How are algorithmic and parametric modeling being integrated to traditional design methods?

since the introduction of tools like grasshopper, there has been a context where old and new methods of design are working together. how would you think, from your experience, that this new tools and methods are changing the way architects and designers were used to work

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on November 12, 2015 at 11:30pm

If we classify AEC studies the classic way: preliminary, definitive and final and if studies are performed bottom-top in parallel with the archaic top-bottom way and if all these are under some BIM umbrella ... then "parametric" is about 5% - max - of the whole related 100% with the first phase (BID included) whilst feature driven 3d modelling (not available in Rhino) goes up to the final way. Additionally when in the final phase addressing things the "parametric" way is like 3rd marriage.

Remember: a "parametric" concept (or a collection of "parametric" variants) and 600++ drawings + specs + BOM's + you name it ARE not the same thing nor they have anything in common.

All in all: when the big pictured is considered ... not much has changed (if at all) regardless what students/academics may think/wish/hope/expect. On the other hand if Form (that DOES not follow function these days) is your primary consideration ... then yes "something" has changed.

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on November 13, 2015 at 1:34am

BTW: Here's my way to "train" my people with regard "parametric" dreams (or hallucinations) : assume that we design a stupid, simple, NON blob tower like in the sketch outlined by the small 3dPDF attached (say: top-bottom)... and assume that in parallel we "solve" the how to do it little thing (even at BID stage, say, bottom-top): the big 3dPDF (one out of a zillion possible solutions).

Can you tell me how the "bottom" could be seamlessly fused with the "top" ?

And who's actually the master on this story?

Attachments: