Rusty hits an essential point (in this thread), that I’m breaking off into its own thread:
“3D modeling and subsequent rendering process is pretty much an entry level position in architecture. For any young pups reading this, try to distance yourself from doing these professionally as soon as you can.”
Rusty is exactly right about this – within the context of a standard but out-dated version of professional practice. More often than not, 3D modeling and rendering are confined to the final output stages of PR/marketing materials, and as such garner little respect – which is entirely regrettable, and not because these steps are the fun ones for the young’uns. Digital modeling/rendering tools have developed to a point of such sophistication and ease of use, and have simply been around long enough, that there is no excuse anymore for 3D modeling to not be extensively used through at least design development – no excuse, except for the momentum of habit. Allowing some exceptions for the remaining members of the old guard, fluency in these tools should be a pre-requisite for anyone in the design chain. It is the difference between understanding digital modeling as a descriptive tool for a design previously determined in other media, or as one of the most versatile and powerful tools for both generating a design, and technical problem-solving. The “discipline and clarity of 2D design thinking” is often a defensive mask for the comfort taken from 2d’s constraints and simplicity. To pick one example: how often are design features worked out in 2D premised on alignments that become irrelevant in perspective – and that have alternatives that could be worked out if designed in 3d, in perspective, that would have the visual coherency that was intended by the 2D work?
Today, a quick 3D sketch model can be run through a test render that doesn’t just approximate the effects of light, but with tools like Maxwell can simulate the physical behaviour of light as it comes into the space – again, this in a current day version of what amounts to a sketch (yes Maxwell takes a little time but it can run while working on other things -- or use Felix cloud rendering). The point is, in terms of enabling us to explore and understand our design intentions, we’ve historically never had tools this powerful. Absolutely, yes, there are issues of how to use them responsibly, but how could anyone who is serious about design, with tools like these within arm’s reach, not want to use them?
I’m not advocating a purely digital design process, and of course those doing the modeling have to understand how a building goes together – which actually modeling also benefits. On nearly every project I have worked on, I have discovered/solved geometric issues in details, connections, alignments, etc. through precise 3d modeling that the 2D work done before me simply never saw nor would have seen, and/or wouldn't have been able to resolve. Even in Revit, where the 3D is basically put together for you, I rarely see people use the 3D views, instead just treating it as an inter-connected autocad set. Sure some buildings might not require it – but once a building hits a certain threshold of complexity, 3d modeling can prevent late stage drawing revisions and/or RFI’s -- i.e. it can be used to add efficiency to the billable parts of the process too.
3D fluency benefits every stage of the design process, period. And, if properly used, offers returns in efficiency for any somewhat complex building. Unfortunately, 3D modeling becoming more widely incorporated, and thereby getting some of the professional respect it deserves, likely will only come after a lot of turnover at the upper levels. Until then, Rusty’s advice/warning is sound.
I'll read the entire thing a little later...but I have to respectfully disagree (as I did to rusty). In the architecture profession it does not get as much respect, but in the real world, in the world that makes architecture possible (marketing/money), it is an essential piece to the puzzle. No sales/interest/approvals, no buildings.
Architects tend to look at all graphics this way - that they do 'it' as part of the process, so it must not be as valuable by itself. Of course, that's not really how things work.
trace, you are correct in a sense. But my assumption here (same one Derek makes) is that we are talking about architects who want to work as architects. If you want to branch out into 3D visualization, or advertising, or UX, or fingerpainting, or whatever, then your priorities must shift.
A well rounded architect need to know all kinds of shit, including 3D modelling for generation next. Derek is right about turnover at upper levels (baby boomers maaan!!), and when that happens upper levels will have had history of doing 3D, and will look into incorporating 3 dimensional designing in everything they do. Even then, the design component of the overall service provided will be only 30% of fee, unless we start generating construction details in 3D (that would be fun!).
In the meantime, mastering 3D is only one of dozens of impossible tasks you will need to learn in order to survive the brave new world of architecture.
Derek, in theory, I agree with everything you wrote. There is nothing more important in architecture than an understanding of three dimensional space, and 3D modelling tools facilitate that understanding.
However, I think the point Rusty is trying to make is that 3D modelling and rendering is also a specialized skill set in an office, and it is not uncommon for people who are particularly adept at 3D to be pigeonholed in that role. Also as you progress in your career you will find that the amount of time you devote to 3D in particular and graphics in general will decrease over time. I spend a fraction of my day drawing per se; instead, I attend to an endless stream of meetings, emails, phone calls, etc. So, yes, fundementally architecture is about the creation of three dimensional space, but in terms of the practice of architecture, 3D modelling and rendering is only a piece of it, albeit a very important one.
i see your point. i do think many in younger generations think through 3d modeling, rendering and animation the way older generations thinking through hand sketching, collaging, and physical model making. conversely, i think many times older generations see 3d and viz as representational tools only, not design tools. over time, i think this will change and it will be more accepted that we sketch in 3d and in 4d (with animations).
having said that, i also think it is true that there is a difference between the way a fully functioning architect uses 3d to explore ideas and the way a 3d artist goes about making an incredible, artful architectural visualization. not only do they serve different purposes, but they each require fundamentally different skills and uses of the tools. also, the arch viz artist keeps up with the 3d viz technology (generally) more so than the architect b/c it is his/her primary tool. architects, on the other hand, usually have many more pressing concerns, and so over time fall behind with the 3d tools.
I agree with trace that arch viz is incredibly important in its own right and is a key part of getting designs built. I also agree with rusty! that kids just out of school who can kind of do arch viz b/c they know the tools can only do that for a little while b/c it is not the primary billable service the firm provides and it only works when they are cheap labor --- as soon as they are worth more to the firm, it is cheaper and results in better quality to hire out for a proper arch viz professional. Nonetheless, as you say, i think these tools serve the newer generations of architects as the means by which we think through designs.
i completely agree with derek, (and with rusty!, in that this observation is not limited to 3D tools, but to other ways of working as well). there is a huge discrepancy between the tools and methods used by the younger generation and the older that often leads to highly inefficient workflows...those firms where the principal hand-sketches a fairly complete solution then expects junior staff to draft it, model it, and render it, only to then redline all three and send it back for revisions basically amounts to doing all the work several times over (the most egregious example i can think of is where an architect spent quite a long time working out a site grading plan on paper and then handed it off to the modeler, where the model could have been used to resolve the 3d complexity much more easily...). at the office where i used to work there was a principal who was much older but was always willing to sit down with the team in front of a monitor as quick changes were 'sketched' out in real time , rotated in 3d, and discussed by all present. one hour of this was far more productive than days of work by those guys who preferred to work in 2d...and it did not require the senior partner to know how to use the tools, just to understand their potential.
"(the most egregious example i can think of is where an architect spent quite a long time working out a site grading plan on paper and then handed it off to the modeler, where the model could have been used to resolve the 3d complexity much more easily...).
I was in this exact situation at a major firm in SF,- performing cut,fill+grading for a site in India - my PA did it initially on paper the hand drawings would have filled a book , works of art they were- The site needed to be fully quantified for an accurate cut+fill design, and I was assigned to construct it in Revit.
Ok, got it, if you are attempting to advance your place in a firm you always need to be aware of what is in demand and be careful about being too good at something you don't want to do.
However, it can also be advantageous. When I first started I was well ahead of the curve in 3D. This gave me a lot of influence over the design as I could come up with ideas, test them and have something to show clients significantly faster than anyone else.
Any advancement in business is always a balancing act.
@ rusty "unless we start generating construction details in 3D" -- yes it is fun, we just need contractors and trades to get onboard with 3d pdf's and we're there...
@ elinor "and it did not require the senior partner to know how to use the tools, just to understand their potential." I've been party to that kind of arrangement too, where the entire design concept was worked out in 3D software, with a principal stopping by for onscreen reviews. it does work, except for the inevitable communication breakdowns that result from the lead voice having their own hands tied by not being able to work in the medium the design is happening in, so they have to just "say" what they imagine, the designers to interpret that, etc... imho, the design medium and the imagination reciprocally play off each other -- so the best case scenario is for the ones with the final say to be among those smoking the crack...
"i see your point. i do think many in younger generations think through 3d modeling, rendering and animation the way older generations thinking through hand sketching, collaging, and physical model making. conversely, i think many times older generations see 3d and viz as representational tools only, not design tools."
So true
Before I transitioned into architecture, I was a 3D environment designer for Rockstar games where we used Maya for creating urban scenes for race games(Grand Theft Auto, Midnight Club and Red Dead Redemption and ). Taking on a full-time M.arch program and working full time(including mandatory hours) required a way to burn the candle at both ends of the stick w/o getting burned, so I created my own BIM system in Maya, and used that throughout school – then switched to Revit during final thesis - upon graduation, went to work at SOM SF - I was tasked with teaching Revit and working as a BIM modeler on various teams - What I did was to have the other team members experience Revit on a gradual basis until they where up to speed then the whole team was using Revit - people who have 10 – 12 years with "legacy" tools(autocad, Rhino, physical model making, trace, etc) don't like getting tossed into the deep end of the bay so to speak - esp by someone with only 4 months experience in architecture - "Don't turn it into one of your video games" having the PAs experience and work with BIM and experience empowerment to instantaneously make a huge difference helped a lot in achieving enthusiasm behind BIM integration - the key thing - is for people to experience creating rapid changes through BIM, and having them show up instantaneously on all drawings - then print and post - esp when a project is in the "doghouse" and you need to demonstrate "overnight delivery" of everything the client needs to see before they decide to pull the plug. - it's in situations like this, they begin to see the that working with "legacy tools" would get them killed. The client has 0 patience - next week won't do " we will just get someone else" and that was before the bottom fell out. Now I work at a small firm where the the principals and associates have about 30yrs experience/apiece – And we use Revit for concept > SD > DD > CD and CA – it’s in CA, These guys used to use legacy tools(all can do amazing hand drawings and physical models and now use Revit for everything.
Oct 19, 11 12:23 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.
3D in professional practice
Rusty hits an essential point (in this thread), that I’m breaking off into its own thread:
“3D modeling and subsequent rendering process is pretty much an entry level position in architecture. For any young pups reading this, try to distance yourself from doing these professionally as soon as you can.”
Rusty is exactly right about this – within the context of a standard but out-dated version of professional practice. More often than not, 3D modeling and rendering are confined to the final output stages of PR/marketing materials, and as such garner little respect – which is entirely regrettable, and not because these steps are the fun ones for the young’uns. Digital modeling/rendering tools have developed to a point of such sophistication and ease of use, and have simply been around long enough, that there is no excuse anymore for 3D modeling to not be extensively used through at least design development – no excuse, except for the momentum of habit. Allowing some exceptions for the remaining members of the old guard, fluency in these tools should be a pre-requisite for anyone in the design chain. It is the difference between understanding digital modeling as a descriptive tool for a design previously determined in other media, or as one of the most versatile and powerful tools for both generating a design, and technical problem-solving. The “discipline and clarity of 2D design thinking” is often a defensive mask for the comfort taken from 2d’s constraints and simplicity. To pick one example: how often are design features worked out in 2D premised on alignments that become irrelevant in perspective – and that have alternatives that could be worked out if designed in 3d, in perspective, that would have the visual coherency that was intended by the 2D work?
Today, a quick 3D sketch model can be run through a test render that doesn’t just approximate the effects of light, but with tools like Maxwell can simulate the physical behaviour of light as it comes into the space – again, this in a current day version of what amounts to a sketch (yes Maxwell takes a little time but it can run while working on other things -- or use Felix cloud rendering). The point is, in terms of enabling us to explore and understand our design intentions, we’ve historically never had tools this powerful. Absolutely, yes, there are issues of how to use them responsibly, but how could anyone who is serious about design, with tools like these within arm’s reach, not want to use them?
I’m not advocating a purely digital design process, and of course those doing the modeling have to understand how a building goes together – which actually modeling also benefits. On nearly every project I have worked on, I have discovered/solved geometric issues in details, connections, alignments, etc. through precise 3d modeling that the 2D work done before me simply never saw nor would have seen, and/or wouldn't have been able to resolve. Even in Revit, where the 3D is basically put together for you, I rarely see people use the 3D views, instead just treating it as an inter-connected autocad set. Sure some buildings might not require it – but once a building hits a certain threshold of complexity, 3d modeling can prevent late stage drawing revisions and/or RFI’s -- i.e. it can be used to add efficiency to the billable parts of the process too.
3D fluency benefits every stage of the design process, period. And, if properly used, offers returns in efficiency for any somewhat complex building. Unfortunately, 3D modeling becoming more widely incorporated, and thereby getting some of the professional respect it deserves, likely will only come after a lot of turnover at the upper levels. Until then, Rusty’s advice/warning is sound.
Apologies for the rant, but not for the content.
I'll read the entire thing a little later...but I have to respectfully disagree (as I did to rusty). In the architecture profession it does not get as much respect, but in the real world, in the world that makes architecture possible (marketing/money), it is an essential piece to the puzzle. No sales/interest/approvals, no buildings.
Architects tend to look at all graphics this way - that they do 'it' as part of the process, so it must not be as valuable by itself. Of course, that's not really how things work.
trace, you are correct in a sense. But my assumption here (same one Derek makes) is that we are talking about architects who want to work as architects. If you want to branch out into 3D visualization, or advertising, or UX, or fingerpainting, or whatever, then your priorities must shift.
A well rounded architect need to know all kinds of shit, including 3D modelling for generation next. Derek is right about turnover at upper levels (baby boomers maaan!!), and when that happens upper levels will have had history of doing 3D, and will look into incorporating 3 dimensional designing in everything they do. Even then, the design component of the overall service provided will be only 30% of fee, unless we start generating construction details in 3D (that would be fun!).
In the meantime, mastering 3D is only one of dozens of impossible tasks you will need to learn in order to survive the brave new world of architecture.
Derek, in theory, I agree with everything you wrote. There is nothing more important in architecture than an understanding of three dimensional space, and 3D modelling tools facilitate that understanding.
However, I think the point Rusty is trying to make is that 3D modelling and rendering is also a specialized skill set in an office, and it is not uncommon for people who are particularly adept at 3D to be pigeonholed in that role. Also as you progress in your career you will find that the amount of time you devote to 3D in particular and graphics in general will decrease over time. I spend a fraction of my day drawing per se; instead, I attend to an endless stream of meetings, emails, phone calls, etc. So, yes, fundementally architecture is about the creation of three dimensional space, but in terms of the practice of architecture, 3D modelling and rendering is only a piece of it, albeit a very important one.
i see your point. i do think many in younger generations think through 3d modeling, rendering and animation the way older generations thinking through hand sketching, collaging, and physical model making. conversely, i think many times older generations see 3d and viz as representational tools only, not design tools. over time, i think this will change and it will be more accepted that we sketch in 3d and in 4d (with animations).
having said that, i also think it is true that there is a difference between the way a fully functioning architect uses 3d to explore ideas and the way a 3d artist goes about making an incredible, artful architectural visualization. not only do they serve different purposes, but they each require fundamentally different skills and uses of the tools. also, the arch viz artist keeps up with the 3d viz technology (generally) more so than the architect b/c it is his/her primary tool. architects, on the other hand, usually have many more pressing concerns, and so over time fall behind with the 3d tools.
I agree with trace that arch viz is incredibly important in its own right and is a key part of getting designs built. I also agree with rusty! that kids just out of school who can kind of do arch viz b/c they know the tools can only do that for a little while b/c it is not the primary billable service the firm provides and it only works when they are cheap labor --- as soon as they are worth more to the firm, it is cheaper and results in better quality to hire out for a proper arch viz professional. Nonetheless, as you say, i think these tools serve the newer generations of architects as the means by which we think through designs.
i completely agree with derek, (and with rusty!, in that this observation is not limited to 3D tools, but to other ways of working as well). there is a huge discrepancy between the tools and methods used by the younger generation and the older that often leads to highly inefficient workflows...those firms where the principal hand-sketches a fairly complete solution then expects junior staff to draft it, model it, and render it, only to then redline all three and send it back for revisions basically amounts to doing all the work several times over (the most egregious example i can think of is where an architect spent quite a long time working out a site grading plan on paper and then handed it off to the modeler, where the model could have been used to resolve the 3d complexity much more easily...). at the office where i used to work there was a principal who was much older but was always willing to sit down with the team in front of a monitor as quick changes were 'sketched' out in real time , rotated in 3d, and discussed by all present. one hour of this was far more productive than days of work by those guys who preferred to work in 2d...and it did not require the senior partner to know how to use the tools, just to understand their potential.
"(the most egregious example i can think of is where an architect spent quite a long time working out a site grading plan on paper and then handed it off to the modeler, where the model could have been used to resolve the 3d complexity much more easily...).
I was in this exact situation at a major firm in SF,- performing cut,fill+grading for a site in India - my PA did it initially on paper the hand drawings would have filled a book , works of art they were- The site needed to be fully quantified for an accurate cut+fill design, and I was assigned to construct it in Revit.
Ok, got it, if you are attempting to advance your place in a firm you always need to be aware of what is in demand and be careful about being too good at something you don't want to do.
However, it can also be advantageous. When I first started I was well ahead of the curve in 3D. This gave me a lot of influence over the design as I could come up with ideas, test them and have something to show clients significantly faster than anyone else.
Any advancement in business is always a balancing act.
@ rusty "unless we start generating construction details in 3D" -- yes it is fun, we just need contractors and trades to get onboard with 3d pdf's and we're there...
@ elinor "and it did not require the senior partner to know how to use the tools, just to understand their potential." I've been party to that kind of arrangement too, where the entire design concept was worked out in 3D software, with a principal stopping by for onscreen reviews. it does work, except for the inevitable communication breakdowns that result from the lead voice having their own hands tied by not being able to work in the medium the design is happening in, so they have to just "say" what they imagine, the designers to interpret that, etc... imho, the design medium and the imagination reciprocally play off each other -- so the best case scenario is for the ones with the final say to be among those smoking the crack...
jmanganelli
"i see your point. i do think many in younger generations think through 3d modeling, rendering and animation the way older generations thinking through hand sketching, collaging, and physical model making. conversely, i think many times older generations see 3d and viz as representational tools only, not design tools."
So true
Before I transitioned into architecture, I was a 3D environment designer for Rockstar games where we used Maya for creating urban scenes for race games(Grand Theft Auto, Midnight Club and Red Dead Redemption and ). Taking on a full-time M.arch program and working full time(including mandatory hours) required a way to burn the candle at both ends of the stick w/o getting burned, so I created my own BIM system in Maya, and used that throughout school – then switched to Revit during final thesis - upon graduation, went to work at SOM SF - I was tasked with teaching Revit and working as a BIM modeler on various teams - What I did was to have the other team members experience Revit on a gradual basis until they where up to speed then the whole team was using Revit - people who have 10 – 12 years with "legacy" tools(autocad, Rhino, physical model making, trace, etc) don't like getting tossed into the deep end of the bay so to speak - esp by someone with only 4 months experience in architecture - "Don't turn it into one of your video games" having the PAs experience and work with BIM and experience empowerment to instantaneously make a huge difference helped a lot in achieving enthusiasm behind BIM integration - the key thing - is for people to experience creating rapid changes through BIM, and having them show up instantaneously on all drawings - then print and post - esp when a project is in the "doghouse" and you need to demonstrate "overnight delivery" of everything the client needs to see before they decide to pull the plug. - it's in situations like this, they begin to see the that working with "legacy tools" would get them killed. The client has 0 patience - next week won't do " we will just get someone else" and that was before the bottom fell out. Now I work at a small firm where the the principals and associates have about 30yrs experience/apiece – And we use Revit for concept > SD > DD > CD and CA – it’s in CA, These guys used to use legacy tools(all can do amazing hand drawings and physical models and now use Revit for everything.
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.