^^^^ Speaking of being succinct…
This is a little off topic, but something that I feel we should be aware of when formulating a plan: Google’s plans. Take 30 minutes and look at this website (www.flux.io) and this video: http://vimeo.com/107291814. Flux was spun off from Google two years ago.
To date about $20m has been invested, and it appears that their “industry partners” are Gensler, Arup, and SERA. I’m a little peeved that there are no engineers involved.
It’s not yet a threat - there are some technical and legal issues, and software developers still don’t get that the intersection of software and the real world is messy at best, but this has the potential to change how A/Es work. It’s interesting how they are calling it a tool for “real estate development,” which makes it seem fairly innocuous.
Michael:
Not a great speaker, but the subject was interesting.
However, I have a concern about architectural style. Using the Monterey cypress that was mentioned in the video, in the end the tree is still a Monterey cypress–it has just taken a form that was influenced by its environment. The building shown takes different forms, but the overall architectural style remains the same. How would an architect program the application that grows buildings based around that architect’s style?
I see this more as an advanced site-adaption planning tool that is used in limited locations and for a limited set of building types, such as housing, since that is their basis for developing such an application.
She mentions zoning codes, but not once mentioned building codes (although an attendee mentioned building codes during the Q&A). Unlike many zoning codes, building codes do provide a lot of flexibility and offers a variety of paths to building code compliance–I’m interested in how this software would give the “designer” the ability to make those decisions.
I would also like to see how they plan to address the “contract documents” aspect–especially specifications. Maybe CSI should reach out to them…
Michael
How can Arup be in the list of involved firms and then assume that no engineers were involved.
And so begins another article…
Ron,
I’m with you on most of this. Realistically, quite a bit of what they are doing is already assisted or automated to a certain extent. This is just a different and flashier way of doing it. Like I mentioned, there would be some legal challenges involved in using this tool instead of a designer and those seeds only reflect the designs and experience of whomever programmed the system.
Mark,
Good point. I stand corrected. What I should have said is while there are three architects who directly work for Flux, it appears that there are no building engineers who directly work for Flux.
CSI’s Specifying Practice Group today was on BIM and Specifications. Brok Howard reprised his presentation from CONSTRUCT 2013 in Nashville. If you haven’t had a chance to catch this presentation and are interested in this discussion, check out the replay on CSI’s youtube channel. It will be posted soon.
And don’t forget to vote for Brok for Institute president.
A very good presentation by Brok Howard.
Sheldon, “LIKE”
David Stutzman gave a very interesting presentation on this subject at Construct 2014. I got Dave to reprise the presentation for the October 2014 Specifying Practice Group, and you can access it here as well as Brok Howard’s November presentation: http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Communities-2109-14280/Practice-Group/Specifying/2014.