where is the freedom tower picture?

[sjsl]

I saw it today and now I cannot find it. Sopmeone gave us a picture of the top of the tower.
I want to show this to our staff.

Thanks!

[Steve_Stafford]

I think you were thinking of this THREAD (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=8643)

[Marek Brandstatter]

http://www.som.com/press_release/

[Chad Smith]

They are some truely great images for a great project.

[Marek Brandstatter]

googling

http://www.detnews.com/2004/business/0408/05/c02-233273.htm


Freedom Tower architects work in 3-D
Software shortens time needed for standard drafting
By Alex Frangos / Wall Street Journal

NEW YORK — It will be almost two years before steel rises even to ground level in construction of the iconic Freedom Tower, whose cornerstone was laid at Ground Zero in an emotional ceremony in June. But a few blocks away — and far removed from public view — a group of architects designing the tower are stretching design technology in ways that will change how buildings are created.

Architects at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, the firm hired by private developer Larry Silverstein to complete Daniel Libeskind’s vision for the signature skyscraper, are using an innovative kit of software-design tools for the first time on such a massive project. Among the equipment: a three-dimensional drawing program that’s part of an industry-wide revolution altering how architects transfer ideas from their brains to paper.

The $1 billion-plus Freedom Tower will house offices, stores and restaurants and will have a 72-story twisting body, a cable skin, a concrete and steel core, and a 600-foot latticework cage on the top that will house broadcast antennas and wind turbines.

The tangled guts will be equally complex and difficult to keep straight. The architects predict the job will require 3,000 official construction documents — as many as a large airport. Close to 50 Skidmore staff are on the project; their drawings will be done in batches and won’t be completed until the first quarter of 2006.

On a recent morning in Skidmore’s 23rd floor Freedom Tower project room, David Yanks, a staff architect, used a 3-D design program called Revit to grab the massive sides of the tower on his computer and twist them from side to side. In so doing, each floor adjusts its size according to Yanks’s moves, something that would take weeks with standard two-dimensional drafting programs. “I’d have to make different floors” in the regular program, he says. Using Revit, a product of Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, Calif., he says, “we have one template with two ‘knives’ on the each side that cut the floors to the right shape.”

The shape of the Freedom Tower, a parallelogram that twists as it rises, is particularly suited for the new software. Yanks enjoys using it so much, his colleagues rib him that his wife will be upset about the “Revit” tattoo he might get.

The revolution Yanks is experiencing now — from 2-D to 3-D — is in many ways a logical next step to the emergence of computer-aided design software in the early 1970s. In its day, CAD, as it’s known, transformed architecture by digitizing drafting, sending the blueprint production process into warp speed. (Skidmore was one of the first firms to use CAD; it developed its own version.)

From a creative perspective, however, CAD wasn’t a huge leap. Like its manual predecessors, the T-square and compass, CAD is a tool to make a set of abstract drawings — basically instructions to the construction crew — of what the building should be. A wall is represented by a set of lines, rather than by an actual picture of a wall.

The first 3-D programs emerged 20 years ago. They were good for flashy presentations but not powerful enough to actually design whole buildings with. The latest generation of 3-D programs changes the game.

“In the past, architects carried in their head what the three-dimensional conception of the building was and mentally translated that into two-dimensional drawings,” says Charles Eastman, an architecture professor at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. Now, they create on the screen exactly what they envision in their mind’s eye.

Instead of drafting abstract instructions, the 3-D modeling has the architect design what the building actually looks like, and then spits out the old fashioned drawings for the contractor to use as a result. “Drawings become the byproduct of the model,” says Michael Jarosz, a tech expert at Skidmore. “A staircase is a staircase, not just a set of lines.”

[roy.70844]

http://www.som.com/press_release/

Some nice renderings, but I downloaded the night time animation and it must have been a REAL dark night. All I got was 11mb of animated blackness. The daytime animations worked ok, maybe there was some sort of power outage.....

Top class project and a bit of extra kudos for Revit.

Roy

[MikeJarosz]

Sorry everyone, the press kit drawings were not done in Revit.

On a brighter note, we now have the entire building, top to bottom, inside and out, drawn in Revit. An entire team is very, very busy on this effort. There have been a few hiccups, but we are delighted with the results, especially the cable structure top.

We have received comments from consultants that our latest issue was thorough and well coordinated despite the fast track scheduling, no doubt due to the efficiencies of 3D modeling.

I had to do an Acad drawing the other day, and I drew a complete blank. I couldn't remember a thing. I hope I never have to go back.

Eventually more images will become available.

Stay tuned.

[MikeJarosz]

By the way, the WSJ article Marek posted was abridged. The complete article can be found:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=3782380

[Wes Macaulay]

Mike, Chris Zoog mentioned that some formulae were used to develop the geometry of the building. Could you describe a bit how the building is built -- particularly the twisting stuff? I get the sense that there are some families you've created that are a vital part of the model, and that these families respond to input data in particular ways. I love seeing how geometric equations are used in Revit.

(People always tell me I shouldn't cosine alone... :mrgreen: )

[MikeJarosz]

Mike, Chris Zoog mentioned that some formulae were used to develop the geometry of the building. Could you describe a bit how the building is built -- particularly the twisting stuff? I get the sense that there are some families you've created that are a vital part of the model, and that these families respond to input data in particular ways. I love seeing how geometric equations are used in Revit.

(People always tell me I shouldn't cosine alone... :mrgreen: )


Actually, it's an arctangent, and I honestly do not understand it myself. Someone else on our team is doing that job. You need to be a Russian PhD mathematician.

[sfaust]

(People always tell me I shouldn't cosine alone... :mrgreen: )
awesome, doesn't get much better than cheezy math jokes ;-) . I would be interested in seeing how it works too, what are the chances?

[aggockel50321]

Mike,

Can you tell us what the file size of the project is??

[MikeJarosz]

Mike,

Can you tell us what the file size of the project is??

It's broken into several Revit files that are then linked back into one. The largest file is 88MB, the smallest a mere 7MB.

[Wes Macaulay]

I wondered if you would eventually break it up. At what point did you decide to use file linking?

[JamesVan]

Mike, Chris Zoog mentioned that some formulae were used to develop the geometry of the building. Could you describe a bit how the building is built -- particularly the twisting stuff?

If you're feeling particularly bright this afternoon, give these a look....

[Wes Macaulay]

And people always asked how in the world cosine law could ever have an application in real life...

I hope at AU one of you guys could bring that family and show how it works. I've had to use similar formulae on some heavy timber projects I've done in the past.

I loved math in school -- so it's fun to be able to use it in Revit. For the first equations showing cosine law I didn't see where 'C' fits in -- a placeholder perhaps?

And I can't see the application for the second equation at all!

[ita]

James, resolving those equations is a cinch - beegee has Fibonacci series bagged (see thread RE: Autodesk's New Revit Logo) and ready to fly and a sound grasp of the binary code (same thread). Now if a little Aussie battler can do that in one morning, there is nothing left to concern ourselves with. We can all take a break, have a :beer: call it a day and go home!

[JamesVan]

We can all take a break, have a :beer: call it a day and go home!

I second that emotion....

[Beth Powell]

There will be a webcast about the Freedom Tower and Revit on Oct. 21 I think. Probably will be more info on the Adesk site closer to then. They have several Revit webcasts coming up in October.

[Jarod]

If you're feeling particularly bright this afternoon, give these a look....

It is just amazing to me that having equations inside an Architectural package would be considered a good thing. This just shows how Revit really is a solid modeler at heart. I still don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing...

[J. Grouchy]

It is just amazing to me that having equations inside an Architectural package would be considered a good thing. This just shows how Revit really is a solid modeler at heart. I still don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing...
I'm not sure what your point is here...

Since when is math a detriment to architecture? From the classical orders to the wild shapes of Gehry's Guggenheim, math is critical and is directly tied to aesthetics as well as structural integrity. Like it or not, math is an integral part of architecture and any software that professes to be flexible to the designer's creativity must allow the math of the architecture to be known and changed. Whether or not computers and computer modelling is good for architecture is an entirely different discussion...but you can never take the math out of it, whether you use a pencil or a mouse.

[MikeJarosz]

Saarinen's arch in St. Louis is a pure catenary - inverted of course.

[LRaiz]

It is just amazing to me that having equations inside an Architectural package would be considered a good thing... I still don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing...
Consider an example of an architect who wants to make sure that a family she designs follows a rule of golden ratio proportions. She can write an equation
W = H * (SQRT(5.0) + 1.0) / 2.0
However Revit does not force anyone to use equations. If an architect wants to rely on just a visual sense of aesthetics then she can do that.

[LRaiz]

Saarinen's arch in St. Louis is a pure catenary - inverted of course.
So is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenary) Gaudi's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudi) La Sagrada Familia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Familia)

[Jarod]

I'm not sure what your point is here...

Since when is math a detriment to architecture? From the classical orders to the wild shapes of Gehry's Guggenheim, math is critical and is directly tied to aesthetics as well as structural integrity. Like it or not, math is an integral part of architecture and any software that professes to be flexible to the designer's creativity must allow the math of the architecture to be known and changed. Whether or not computers and computer modelling is good for architecture is an entirely different discussion...but you can never take the math out of it, whether you use a pencil or a mouse.

My point is in Revit to do a flexible Arch Top Window I must build multiple reference planes, create some family parameters and than plug-in a formula based on "theorem of Pythagoras" to make it work. At one point in my life I used Autodesk Mechanical Desktop which is a parametric solid modeler. I don't have an issue with the parametric engine in Revit but I find that showing this to other colleagues/clients their eyes roll back. Because of this I don't find the majority of people out there want to deal with the reference planes, formulas and parameters...This is what I have personally ran into so far and might be one of the reasons why Revit is taking so long to become a market leader in the Architectural Industry. I personally like Revit and find it great to use but these types of things might need to be a little more user friendly or more hidden with some type of interface.

[Scott D Davis]

At one point in my life I used Autodesk Mechanical Desktop which is a parametric solid modeler. I don't have an issue with the parametric engine in Revit but I find that showing this to other colleagues/clients their eyes roll back.Problem is, in an AutoCAD based application, you could pretty much draw and fake anything you wanted. Call it an "arch window" and you were done....whether someone could build it or not was another question. Now you must think about how these things go together. How is a contractor going to construct this arch in the field? Surely, there will be some math involved.

Edited post to add this: Don't get me wrong, though....you dont have to build the intelligence into anything in Revit if you don't want to. If I had a one-off arch top window to be used only in this model and never again, I'd build it as an in-place family, draw my arch with no ref planes, formulas, etc, and be done with it.

Now if it were an arch top that I will use again, and it has only one size, and that will never change, then I build it as a family, but still don't use any ref planes, formulas, parameters.....just build the model, and insert in my project.

Now, if this is an Arch top that comes in varying sizes and configurations, and as the width increases the arch must also increase in size, or some other relatuionship that must be managed by mathmatical relationships, then I build the family carefully with ref planes, dimensions and formulas as needed.

What I'm trying to say is, Revit is not limiting, I can still build the same old window that I used to do in autocad with lines and arcs, but now its 3D and shows in every view at a minimum.

[ita]

Scott, I agree.

If there is any resistance to using Revit, this may be one of the primary factors. To use Revit and to build the model, you actually have to know your building construction systems and be able to construct the model in the manner in which it will be built. Is this application testing the actual rather than the apparent knowledge of the industry?

Jarod's comments perhaps represent a bigger portion of the industry than we generally realise. Comments about formula in the family editor etc seem to (me at least) represent a fear of being challenged to to re-skill and rise to a new level of competency. The fear of change in humans is a major obstacle in many situations and in this, the long established familiarity of AutoCAD and the time taken to reach that level of familiarity looms as quite a hurdle.

Sometimes to move forward, we may have to go backwards for a while until we can get enough traction to accelerate forward. Learning a new app like Revit will require such a condition - especially when coming from an AutoCAD environment.

BTW has anyone found the Freedom Tower picture yet?? :mrgreen:

[LRaiz]

I do not interpret Jarod's comments as wholesale objections to math or expressions of fear regarding a necessity to re-skill.

I think Jarod is pointing out the flip side of an argument. He is making a valid point that a system targeted toward architects should be careful to speak to them in their language. The language of architects is drawings not formulas. I agree with this sentiment and I think Jarod just needs an reassurance that Revit is not making a change away from focusing on expressing its UI in terms that are familiar and dear to architects. However I suspect that Jarod himself will find an occasional use of formulas handy.

[Jarod]

I do not interpret Jarod's comments as wholesale objections to math or expressions of fear regarding a necessity to re-skill.

I think Jarod is pointing out the flip side of an argument. He is making a valid point that a system targeted toward architects should be careful to speak to them in their language. The language of architects is drawings not formulas. I agree with this sentiment and I think Jarod just needs an reassurance that Revit is not making a change away from focusing on expressing its UI in terms that are familiar and dear to architects. However I suspect that Jarod himself will find an occasional use of formulas handy.


Thank You LRaiz! You hit it on the nail! I know how a building gets built, I have been in the construction business for the last 15 years and learn new things every week. Using ADT2005 since its existence and AutoCAD2005 for the last 20 years I just find that this part of Revit scares the heck out of people. Scott brought up a good point that people who use Revit must know how a building goes together. There is no faking it in Revit, where as people before using AutoCAD might have been able to fake it...

[J. Grouchy]

There is no faking it in Revit, where as people before using AutoCAD might have been able to fake it...
Although...sometimes Revit doesn't get it right. Wall joins come to mind...how wall intersections act in Revit sometimes are frustrating if they don't act the way you know they should be.

[MikeJarosz]

Hasn't this thread strayed from it's original premise? Stimulating as the math issue is, it's not about Freedom Tower images.

We on the Freedom Tower team must be careful about what we show the public. We cannot release images or information that has not been throroughly reviewed by all the parties involved.

There is tremendous public interest in this project, and not just from Revit users. Every release we make immediately flies into the headlines. That doesn't mean that we have nothing new to show.

Tommorrow, Autodesk Revit and SOM will sponsor a webcast devoted to the Freedom Tower. Look for new information there. James Vandezande from SOM will present, Neil Katz and myself will moderate questions.

Phil Bernstein and a team of Autodesk experts will fill out the Autodesk team. It promises to provide new information to the Revit community that has been following us so closely.

See you all tommorrow

[Wes Macaulay]

Although...sometimes Revit doesn't get it right. Wall joins come to mind...how wall intersections act in Revit sometimes are frustrating if they don't act the way you know they should be.You can always kill the wall joins in certain locations (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=5574)-- that may help.

[ita]

Jarod, I apologise if I interpreted your comments as being derogatory to your skills. That was not my intention - however reading the post today I realize that was the understanding that I gave.

Leonard's point is valid and I stand corrected.

My comments generally however comes out of experience. I have demonstrated Revit to a number of (registered) architect's practices, to building designers and variety of trades and other people. The people who appear to take up Revit (at this point) seem predominately to be mainly all but the former. Marty C and I have exchanged comments on the fact that (in Australia at least) the younger architects (and that also includes draftees and designers), generally have poor building construction skills (or limited to residential industry standards only) and get by with significant amendment and rectification on the site during construction. Additionally, the Oz system of dividing the building procurement process into discrete groups (designers, documenters, supervisors) does not help the process of learning the rudiments of good construction methods, systems and detailing that can be effectively built and poor detailing corrected from the on-site experience.

Without going any deeper into the documentation skill levels in the building design industry (in Oz at least), it seems from comments made to me about Revit in the demonstrations, was that there is a Resistance to change and to the benefits that flow from that change for the businesses both in implementation and profitability.Those comments were apart from the usual resistance to factors related to cost (capital and training) and the prospect of coming up to productive levels in a new production environment.

Additionally for a significant "other" group was the question as to whether Revit provided them with assistance in the detailing. The corollary to that comment (my interpretation)were comments to the effect that the model "has to be accurate I suppose?" and "does Revit make you need to understand" how the building is properly constructed(?) (from a young architect!!).

There is concern (and more recently the concerned comment within the RAIA) in Australia regarding the declining quality and veracity of Con Docs produced by the profession over the last 5 - 10 years. Yet there appears to be a strong resistance to acknowledging that there is a problem at the first level and that the problem is represented in professional standing and in current fee levels and the lack of ongoing and upgrading of skills training to the more recent technology in both software, hardware and management.

Which comes back to the original issue that implementing Revit seems to represents a threat to the status quo . . . which appears to be "Let us keep our head in the sand - because that seems to work!!"