From: ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz")
Subject: Re: CAAD ain't no CAD (Was Talk to me)
Organization: University of Strathclyde
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:27:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.024638.10098@cis.ohio-state.edu> paranand@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (muralidhar paranandi) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.034843.22709@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella) writes:
>
>I know lot of people agree with you, but still.. if you are an architect 
>exploring new forms, new possiblities, and most of all new theories (like
>Peter Eisenman) there are certain forms, shapes, organizations, patterns that
>can not be derived with out using Computers.  One such example would be 
>"Fractals" (see Published paper by Dr. Chirs Yessios on Peter Eisenman's
>Factal Studio done at Ohio State Graduate School of Architecture, 1987 I think)
>This may not necesarily imply that CAAD is good for Deconstructivist 
>Architecture.... I can also see how some of Aalto's buildings incorporating 
>3 dimensioal perspective Grid can be done using CAAD systems. (Example: Riola
>Church, Aalto Museum, Schildt' House.. to  desing these buildings.. either
>you need the genius of Aalto or you can use a CAAD system to help you do it.)
>
>Often times, I have heard from Archtecture students that they choose simpler
>forms in their designs becuase it easier to draw and build models.. (with a 
>specific example of a Dome).  Don't you agree CAAD tools make these things 
>trivial to imagine and Construct.  Please don't think of AutoCAD when I refer
>to CAAD.  I would agree with you things like AutoCAD have their roots in 
>Mechanical or whaterver design and are written by people who do not undersatnd
>Architectural Design Process or its implications have place in
>the later stages.. like documentation and etc. routine things.  When we talk
>about CAAD, here we are talking about systems which are developed by Architects
>for Architects.  Shape Grammar Applications would be another example for a 
>CAAD system.  
>
I am sure CAAD can offer a lot for architects however I have a couple of things
I would like to mention here.

It is true that many forms and shapes can be better explored with CAAD systems
but is it really easy to build the model using the known CAD methods?
I think the modelling methods are still rigid and they are not as natural as 
sketching with pencils or pens. 
I think many people do not feel easy in using computers in early stages because
they lack the flexibility of the pencils and papers.
I know new hardware such as the electronic sketchpads facilitate the sketching
but I am not sure about the kind of images produced and whether they have the
same effect on the designer as the sketches do.
Further, handling pens and pencils is still more easier than working with the
freindliest systems. This point however will become less significant when the
CAAD systems will spread further in universities and practices.

The other point is to do with shape grammars.
I don't know much about such systems and I wonder if you can shed some light 
here. The only thing I saw is a system
that can design buildings according to a certain style after the user has fed
the system with some methods of generation of shapes.
Here I would like to ask how do these systems work? 
What the user exactly has to do? What kind of designs the computer generate?
How the creativity, novelty and originality can be handled with these kind of
applications?


I. Ballouz
-- 
*******************************************************************************
* IBRAHIM BALLOUZ            **           DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE          *
* ccav38@uk.ac.strath.ccsun  **  STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY GLASGOW SCOTLAND U.K. *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.architecture