Its ableto built bilbao's guggenheim directly in archicad?

[Alanerniquez]

Im new at this thing of the BIM and i think is amazing switching from ancient autocad way of drawing to Archicad but i have found kind of difficult triyng to design very organic shapes and with maxon form seems more difficult so i would like to know if there is a way to design something like Gehry's designs directly from archicad.
waiting 4 your answers and tell me how you do it if u can.

[Anonymous]

The solution ..... is to "send it down to the technicians, they will come up with something…"

Conceptual preliminary design... lots of hand drawings, some modeling, a few renderings doctored by talented digital artists...

... and the project ends up in a drafting pool filled with an extraordinary number of auto-bots [read: cheap labor] smooshing our blobs...

... most of the Archicad users on this forum ...don't thirst for non-repeating irregularity

by their own admission to using ArchiCAD, they do!

[Dwight]

I can see that you are more than my match in hyperbole.

What i mean is that the blob smooshers are the dreamers who don't know how to assemble a structure, and they'd smoosh blobs less if they knew what it takes to realize their naive, drug-addled visions.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

......ah yes, the usual anti-blobitecture/free-form/organic-modeling bashing party that we always get whenever someone raises the issue of ArchiCAD's piss-poor tool-set and versatility in this area -

always triggered, of course, as a defense for Graphisoft's reticence and obstinacy to improve the tools in AC.

There's nothing quite like the smell of youthful dreams getting crushed in the morning, through the the generational divide when them older folks try to teach the young 'uns that they'll never be able to get their fancy ideas built simply because the technology (that they, the older folks) use doesn't permit it and because we don't usually do things this way in Architecture.

I would be curious to know when the last time it was that any of you went into an architecture school, particularly the graduate schools just to see what the architects of tomorrow are being challenged to design. I'm even tempted to ask just how far back, and how long ago, you guys were actually in architecture school period, but that might be hitting a little below the belt.

Bottom line is that in a lot of the schools where they actually encourage their students to pursue these kinds of formal investigations in their design processes (I'm thinking, schools like the AA, Columbia, Harvard GSD, Sci-ARC in L.A. and IAAC in Barcelona) - you know, cutting edge, leading design schools, it's not simply no longer just a question of being able to conceive these designs and put them down on paper. No, a lot of these schools, actually place a great, if not greater, deal of emphasis on the whole rationalization of these forms and buildability of these designs - by way of finding out and distinguishing between what can actually work with today's technology and what really is just a pipe dream. In other words, they do get challenged on questions of fabrication, structure, sustainability and even economic feasibility. Architectural education has moved beyond the question of whether or not these forms are actually conceivable, ( we know they are) or even whether or not they are buildable ( the Gehry's and Hadid's out there have proven time and again that they are), to the most optimal ways of actually constructing these forms, even bringing into the equation, questions of parametricity in design and fabrication, and the role of scripting in the design process.
The question is, what tools exist to allow them to do all this and right now, in most of the schools I mentioned you'll find that the weapons of choice are software like Rhino (probably the most popular design AND documentation tools in Architecture today, even beginning to surpass AutoCAD), Maya, and to a lesser degree Sketchup and MAX. It's not surprise that McNeel have made a concerted effort over the last couple of Rhino versions they've released, to improve the documentation and digitization capabilities of their program as well as really trying to tie into the AEC market beyond their traditional product design and Nautical (boat) design client-base. They can clearly see the trend in Architectural design even as Rhino is picked up by more and more smaller Architecture firms the likes of which can't afford the Digital Projects and CATIA's but who still don't want to be constrained by their tools in their design and conceptualization processes.

Whether or not you like this style of architecture, it certainly here to stay and will likely be the dominant style for tomorrow's architecture for the cutting-edge types, coming out out of architecture school today and who will be designing the multi-functional complexes of tomorrow. And the question of whether or not clients want to or will want to build this kind of architecture is somewhat rendered moot by increased significance of iconic and "signature" buildings in modern socio-economic metrics wherein part of the value of a building is in its capacity to draw attention as much as to fulfill its programmatic requirements; the Bilbao effect at a micro-scale.

The other important question of course is, where does ArchiCAD, or by extension, Graphisoft fit into all this. Going by the blinding support on threads like these, one can only surmise, being left behind. ArchiCAD used to be cutting edge when we needed a more intelligent way to design and construct conventional architecture - today, intelligence in design and construction is pretty much getting to the point of being a standard of a given especially when you consider that the likes of Vectorworks will be a fully BIM application in 2 years time. It's developers (AC) never conceived or allowed, for any possibility that it might have to address non-conventional forms with non-Euclidean geometry, and it clearly tells today as it chokes on imported double-curved surfaces. but as long as their customers never give them a reason to, they'll never see the need to adapt or change what's worked so well for so long. Meanwhile, Whereas ArchiCAD used to be taught in the advanced design courses of those schools that I previously mentioned ........10 years ago!!!, the fact that today more students are trying to ensure that they're well versed in the Rhino's, the Generative Component's and the Maya's, before they get out into the job market gives a pretty good idea where this field, and this product are headed.

ArchiCAD is falling behind. So is Revit - but at least they're showing that they're aware of where this trend in design is headed and they also have that multi-headed monster Autotable backing them.

[Anonymous]

Well, no long and fancy retort here.
Just a simple fact.
With the current world economic state likely to stay for a bit, more sensible heads may prevail.
Green, comfortable, affordable should prevail. Hold the caviar please!
Archicad (improved) should be just fine.
Bier

[Anonymous]

Bricklyne wrote:
......ah yes, the usual anti-blobitecture/free-form/organic-modeling bashing party that we always get whenever someone raises the issue of ArchiCAD's piss-poor tool-set and versatility in this area -

always triggered, of course, as a defense for Graphisoft's reticence and obstinacy to improve the tools in AC.

There's nothing quite like the smell of youthful dreams getting crushed in the morning, through the the generational divide when them older folks try to teach the young 'uns that they'll never be able to get their fancy ideas built simply because the technology (that they, the older folks) use doesn't permit it and because we don't usually do things this way in Architecture.

I would be curious to know when the last time it was that any of you went into an architecture school, particularly the graduate schools just to see what the architects of tomorrow are being challenged to design. I'm even tempted to ask just how far back, and how long ago, you guys were actually in architecture school period, but that might be hitting a little below the belt.

Bottom line is that in a lot of the schools where they actually encourage their students to pursue these kinds of formal investigations in their design processes (I'm thinking, schools like the AA, Columbia, Harvard GSD, Sci-ARC in L.A. and IAAC in Barcelona) - you know, cutting edge, leading design schools, it's not simply no longer just a question of being able to conceive these designs and put them down on paper. No, a lot of these schools, actually place a great, if not greater, deal of emphasis on the whole rationalization of these forms and buildability of these designs - by way of finding out and distinguishing between what can actually work with today's technology and what really is just a pipe dream. In other words, they do get challenged on questions of fabrication, structure, sustainability and even economic feasibility. Architectural education has moved beyond the question of whether or not these forms are actually conceivable, ( we know they are) or even whether or not they are buildable ( the Gehry's and Hadid's out there have proven time and again that they are), to the most optimal ways of actually constructing these forms, even bringing into the equation, questions of parametricity in design and fabrication, and the role of scripting in the design process.
The question is, what tools exist to allow them to do all this and right now, in most of the schools I mentioned you'll find that the weapons of choice are software like Rhino (probably the most popular design AND documentation tools in Architecture today, even beginning to surpass AutoCAD), Maya, and to a lesser degree Sketchup and MAX. It's not surprise that McNeel have made a concerted effort over the last couple of Rhino versions they've released, to improve the documentation and digitization capabilities of their program as well as really trying to tie into the AEC market beyond their traditional product design and Nautical (boat) design client-base. They can clearly see the trend in Architectural design even as Rhino is picked up by more and more smaller Architecture firms the likes of which can't afford the Digital Projects and CATIA's but who still don't want to be constrained by their tools in their design and conceptualization processes.

Whether or not you like this style of architecture, it certainly here to stay and will likely be the dominant style for tomorrow's architecture for the cutting-edge types, coming out out of architecture school today and who will be designing the multi-functional complexes of tomorrow. And the question of whether or not clients want to or will want to build this kind of architecture is somewhat rendered moot by increased significance of iconic and "signature" buildings in modern socio-economic metrics wherein part of the value of a building is in its capacity to draw attention as much as to fulfill its programmatic requirements; the Bilbao effect at a micro-scale.

The other important question of course is, where does ArchiCAD, or by extension, Graphisoft fit into all this. Going by the blinding support on threads like these, one can only surmise, being left behind. ArchiCAD used to be cutting edge when we needed a more intelligent way to design and construct conventional architecture - today, intelligence in design and construction is pretty much getting to the point of being a standard of a given especially when you consider that the likes of Vectorworks will be a fully BIM application in 2 years time. It's developers (AC) never conceived or allowed, for any possibility that it might have to address non-conventional forms with non-Euclidean geometry, and it clearly tells today as it chokes on imported double-curved surfaces. but as long as their customers never give them a reason to, they'll never see the need to adapt or change what's worked so well for so long. Meanwhile, Whereas ArchiCAD used to be taught in the advanced design courses of those schools that I previously mentioned ........10 years ago!!!, the fact that today more students are trying to ensure that they're well versed in the Rhino's, the Generative Component's and the Maya's, before they get out into the job market gives a pretty good idea where this field, and this product are headed.

ArchiCAD is falling behind. So is Revit - but at least they're showing that they're aware of where this trend in design is headed and they also have that multi-headed monster Autotable backing them.

Well said....bravo......couldn't have said it better

[Djordje]

Guys ...

It is sad that the software of our choice does not have all the bells and whistles - and blobbing has been near the top of the wishlist for ages. Which one does have everything? None.

But, as much as blobbing is essential for the development of the young design minds, please note that NO software can and will - in my lifetime, IMHO - surpass the fluid movements of a pencil on a non-slippery surface ... because our mind's eye sees what is not there. You don't do the drawing, you define the essence of what you are thinking about.

Plus, I was talking about the real world. I don't know how many blobby buildings have blobmeister and Briclyne built - that is all that counts. That is what we learn and work for. Me? None. See below.

Software developers target a certain population, and tend to produce tools that are needed by 80% of them 80% of the time. The rest are workarounds. On that scale, ArchiCAD fits the bill. Yes, I have to fire up the 9 with the last free GDL Toolbox to do the tents and the shells for the project I now work on - the second since the third year of university (that one does not count) that has that kind of geometry. It's been 25 years. The first I did never got built because the owner died just as the building permit was getting ready. This one might not be done because of the current shi*storm in the financial markets and the investors getting cold feet. So? There go my blobs ... snif. However, the rest of the non-blobby projects did get built, from here to Elista. I can say I am not unhappy.

So, bottom line - if this project is not done also - I might never have a built project with any part of it curving in more than one direction.

No, Briclyne, I am not bitter. In my time, Sinclair Spectrums and ZXs ruled. XTs were a dream. So I should be envious of the students now, toting Macs? And, all the faculty here should excuse and correct me if I am wrong, I still have to see a full time faculty member that has actually got up to his knees in the building site mud, ever. So "checking the designs against the reality of construction" or something like that - yes, for sure, in the academic environment.

So, the point was: the MAJORITY of the projects does not need the blobs. Or wants them. Even the ones that start blobby, in great majority boil down to two dimensional curves.

I applaud those who had the luck to be in the right place at the right time, and find someone who would finance their dream, whatever the geometry. Who had the opportunity to create their own software. Who will have the opportunity to work on Generative Components or some other second or nth generation BIM (or whatever will it be called). Good for them! Wish you guys who are just starting the same.

But the reality is - only a small percentage of us gets to do something like that, ever. So, back to ArchiCAD - I would prefer cleaning the existing problems, and having a real full BIM application with seamless connection to MEP and structural packages, before it gets blobomatic tool. Because, today, that's what's needed and what you get paid for.

It is never wrong to want more!

[Thomas Holm]

Djordje, I have to quote:

blobmeister wrote:
Well said....bravo......couldn't have said it better

[Anonymous]

Djordje
Well grounded, yet leaving room to dream.
Perfect.
Bier
PS
Now G.S., can I have my perfect stair tool?

[Anonymous]

I have been a guest critic at a school of architecture for nearly 30 years and in that time have seen student fads come and go. Mostly go.
Cutting edge technology does not translate into cutting edge architectural design. Different forms maybe, but good design? Not usually. Because we have the software to do blobs (or whatever) doesn’t mean we should. Whatever happened to following a creative design process that would lead to truly creative and appropriate forms? It’s too easy to open the latest magazine and let the software do the work for you.

Then again a blob just might be the ideal design solution. Mmmmmmmm, actually I can’t think of anything offhand, unless the primary goal is to make a monument. Oh yeah, Frank Gehry. He looked at an architectural history timeline and decided no had done “silver potato chips” and it would be a great way to go down in the history books. Swell, just what we need to teach our kids.

Don’t get me wrong, I like blobby stuff. The blobbier the better as it only makes it easier for the rest of us to do more “adventurous” work. Give me the budget and I can detail anything so it won’t leak, blobby or not. In the words of our (in)famous leader “Bring it on!” Then again, MIT is suing Gehry for $15 million-but I digress.
When I critique a student project, I first ask them what their concept is. By that I mean, why should their project even exist and what contribution is it making to their clients, the surrounding area and the well being of the cosmos in general. If they have one (and most don’t) I will accept it on it’s own merits even if I don’t agree with it. The second question I ask is, how do the program and the physical form meet the goals of their defined concept. Square or blobby, it does not matter! Do the forms solve the problem or are they simply “cutting technology”-latest fad- super software driven-super inkjet-eye candy. All the frosting in the world can’t make up for a birthday cake made of concrete.

A student recently asked me about designing a football (soccer) stadium for the Chelsea Football Club in Chelsea. I said you need to define what a stadium should be in the 21st century, above and beyond a place to play soccer occasionally. What else can it mean to the community of Chelsea? How about making the program to include mixed use, low income housing, day care center, giant solar energy collectors, etc., etc. Already, students in the class were doing seating layouts and with visions of the Bird’s Nest in their minds, downloading the newest version of Rhino. Get at that façade! Fire up the frosting software so to generate some really cool skins. Something based on abstracted cellular geometry for sure. I understand that’s hot nowadays.

To make a point, I asked the student what should a new Super Dome be for the city of New Orleans. How would it impact the local citizens, the great majority of whom could never afford a ticket to an NFL game?
The levees will almost certainly be breached again. What if this time the “stadium” was designed with secure spaces for shelter, sanitation facilities and emergency food supplies? Maybe the new Super Dome should look like a gargantuan red cross ship that would protect the locals from the effects catastrophic flooding.

Should it look like a modern day Noah’s Ark festooned with solar panels, wind generators (hurricane capable) and roof gardens to grow fresh food? A ship of safe haven on land. Now those are some goals that would make for some truly creative and original forms.
Then the low-income citizens of New Orleans won’t look at the Super Dome as a place for the rich, but as a positive contribution to the entire community. Hey, those Saints are my team and they really do care about me and mine.

With that in mind, load up Rhino and do some blobitecture that will be way cool because it has true meaning derived from a creative thought process.
By the way, IMHO, hideously expensive, gravity defying, no people accommodating blobitecture will not be a lasting trend. As if really good architecture is ever trendy.

In the 30 years I have been doing student critiques, the advent of cad has changed architectural education more than any other single influence. And from first hand experience, not for the better. Students are tempted to a forego a rigorous thought process for the glitz and glamour of 3d generated form.

I love my computer and ArchiCad (most of the time), but I was taught how to sketch and think.

BTW, whatever happened to Ant Farm?

Don Lee

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

I would argue against CAD or computers having changed anything substantial in architectural education, or the problems of architectural education.

The widespread confusion between the means of representation and the subject of representation has been there forever. 150 years ago it was fancy gouache, 40 years ago especially in America it was fancy cardboard models and pen or marker, for a few decades it has been fancy color photographs on glossy paper (you design the building that will result in that photograph), for a few years now it has been fancy glossy renderings, the new thing is fancy 3D-print models.

When that confusion prevails in professional practice, the resulting real-life buildings are large scale reproductions of the true design which is something else (the model, the rendering, the glossy picture --say, a very pretty Zaha painting results in a hideous Zaha building representing that painting). Lots of architects and architecture schools have been engaged in that forever. As a necessary complement you have engineers who call success the somehow making of a building out of a fancy something else that doesn't make any sense as a building.

[Of course there is also a lot of non-architecture by architects, and a lot of good solid architecture too. But CAD has nothing to do with the quality of architecture, it matters in terms of production only --the architects of the Munich Olympic Stadium and the Sydney Opera didn't use any CAD at all.]