you have good manners and is personable, B) when you ask questions and listen and work through understanding what the client wants, their needs and so forth, then you get design with them in mind. When you are only looking at how to serve yourself and your own vision then you are not an architect but just an artist fraudulently wasting the client's time and money. The project isn't about you and that is important to remember because it isn't you who occupies the building/home for the next 10-20 or 50 years or any given number of years. Especially when it comes to homes.
Domestic needs and architecture of domesticity is generally not open to a carte blanche approach. Clients have a vision of "home" and they want a HOME.
Remember, working some extent of free is capitalized later because you count the hours your spent to get the project into the figures because you aren't really working for free. You also factor into your billing how many hours it will take, a float percentage and a planned contribution margin markup which should cover the cost of the labor you spend prior to getting paid. The point is not to spend 30-40 hours yacking away. You make it up. A contractor will make it up because they have float and contingency factors in the billing and ultimately make up for the hour or so of asking questions and providing a service. After all, you make it up if you know what the client wants from the get go by not expending time and money on change orders.
Being open and personable is the name of the game when it comes to residential and small commercial project clients. After all, there is so much more emotional attachment the clients have to the project. You need to be somewhat like a counselor, a psychologist, a sociologist, and generally be socially pleasant and project that you care about the client. If you don't genuinely care about the client and their project then you should not be an architect and find another career.
Projects like this are phenominally stressful to most residential and small commercial clients. They are very emotionally devoted as it means their life and their entire financial future for the rest of their life. That is how big this investment is to them. A contractor works with clients like Carerra said because after all, they are going to see them a lot and they are going to be around for quite awhile. If you were engaging as a design-builder, you would do the same because it makes all the difference. It payoff to be personable and able to talk and communicate and LISTEN to the client including the the unspoken. As in.... reading facial expression, body language, vocal inflections, etc.
This way, you can respond to these needs that aren't being expressed in words but assumed that you know as if they told you. You need to sort of "become the client" in that you need to embody yourself in their shoes to understand what is happening in their life.
Contractors invest because after all, it is about customer/client satisfaction. Being on good talking terms and social terms, you can settle issues more easily with less problems.
It isn't necessarily working for free. The pay maybe deferred.
You are paid a flat salary regardless of whether you work 40 hours a week or if you put in 60 hours a week. It is still the same amount of money. After all, running a business with a "salary" is that you get paid a certain amount and you invest whatever it takes to get the work done sufficiently. After all, overtime pay doesn't apply to salaried "white collar" work that we design professionals do. It is the investment to make happy clients/customers. You just do it.
In general, it pencils out in the long run. If you are too concerned about the exact number of seconds you spend on a particular client then you might not want to consider a career in a field / position that doesn't involve working with clients or customers. It's a people skill and investment in that regard to get clients to want to work with you. If it brings one additional project a year, that's a benefit worth the investment.
It is the difference between a successful business and an unsuccessful business.... after all it is your "PR" opportunity.
Carrera
Jul 28, 14 7:19 pm
Proto, Thank you for your comments….just for the record though, “broad-brush” means to be overly general, I said “my own community personally”. There are 105,847 licensed architects nationally and with my being in this business for over 40 years I’ve had the pleasure of meeting & collaborating with 100’s of great architects. However, looking to the most recent thread titled “Architect sacked after giving the 'bird' to Los Angeles School District”, indicates that my sample isn’t only represented here.
proto
Aug 6, 14 5:12 pm
richard balkins, you like to write (fyi I'm a sole proprietor w/ 20yrs experience in both residential & commercial architecture)
carrera, i said "broad brush" because you began "architects by breed.." the one example from LA isn't really supporting that statement further
Given the changes technology has brought to the world, i predict that the architectural design process would be automated in the near future.
Such a system would have an interface usable by any layman. All the parameters( like building codes, zoning req, area calculations, optimum space relations and layouts,lighting, structural mep layout, construction documents, etc) could be done with algorithms and codes. You could walk the user through sets of design options for parts or whole, building it according to the clients needs.
Such a process would eliminate the need of architects.
You might think its far-fetched concept. But the archi fraternity had a similar reaction to the idea of computers replacing hand-drafting. Moreover with the arrival of BIM softwares and 3d printing , the amount of work traditionally required by an architect have reduced. Things might be getting easier , which in turns means our value is going down.
So im 23; planning to get licensed ; work for 15-20 yrs ; and start my own firm in my mid 40's. But that would be year 2035, how relevant would architects be by then?
We have seen death and birth of many professions in the last few decades, archi could have a similar fate. How could one dedicate ones whole life to something this unpredictable?
I think your "far fetched" idea has already been done.
http://mashable.com/2014/04/28/3d-printing-houses-china/
Nithish.monson, that’s not possible in architecture. Creating the built environment is a collaborative process. It can’t be click-squirt, it takes people working together. Stakeholders all have input to designs, constantly shifting/changing things to fit needs and requirements.
You might be seeing things like deck design software…house design software, do-it-yourself things sprouting but those are rudimentary. I’ve seen some architects try to create standard building drawings and try to sell replications over the internet….but it does not work, never the same site, different code jurisdictions, licensing laws, too many variables and situations. The work tools we use may get automated but not the process of architecture.
You’ve chosen a safe path stick to it
Um.... architects are idiosyncratic because architecture school teaches idiosyncratic design because it is part of the architectural values. It is the common houses/buildings and the vernacular buildings and houses that are not idiosyncratic or as much.
The very architectural value association to being "FINE ARTISTS" of buildings making expressionistic statements of the architects ideology that makes buildings idiosyncratic.
Idiosyncracy is how architects are trained in school to think. If they got out of that habit then that is another story.
If you want to be sure you are using the words idiosyncratic then you might want to know what the word means. Example of idiosyncratic.... Frank Gehry's works. It's his/her expression not the client's. I doubt the client envisions such a design... under most circumstances as most clients wants a customized ranch style but it would be Frank Gehry to turn the idea into an unusual contraption. Most clients really envision a more common line of thought not that individualistic or that creative. They want more of the same familiar house with some personalization to the themes of their interests.
Consider that 90% of housing needs of each person is largely the same. One person on a block might want a bricked faced backyard barbeque while another might not and want a spa while another might want a small swimming pool as to not be TOO cookie cutter and some personalization but otherwise it's still the same design used throughout the neighborhood.
This is because 90% of clients housing needs is covered by speculative housing and that is what people envision with maybe some personalized flair versus the worst of tract speculative development. As for non-housing needs, the clients only care that the design is functional and meets their needs and pleasant aesthetics (creating an improvement) but the architect has more free reign because the client is not emotionally attached as the clients are committees/boards/etc. not individuals that may be married to their idea and dream vision.
As for automated, computers do not automate "design". They can randomly or through some sort of algorithm.... select from a databases of "plans" based on input information. However, computers do not have emotions to draw from to create a design. Design requires emotions because we design by 'feel'. We can simulate with computers but it fails on its proverbia ass when it comes to trying to "express".
That is "art" of architecture. However, science is determined through mathematics and logic which computers do excellently. Computers will replace engineers before it will replace architects and artists. After all, engineers already don't really do much of anything anyway as the computers are doing the their work for them. With BIM, engineers can probably be totally replaced as we can do energy analysis with just a click of a button if the attributes of building components are known.
I don't think we can automate with computer/robots design. Computers/robots with A.I. can replace the most emotionally dead people in our society any day of the week.
I argue that the clients aren't the most idiosyncratic or the producers of idiosyncratic architecture. It is the architect who wants to express his or her own vision. It can be a problem when the architect gets carried away and makes the client's modest vision something into a Taj Mahal at the client's expense (ie. blowing the budget crazily).
I'm with Carerra's point overall. Just to be clear, my previous message is not intended to imply all architects are idiosyncratic Gehry types. However, architecture school education does promote the idiosyncratic values. Therefore, there is a lean towards that. It can be good in that it provides character that makes the building distinctive but sometimes, some takes it a little too far or carried away which might be problematic.
I think and agree we do have an obligation to bring out ideas that the client has not considered or has not considered because the client is not aware other options and ideas. It is a collaboration.
I like the point of this collaboration process. This team work process with the client/stakeholders who are in some sense part of the "design team".
To add to the thought, I do agree that it is possible to automate construction like a production manufacturing and production. Anything that is described as "production" can be automated by computerization. Computers can replace hands and feet but not design by feeling because computers do not have feelings. They may simulate it but not inately embody it as we living beings do.
Well, I would have to say, amongst all of the good arguments made here, I personally believe a branch of architecture can be replaced by an automated system. Simply putting together a database of plans and then having the client tick off boxes to their desire(s) is not far fetched at all. From these set parameters, the client would get a list of possible built forms, and they could pick from those. So I am agreeing with what you mentioned there.
However, Architecture is here to stay. If a client wants a personalized building, then they want just that. The "automated system" will simply replace today's tract housing development. I am not in favor for the automation of architecture, but it would be naive to say that it can't or won't be done. "Architecture" will always be around.
agreed with Carrera - plus I'd say the vast majority of the projects I've worked on have required a zoning variance - and I've worked on a handful of projects that have required code variances. Zoning, btw, is almost entirely political.
Richard, well done, I think you capped it well. I learned something today. Turning to Franco’s points I have seen this click-chose concept at a large tract housing development showroom where you just sat down and answered a bunch of questions and it printed out a variety of models that would fit. Too I was involved with the development/design of a 21st Century physicians office prototype where the hospital/owner hired a national software designer to create software/workstations that were part of the checking-in process…the patent was required to sit in the workstation and click answers to a myriad of questions about their ailment, took their temperature and blood pressure, place to weigh them. It eliminated the nurses completely….a $8/hr receptionist would come get you and take you to the exam room where there was another computer that had taken the input data and crunched it and created possible diagnoses and treatments – possible pharmaceutical choices. It did not (yet anyway) eliminate the doctor, it was still up to him/her to sort through it all and make the decisions. My doctor is a really smart guy and likes talking about this stuff….he got swallowed up by our local healthcare monopoly mega corporation, they took his paper pad away and gave him a laptop that largely does the same thing, he hardly even looks at me anymore…he does the input for me but its largely the same thing. The office prototype flopped and my doctor said “….they are trying to cookie-cutter this thing and it’s not going to work”. He also said “…people don’t want this….” And here’s why.
Richard and I were talking about personal relationships elsewhere. Making friends, collaborating and creation of ideas has been going on for 100 years in this profession and its going to continue for 100 more. Maybe this speculation is scientifically possible, but people will not want to do it that way. Look at email, thought to revolutionize/speed up communication/collaboration. People don’t want to use it; hell 50% of email that is sent doesn’t even get a simple courteous reply. People are afraid to put anything down in writing and communicate that way…takes days for some people to reply… I think this innovation will eventually go the way of the fax machine. People need/want face-to-face communication/collaboration.
Caveat: Architects by breed are largely socially inept, afraid to engage with people, unwilling to help people with small problems….I know most of the architects in my own community personally and they are mostly ass-holes. Most just want to hide in their converted Four-Square “studios” and draw houses for young fillies with rich husbands looking for granite countertops and such. They better watch out….the move has been on for many years, people are preferring to go to contractors first where they are more welcoming, warm, willing to start out with dumb questions and problems and build them into projects. These contractors have trained themselves to be open, responsive and helpful. They are not reluctant to do work for free to get things started. If this keeps up, and I think it will, in this regard Nithish may be on to something.
I close with Richard’s “Computers can replace hands and feet but not design by feeling because computers do not have feelings”. What’s in play here is where people are going to find those “feelings”.
Architects by breed are largely socially inept, afraid to engage with people, unwilling to help people with small problems...the move has been on for many years, people are preferring to go to contractors first where they are more welcoming, warm, willing to start out with dumb questions and problems and build them into projects. These contractors have trained themselves to be open, responsive and helpful. They are not reluctant to do work for free to get things started.
The working for free part is the motivator, not welcoming, warm question-answerers. And I think if you ask them, you'll find contractors don't particularly enjoy working for free any more than anyone else...more of a necessary evil to get clients to pony up and do the project.
I'm sorry you only know asshole architects, but I think you're painting with a rather broad brush.
proto,
Sometimes just listening and answering questions A) gets you the job from which you would be paid on the very basis that the client likes you because you have good manners and is personable, B) when you ask questions and listen and work through understanding what the client wants, their needs and so forth, then you get design with them in mind. When you are only looking at how to serve yourself and your own vision then you are not an architect but just an artist fraudulently wasting the client's time and money. The project isn't about you and that is important to remember because it isn't you who occupies the building/home for the next 10-20 or 50 years or any given number of years. Especially when it comes to homes.
Domestic needs and architecture of domesticity is generally not open to a carte blanche approach. Clients have a vision of "home" and they want a HOME.
Remember, working some extent of free is capitalized later because you count the hours your spent to get the project into the figures because you aren't really working for free. You also factor into your billing how many hours it will take, a float percentage and a planned contribution margin markup which should cover the cost of the labor you spend prior to getting paid. The point is not to spend 30-40 hours yacking away. You make it up. A contractor will make it up because they have float and contingency factors in the billing and ultimately make up for the hour or so of asking questions and providing a service. After all, you make it up if you know what the client wants from the get go by not expending time and money on change orders.
Being open and personable is the name of the game when it comes to residential and small commercial project clients. After all, there is so much more emotional attachment the clients have to the project. You need to be somewhat like a counselor, a psychologist, a sociologist, and generally be socially pleasant and project that you care about the client. If you don't genuinely care about the client and their project then you should not be an architect and find another career.
Projects like this are phenominally stressful to most residential and small commercial clients. They are very emotionally devoted as it means their life and their entire financial future for the rest of their life. That is how big this investment is to them. A contractor works with clients like Carerra said because after all, they are going to see them a lot and they are going to be around for quite awhile. If you were engaging as a design-builder, you would do the same because it makes all the difference. It payoff to be personable and able to talk and communicate and LISTEN to the client including the the unspoken. As in.... reading facial expression, body language, vocal inflections, etc.
This way, you can respond to these needs that aren't being expressed in words but assumed that you know as if they told you. You need to sort of "become the client" in that you need to embody yourself in their shoes to understand what is happening in their life.
Contractors invest because after all, it is about customer/client satisfaction. Being on good talking terms and social terms, you can settle issues more easily with less problems.
It isn't necessarily working for free. The pay maybe deferred.
You are paid a flat salary regardless of whether you work 40 hours a week or if you put in 60 hours a week. It is still the same amount of money. After all, running a business with a "salary" is that you get paid a certain amount and you invest whatever it takes to get the work done sufficiently. After all, overtime pay doesn't apply to salaried "white collar" work that we design professionals do. It is the investment to make happy clients/customers. You just do it.
In general, it pencils out in the long run. If you are too concerned about the exact number of seconds you spend on a particular client then you might not want to consider a career in a field / position that doesn't involve working with clients or customers. It's a people skill and investment in that regard to get clients to want to work with you. If it brings one additional project a year, that's a benefit worth the investment.
It is the difference between a successful business and an unsuccessful business.... after all it is your "PR" opportunity.
Proto, Thank you for your comments….just for the record though, “broad-brush” means to be overly general, I said “my own community personally”. There are 105,847 licensed architects nationally and with my being in this business for over 40 years I’ve had the pleasure of meeting & collaborating with 100’s of great architects. However, looking to the most recent thread titled “Architect sacked after giving the 'bird' to Los Angeles School District”, indicates that my sample isn’t only represented here.
richard balkins, you like to write (fyi I'm a sole proprietor w/ 20yrs experience in both residential & commercial architecture)
carrera, i said "broad brush" because you began "architects by breed.." the one example from LA isn't really supporting that statement further