In A biased history of CAAD¹ Alexander Koutamanis traces a bibliographic history of CAAD, positing that it emerges from two distinct ambitions: 1) a bottom-up technology-driven evolution of architectural computer graphics; and 2) a top-down domain of theory-minded design automation; including a subcategory of the previous two emphasizing computerization of analysis and evaluation. Results of the analysis are summarized in the above timeline, indicating parallel approaches during the broad adoption of CAAD in the 1980s, and a diversification during the democratic and populist 1990s, ranging from support, computational theory and collaborative projects with other specialisms. Algorithmic Architecture² by Kostas Terzidis shares a similar point that architectural computing is framed by two conditions: 1) bottom-up design realized through abstracted high level programming, i.e. computerization processes already conceptualized in the designer’s mind which are entered, manipulated or stored on a computer; and 2) top-down design realized through little or lower level programming, i.e. computation processes which apply scripting languages available in 3D packages like Maya Embedded Language (MEL), 3dMaxScript and FormZ 4.0.  While valid arguments can be made for all architects to have a broader understanding of computation in general, I would argue that the algorithmic approach is merely a shift towards an extreme formalist grammar. In fact on closer inspection, much of the recent work conceived using such methods has a recognizably visual bias of surface over space. In contrast to web and product design which seems more concerned with how things feel rather than look, architectural theory on the other hand remains trapped in a formalist cul-de-sac, conditioned by an increasingly formulaic geometricism. While I would agree with Terzidis that CAAD’s graphical interface incurs significant constraints on ideation (a view many design educators would share) a paradigm shift is unlikely unless a radical new way of interfacing with computer graphics is developed. Until this happens, computational architecture will remain largely faithful to its formalist roots.

1. Koutamanis, A. (2005). A biased history of CAAD. In Digital Design: The Quest for New Paradigms, 23nd eCAADe Conference Proceedings, Lisbon, September

2. Terzidis, K. (2006). Algorithmic architecture. Architectural Press