While these digital tools have been primarily used in the construction sector, 3D modeling software is often cited as transforming everything from architecture to engineering, interior design and most recently, green building efforts.
In the design sector, however, and in architecture in particular, the use of BIM as a design tool is often cause for some debate. The conversation centres on creative intent and the possibility of this being lost in the technological transfer.
— designbuildsource.com.au
5 Comments
Architects are realists and as long as they can get their shit done without needing the additional investment in BIM then why would they spend so much time & money on "virtual" models ?
And the potential of BIM is not all rosy either. As entities like Google (with their desire to map out every thing) make clear, the lust for information is relentless. With many people already attempting to escape The Matrix, there no point in contributing to it. Google, Facebook, autodesk, etc...they all deserve a t-square up the ass.
4 realz, yo!
one rule of computers and software and such that the industry often forgets is shit in --> shit out. it doesn't matter how good your software is or your hardware or your t-square or anything else. if what you start with sucks, the end is going to suck. putting revit in the middle doesn't fix that. that's just how it works.
also, from the article: "According to Fergus Dunn of Bentley Systems Industry Solutions" -- we're talking about revit here. what does bentley think they're doing trying to stick their nose in it?
BIM softwares like Revit and the others, similar to AutoCad and 3dStudio before them, have a lot of capabilities that architects will never effectively leverage because it's not part of the project delivery stream. While some architects can afford to reach deeper via their internal R&D commitments, most firms tied to cashflow and client's limited expectations (i.e., product, not process) won't find room in their hours allotments to make full use of their systems' abilities.
Not that this is as it should be. Obviously some firms that have lifted themselves out of the normal mercenary architecture flow have been able to use their added expertise to big advantage. The few times our office has been able to dig deeper, it's been both fascinating and lucrative, allowing us to offer things we didn't before. If architecture weren't such a tight business, everyone should always be pushing their firms' technical abilities. As it is, though, it's only seldom that Revit can be used as more than another fancier drafting tool.
steven, you're a smart guy. what benefits has your firm been able to gain from revit? and are you the one controlling the mouse and keyboard, or is your company set up so middle management redline plots and that gets passed to junior staff or interns who do the drafting? i hope that comes across as a real question and not a snide or sarcastic comment.
i'm a fan of technology, advances, change when it's beneficial, and stuff like that. but, back to the shit in --> shit out rule. it seems to me not uncommon for a firm's management to be so screwed up or process so dysfunctional that they are unable to take advantage of the benefits of revit, but they implement it as a tool anyway and lose a fair amount of productivity due to the learning curve as well as some time sinks inherent to the software. i do know enough about revit and about autodesk resellers to know they're selling the product as something it is not. i felt the same way about ADT, and hindsight tells me i was right with that one.
i would love to have the ability to tour a few other companies to see how they are addressing some of these issues. i'm certain my office does not operate the way other offices do, and there is still a lot out there for me to learn, but I don't know how to put myself in a position to learn that sort of thing.
For most architecture firms, or a least with older principals, the idea of BIM solving all of their problems (or so the software salesperson says) when it comes to coordination and spotting building system conflicts can be seductive. As one of the prime sr. project managers in my firm, I've pushed to have our firm move towards BIM, specifically Revit and utilizing it on a wide array of project scales. Of course we utilize Sketch-up and CAD for early design and SDs before pushing that info into BIM format where more realist parameters can be applied in the model.
Revit doesn't solve everything, it's a tool. I still put pen to paper to figure out detailing and design issues but I'm also working simultaneously in BIM to resolve and see the voids in my design and detailing assumptions. And as many buildings become more complicated because of high-performance building systems, coordination in the BIM model helps to reduce conflicts in the field.
Working with contractors, I've found it's a mixed bag. It really comes down to the GC having subs that are sophisticated enough to utilize BIM and requiring the GC and subs to coordinate their work in BIM as well. Of course this is in the low-tech market of NOLA where finding qualified welders is a challenge let alone someone capable of taking my BIM model and CNCing their scope of work from it.
But having done several large and medium scale projects with budgets of a few million to +100M, I would never revert back to just CAD. BIM has too many capabilities and pluses to not use it. And what used to be a 4-5 person project team can be trimmed in half.
Another problem we're seeing is finding new graduates with capabilities across multiple software platforms that don't require a lot of training time or 'refreshing' to get them rolling on a project, as well as the capability to pick up a pen and trace and figuring out basic design issues on their own.
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.