PDA

View Full Version : A New Architecture



frame
2004-03-15, 09:34 PM
A revolution in how computers are used to model buildings is taking place, and at the heart of this revolution has been a debate about what three letter acronym to use that best describes the technology driving the revolution forward. The default term is currently BIM (Building Information Modeling), although there have been many other attempts, and recently a proposal was made to call it PEN (Parametric ENabled) . The search for a three letter word is clearly tied to the legacy of CAD (which stands for Computer Assisted Drafting or Design) even though the essence of this new technology makes a decisive break with the CAD paradigm. That CAD can have such a grip on the thought process is evidence of a conservative tendency in the AE profession that manifests itself even at the high-tech fringe. The BIM apologists have begun to see and imagine new opportunities and methodologies as a result of emerging technology, but have fallen short when trying to come up with a catch-all acronym that rolls easily off the tongue and embodies a new spirit.

References to bygone tools have no place in the realm of next generation design tools. The world has moved on, the information age, the post-industrial society, is here and now, and continues to expand. The machine age, having run its course, is coming to and end. Likewise, the age of mechanical drafting and tireless abstract revisions is primed for extinction. The computer has been freed from the mundane task of representing lines in a banal coordinate space. No longer can the computer be thought of as a device that simply mimics the conventions of hand drafting. The floor plan is ceasing to be an end in itself, and instead becoming a mere by-product of a hyper-coordinated design process. The great modernist Le Corbusier stated that the plan is the generator of form. In the post-industrial era, it is form that generates the plan, and the section, and the elevation, and the perspective, and the schedule…on and on, all in real time. The list of possible deliverables and consequences of using the computer to truly model buildings is nothing short of mind blowing.

Today, we have new ways of creating architectural representations, and the information built into these representations exceeds the implied meaning of lines projected onto a 2D surface. Every object can be imbibed with and described by parameters that inter-relate with other objects and their parameters. The information, stored in centralized database that can manage and negotiate changes, allows the creation of “live” models that are always in sync, and represented as explicit graphical and textual controls. This technology enables the age-old process of building physical models to be intimately tied to all other means of representing a building. Now, 2D, 3D and 4D co-exist in single design environment and are all linked together.

These tools are the tools that can, and will ‘do it all’, tools that enable total collaboration across disciplines. Tools that provide total syncopation of a single database of parametrically related, intelligent components that can be analyzed, modified, and published--on the fly. A tool that can do that much--allow for creating truly virtual models of a system--is more than Building Information Modeling, it is HYPERMODELING. Model are referred to as HYPERMODELS, not BIMs. The Hypermodel is a way of interfacing with information, not modeling it. Who wants to model information? No, we want to Model, and have information become a dynamic expression of modeling. Also, the hypermodel is not reserved for mere “buildings”—it can be atomized. Is a window a building? No, but one can imagine entire companies that do nothing but crank out Hypermodel content. Hypercomponents that work in the context of a building, but are not themselves buildings. A photorealistic rendering, or walkthrough, is not really building information modeling—but clearly that is a critical piece of this new paradigm. Think of visualizations as an aspect of hypermodeling; or better, as an opportunity that hypermodeling provides.

The chains of the three letter acronym now broken, we can imagine a new paradigm taking hold. We can imagine a new generation of HYPERMODEL designers emerging, while simultaneously, ‘CAD technician’ becomes an obsolete pursuit. We can imagine a whole new definition of labor divisions, of highly collaborative design-build firms, of new types of hybrid AE companies coming into being. We can imagine using the HYPERMODEL to redefine how projects are bid upon, how they are won, how they are implemented, how they are administrated, how they are evaluated. Ask yourself this, do you want to be known a BIMMER or a HYPERMODELER? Will your firm gain leverage by promoting the use of BIM tools, or HYPERMODELS?

To embrace Hypermodeling is to finally take the step into the current of the Information Revolution: to take advantage of it, rather than shy away from it. In doing so, we open the door to new processes, new business models, new methods, and ultimately, a New Architecture.

designer56644
2004-03-16, 03:09 AM
By the very act of creation, we express the truth that to visualize is to bring into existence the thing that one perceives, holistically.
So it is with Hypermodelling.

I am happy and feeling priveledged to understand this new paradigm at the level of it's creation, and hopefully, so do all who partake in this forum. Visionaries? Time will tell... On the bleeding edge? For certain.

It would be a shame if this vision and ideal crystalizes only to be shattered by proprietors and protectionists. It is like science, it only does good when it is shared, not coveted.

We are the current weavers of this dream, ever vigilent, always reminding those who do not that which is to come. Always reminding, always exploring, always pushing the envelope, never dis-coraged by the painfully slow pace of the trogs...

Show. Tell. Keep it in the minds of those who hear...

And smile maties. Look around; the view is excellent up here on the edge :)

ariasdelcid
2004-03-16, 04:28 AM
Finally. It deserves its own forum. The Factory is ahead of us.
AADC

MitchellT.
2004-03-16, 06:43 AM
I agree with the revelolution. The problem with the Hypermodel name is that it begins with Hype.

Too many promises for too long, so that when the real thing comes along, no one will buy it.

I'm afraid that for the time being, we have a "horseless" carriage. Or as my 4 year old would put it, "super smart" CAD.

PaulB
2004-03-16, 07:27 AM
Frame,

Hypermodel, wow. Where do I get one of these, how much will it cost,........................ heck just sign me up!

Djordje
2004-03-16, 08:05 AM
A revolution in how computers are used to model buildings is taking place

Excellent article, congratulations!

If I may expand a little on the topic - the activity HAS BEEN taking place for the last two decades, and the term was (and still is) Virtual Buidling. The theory is arguably best described in articles by David Marlatt, AIA, from 1995 or so that can be found here:

"Architecture Through the Looking Glass" at
http://www.parch.com/process/art_1.html

"Of Virtual Buildings and Real Architecture" at
http://www.parch.com/process/art_4.html

A collection of other articles on the subject:
http://www.parch.com/process.htm

Seemingly, the industry only now accepts, or starts to accept, the Virtual Building idea. The fight will be long and hard, but all of us who embraced the concept know that nothing else can win. The evil that is known is not lesser any more, and despite the hype, that has to be present in some form in this market driven world, shoudl not stop anyone looking under the hood to understand whys and hows.

The view is really good :)

gregcashen
2004-03-16, 05:32 PM
...this activity HAS BEEN taking place for the last two decades, and the term was (and still is) Virtual Buidling.

I think this misses one of the main points of the article, which is that anything that refernces buildings is inherently flawed because not everything is a building. In fact, most things are not buildings, and as far as the software is concerned there should be (read is) no difference between modelling buildings or bridges.

frame
2004-04-18, 04:36 AM
some futher reading on this topic.
I submitted some thoughts to a newsletter, but the 'hypermodel' failed to byte.

http://www.aecbytes.com/newsletter/issue_7.htm

Marek Brandstatter
2004-04-18, 05:10 AM
Yeah but Hyper BIM = Supadupa BIM