no body can advice???

Hello!

When you consider that most architecture produced, the world over, has some component of digital representation... it becomes hard to find any schools that have a purely 'analog' style of education.

I think that there will be always be firms that make models and have hand drawings as part of the design process, but they will almost always be converted to some digital form before they are constructed. Many of the schools and firms that tout the superiority of 'non-linear solutions' start out with physical models and hand sketches in the same way as more traditional designers.

Some schools in the US that are known particularly for their emphasis on parametric, non-linear design are SCI-Arc and UPenn, UCLA and Columbia. These days you are almost certain to run into Grasshopper/Rhino modeling and 'Scripting' at any major school in the US, because of the great possibilities that are envisioned using these new techniques. At the same time, you could attend a few of the schools I mentioned above and receive a truly 'traditional', (modernist) education if you really want it.

For a truly traditional beaux-arts style education, you may want to look into Notre Dame... I can't think of many other schools that are known for producing this kind of work at the moment.

thank you for the reply.

I had a look at SCI-Arc and Columbia websites and realised that the student works from both schools are related to non-linear and digital applications only. Are you sure they still have few traditional studios? I do not really mind using Rinho or 3DMax in the part of the design but will unlikely use those software throughout all my course.

Thanks!

You need to truly understand the traditional means of representing architecture before you can move to more advanced techniques.

In my opinion:

“Parametric” is such an overused word it really beginnings to lack substance.

It is becoming a trend where students have the ability to represent their project in very advanced ways, but the projects themselves are terrible. They can render the shit out of some crazy megastructure, but don’t have the analytical tools to realize that what they are producing has very little value or substance.

And very few firm actually implement “parametric” design. Most architecture firm DO develop parameters around which their projects come to life, but this is often a more active role rather then passively imputing data into a computer program. They put careful, human thought (hopefully) into how spaces are organize, and don’t leave the designing up to a script.

This is not to say that parametric modeling doesn’t have a place in architecture. In the right hand these tools can produce amazing/ valuable/ substantial things, but it comes from truly designing your own parameters and understanding a bit about how things are constructed and used.

I’m just saying that without learning the basics beforehand you project will always look like a crazy box of shit.

Take it for what its worth.

Sorry for typos...

USC.

I'm confused. You do want to do digital design or not? Your post contradicts itself.

I'm not sure if flynottingham's preferences in architectural education are all that realistic. In my experience at UTSOA, we did hand drawings and physical models throughout the first year (B.Arch). In the second year we transitioned to cad and 3d software, but using these tools in design projects was a personal choice of the student. But let's face it, 5 years is not a whole lot of time to get a firm grasp on these tools where you're juggling many courses. So I would say, once you have the hand drafting and moddeling techniques down, jump into the digital asap. It's all relevant and all forms of output complement eachother. It makes for a more diverse portfolio as well.

About parametrics.. There's an interesting conversation between Sanford Kwinter and Jason Payne at the back of a book titled FROM CONTROL TO DESIGN, published by ACTAR. I'm directing this more to iheartbooks. Kwinter cautions against the aesthetic cliches of parametrics and I appreciate his position. I agree that parametrics is a saturated word, but it is what it is, a newer tool. And people are talking a lot about because it has much potential, especially with grasshopper making an impact.

There's another book called DIGITAL FABRICATIONS by Lisa Iwamoto that I highly recommend. Here, she documents DIY projects that use parametric software. The work is mostly human scale installations, but their implications for future projects is worth noting. I think parametrics is something we need to make friends with, because it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

I often wonder why things progress so slow. Digital projecting should be about fabricating the parts not counting them. I allway's wondered why digital tools just has to mimic the tradisional way's. ---- The first years yhe most interesting issue was that this new thing, made an exelent eraser, no black spots on the drawing when it could just be redrawn and again plottet or printed. But is this the great advanteage when what it promise, is something better than an accurate account, it promise the blueprints to have a digital controlled mashin make the building part, and that is a compleat other world.
Rhino, AutoCAD, 3DMax whatever --- only when these are used innovative, it become something else than just a digital drafting mashin.
Check it out, -- those who experiment, all end up with some sort of computergenerated framework.

Practical parametric skills actually used in most firms have to do with setting up parametric BIM/Revit families. When I was in school, I created parametric instances(families) in Maya and used .mel scripting to assemble my projects. 1/2 of my professors would ask "why don't you go into computer science or engineering" When I got a real job at SOM, we used parametric families in conceptual design, and also used grasshopper. I have worked in 3 different professions as a 3D modeler, and the one thing I noticed, is that procedural generative software sooner or later becomes a dominant factor in the overall design process. Architecture, unlike the video game and flight simulator industry requires too much human intervention in the design process. I think it will be along before it becomes fully integrated into architrecture practice. why do I say this?
in 1979, a book came out called Computer Aided Architecture which was full of great ideas on algorithmic processes. great ideas except the movie industry, flight simulator industry and later video games used these ideas that were originaly developed for architecture. So that is what? 31 years and we have what?

Bottom line, procedural systems happen in those professions that want them, and architecture tends to favor human interaction in the design process. By the way I just got a phone call for a job interview, they want to see my hand sketches.

BIM WIT

PENN!!! They are leading the way in this area. The NSO (Non-linear systems organization) is also based there.

Interesting info rethinkit.
Shoes don't make the runner, just as, ultimately, BIM does not make the architect.
BIM is a tool, and the model is only as good as the 'expert' who creates it. For this expert (or aspiring expert), the more in depth his/her education, prof. experience, and understanding of building construction/sustainable design - the better the BIM model.
I would recommend TULANE in New Orleans. Excellent digital, design-build, and traditional education.