AIArchitect

BIM is not the end of design, human creativity can be expressed equally well by CAD manipulation as by hand, and some may no longer see the difference. BIM will enable a new era of design based on a more comprehensive understanding of the entire building, and will make the total impact of design alteration immediately evident. It has the potential to allow us to design with more intelligence.

All I'll say is this:

In the past architects have had to think and 3D communicate in 2D, it is nice that we now have tools that are at least starting to be able to think and communicate in the way we do...this is the promise the CAD made all those years ago and was never able to deliver on...

BIM will be more work on the part of the Architect to input the data. Hopefully you'll get more fees to do it....bet not with Design Build, you'll be bidding lowball against architects that as Phillip Johnson said "are whores".

There is no question that architecture, a 3-d medium, is now going to have a tool up to the task! Designers will benefit from the more responsive 3-d feedback on their designs.

BIM is a logical step in the path toward more sophistication in the building and design industry. Actually architects are way behind the curve, which is why no one working for architects commands the higher salaries relative to other professions.
If anyone thinks BIM will degrade designs and turn us into technicians, how do you explain the use of such technologies and tools in the auto design industry and the great looking cars of today versus ten years ago? Look at the great surfacing and ideas for cars today, this type of technology has made things better for car designers.
Don't you think it is odd that we produce building design with basically the same drafting techniques (just in cad) and then go build things with field cut studs and field applied finishes? Same technology for Louis Sullivan as for us. BIM will take us upward and onward. And great design will always be done by the architects that know how to motivate and move a client to sponsor it.

The objections to new tools often come from those who do not understand the tool. They don't fully understand what the tool does, and as a result they evaluate it from a faulty premise. As problem solvers, architects should instead approach new tools as potential solutions to the challenges of the design process. I, for one, enjoy the fact that in BIM all of my tags and schedules change automatically when I edit a portion of the plan, or section, or elevation, or perspective view. BIM solves a lot of problems, and it allows me to focus on the more important problem: designing my client's building.

Maybe we need to become a little bit better at being a technician.

That is ridiculous. BIM will do more for archtects than anything before it. It already helps architects simulate the building prior to its construction.
Finally, technology is coming closer to the way we visualize our buildings. BIM will enhance creativity

On the contrary, I think BIM capabilities will enable streamlining within the technological processes of the designer and ultimately allow for more "design" time. In other words, this inherent coordination will help acheive more holistic architecture. "Design" is critical at all points in the process.

The comment by the architect who said BIM will kill design is hardly worth disputing it is so wrong, but I know such attitututes are more prevalent among architects than they should be, in fact they may be in the majority. I remember in the 80's & 90's whenever a new version of the ACAD came out most drafters would resist upgrading for fear that they'd have to learn something new, rather than appreciate that they may get some new tools (petty as they are from ACAD) to make it more efficient. Attitudes haven't changed that much. I have tried more than once to institiute the change to Archicad but have met nothing but illogical resistance upper management, apathy or fear from the worker bees.

I think BIM will imply a level of sophistication and complete and total understanding that just won't be there. And that increased "look" of more and better information may imply to owners a greater level of competency than our liability insurance covers. We have to be careful with this. Interns will be inputing items into a BIM that they have no real depth of knowledge about yet. Great spark to learn. Tremendous responsibility not to imply a higher level of care than can be reasonably delivered.

Mr. Allison has it exactly backwards. The builder will become the technician and the architect will be relegated to designer-only. It won't be the architect who will build and maintain the BIM database; the true value of it is not within the scope of the architect's contract. Unless the architect willingly retakes the domain of the construction manager, she will merely become a Design Consultant to the larger construction team. The BIM model allows so much management over the estimating, purchasing, and scheduling of the project that it’s priceless to the General Contractor.
What good is having a quantity take-off of all the doors and hardware parts if the architect doesn't (and can't) share it with the bidders? Why bother with "ordering, delivery, installation, and maintenance information embedded in the database" when the architect doesn't even estimate the price of the job? As more specifications turn 'performance based', an architect’s BIM database will be awful empty.

I have been using some form of Virtual Building Software since 1993. It has been more profitable --fewer people do more, reduced risk --less RFI and coordination issues, and made Architecture fun! And, design is all we do, the tedium of putting together and coordination documents is reduced significantly-- this is the often least understood benefit of the BIM process.

However, if you are considering going from 2D process to 3D, be aware that it is a cultural change -- no more drafting pool -- you need design capability and let the computer do the drafting and doc*ment coordination. Start with a pilot project and your best thinkers. Also be aware that BIM software is different, get rid of 2D! Chant...Believe in the Model and see the benefits for your Practice.

I've always thought that design was far more than an expression of taste - that it also comprised issues of function, structure, human comfort, and practicality, and that client satisfaction is as important a measure of a design's success as the critical acclaim of one's peers.

To that extent, BIM is a design tool. In the hands of an expert, it will result in great design.

BIM continues to miss the simplicity in design that pen and paper offer; Pen and paper offer on the fly analysis of complicated systems that allow the human brain analysis of multiple options at once. BIM has never given me a breakthru like the coworker who solves all my problems by flipping over the tracepaper drawing and rotating it 12 degrees.

BIM's database features also seem to miss the mark. Experienced architects, developers, and builders can look at a project, location, and goals, and come up with a rough square footage price that the most complicated software fails to deliver.

BIM's also lock the project team into a highly regulated system of rules. My design process often involves creating space on paper, without the knowlege of the systems used to create that space - leaving interpretation open as the project evolves through the hands of the project team.

BIM's seem to dictate as soon as an object is drawn.

I personally like fuzzy 24" thick ambiguous masses.

Thanks to the implementation of systems engineers, (non Architects), BIM basically takes a young architect and says, you don't need to know how a building goes togetther, we'll do that for you. So, all you need to know is how to facilitate technology. The creative thought process is slowly being taken away from trained architectural students and being replaced with possibly non architecturally trained personel.

I never thought of BIM as a design tool or method, but as a documentation tool or method that most already use. BIM is simply a potentially better method to coordinate, adjust and change the documentation we already are doing. Design Development, Condocs and materials take-offs contain nearly all this info already.

I have yet to see a digital Design tool that works as flexibly as a freehand line on paper, but that's me and it's only 2d.

Just as we each have our preferences in tools (pencil-model-ink-watercolor-airbrush-drafting machine-cadd-printer-phone), we have our own systems for document coordination. Design is about ideas, space and organizing them. BIM is about making those things buildable, just like traditional con docs.

The difference between design and BIM might be similar to the difference between the car you buy and the manual that comes with it. You don't buy a car for the manual, do you? Yet a manual can be good to have for what it makes possible in the use and/or production of your car. Whether or not (and when) it's necessary or sufficient depends on the larger situation.

The diversity of comments are interesting but the general consensus is that BIM does not hinder design and I agree. There is no one correct way to analyze, solve or document any problem as complicated as designing a building. While it might be great to work out a concept or analyze options using trace and soft pencils, other problems require physical models, full-size mock-ups, 2D CADD, 3D visualization or BIM. Select the right tool for the situation, mix and match the tools over the course of the project to suit the issues and the skills of the individuals; in other words, make the tools work for you instead of you working for the tools.

I do think that BIM can provide architects the chance to take back a more serious role in the construction of the building. I don't think it likely that "technicians" can come back after a design is completed, produce a BIM model and then end up with a high performance building or maximize the effectiveness of this tool. It has to be integrated

It could be a mistake to believe that architects lack a 'serious role' in the construction of a building, let alone a role that needs to be 'taken back'. If that is truly a problem, I doubt that some piece of software is the solution. That's not to say that software has no value.

The challenge here is for professionals to maintain perspective on what is essentially a business decision (buying and using software) in the face of sophisticated marketing hype that's used to sell a bill of goods and services. The fact that decision makers in architectural offices may or may not be sophisticated software buyers seems pretty much lost on the profession - and that seems to me a problem. But is it a problem for the profession, or the marketers?

BIM is not the great salvation of architects, nor is it our death knell. It is a very complicated, but very capable tool. It does not take the place of design, because that happens within your brain.

It allows you to better control the doc*mentation, yes, but also frees you to some extent to explore new avenues that haven't been explored before. Even with our inate ability to see in 3D in our mind's eye, we still have a difficulty actually seeing what is there. BIM helps fill some of that out for us.

For a different take on this, look at the PC gaming industry. 30 years ago, we had Pong. Now, whatever is in the mind of the designer can be drawn, usually in 3D and quite spectacular.

This could be our future, if we free ourselves to look at it that way. Or, we could walk away and go back to our burnt sticks on cave walls.

Our choice.

http://bimology.blogspot.com/
DATE:10/06/2006 12:00:00 AM
IP:64.19.23.130
BIM is not a software tool! It is a methodology that should enable or provide for the comprehensive and well organized virtual environment within which design idea was transformed from an abstract thought into accountable assembly of building components.

Unfortunately BIM is not BPM (Building performance modeling) methodology, and when the major software players decide that is in their interest to merge two, than we will be able to fully understand and predict all of the implications that a design idea can have before it becomes another artifact of human creativity or lack of it. My point is that we should not simply embrace the new set of tools that are geared toward supporting BIM methodology, but we should create an environment of critical thinking that will send a clear message about how to design a truly valuable architectural software solution, because one can quite eloquently argue that MS Excel or Access are as well BIM software solutions.

http://www.design-integration.net
DATE:10/06/2006 12:00:00 AM
IP:65.1.157.94
BIM along with Green Design is breathing new life INTO design. The "good" designers have more valid parameters with which to make intelligent decisions resulting in a building which can perform well AND look good.

BIM right now is a giant leep forward for architects looking for tools to provide better service and better buildings. BIM is a pain in the neck for those who only want to draw lines. There is the tendancy for initial designs to look like what is easiest to do in the software, but after you learn to use the tools, limitations are rare and more than offset by the ability of the software to keep the model "honest" and coordinated- the elevations always match the plan and the roof plan can be built!

OK here comes the hate mail, but my firm’s experience has been that BIM does in fact hinder the early design phases for the type of projects we do. We have it but rarely use it. For some background, we do large mixed-use retail projects (town centers with office, hotels, residential, etc.). We provide almost exclusively architectural planning and design services (Concept to DD). Our design process is very fluid, and outcomes are very much influenced by scale and proportion.

BIM takes a large effort by a select group of staff to enter all the complicated information needed to build the virtual model. This often leads to staffing and scheduling problems. Of greater concern however, is that we find the design exploration suffers. The models are difficult to create, and those creating the models get rather immersed in and almost defensive of them. The result is often a real reluctance to significantly change the design, and quickly explore alternatives.

The other big problem of BIM (and 3D rendered models) is that the image on the screen or printed output has no tangible scale. No matter how well rendered, the model still outputs as a perspective view. For decades we have built big physical models, both for our in-house study, and to communicate the design to the client. Often built at 1/8”, these instantly convey the buildings and the spaces they form. In the beginning these are simply hand or cadd flat elevations on foam core, and can be built very quickly by any staff. Later they become quite sophisticated, detailed and layered.

Our process is very collaborative with the client, and presentations generally are also charette sessions. The physical study models are indispensable here; we hack away at the model to quickly explore ideas on the fly and resolve issues. Clients are comfortable around the study/process nature of the early models and are not afraid to ask “what if” or comment freely.

Sorry, but I think for developing and communicating early design, BIM just can’t give you what real models can.

i am a graduating arch student and i started using bim my last year and i really changed my life. the way how i think and approach new designs now appose to when i started years ago !!!! WOW !!!!!
i can send pdfs to anyone.
i love it so much that i tutor teachers and students and help them cross over
"it will change your life"