I think the significance of the software and technology Gehry's practice is presenting to the architecture profession lies mainly in changing the way buildings are designed and constructed since his process is a completely digital/paperless one, different from the paper-based process the rest of us use. And maybe what's more significant is that it gives back the architect much of the needed power he lost over the construction process in the past decades. Since Gehry's applications, as I understand them, invlove the architect in the fabrication and engineering details that get later sent to fabricators & contractors which should keep the architect a main player in the construction phase because of the information he's producing or possessing.

Therefore, I don't believe that it's the 'ability to create curvilinear engineered solutions to flat planes' is what makes Gehry's software significant. The idea is to change the practice of the profession not to promote a specific language of form.

it also involves the contractor/assembler much earlier in the process as well.

you don't need Catia to get rid of paper. No reason why you could't do a paperless process with something like Vectorworks (the CAD I know and work with) No reason why municipalities couldn't accept digital files or PDFs for planning purposes or construction drawing plan checks, contractors should be able to do their work for the same.

It is just about people finally realising it can be done.

PDFs are 2-dimensional and most CAD drawings you send to non-architects and city officials are also 2d. I'm talking about sending a fabricator 3d models of say the irregular alumnium sheets you're gonna clad your facade with which he feeds into a machine to fabricate or sending a 3d model of the uderlying structure of that cladding to another contarctor to fabricate and assemble. Vectorworks, Archicad, Revit and others are not as good as gehry's modified CATIA in producing that kind of data and I don't think these software were programmed with that in mind in the first place.

frozen, i was under the impression that such rapid production techniques are actually not very revolutionary when you calculate how much it costs to have stuff milled to spec. you happen to know anything about that?
sure, the process is intrigueing and prob. everybody would love to apply it. if it doesn't pay in bulk tho, it won't go anywhere.

also, i don't see why you'd need that kind of CATIA-doped process if you happen NOT to design irrationally curved, unique stuff. dunno bout the whole "unnoticed significance" business...

i don't believe gehry was the first to use catia - being a french software it was imposed on most of the 'grands projets' (large public projects) in france starting in the early nineties. projects such as perrault's library, and other projects similar in size benefited (?) from catia. i agree that what gehry is doing with catia (if you forget about the non-standard geometry) could have been developed with any other software. although to be honest with you i stil haven't figured out what it is the gehry technologies is selling ... maybe that should be a topic of discussion.

frozen, I covered that with my first sentence.

the current hold-up with going paperless in most jurisdictions is in submissions for planning and cd approval. until the cities and towns accept digital files for zoning and code checks, you will be printing stuff for them.


You don't need CATIA level tools for most of the buildings out there. You could benefit from not having to print mounds of paper docs throughout the process.

and learn to spell the guy's name

Gehry.

bob, you're being a stiffly stifferson, where did frozen (or anybody) misspell Gehry? are you upset about capitalization?

oh, i finally saw it, it the thread title

My opinion here - is that Gehry is selling the idea (along with many others - including 'blobbists') that buildings in a modern context do not need to be rectilinear. Approaching buildings from a sculptural sensibility, in some instances is very successful. Some buildings by Gehry work much better than others.

The success of any digital driven process for design where the architect or designer takes full advantage of the potential to use the process to streamline production, decrease liability & insurance expenses for work/accidents in the field and reduce overall costs (over what you would get if you handed the CD's to a conventional contractor - build process) is ultimately dependent on the reliability and accuracy of data as it is walked from one design software environment into another or a CNC/CAM fabrication environment. There is as a contractor friend put it politely, a perceived value based on non-rectilinear design that is laden with graceful curves. The employed construction or fabrication process might have nothing to do with actual cost or contemporary reality. Its marketing....... pure and simple. It is based on people (design professionals / architects) not having the vision, training or expertise to use modern engineering processes autonomously to control what it costs to use technologies flexibly or at will in a competive world........... where they are not single source vendor dependent.

I briefly chatted with Christiano Ceccato (dir. of Gehry Tech) at a conference in Cambridge where we both spoke on computerized fabrication technologies. If you work with design into fabrication........... the pitfall is the interoperability of data. Do a CAD drawing and then walk into a computerized shop that mills, laser/oxy acetylene/routes/plasma/or waterjet cuts, forms ..........If the file is not bullet proof to universal compatibility - where it works every time and allows for competitive bid advantage - its really counter productive in many instances - even more $$ than making things in a traditional craft process. Standard output files into IGES, DXF, STL or other formats are a mish mash of unpredictable headaches out in the real world of fabrication. Every manufacturer for NC manufacturing machinery has created niche machines assuming use only by engineers who make simple things....... They did not plan to serve architectural design - and it is not part of the overall marketing concept. That is an obstacle that requires technical expertise development by architects or designers who desire to harness CAD & CAM for its full potential. It it ain't easy - they ain't interested.

The advantage of computerized fabrication is that it is a labor saving approach to a visionary approach for building design & construction - if one masters both sides of the process. It is also a no man's land - and a land without any hard and fast legal precedent.......... it will dramatically change construction law in the next 25 years. Everything that saves money becomes a source of valuable negotiation between client and design / fabrication team.


Gehry's approach is a proprietary one for using technology - following a somewhat corporate model (my opinion here) based on conventional machine manufactureres & software development practices - superior because we are the 'experts'. Turnkey control where if you use our system - it excludes others. I am of the opinion that stepping back a great distance - one can approach the process from a more open model of true competitiveness. It is from my experience more affordable to make things in LA or Ohio, or Alabama, or Anaheim, versus China if you can do the CAD right.......

Historic Brilliance - only in persistence of vision to make their CAD work into their CAM process. Historical significance - its HUGE. Using CAD/CAM to make anything other than what the engineer who invented it envisioned is what Gehry and other's pioneering work represents. Otherwise we are doomed to a beehive universe of boxes or romantic fantasy of historicism. The idea of trained specialization has created artificial obstacles that hinder technology becoming more useful & practical tools.

IGES & DXF are the new hammer, glass, concrete, and day laborer from Home Depot curbside sidewalk pickup. Without the ability by designers and architects to have a firm mastery on creating universally interoperable data ........... it will consigned away and idealized as if magic - which it is not.

So, would you say computers are important in Gehry's office?

without them Gehry's office would not be doing the kind of work that they are doing.

and carpet...they (FOG) make a ton of models with carpet and glue guns. it is true.

what? Saarinen was doing better and more complicated stuff when gehry was still playing with cardboard.....and to my knowledge, unless he had a time machine there were no computers involved and his work turned out fairly spectacular, yes?
gehry will be remembered for his buildings, not for the software. computers get way too much cred these days.

i haven't read all these posts, and im sure they're all great, but is CATIA is FUCKING AWESOME software, and it should become the industry standard for architects. It's ability to model 3d complex forms with ease and apply real world engineering in real time is unparalleled. It makes ACAD seem more dated than finger painting on cave walls.

I have to agree with design_junky, one must not forget that great minds create great architecture not great computers.

Computers can make the process easier, more applicable & affordable if developed the right way.

And to bob_dobbalina:
I never misspelled Gehry's name, that's the guy who started the thread Mr. skibum. Try to read the author's name first b4 commenting...

art tech geek say;

"........ it will dramatically change construction law in the next 25 years. Everything that saves money becomes a source of valuable negotiation between client and design / fabrication team."

Exactly but not as curved buildings where the Math. are so dull, that not even huge unfolded panels could be made, not as bending and fiddeling ,no this is the begining of the new brick the new steel profile , this will not be before buildings are made as tradisional buildings inside or at the back where no arts critic are allowed , and it will not be before just as much experimenting and real skills gone into creating somthing that is not just a lookalike and _no_ compromises are made in develobing actural new tools.
These technikes are rugid --- they are not as Cartia 20 years ago; a lame 2D program not much better then, and in particular not today better, than AutoCAD.
These technikes was not there 20 years ago when architects thought about buildings as thin Cartia shell forms impossible to prodice with the direct link from projecting to manufactoring, --- as that link did not exist . Today it do with somthing as simple as 3D-H , but not back then and what the thin shells was missing in terms of depandant structure, is what is an option today ; back then the structure had to be fiddled and bended ,as soon as the workers bended the rods it was impossible to unfold a huge panel, so small panels was chosen to do the job. ---- with that compromise I guess the whole vision was offtracked.
Anyone who acturly know somthing about 20 year old software know what nonsense is said in today's architectural discussions, --- Please back then it was 3D faces and "known Geometrics" that was the core quality of the rendered drawings, ----- with all the problems these entities presented ; "known geometrics" becaurse that way we could use 2D calculations in 3D and in that way build steel ship hulls as ugly as ever, ---- with in fact technikes from back 1920's to produce these forms in just some size, 3D Faces and polymesh surfaces as you see even today, challancing the craftsman to work around the build in foult when unfolding a surface ,made from small strait lines ; but even that small foult count nothing compared the foults by chosing a dead-end and outdated technike .

Im'e sorry to say, but it is _not_ the technikes you think cartia offered that will make the new architecture. It simply are inefficient to build like this, --- the projecting must carry a direct-link to the production and the building element must be generated by the computer to feed the N.C. controlled production. And the houses must carry more structure beside a more sense method eliminating un nessery building compoments.
Then architecture will change but borders will change to, --- the skilled and experienced engineer proberly then will produce a much more quality building than the oldfasion architect who sense only the surface and work only to render a nice picture, the new architecture ask much more than that ; first of all it ask you to realise what computer programs was back then and what they could acturly deliver.

frozen,

where in that post did I refer to you?

VindPust - you are to a great extent correct (if I read past your grammar & spelling to intent) ........... but a caveat that could eat you out of house and any future projects. Using G-code directly unless you own equipment which can entail millions & millions of too much moolah............ is downright dangerous & suicidal.

the reason why

creative demented types who love to infect computers with viruses. they are the gift that keeps on giving. no intelligent and savvy manufacturing resource would ever take a NC or g-code file. If you provide a file direct into their system for manufacture.......... you could be liable for the loss of archived files (which is ongoing production work that makes millions of dollars annually) and their basic business loss if you inadvertantly provide one of these little viral wonders. Always but always provide perfected bullet proof universally compatible interoperable data in a form like IGES or .dxf that does not corrupt. Finding that perfected bullet proof universally compatible interoperable data is the key - not one software company makes a product that provides that potential - its up to the geekiness within to discover that little magic. (how do you think I got that artteckgeek handle?)

Vision should match perfected file - that works consistently in thousands of machines lying side by side in a competitive race to the finish. I was admonished away from using g-code almost a decade ago by one of my favorite vendors. He spelled it out in no uncertain terms. I also had the misfortune of having an early job mess up thru no fault of my own or my vendor - but I chose to respect the inequities of the processes. I paid that guy because I knew it was in the technical support from his software vendor that was off....... eventually he ran into it where the vendor software (shopdatasystems in garland texas hhhiiissssssssssssssssss!!) messed up a job in straight g-code morphing it all to heck and back). I took the file to another vendor and it cut for hours without a problem. later, I got an apology from #1, and he is now a client and still a valuable vendor resource ten years down the line. Imagine cutting a complex job for $1 a square foot over the cost of material large components simultaneously.......... mmmmh, that's a CNC sweetener.

And of course - the idea is to use computer processes to save labor and assure quality. make the components as large as possible to avoid up to 90% of the labor - but then don't make them so big that a forklift cannot schlep them around. If you do it well, trained labor in the field will love to see your work - if not they will bad mouth you into oblivion behind your back.

You are correct - the computer is not the whole answer - but it is an effective tool if handled gingerly, with humor and expertise.


and its CATIA - not cartia. Gehry also uses TEKLA structural (steel) engineering detailing software or did at least 36 months ago -(i don't work there so I don't have a clue what is in their mix now). I know that from the Tekla tech guy.........


I use in some instances ten year old processes, software and machines............... its what works best. When I mentioned marketing - software & computer hardware co's are selling disposable obsolessence (sic). CNC machine companies are selling really hi-dollar 25+ year investments to run 24-7-365. They are at total cross purposes with one another. That makes the cooperative end game more difficult to attain.