In that sense, there are many concepts of parametric:
Parametric as a math-informed, geometry-based visual style usually produced through scripts and algorithms. Parameters are defined through initial shape generation, geometry or mathematical formula [hierarchical].
Parametric as a system of ratios where one specific value generates the values for all other objects. In that sense, Greecians and Romans were about 2000 years early to the parametric party. All parameters are fixed to each other yet to a given single parameter [tyrannical].
Parametric as a system of components where clarity lends itself to regularity. Only key and unique components need to be designed or detailed as all other components are copies of key components. Like a database with the exception that the user can define or predefine components [pacifist].
Parametric as a referential or database system where all inputs are predefine and predetermined with no control over specific parameters or how those parameters are created. The only input necessary is placement while a parametric system fills in the relationship of placement to other parameters within the system [totalitarian].
I would say that BIM is a combination of all of the above depending on how you use it.
However, I think where BIM and parametric get mixed up is that while they are the same thing in theory as in both relying on a system of parameters and their relationship to each other... their execution and what they represent is different.
BIM really only represents the informational relationships to each individual object and parameter such as measurement, use, statistics et cetera. Whereas perceived parametricism is more or less a canvas on which data is connected too.
I do believe that they can inform each other in some aspects but I think the issue in developing the formulas and forms for these projects are far too labor intensive and expensive for one-off or semi-unique projects (which it why we end up with Home Designer Suite).
But both methods are essentially a reduction of a whole to individual parts and how those individuals parts make a whole.
uxbridge, your description is a bit too vague then. All architecture can be considered parametric as such. Heck, even autoCAD is parametric. It's right there in the name: 'auto'. It thinks for you!
My idea of new parametric architecture comes down to assigning very specific architectural (engineering) values to graphical symbols. Two parallel lines, a hatch in between, and a tag used to be how you documented a wall. Now you draw a single line and fill in a mini-spreadsheet of relevant information.
The second option is awesome if you know what parametric information needs to be entered before you draw that single line. If you don't, you'll be in a world of hurt. You can always fake it in schematic design, but you may self sabotage yourself down the line.
It reminds me of the time when 3D modeling became accessible to most. You could put a convincing looking building in a matter of days, which would only fall apart at a closer scrutiny.
almost all, if not all architecture is already parametric and always has been to varying degrees.
traditionally though the parameters are acquired knowledge that end up implicit in the design.
with parametric tools, you can make those relationships explicit which allows for them to be manipulated with two significant benefits:
1)you can cycle through iterations very fast and see changes cascade through the design instantaneously;
2)this sort of modeling is foundational for more accurate and robust building performance modeling, whether structural, energy or organizational performance is being modeled
@ won: true enough, but a seasoned som pm with parametric skills would probably smoke his other pm colleagues
@ won: true enough, but a seasoned som pm with parametric skills would probably smoke his other pm colleagues
and would not need a team either - I can't believe I told one of my project architects at SOM-SF during my review "ya know, with Revit, one person could design this entire skyscraper" They took me up on it, and said "thats great Mr. Bill, and thats exactly what we will do, thanks for the idea as they handed me the grey folder...Uh Oh
How the Great Recession has changed architecture—for the better
I dunno.
Parametric to me simply means "parameter."
In that sense, there are many concepts of parametric:
Parametric as a math-informed, geometry-based visual style usually produced through scripts and algorithms. Parameters are defined through initial shape generation, geometry or mathematical formula [hierarchical].
Parametric as a system of ratios where one specific value generates the values for all other objects. In that sense, Greecians and Romans were about 2000 years early to the parametric party. All parameters are fixed to each other yet to a given single parameter [tyrannical].
Parametric as a system of components where clarity lends itself to regularity. Only key and unique components need to be designed or detailed as all other components are copies of key components. Like a database with the exception that the user can define or predefine components [pacifist].
Parametric as a referential or database system where all inputs are predefine and predetermined with no control over specific parameters or how those parameters are created. The only input necessary is placement while a parametric system fills in the relationship of placement to other parameters within the system [totalitarian].
I would say that BIM is a combination of all of the above depending on how you use it.
However, I think where BIM and parametric get mixed up is that while they are the same thing in theory as in both relying on a system of parameters and their relationship to each other... their execution and what they represent is different.
BIM really only represents the informational relationships to each individual object and parameter such as measurement, use, statistics et cetera. Whereas perceived parametricism is more or less a canvas on which data is connected too.
I do believe that they can inform each other in some aspects but I think the issue in developing the formulas and forms for these projects are far too labor intensive and expensive for one-off or semi-unique projects (which it why we end up with Home Designer Suite).
But both methods are essentially a reduction of a whole to individual parts and how those individuals parts make a whole.
uxbridge, your description is a bit too vague then. All architecture can be considered parametric as such. Heck, even autoCAD is parametric. It's right there in the name: 'auto'. It thinks for you!
My idea of new parametric architecture comes down to assigning very specific architectural (engineering) values to graphical symbols. Two parallel lines, a hatch in between, and a tag used to be how you documented a wall. Now you draw a single line and fill in a mini-spreadsheet of relevant information.
The second option is awesome if you know what parametric information needs to be entered before you draw that single line. If you don't, you'll be in a world of hurt. You can always fake it in schematic design, but you may self sabotage yourself down the line.
It reminds me of the time when 3D modeling became accessible to most. You could put a convincing looking building in a matter of days, which would only fall apart at a closer scrutiny.
Sometimes a sexy graphic only wants to be that.
almost all, if not all architecture is already parametric and always has been to varying degrees.
traditionally though the parameters are acquired knowledge that end up implicit in the design.
with parametric tools, you can make those relationships explicit which allows for them to be manipulated with two significant benefits:
1)you can cycle through iterations very fast and see changes cascade through the design instantaneously;
2)this sort of modeling is foundational for more accurate and robust building performance modeling, whether structural, energy or organizational performance is being modeled
@ won: true enough, but a seasoned som pm with parametric skills would probably smoke his other pm colleagues
jmananelli
@ won: true enough, but a seasoned som pm with parametric skills would probably smoke his other pm colleagues
and would not need a team either - I can't believe I told one of my project architects at SOM-SF during my review "ya know, with Revit, one person could design this entire skyscraper" They took me up on it, and said "thats great Mr. Bill, and thats exactly what we will do, thanks for the idea as they handed me the grey folder...Uh Oh
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.