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

Crowdsourcing Architecture
A study of distributed cognitive systems and their
role in facilitating transformative practice

Philosophical epistemes have influenced architecture for millennia. Platonic rationalism championed a utopian and moralistic trinity of firmitas, utilitas, and venustas. Kantian idealism emphasized the primacy of embodiment as the noblest of objectives. Lockean empirical methods sanctioned the incrementalism of archeological and ethnographic science. And constructivist theories of self-organization have powered the development of autopoietic systems. Such shifts notwithstanding, Vitruvian principles still dominate theory and practice. Moreover, as specialization continues to emphasize sociological divisions between building designers, interior designers, landscape architects and others, it is perhaps not surprising that academic theoreticians are ‘further removed from practice and from buildings than ever’.

While computer-aided design (CAD) has delivered sophisticated capabilities across a range of disciplines, its ability to generate ideas (ideation) has been rather superficial. Indeed, studies reveal that CAD’s emphasis on production has constrained creative flow and bounded ideation to ‘surface over space’. We argue that as the nascent field of transformation design begins to reconfigure notions of creative authorship and the role of practice, architectural tools that perpetuate Vitruvian principles of firmness, utility and delight no longer seem adequate. As recent support for Maslow’s ‘theory of motivation’ suggests, the two human scales most neglected by the Vitruvian system – ‘physiological’ and ‘self-actualization’ needs are directly linked to current epidemics of obesity and clinical depression.

Clearly, cultural shifts toward extrinsic goals such as materialism and status and away from intrinsic goals such as personal meaning and affiliation have come at a cost. In an attempt to counter such biases, we propose future CAD tools begin to prioritize the role of ‘user’ rather than ‘expert’. According to the Design Council: ‘because transformation design is about applying design skills in non-traditional territories, it often results in non-traditional design outputs. Projects have resulted in the creation of new roles, new organizations, new systems and new policies. These designers are just as likely to shape a job description, as they are a new product’. Thus, if design thinking is to operate beyond CAD’s traditional form-making role, alternative crowdsourcing tools must begin to address all scales (levels) of human motivation.

Keywords: CAD, crowdsourcing architecture, transformation design, hierarchy of needs

thesis abstract by G M Munro