Archi_tectural Design by Sean Buttigieg

Archi-‐tectural_Design Integrating construction economics

Sean Buttigieg Städelschule Architecture Class; Architecture and Performative Design; Professor: Mirco Becker; April 8th 2013

T o m y f a m i l y

Personal Statement Two of the most peculiar aspects inherent to the profession of architecture are the omnipresence of stalled projects and the tendency for projects to go beyond their proposed budget. These aspects tend to raise questions on the efficiency of the work methods adopted by architects and the effectiveness of the legal system under which they operate. The global financial crisis has impacted the construction industry heavily, however, architectural fruition is not solely dependent on economics -‐ It is dependent on the design strategies adopted by architects and how efficient (well thought out) they are. Traditionally the master builders occupied one central role in the production of buildings. They carried out the designs and coordinated their construction on site. Today, on the other hand, the traditionally singular role of the master builder has splintered into dozens of mutually essential specialised disciplines resulting in a loss of power and marginalisation of the role of the architect. The efficient coordination of information between the plethora of different parties involved has become an extremely challenging task, to the extent, that traditional methods of communication between architects and contractors have needed to be revisited in order to facilitate communication and minimise inefficiencies. The traditional assumption that the success of architecture is measured on the complexity or the seductive capacity of its form is slowly becoming redundant. In today’s world with the advancements in Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM), it is not the generation of form that should be of interest, but its best-‐fit economical means of construction. Architects are taking huge responsibilities in order to regain the long lost authority the master builders once occupied over the process of construction.

Keywords: Digital Master Builder, CAD, CAM, File to Factory, Digital tectonics, material computation, integrated design, BIM, IPD, digital fabrication, mass customisation, Open Source Hardware, architect’s role, business model.

Methodology The aim of the first chapter is to give a detailed overview of the sequence of events that progressively saw the role of the architect shift from that of a master builder, in charge of both design and coordinating construction, to [in most cases] that of a mere sculptor of forms. This historical overview will shed light on the following aspects: •

Which factors compel architects to consider aspects of construction over those of representation and vice versa;

•

The distinction between the two alternative architect models – representation oriented architects over process-‐oriented architects.

•

The economic environment under which these different role models emerge.

It would be imprudent to only expose aspects that steered architects away from construction since the objective of this paper is to speculate ways in which to further bring these two distant realms closer together. By analysing historical events, lessons can be extracted and adopted to current mode of practice in an effort to overcome inconsistencies. In the second part of the paper the aspect of communication will be addressed giving specific reference to the predominant legal systems under which design and construction operate. This analysis aims to expose the inefficiencies in some prevailing systems and shed some light on alternative methods, which intend to integrate all parties concerned in an effort to minimise inefficiencies generated through bad communication. As a conclusion, the results gathered from the different analysis will be summarised in an “appropriate method of design”. This speculative proposed method of operation should inherently avoid the inefficiencies outlined above.

iii

Table of Contents 1. Incremental Divide 1.1. Renaissance .................................................................................................................10 1.2. Industrial Revolution ...................................................................................................11 1.3. Computers and Theory.................................................................................................13 1.4. Schools .........................................................................................................................15

2. Process versus Representation …..……………………………………………………………………….…16

3. Rapid Nexus 3.1. Digital continuum ………………..………..………………………………………………………………………..17 3.2. Risk ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………....……………….18 3.3. Power .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 3.4. Innovation ………………………………………………..…………………………………………….......…….….19 3.5. Build-‐ability ………………………………………………………..……………….……………………………...….20 3.6. Liabilities ………………………………………………..…………………………………………….......……….….21 3.7. Interoperability ………………………………………………..………………………….……………………...….23 3.8. Emergent Role ………………………………………………..…………………………….…………………….….24 3.9. Where to? ……………………………………..…………………………….………………………….………….….25

4. Bibliography……………..………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…27

C h a p t e r 1

Incremental Divide More than 600 years ago, the architect, or master builder as the name implies (arkhi = ‘master’ + tektōn = ‘builder’), occupied a powerful and central role in the production of buildings. Their constant presence on the construction site was not just essential but also a testimony to their authority over the process of building. The challenges of construction compelled the master builders to regularly re-‐evaluate traditional methods of practice, and considering their training in the guilds they were equipped to do more than just design. In fact their roles entailed the specific formulation of construction sequencing as well as the engineering of the building practices necessary (Kolarevic, 2003). This is significantly different to the normative modes of practice carried out today, were broadly speaking, the design-‐architect generates form and rarely dictates its method of construction. The master builders constant presence on the construction site automatically implied that little or no drawings were required to communicate ideas to the craftsmen. Instead physical models were used to establish a seamless exchange of information throughout all phases of the project. Pre-‐construction models were built in large-‐ enough scales to be physically immersive and showed all the details necessary for the project’s realisation (Garber, 2009). Models were crucial in defining construction sequencing and engineering constraints, similar to todays Building Information Models (BIM) which will be addressed at later stage.

Renaissance During the Renaissance, the centuries-‐long tradition of the master builder began to dissipate. Due to the cultural, societal and economical shifts that were taking place Leon Battista Alberti (1404 – 1472), amongst others, sought to redefine the discipline of architecture as a humanist art and promote its stature to a higher rank (Garber, 2009). His definition of perspective as the geometrical technique for architectural representation steered some architects into focusing their energies on aspects of representation over the ones of construction. This saw the emergence of the architect-‐painters of the Renaissance, a new breed of architects whose work was driven by their passion for art over building. Considering the admiration for all artistic disciplines at the time, a distinction started to be made between the builders and the architects due to the latters ‘superior intellectual training’ (Kolarevic, 2003). This dissociation promoted the necessity to externalise information as a means of communication between the architect and the builder. Thus seeing the introduction of orthographic abstractions (Plans, sections and 10

elevations) and perspective representations into the currency of the construction of buildings. Today it is still debatable whether the drawings emerged in the building industry because of the need to separate design and construction or whether their introduction produced the present separation. Moreover, Alberti’s treatise on architecture proclaimed his affection for purely theoretical architecture over the aspects of its construction; these theories were clearly manifested in his disinterest to realize any of his designs. In spite of this, Alberti makes specific reference to the ingenuity of Filippo Brunelleschi, pioneer of Renaissance Architecture. Brunelleschi was as responsible for the design and representations of his buildings as well as for their management on site. Furthermore, on many occasions he was challenged with developing custom mechanisms in order to ensure the construction of his proposals (Murray, 1986). An example of that would be the vaulting of the massive dome of Santa Maria del Fiore (1420–36) in Florence. Where he manages to construct the dome without the wood scaffolding traditionally used for centering but rather devices an innovative “oxen-‐driven hoisting device" (Garber, 2009, 88) to raise the bricks 114 meters above the ground. Such innovations formed the basis for many built successes to come.

Industrial Revolution For centuries the predominant methods of construction remained unaltered. The successive styles that emerged after the Renaissance, namely; Baroque (Russian, Sicilian, English), popular revivals (Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Gothic, Classical) or Rococo to name a few, were all styles founded on concepts of representation. It was not until the Industrial Revolution the building industry experienced a number of significant changes. A resurgence of building tectonics emerged due to the availability of new construction materials such as iron, steel and sheet glass. Machinery and construction methods also developed exponentially meaning that buildings could take on completely new and radical forms, quicker. Two of the most notable projects of this period would have to be the competition entry for the Chrystal Palace, proposed by Joseph Paxton to house the Great Exhibition in 1851 and the Eiffel Tower, built as an entrance arc to the 1889 World’s Fair. Interestingly enough neither of these architectural gems were designed by architects and both outlived their intended temporary lifespan. Joseph Paxton, a gardener at the time, was able to design and build the largest glass structure yet created, from scratch, in less than a year, and complete it on schedule and on budget. His design was based around the largest size of available panes of glass producible at the time – a modular approach that foreshadowed modernism by half a century. The Eiffel Tower, named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, was erected to symbolise the power of Industry and Science along with the 11

creativity of the modern engineer. It was also based on a modular design making the best use out of mass produced elements and off-‐site preparatory work. The Eifel Tower was constructed in two years and clamed the title of the tallest man made structure in the world up until 1930, when the Chrysler building was built in New York City (Loyrette, 1985). Interestingly enough the architects of the time spoke out against the erection of the Eiffel tower calling it a useless and monstrous hateful column of bolted sheet metal (Ibid). In light of this it comes as no surprise that during these same years the architect’s role on the construction site is legally imposed upon. By law, the presence of a general contractor and professional engineer becomes imperative on the construction site. Also in an effort to safe guard risk from potential liabilities the drawings of the earlier period became contract documents legally defining the roles of the architects from that of the engineers (Davis, 1999). These significant changes mark the early development of an architectural practice as we know it today, were the relationship between the architect, as designer, and the contractor, as executioner of the design, becomes solely financial and highly regulated, hindering the architects’ engagement with the craftsmen, which could potentially inform the design process.

Image showing the erection of the Eiffel tower over the period of two years. Image retrieved from: http://50watts.com/Room-‐26-‐Cabinet-‐of-‐Curiosities-‐1

By the turn of the century, architects too gained a keen interest in the vast catalogue of novel building elements offered by the advancements of modern day technology. Le Corbusier was fascinated by the newfound ability to construct buildings in the same manner that cars would be assembled in a production line. This fascination probably reached its zenith with his design for the Maison Dom-‐ino (Domino House), a mass produced, free-‐plan, prototypical house design made up of rectangular concrete floor slabs, resembling dominos, and vertical concrete columns for support. On the contrary to many peoples beliefs Le Corbusier’s theoretical concepts of style and aesthetics were nothing more than the result of the economic conglomeration of mass-‐ produced elements. Mies Van Der Rohe shared a similar obsession with advancements in 12

technology. His optimised coordination of mass produced structural elements reflected his “Less is More” mentality and often managed to conjure an appealing aesthetic revolving around the simplicity of these construction details. For Mies, “God is in the details,” and this is perfectly exemplified with his famous representation of the construction details for the curtain wall façade of the Seagram building (1954). Both architects summoned an aesthetic based on the vast availability of “off-‐the-‐shelf” building elements – a machine aesthetic. This technologically affiliated style was quickly replaced by the more ‘witty’ postmodernism due to the formers inhuman characteristics. Postmodernists rejected the aesthetics of Modernism however embraced the innovative methods of construction and assembly. After the Second World War In Europe, due to the desperate need for quick restructuring the industry witnessed a further narrowing in the profession. The capitalist/corporate architect emerges seeking to benefit from the boom of monumental modern construction and the emergence of the star architect, starchitect, as an alternative model solidifying in reaction. These dualistic stereotypes shared a common interest; that of designing landmarks in their respective signature styles. With financially thriving institutions as clients, sometimes fuelled by governmental investment, this breed of architects could focus on aspects of aesthetics and the attention of the media over satisfying the needs of prevailing construction economics (Nobel, 2012). This aesthetic was promoted to overcome the solemn moods of the post-‐war days by erecting of structures that would soar great heights and visually impose the urban fabric demarking new times.

Computers and Theory In the late 1960’s with the introduction of the computer into architecture the profession undergoes another significant modification in its prevailing modes of practice. Computers were first used for either quantitative problem solving or representation. The former took a much longer time to materialise itself in the actual design of buildings, however the later had an instantaneous effect. Computers facilitated the manipulation of images; compute graphics (a term coined by Boeing in 1960), computer-‐aided design and other visualisation tools which made possible the representation of highly elaborate and innovative forms that were previously inconceivable by man (Steenson, 2010). This unfamiliar occurrence misguided a number of architects and architecture students alike into focusing their energy on the production of seductive imagery over aspects of buildability. This aesthetical shift resembles that witnessed during the Renaissance, differing however in who it affected.

To further propel this ideological, scenographic mentality facilitated by modern means of representation, ‘theory’ entered the scene of architecture -‐“late”, as Mark Wigley has so famously and frequently pointed out. In the 1970’s through departments of comparative literature theory appeared in the United States as a new mode of contemporary thought. Pioneered by architect Peter Eisenman and Harvard Professor of architectural theory Michael Hays; derridian, deconstructivist and 14marxist theories dominated mainstream design thinking in most architectural schools. Eisenman argued that there is, “no ultimate truth, but only incomplete critical engagements with historically determined versions of truth and… that this endless search for truth could only be expressed in the abstract perfection of forms shielded form the market-‐driven demands of program, use and commercial viability” (Speaks, 2005, 73). Hays, on the other hand, establishing himself as one of the most influential theorists of the time, expanded historian Manfredo Tafuri’s claim that capitalism hopelessly corrupted architecture and that architects are thus compelled to create work that resists capitalism in an attempt to bring about an end to it so that a new utopian architecture could emerge (Speaks, 2005). As architects and architecture students alike were compelled to focus more on the experiential and ideological aspect of design, economic factors were overlooked and therefore most of the work produced rarely left the domains of the paper they were printed on. Paper Architects, as they were coined, were very popular in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and for this breed of architect published images became an end in themselves. The Deconstructivist Show at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (1988) is proof of this phenomenon exhibiting work that was largely unbuilt as Kimberly.J Holden recalls it, however still celebrated as architecture. “It betrayed a narrow vision of architects as composers of broken volumes, masters of surfaces (or buildings on paper and of the paper itself), armature philosophers and cynics.” (Nobel, 2012) Max Reinhardt Haus Project Peter Eisenman, 1992-‐93 http://www.google.de/iimages/eisenman

Schools The recession in the late 1980’s early 1990’s compelled the most talented architecture students to follow a career in teaching rather than sell their souls to the corporate giants -‐ who were then the only firms with the financial capacity to hire (Holden, 2000). This meant that some academic institutions were being propelled by professors with little or no experience in the field of architectural production but still embraced those same concepts of ‘vanguardism’ they were recently taught; theories of a practice concealed behind deconstructivism and 15marxism that shared an almost inherent aversion to economies and the marketplace (Speaks, 2005). In fact the act of building was deemphasised at Harvard GSD, as Holden explains; “Never outside of the required courses in building systems…would one’s designs be asked to face the test of gravity, or climate; often site itself was omitted. Students joked that if put on the spot at a juried review, they’d say their designs were to be built in transparent aluminium” (Nobel, 2012, 32)

However most architectural institutions were proud for the production of architects that could verbally define and graphically articulate complicated concepts of elaborate theories of design, even if simultaneously, they were unable to grasp the real issues of construction or economies. Therefore it is not surprising that architects kept safeguarding themselves from the economics and construction of buildings. Which resulted in a loss of position, power and effectiveness over any procedure of construction and tectonic assembly to the extent the standard contracts in use by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) explicitally state that; “…The architect will not have control over or change of and will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures” (AIA document)

This professional segregation from the processes of construction has relegated the roles of many architects to mere image-‐makers for buildings technically designed by construction managers and zoning attorneys (Holden, 2012). This does not imply that all architects currently hold this title however unless personally challenged to do otherwise it is very easy to become a mere number in the system.

C h a p t e r 2

Process versus Representation History has shown that although the origins of architecture lay in the process of construction, architectural evolution was constantly enriched by dialectic between two alternative, however by no means, mutually exclusive ideologies. The distinction lies between those architects that are drawn to understand architecture in terms of visual composition, and those that primarily perceive architecture in terms of its materiality and structure. Moreover history has shown that these alternative role models flourish under different economical environments and pave the way for different stylistic epochs. During economic downturns architects are forced to explore different methods of construction in order to either accelerate production, which saves money, or re evaluate certain processes that show signs of inefficiency. And during higher economic times stylistic paradigms emerge giving less consideration towards economies of construction and focus more on factors of aesthetics. In general there has always been a clear distinction between the two alternative paradigms. In todays world with the help of digital technologies these boundaries are blurred. In light of this, the forthcoming chapter will outline the most efficient processes that can be used in order to provide the architect with more control over the production of buildings. The current legal systems will also be analysed, exposing the inefficiencies present in some whilst shedding light on the alternative models that strive to overcome those same deficiencies. Therefore it would not be wrong to deduce that in order for todays architecture firms to operate successfully they should make the best use of the technological advancements available in order to gain more control over the process of building. By engaging in more efficient ways of communication and revaluating current methods of construction.

C h a p t e r 3

Rapid Nexus Stan Allen (Speaks, 2009) said that architectural practice should not comment on the world but operate in and on the world; implying action precedes thought, but does not omit it, in the production of architecture. In recent decades there has been resurgence in the craft of making, generally because the theories offered by the recent trends of vanguardism have done nothing but impede on the processes of innovation (Speaks, 2009). This relatively new breed of architects although operating in the digital realm considers architecture not as a product of algorithmic capacities, but of the actual material tectonics that eventually constitute it and the socio, political, environmental forces that act upon them. This is probably why William Menking, in an essay in The Architects Newspaper (January 25, 2005) noted the growing importance of the workshop to several New York area architecture and design offices. Theories of style are no longer the premise. Instead, eager to regain authority over the process of building questions of economic construction are being asked. These post-‐critical architects do not only consider the looks of a building, but how they work, how they are assembled and how they perform in the world, that is to say, the world of energy, time and money.

Digital continuum Much of the material world today, from the simplest consumer products to the most sophisticated airplanes are produced using a process in which design, analysis, representation, fabrication and assembly are intertwined in a seamless collaborative process solely dependent on digital technologies. By taking advantage of the achievements gained in other disciplines, architects are capable of not only generating complex forms, but also constructing them within reasonable budgets (Kolarevic, 2003). By compiling one cohesive three dimensional model that encodes all qualitative and quantitative data, information can be extracted, exchanged and utilised with far greater facility and speed, avoiding the intermediate time consuming and error prone steps of drawing production and interpretation, thus minimising potential mishaps (AIA, 2007). The origin of this design approach could be traced back to 1992 in Barcelona Spain, with the realisation of the Fish Sculpture by Frank Gehry. This project was one of the first to be designed and realised completely digitally and also happened to be the first “paperless” project with only six hand drawings being generated through out the entire process of design and construction. 17

Making a clear statement about the relevance of generating, distributing and analysing drawings in today’s world. Interestingly it was the financial and scheduling limitations that compelled Jim Glymph, one of Gehry’s partners, to search for a digital design and manufacturing software. The discovery and application of CATIA (Computer Aided Three-‐Dimensional Interactive Application, a three dimensional modelling and manufacturing software developed by French aerospace industry) enabled the production and realisation of complex geometry and ensured a high degree of precision, ease in fabrication and assembly.

Images of Gehrys Fish, showing relative complexity of structure. Images retrieved from: http://smarchitecture.blogspot.de/2012/02/gehrys-‐fish-‐barcelona.html

As is with most of Gehrys projects, a physical model was first established and later scanned and exported as a digital model. The form was then informed with material-‐specific data that could be handed to the engineers in order for them to carry out the necessary structural analysis. Once the tests have been carried out, the rationalised, digital parts were sent for fabrication. After fabricating the components the model was used to identify the location of each element on site (Glymph, 2003). Therefore the three dimensional model was used in all stages of design, analysis, fabrication and assembly. This process exhibited a radical departure from the normative practices of the profession and through this project Gehry’s office become accustomed with direct file-‐to-‐factory procedures and the sharing of information with third parties through a single digital database. These procedures would eventually become common practice for the office and for many offices to come (ibid). The methods adopted by Gehry for the realisation of the Fish Sculpture were an exception to the prevailing modes of practice at the time and this radical shift in design methodology was only possible due to the financial stability of the firm. However today, twenty years down the line, these methods have become more accessible and are being integrated into a number of office workflows.

Risk File to factory fabrication implies the circulation of digital data over the more traditional method of circulating drawings. Under current legislation this implies the sharing of liabilities because it is the drawings that establish grounds for liability. Hence why in most cases the sharing of digital data is discouraged (Grohman & Tessmann, 2008). Generally it is common practice for each participating party in the process to compile its own set of data from scratch, resulting in waste of time, money and recourses not to mention the errors that are likely to occur with the misinterpretation of information on paper. SHoP Architects have a different opinion on sharing digital data and believe that such an opportunity gives the architects an advantage to take full responsibility of the work and therefore minimise errors resulting from the lack of coordination (Holden, 2012). This implies taking risks, however guarantees greater control over fabricated components. Therefore if architects want to be in control over the materialisation of their designs they should take the responsibility of drawing their own fabrication data. This risk will guarantee wider knowledge and greater expertise empowering the stature of the profession. Apart from being in control of the precision, architects have the chance to experiment with existing methods of fabrication with the possibility of permeating new frontiers. Considering that these techniques have not been in existence (in the architectural scene) for more than two decades there is still a lot to explore and the chances of innovative breakthroughs are very high. There are a variety of digital fabrication methods however their explanation goes beyond the scope of this paper.

Power Providing representational models to the client in order to convey an idea is common practice for architects. However today this process of providing material data to the client has been changed drastically. With the help of parametric software architects are capable of drastically modifying proposals in seconds, moreover, coupled with the availability of direct file to factory fabrication the client too is updated in a relatively short period of time. Parametric modelling, as the name implies, is the manipulation of form through the variation of form-‐inherent parameters, therefore rather than having to manually re draw preferred variations in an existing objects shape; the mere adjusting of its numeric dimensions changes the object to the preferred state in real time. Therefore if architect start taking risks they no longer has to consult specialists to carry out these procedures.

Innovation File to factory fabrication goes beyond representational models. Industrial size machines produce elements that can be integrated directly into the building. Such as furniture, structure details, surface cladding, even entire houses are currently under investigation to be printed. London architecture collective Softkill Design, and Dutch DUS architect are in a rat race to see who gets to build the world's first 3D printed house, (Dezeen, 2013). Mass-‐customisation of building elements made possible with the advancements in CAM soft and hardware are feasible because the machinery can continuously align itself depending on its number of axes. This makes the process feasible because cost is calculated according to time spent fabricating over the intricacy of design.

From left to right: Softkill Design’s industrial printer and proposal. DUS architect’s industrial movable printer and proposal. Images retrieved from: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/02/13/softkill-‐design-‐on-‐3d-‐printed-‐houses/And: http://www.dezeen.com/tag/dus-‐architects/

The process of digital fabrication has completely revolutionised the practice of architecture. The architect is now re immersed in the process of construction. The design process is also significantly altered since speculations on material capacities are omitted. The design process becomes a blurred interaction of design, fabrication, analysis and optimisation. Although summoned from the abyss of the digital realm – digital fabrication empowers the physical and this makes it very intriguing. Architects are no longer constantly immersed in the digital realm but are able to switch into the physical and empirically analyse the digital data they conceived.

Build-‐ability By integrating material-‐specific data collected from these empirical tests into the three-‐ dimensional domains of the digital model, building elements are embedded with material behaviour characteristics, manufacturing constraints and assembly logics (Menges et al, 2011). Frank Gehry’s office relies extensively on these methods in order to constantly maintain control over the curvature of the cladding panels he is so famously known for. In most cases these panel

require to be of a single curvature nature due to the inherent limitations of sheet material. Therefore by applying a simple curvature analysis via any computer software the architect is capable of identifying which panels are inconsistent.

Walt Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry. Showing the thousands of panels that are constantly calculated for the degree of curvature. Image retrieved from: http://www.flickr.com/groups/pritzkerprize/discuss/72157623124740368/

Once models are informed with these material-‐intrinsic properties simulation software has the potential to process their interaction with statics, thermodynamics, acoustics, light and other environmental factors. These possibilities are slowly bringing the real world into the domains of our computers. According to writers such as Sanford Kwinter and Manuel DeLanda these information models facilitate a “virtual to actual” paradigm as opposed to the predominant “possible to real”. In the former case, the digital model is already fully realised in the virtual domain and only requires actualisation via translation of scale and matter. In the latter case, form is generated arbitrarily and post-‐design materiality is imposed upon it generally resulting in minor or major adjustments to the initial form due to material constraints. The availability of these digital tools gives the architect control over aspects of design, analysis, fabrication and construction. However architects still require the presence of specialists to carry out their respective jobs. Even though architects are capable of preparing drawings for fabrication, they still require the presence of a manufacturer to fabricate the elements. And even though architects can simulate the structural capacities of buildings they still need engineers to carry out their tests. Therefore what these tools provide above everything is insight, and with this insight, architects can be in better control over the whole process. Even though all of this is possible technically there are still many obstacles regarding the methods of procurement involved.

Liabilities Until a couple of years ago the most commonly used project delivery method was Design, Bid and Build (DBB) (Hanscomb, 2004). Although this method is not as popular as before it is still widely used across the world. In this method the owner enters into a contract with an Architecture and Engineering (AE) firm that provides the design services in the form of construction documents. The owner then uses these documents to form a separate contract with the contractors that offer the cheapest price for the works. This process has proven to be unsuccessful on a number of levels. For instance; communication is meant to flow through the contractor (diagram below) meaning that if the architect wants to interact with the trades he can only do so through the contractor. Moreover communication between the parties can only commence once the project documentation is complete and the contracting job has been awarded. This means that throughout the design process the architect is unable to access the expertise of the people who will ultimately be producing the components or assemblies thus completely ruling out chance of the design being informed by any material-‐intrinsic or craft-‐intrinsic properties. Conversely once the contract has been awarded to the contractors the fabricators would have to figure out the best possible way to approximate the architect’s design intent based on the drawings provided. Such approaches have driven a number of projects to the ground due to inaccurate speculations on construction processes. This unsuccessful method of communication; compelled owners to start demanding “quicker delivery times and earlier knowledge of accurate construction costs” (Hanscomb, 2004).

Design Bid/Build/Method of contracting. Diagram produced by the author

Design/Build Method of contracting. Diagram produced by the author

In an effort to minimise these inefficiencies a number of architecture firms have teamed up with contractors forming what are known as Design and Build firms (DB) implying that the owner only deals with one legal entity. This change in structure of building practices and the resultant 22

redefined legal framework is considered as a possible remedy for the present inefficiencies of a highly fragmented building industry. The key aspect of DB is having all members of traditional post-‐design phases included in the initial stages, and consequently architects get to have a say on the fabrication, assembly and construction procedures. Since architects, contractors and subcontractors are working together clients finally get informed with accurate costing and scheduling operations. A more recent method of delivery goes a step further to include the owner as a liable entity in the alliance. The Integrated Project Delivery IPD method promotes that “all communications throughout the process are clear, concise, open, transparent and trusting” (AIA, 2007, 2). This method also encourages “the early contributions of knowledge and expertise through the utilisation of new technologies, allowing all team members to better realise their highest potentials” (Ibid). Since communication is at the forefront of the successes of DB and IPD Building Information Modelling (BIM) fits perfectly as the adequate method of communication.

Design/Build (DB) versus Design/Bid/Build (DBB) Trends. Diagram produced by the author. Data extracted from: http://www.belzdesignbuild.com/web/30/GrowingTrends.aspx

Building Information Modelling (BIM) BIM software is fundamentally a three-‐dimensional modelling platform in which models of buildings can be embedded with constantly updated data that enable clients, contractors and consultants to maintain a constant overview of the work in progress. BIM usage promotes a richer dialogue between the owner and the design team and integrates the discrete knowledge of all the disparate parties into a holistic process of planning design and construction at the onset of the project.

Interoperability The sceptic sees BIM as a tediously time consuming platform to get accustomed to, moreover it is also regarded as a software that limits creativity (Oppenheimer, 2009). However with the concept of interoperability, which implies the seamless transition of digital data from one digital platform (software) to another, architects that accustomed to certain software do not need to re-‐accustom themselves fully to the operational syntax of BIM. This implies that architects can work comfortably in their native platform and later export the data into a BIM model. This means that parametric and algorithmic-‐based designs can easily be integrated in BIM. Further than limiting creativity, BIM promotes the exploration of innovative designs due to its inbuilt cost-‐calculating process (Gauchat, 2009). Interoperability is under constant progress because it is the architects themselves that generate the codes that can facilitate the interoperability. Cynthia Ottchen, previously Head of Research and Innovation at OMA suggests that rather than seeking to develop one ideal design platform that incorporates all the necessary tools for the modern practice, architects in collaboration of software engineers should aim for seamless interoperability between existing platforms. The diagram below shows the importance SHoP Architects give to the concept of Interoperability.

Actual Another efficient application of BIM is the facilitation of “clash controls”. Prior to construction, the integrated team carries out a practice build of the whole sequence of operations from the piling of the foundations to the installing of the final finishes. The presence of all parties is imperative in order to prove the success of this process. During the simulation architects, fabricators, engineers can easily localise any irregularities or badly timed procedures. This process offers an innovative aspect to the design methodology of architectural firms -‐ That of complete control over the building process.

Emergent role By removing uncertainty and therefore reducing risks owners and investors are more likely to regard the profession as a trustworthy one in which they can safely invest in. Urs Gauchat, Professor and Dean of the School of Architecture at the New Jersey Institute of Technology says that, “Individuals [operating BIM software] capable of performing such a complex and demanding role are rare and will therefore be sought after. The added economic value they can provide should elevate their salaries to the equivalents of those of top lawyers and doctors” 24

(2009). The amalgamation of all these software’s provides the end user with the capacity to design and literally construct buildings in a virtual domain. In fact BIM has facilitated the potential for small offices to gain control over large projects, something that was earlier impossible to attain with the traditional methods of communication. Sharples Holden Pasquarelli of SHoP Architects regard the introduction of BIM into the offices workflow as their secret to dealing with “large, intricate projects while retaining the scale, feel, and critical reach of a creative atelier” (Holden, 2012, 150). Over the past twelve years SHoP Architects have been involved in over 16 various sized projects. One of their first was 12,000 square feet, and with the help of BIM and other digital software their most recent project, the Barclays Centre at Atlantic Yards is over 675,000 square feet. This notion challenges the protocols of established big firms.

SHoP Diagram of Interoperability. Extracted from: SHoP: Out of Practice, 2012

Where to? Since 2007 the building and construction industries in both the United States and Europe have suffered a severe decline. In 2012 more than 70% of the registered architectural firms in the United States were suffering form at least one or more stalled projects due to lack of financing. This does not only concern new large scale developments but also includes small projects, redevelopment and retrofit projects, as well as green certified buildings (AIA, 2011) .In Europe the total expenditure in the construction industry at the end of 2011 was at its lowest recorded point since 1999 (Eurostat, 2012). A world construction report issued by Davis Langdon at the end of 2012 foresaw that there would be no expected growth in the industry before the year 2015.

Without the process of construction, the profession of architecture risks becoming redundant. Therefore in a time of such austerity, architects should stop pondering on what forms to build and focus more on how to build them. This notion does not imply that design creativity or innovation should in any case be sabotaged by economical restraints. On the contrary architects should redefine the prevailing methods of operating in order to facilitate innovative designs under financial constraints. A changing professional domain requires a mutually exclusive shift in educational institutions. Ideally traditional establishments will stop foisting an educational program on students that was modeled on the teachers’ own educational experiences which relies heavily on personal visual judgments, theories of composition and proportion. Moreover digital processes such as parametric, algorithmic and performative deign should not be limited to specialized classes but be omnipresent in the foundations of all architecture students. The key question is whether schools want to position themselves parallel to other schools, or parallel to the changing norms of the profession. This does not mean that schools should become an extension of the working place, however elements of reality should be considered as creative potentials over restrictive obstacles.

Bibliography 1. Kolarevic Branco; Architecture in the Digital Age; Design and manufacturing. Spon Press, New York, 2003. 2. Garber Richard in: AD Reader; Closing The Gap, Information Models in Contemporary Practice, Alberti’s Paradigm, pp88-‐94, John Wiley & Sons, March/April 2009. 3. Sharples Cohen in: AD Reader; Closing The Gap, Information Models in Contemporary Practice, Unified Frontiers: Reaching Out with BIM, pp. 42-‐48, John Wiley & Sons, March/April 2009. 4. Gauchat Urs in: AD Reader; Closing The Gap, Information Models in Contemporary Practice, the $300,000/Year Architect, pp88-‐94, John Wiley & Sons, March/April 2009 5. Langdon Davis; An AECOM Company; World Construction 2012; extracted from: http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/StaticFiles on April 2nd 2013. 6. Murray Peter; The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance; Thames and Hudson Limited, London, 1986 7. AIA 2011: The American Institute of Architects; Stalled Construction Projects and Financing, November 2011. Extracted from: http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/ 8. Davis Howard; The Culture of Building, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006, page 5 9. Eurostat; European Commission; Construction and Production Index. Extracted from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained on April 2nd 2013 10. Loyrette, Henri. Gustave Eiffel, Rizzoli Press, New York, 1985. 11. Davis Howard. The Culture of Building. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999 12. Nobel Philip, in shop; Out of Practice; The Monacelli Press, New York, 2012. 13. Holden Kimberly, J; Gregg Pasquarelli; Christopher Sharples; Coren Sharples; William Sharples; shop, Out of Practice; The Monacelli Press, New York, 2012 14. Leach Neil; David Turnbull, Chris Williams. Digital tectonics, Wiley-‐Academy, West Sussex, 2004

15. Kohler & Gramazio; Digital Materiality in Architecture; Lrs Muller Publications 2008 16. Menges Achim; Material systems, computational morphogenesis and performative capacity;

pp.

44-‐

61.

Emergent

Technologies

and

Design

Towards a biological paradigm for architecture; Michael Hensel, Achim Menges, Michael Weinstock; Routledge, New York, 2010 17. Menges Achim and Sean Alquist; Computation Design Thinking in AD Reader, John Wiley & Sons, United Kingdom, April 2011 18. Steenson, Molly Wright; Artificial Intelligence, Architectural Intelligence: The Computer in

Architecture,

1960-‐80,

Dissertation

proposal,

2010.

Extracted

from:

http://www.girlwonder.com/blog/steenson-‐dissertation-‐proposal.pdf 19. Speaks Michael, After Theory, Architectural Record, June 2005, Extracted from: http://prattarch.wikispaces.com/file/view/Speaks+-‐+After+Theory.pdf 20. Speaks Michael, Intelligence After Theory, Perspecta 38, Architecture After All. The Yale Architectural Journal, 2006 21. Glymph Jim, Evolution of the digital design process, in Branco Kolarevic; Architecture in the digital age. Pp101-‐121. 2003 22. Hale, Darren R; Pramen P. Shrestha, P.E., M.ASCE; G. Edward Gibson Jr., P.E., F.ASCE; and Giovanni C. Migliaccio, M.ASCE. Empirical Comparison of Design/Build and Design?Bid?Build

Project

Delivery

Methods.

Extracted

from:

http://www.mty.itesm.mx/130/Archivos%20Tareas/ComparandoDCCyDC.pdf 23. Bruce Lindsey. Digital Gehry: Material Resistance, Digital Construction. Basel: Birkhauser, 2001 24. CATIA

Frank

O.Gehry

Associates,

Inc,”

http://www-‐

3.ibm.com/solutions/engineering/esindus.nsf/Public/sufran 25. W.Mitchell and M.McCullough. “Prototyping” (Chapter 18) in Digital Design Media, 2nd edition. New york: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995, pp.417-‐440 26. Annette LeCuyer. “Building Bilbao” in Architectural Review, December 1997, vol. 102, no 1210, pp.43-‐45 27. Boston Architectural Center. Architecture and the Computer, First Boston Architectural Center Conference (Boston: Boston Architectural Center, 1964). 28. Ignasi de Sola Morales. Differences: Topographies of Contemporary Architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press 1997 29. Volume 16 : The NEWS OF AMERICAS COMMUNITY OF ARCHITECTS FACE OF AIA, AI(A)rchitect

30. Markku Allison, AIA, and Betsy Downs, AIA, LEED-‐AP Integrated Project Delivery: Narrowing the Gap Design-‐Build and, august 21, 2009 31. HANSCOMB Design-‐build becoming a revolution Menas Report: International Construction Intelligence, Vol. 16 No. 6, January/ February 2004 32. Dezeen, 2013, extracted from: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/02/13/protohouse-‐2-‐3d-‐ printed-‐house-‐by-‐softkill-‐design/