Patrick Franke
Abstract

The importance of digital technology continues to grow in the field of Architecture, making paper a thing of the past. Where drafting equipment was used previously computers are now implemented; however, the role of digital production does not stop there. Machinery is steadily taking over the design work as well and is no longer merely a tool used to simplify the path to realization. The article suggests that the digital element is used differently from office to office, and that digital technology is capable of assisting the designer in a variety of capacities. The use of digital programs in this sense- as a kind of genius assistant to the designer- is profoundly beneficial. However, a problem develops when the software program takes dominance and the designer becomes the subordinate.
As discussed in the reading, computer programming takes on various duties in a given design. One of these roles involves using computer technology and simulation abilities to perform precise, accurate site analysis. In this context the use of digital software is completely appropriate. Data is entered regarding the site which is then analyzed in a way that a person cannot do without the computer. This data includes zoning law information, wind and sun patterns, as well as preexisting topographical conditions.
When used for site analysis, digital technology gets along quite well with the designer. The computer has a clearly defined (and limited) role, and the data to be entered is entirely objective. The software program is simply performing tasks that would be difficult if not impossible for a designer. It is providing useful analysis for the design, and is therefore indirectly influencing the final product.
Digital technology is taken one step further in the next type of use. This involves using computer programs to create the structural system for the design. The computer is no longer providing useful information but is now becoming involved with the design process in an active way. The structure of a building is a part of the building’s overall aesthetic, and if it is being designed by a software program then a significant portion of the project is disingenuous. In the issue of structure, however, efficiency is the main objective. A computer is capable of creating a much more efficient structure than the designer is alone. This is a quality that is too valuable to write off as an act of laziness; the computer is able to help save raw materials and in the process cut costs down.
In the most extreme case, digital software can be used to generate the form of a design itself. In this process, the designer enters in parameters that act as restrictions or restraints on the computer’s design possibilities. The more stringent the parameters, the more similar the result will be to one another. In this process the designer has been all but removed from the design. It is no longer the product of a person with the ability to think; it is now less of a design and more of an enormous math equation.
I feel that the complete involvement of digital programs in the generation of a design results in a building that is lacking in life. While it may be visually stimulating and organic to the point of being naturalistic, it does not have the consideration of a human creator. A software program is not able to imagine itself in different spaces, nor is it able to gauge comfortableness. A building should be the manifestation of a designer’s vision, not a model of efficiency engineered by a computer.
As the article describes, the role of digital generation applied to architecture can be divided into two parts. The first is objective, which simply involves storing and rearranging data so as to be of greater use and value. The second category deals with the digital program taking on subjective design work. In this instance, the digital program is taking responsibilities from the designer and as a result the final product suffers. The role of digital generation should be limited to assisting and not the main instrument of design.