does anyone know of real estate offices that hire people to do this type of work? seems a bit excessive to build complete 3d models for "assessment and management". some of the services (lighting and design studies based on value engineering) are typically done by the architect's office anyway right? does it make sense for an architecture office to outsource this work?
i have a feeling that these guys operate as some type of high-tech branding or marketing consultancy (a la IDEO) ... they probably prepare renderings for huge clients or b2b clients
but screampoint does apparently does more than just pretty renderings. they're architectural "consultants" who use 3d modeling techniques to evaluate VE and architectural implications. this is fairly different from a company like dbox that just does pretty pictures. so is there a market for the consulting work that screampoint does?
Dont believe all the screampoint shouting and hype on 3+2=5D. they are simply people who wanted to be architects but just simply dont have what it takes to make it. instead they make a handsome profit by digitally building what developers and architects tell them to make. Renzo Piano and the New York Times made them dance. Worse is that they seem to take any project on, no matter how souless it may be- like visualizing stair VE options. These are the kind of people that give Architects a bad name.
Suture - that's amusing. Architects are what give architects a bad name. Don't try to push some of the blame for our ugly landscape and abundance of architetects with no talent onto those that do the presenations.
"they are simply people who wanted to be architects but just simply dont have what it takes to make it"
That's simply naive and demonstrates the self proclaimed importance architects have used in an attempt to justify the poor pay and declining respect. Back in reality, the vast majority of architects have little talent and continue to create ugly buildings and ignorant 'visions'. Unless things change, the significance of the architect will continue to decline.
I sympathize with your bitterness. Making little money, working long hours, and designing and building insignificant and boring buildings would get me too. And that's why I left, and I assure you that my credentials are far above the average practicing architect, as are many that are in the arch viz profession.
At the same time it's kinda of true that I would like to be an architect, and that I've decided to be in arch viz for the money... But I agree with trace, when I look around at my built environnment, I'm sorta relieved not to have what it takes.
tabolo - I think you are misunderstanding. Screampoint and dbox do essentially the same thing. "Pretty pictures" are part of the package. If a firm wants to pay to do a 'consultation' or 'design study', then that's fine. I've done many.
Most wont', though, because it costs a lot more to keep changing things.
Their suggested process is interesting, but it's more of a sales tool than a ture 'system'. I have no doubt, though, that they have created an effecient way to manage all of the assets.
There will always be last minute changes, though.
Be careful whenever looking at business sites. Each has their own strengths (dbox - beuatiful renderings, so that's what you see Screampoint - international organziation, so that's what they show). It's simple marketing 101, that's all.
French - if I recall correctly, you work for one the better arch viz firms ("A.. F..", right?). You may be surprised, but the work you are doing is far more creative than most architecture (and absolutely true if you consider the precentage of design to DD and CDs).
I've worked, and continue to work, in both fields. Trust me, if you went to architecture you'd laugh, last a day, and go back to work at your current place with a big smile.
So trace, do you often have this feeling that your job is underestimated by your architects friends? Because that's pretty much what happen to all of us. Once you choose to use max instead of autocad you're screwed for life I guess...
No, not at all. When they know the $$ and appreciate how significant that marketing is to ANY decent sized project, then they appreciate it that much more. That's what you should realize - it's only the 'real' players, ie the developers and investors etc., that realize how important the presenation and marketing is. Just remind yourself that 'you' are selling the project, without 'you', the architect will not get it built.
This is business, and viz is an essentail part to it. Great viz is rare, but architects are a dime a dozen - don't forget that one.
I guess I am fortunate to have gone to very good schools and worked at good firms, so when I look back at the other side ofthe fence, it doesn't look good, whereas those, such as yourself, may be seeing the grass being greener on the other side.
Just remember, Max is a hell of a lot harder than acad, and it does require a good eye to do good work. Anyone can use acad, and anyone can draft, not everyone can make beautiful images.
You are right trace, but I just wish all of this could be less of a business than what it is. I mean, of course you have to be somehow talented as an architect to do this job properly, and of course you help a lot architects both on conception and on communication, but at the same time you don't honestly think your job requires as much brain as an architect job do you? Creativity is important to make a good rendering, but from where I'm looking it does seem to require a lot more to be a GOOD architect. There's no way Suture can prove that he got it but I somehow get is point.
Sure, I would never suggest that what I am doing now is half the mental effort of the architecture projects I am working on. But that's what's nice. Pay is much better, hours are reasonable, and it's a milliont times less stress.
I would certainly be in architecture if it was possible to make a good living and work reasonable hours AND be able to design good projects, but it's simply unrealistic to assume that (either that, or what is 'reasonable' may vary).
Have to agree to that. The fact is, I'm not realistic enough about architecture, and I guess that's the reason why I'd rather do renderings of beautiful projects for goof money than CDs of lame warehouses for peanuts. It just sucks that sometimes you also have to do renderings for not so good projects, but hey that's life.
Mar 7, 05 11:58 am ·
·
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.
business model
what do you think of a business like this?
www.screampoint.com
does anyone know of real estate offices that hire people to do this type of work? seems a bit excessive to build complete 3d models for "assessment and management". some of the services (lighting and design studies based on value engineering) are typically done by the architect's office anyway right? does it make sense for an architecture office to outsource this work?
is your firm thinking of outsourcing to this firm? how did you hear of this place. i'm just curious if it is a successful business.
no no... just saw an ad.
i have a feeling that these guys operate as some type of high-tech branding or marketing consultancy (a la IDEO) ... they probably prepare renderings for huge clients or b2b clients
don't underestimate the 3D viz market. I work for myself and a company, both are doing extremely well.
architects don't have the time or care to do it. most simply cannot. hardware, software and skills are just not there.
does your company specifically do visualizations only?
yes
but screampoint does apparently does more than just pretty renderings. they're architectural "consultants" who use 3d modeling techniques to evaluate VE and architectural implications. this is fairly different from a company like dbox that just does pretty pictures. so is there a market for the consulting work that screampoint does?
Dont believe all the screampoint shouting and hype on 3+2=5D. they are simply people who wanted to be architects but just simply dont have what it takes to make it. instead they make a handsome profit by digitally building what developers and architects tell them to make. Renzo Piano and the New York Times made them dance. Worse is that they seem to take any project on, no matter how souless it may be- like visualizing stair VE options. These are the kind of people that give Architects a bad name.
Suture - that's amusing. Architects are what give architects a bad name. Don't try to push some of the blame for our ugly landscape and abundance of architetects with no talent onto those that do the presenations.
"they are simply people who wanted to be architects but just simply dont have what it takes to make it"
That's simply naive and demonstrates the self proclaimed importance architects have used in an attempt to justify the poor pay and declining respect. Back in reality, the vast majority of architects have little talent and continue to create ugly buildings and ignorant 'visions'. Unless things change, the significance of the architect will continue to decline.
I sympathize with your bitterness. Making little money, working long hours, and designing and building insignificant and boring buildings would get me too. And that's why I left, and I assure you that my credentials are far above the average practicing architect, as are many that are in the arch viz profession.
At the same time it's kinda of true that I would like to be an architect, and that I've decided to be in arch viz for the money... But I agree with trace, when I look around at my built environnment, I'm sorta relieved not to have what it takes.
tabolo - I think you are misunderstanding. Screampoint and dbox do essentially the same thing. "Pretty pictures" are part of the package. If a firm wants to pay to do a 'consultation' or 'design study', then that's fine. I've done many.
Most wont', though, because it costs a lot more to keep changing things.
Their suggested process is interesting, but it's more of a sales tool than a ture 'system'. I have no doubt, though, that they have created an effecient way to manage all of the assets.
There will always be last minute changes, though.
Be careful whenever looking at business sites. Each has their own strengths (dbox - beuatiful renderings, so that's what you see Screampoint - international organziation, so that's what they show). It's simple marketing 101, that's all.
French - if I recall correctly, you work for one the better arch viz firms ("A.. F..", right?). You may be surprised, but the work you are doing is far more creative than most architecture (and absolutely true if you consider the precentage of design to DD and CDs).
I've worked, and continue to work, in both fields. Trust me, if you went to architecture you'd laugh, last a day, and go back to work at your current place with a big smile.
So trace, do you often have this feeling that your job is underestimated by your architects friends? Because that's pretty much what happen to all of us. Once you choose to use max instead of autocad you're screwed for life I guess...
No, not at all. When they know the $$ and appreciate how significant that marketing is to ANY decent sized project, then they appreciate it that much more. That's what you should realize - it's only the 'real' players, ie the developers and investors etc., that realize how important the presenation and marketing is. Just remind yourself that 'you' are selling the project, without 'you', the architect will not get it built.
This is business, and viz is an essentail part to it. Great viz is rare, but architects are a dime a dozen - don't forget that one.
I guess I am fortunate to have gone to very good schools and worked at good firms, so when I look back at the other side ofthe fence, it doesn't look good, whereas those, such as yourself, may be seeing the grass being greener on the other side.
Just remember, Max is a hell of a lot harder than acad, and it does require a good eye to do good work. Anyone can use acad, and anyone can draft, not everyone can make beautiful images.
You are right trace, but I just wish all of this could be less of a business than what it is. I mean, of course you have to be somehow talented as an architect to do this job properly, and of course you help a lot architects both on conception and on communication, but at the same time you don't honestly think your job requires as much brain as an architect job do you? Creativity is important to make a good rendering, but from where I'm looking it does seem to require a lot more to be a GOOD architect. There's no way Suture can prove that he got it but I somehow get is point.
Sure, I would never suggest that what I am doing now is half the mental effort of the architecture projects I am working on. But that's what's nice. Pay is much better, hours are reasonable, and it's a milliont times less stress.
I would certainly be in architecture if it was possible to make a good living and work reasonable hours AND be able to design good projects, but it's simply unrealistic to assume that (either that, or what is 'reasonable' may vary).
Have to agree to that. The fact is, I'm not realistic enough about architecture, and I guess that's the reason why I'd rather do renderings of beautiful projects for goof money than CDs of lame warehouses for peanuts. It just sucks that sometimes you also have to do renderings for not so good projects, but hey that's life.
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.