XavierArch678i

1. Because most of the components that are used to create a building in Revit are 'intelligent' there is an expectation that many of the details should be communicated graphically whether in plan, section, iso, etc. Designing in BIM means that you have to show not only how the space works and what materials should be used, but how the objects physically go together.

2. At this point, BIM creates a real handicap in my ability to design since I do not yet know how to make the complex forms and objects that I have in mind using the Revit software. This means that if I use Revit my design process prioritize the 'how to' of making space with walls and floors as opposed to 'what' form those walls and floors actually take. In other words, the process is re-prioritized based on my limited experience with Revit. I would much rather dream up a space and figure out how to build it later, but BIM doesn't really let you do that; you have to build as you go.

3. Revit is a giant, 3D spreadsheet. Therefore, visualization and documentation go hand-in-hand. In the long run this is far more efficient than separating visualization from the various schedules ways to coordinate space. At this moment, it just takes too long to do all of this in Revit because it seems far more complicated to design three-dimensionally there than other 3D design programs. On the other hand, if the design needs intense documentation, then BIM just makes sense.

4. Thom Mayne would probably say that BIM has increased design opportunities tremendously. BIM allows architects to build virtually so they can build and test complex systems that would otherwise be too costly or impossible to build. So being able to see this all digitally obviously very important for architecture. However, other digital media don't depend on reality and physics for design. Video game designers don't need to be able to represent how the buildings they incorporate into their games could exist in real life, so they don't. Graphic representations of building systems can be made to look beautiful and artistic, but they are not meant to investigate design opportunities in other media; they are meant explain what is to be built and how.

5. BIM requires or at least expects that everything be as specific as possible. Ambiguity in a drawing is not good if that is what your expected to build from. From what I understand, an architect could give a well-developed 3D model of building designed in Revit and a contractor would know how to build it. You couldn't do that with a sketchup file. The more information the contractor has, the less problems and change orders he will have, I expect. So with BIM, building owners are beginning to expect the same thing.

6. Experienced architects probably know how to design well and they also know about construction. Those who are making the transition to BIM will probably not yet know how to 'build' in Revit. Even if they are comfortable designing in 3D with Sketchup or 3D max and others, those skills don't necessarily translate into Revit. Modelling information is much more difficult than modelling a shape. Skill will simply come from practice with the software.Although architects are expected to be 'experts' in a variety of fields, I imagine that in a real firm there will be people that can specialize in different areas of BIM, so contemporary practitioners should be able to find their niche.

7. With the ability to build virtually comes the opportunity to test a design and solve problems far before a project gets to the construction phase. The kinds of problems that I have experienced so far have had more to do with program and basic space-making principles than with structure. BIM has influence architecture by allowing architects to be more creative with building systems and construction, but I'm not sure if it is especially good for making creative spaces. It's not that the two are separate, but BIM certainly emphasizes one over the other.

8. It's seems clear how BIM is affecting the architecture profession and the discipline, but architectural education is still up in the air. There is so much to learn now and so little time to do it. Architecture students already work disproportionately more than the average student, in my humble opinion. Designing a curriculum that better addresses BIM and the revolution going on in architecture is going to be crucial not only for young architects but for firms who want to continue to be relevant and grow.

"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.