4 ms·

Of course the problems with all of these are - They are selecting only parts of the rich tapestry of what is meaningful and useful about an architectural space

Of course the problems with all of these are - They are selecting only parts of the rich tapestry of what is meaningful and useful about an architectural space, which can also vary by culture and by person. - They also don't tend to respond to regulation requirements which may be 'hard line' or 'guideline' depending on the place. It's a complex world out there for good reason and it doesn't usually reduce well to a few key variables.

DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
> rich tapestry certainly, let's dive into the rich tapestry of floor plans X-D
szvsw 2y ago
> They also don't tend to respond to regulation requirements which may be 'hard line' or 'guideline' depending on the place. Not sure if you read much of the ones I posted, but they (and the latest version of that work stream in the author’s dissertation) definitely deal with accessibility requirements and so on. That’s pretty much the entire point of tools like these - it’s trivially easy to subdivide a polygon, but non-trivially easy to do so while maintaining various constraints, like clearance sizes, connectivity, daylighting requirements, structural requirements, etc etc.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  The so-called FAR game has been settled for a while - https://www.archdaily.com/787866/why-the-far-floor-area-ratio-game-inside-koreas-pavilion-at-the-2016-venice-biennale https://www.archdaily.com/787866/why-the-far-floor-area-rati... - this was a really interesting retrospective on it. IMO almost all architectural innovation is sales and marketing. This software is chasing the wrong problem.
  - szvsw 2y ago
    I disagree. The world is adding a Manhattan’s worth of buildings to the global building stock every 5-6 weeks or so. It’s insane. The vast majority of those buildings are not being designed by boutique architecture firms… there is definitely a need for better integration of analysis methods for the daylighting, energy usage, and embodied carbon impact of design decisions throughout the design-build process, but especially in early stage design, and especially when operating at scale. But that’s just my 2c
    - doctorpangloss 2y ago
      This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit? Similar forces across all professional industries. Every medical operations innovation also boils down to, wait for it to appear in EPIC for free. Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC? Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right? Software entrepreneurs are in denial about how exceptional Figma was. Adobe is asleep at the wheel sure. But every other professional services company? I don’t know, it’s tough for Godot, Blender, Black Magic, EPIC competitors that no one has heard of… Then you listen to what CEOs who are paying attention actually say: marketing, monetization, sales, etc (John Riccitiello comes to mind). Meanwhile Gensler, Dentsu, whatever are using the kinds of sophisticated analyses you’re talking about to sell post-construction support, it’s a little insincere. It’s just increasing cost to convince them to do a better job. One thing’s for sure: there is a glut of buildings people do not want to buy and also a shortage of buildings people are willing to pay dearly for. Better massing isn’t going to solve that. You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then.
      - szvsw 2y ago
        I think I agree with a lot of what you said to some extent, but not entirely > Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right? For what it’s worth, I’m not saying “too much construction” - I’m value-neutral on how much construction will happen over the next few decades and was just trying to state the fact that there will undeniably be a lot of it, for better or for worse. > Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC? I mean I know people working on the sorts of tooling being discussed here, and yes some of them either go on to work at Autodesk or sell IP to Autodesk. A major path in academia is to try things out that are even farther at the bleeding edge than industry R&D, then go on to form startups (which yes often result in failure when they realize that production-grade development is significantly harder or that there is no market for it or, like you said, Autodesk folds it into a pre-existing product). > This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit? You say that like it’s a bad thing. It might be a depressing realization for people who hope to change the world with their work, but even if just a handful of buildings end up taking advantage of a certain feature that results in a better column grid (eg), it can end up offsetting more carbon than the original researcher would by riding their bike into school for like, 20 years rather than driving. In fact, if you really care about maximizing your impact as a researcher, having your tool folded into an Autodesk product, even if they copied your methodology from the papers you published and you get 0 financial compensation of any kind, is kind of the ideal outcome (even if that makes you a chump). You should just go work for Autodesk if you are upset about being a chump. > You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then. While I love this last paragraph from a literary perspective, and it does resonate with me, I’m not entirely sold on the idea that the entirety of analytically informed design should be viewed through such a pessimistic lens. I agree that a lot of numerical analysis of building performance in the context of clients/sales/etc is just smoke and mirrors/dog+pony show stuff, but that doesn’t mean that it does not still have a real impact on the actual buildings being designed. The point of these tools is not to make better pitch decks, it’s to make better buildings (from a carbon perspective, from a user perspective). It’s not like the work just goes out the window.

DemocracyFTW2 2y ago

> rich tapestry certainly, let's dive into the rich tapestry of floor plans X-D

szvsw 2y ago

> They also don't tend to respond to regulation requirements which may be 'hard line' or 'guideline' depending on the place. Not sure if you read much of the ones I posted, but they (and the latest version of that work stream in the author’s dissertation) definitely deal with accessibility requirements and so on. That’s pretty much the entire point of tools like these - it’s trivially easy to subdivide a polygon, but non-trivially easy to do so while maintaining various constraints, like clearance sizes, connectivity, daylighting requirements, structural requirements, etc etc.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
The so-called FAR game has been settled for a while - https://www.archdaily.com/787866/why-the-far-floor-area-ratio-game-inside-koreas-pavilion-at-the-2016-venice-biennale https://www.archdaily.com/787866/why-the-far-floor-area-rati... - this was a really interesting retrospective on it. IMO almost all architectural innovation is sales and marketing. This software is chasing the wrong problem.
- szvsw 2y ago
  I disagree. The world is adding a Manhattan’s worth of buildings to the global building stock every 5-6 weeks or so. It’s insane. The vast majority of those buildings are not being designed by boutique architecture firms… there is definitely a need for better integration of analysis methods for the daylighting, energy usage, and embodied carbon impact of design decisions throughout the design-build process, but especially in early stage design, and especially when operating at scale. But that’s just my 2c
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit? Similar forces across all professional industries. Every medical operations innovation also boils down to, wait for it to appear in EPIC for free. Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC? Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right? Software entrepreneurs are in denial about how exceptional Figma was. Adobe is asleep at the wheel sure. But every other professional services company? I don’t know, it’s tough for Godot, Blender, Black Magic, EPIC competitors that no one has heard of… Then you listen to what CEOs who are paying attention actually say: marketing, monetization, sales, etc (John Riccitiello comes to mind). Meanwhile Gensler, Dentsu, whatever are using the kinds of sophisticated analyses you’re talking about to sell post-construction support, it’s a little insincere. It’s just increasing cost to convince them to do a better job. One thing’s for sure: there is a glut of buildings people do not want to buy and also a shortage of buildings people are willing to pay dearly for. Better massing isn’t going to solve that. You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then.
    - szvsw 2y ago
      I think I agree with a lot of what you said to some extent, but not entirely > Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right? For what it’s worth, I’m not saying “too much construction” - I’m value-neutral on how much construction will happen over the next few decades and was just trying to state the fact that there will undeniably be a lot of it, for better or for worse. > Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC? I mean I know people working on the sorts of tooling being discussed here, and yes some of them either go on to work at Autodesk or sell IP to Autodesk. A major path in academia is to try things out that are even farther at the bleeding edge than industry R&D, then go on to form startups (which yes often result in failure when they realize that production-grade development is significantly harder or that there is no market for it or, like you said, Autodesk folds it into a pre-existing product). > This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit? You say that like it’s a bad thing. It might be a depressing realization for people who hope to change the world with their work, but even if just a handful of buildings end up taking advantage of a certain feature that results in a better column grid (eg), it can end up offsetting more carbon than the original researcher would by riding their bike into school for like, 20 years rather than driving. In fact, if you really care about maximizing your impact as a researcher, having your tool folded into an Autodesk product, even if they copied your methodology from the papers you published and you get 0 financial compensation of any kind, is kind of the ideal outcome (even if that makes you a chump). You should just go work for Autodesk if you are upset about being a chump. > You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then. While I love this last paragraph from a literary perspective, and it does resonate with me, I’m not entirely sold on the idea that the entirety of analytically informed design should be viewed through such a pessimistic lens. I agree that a lot of numerical analysis of building performance in the context of clients/sales/etc is just smoke and mirrors/dog+pony show stuff, but that doesn’t mean that it does not still have a real impact on the actual buildings being designed. The point of these tools is not to make better pitch decks, it’s to make better buildings (from a carbon perspective, from a user perspective). It’s not like the work just goes out the window.