Response to "Change or Perish"

"Model it the way you would build it." That's how I would sum up this short piece by Thom Mayne. The revolution, he says, is happening because computer technology is allowing architects to be builders again, not just "stylists." This ability to build before you build necessarily affects the way an architect will conceive space to begin with. 

However, he use of hybrid cars as an example of how technology impacts performance reinforces what I have said previously about how spaces and forms are increasingly engineered rather than crafted. The Prius might use state-of-the-art technology, but it's not exactly a head-turner in the beauty department. There is no reason why we can't have both; it is possible to have stylish, well engineered buildings and vehicles. 

My concern is the huge learning curve to both learn the software and have enough construction expertise to design in the BIM frame of mind. Clearly, those who can't or won't adapt will not survive. Everything indicates that this revolution is both necessary for the industry and inevitable. My question  is, what are we losing or giving up, if anything? What compromises in design do architects feel that they have to make, or is BIM artistically liberating?  That seems to be the case for Thom Mayne, but I wonder what other architects think. He also says that plans and sections are practically irrelevant--that they give him nothing to talk about. Should we really give up thinking/representing space in plan and section at school? That is the most relevant challenge for me as a student today. Knowing that firms have different expectations from students coming out of school today than they had five or ten years ago, I wonder how I need to modify the way I conceive space today to be an effective design space tomorrow.