Re: Architecture and Virtual Reality

- - The original note follows - -

From: cyberoid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Architecture and Virtual Reality
Date: 23 Jan 1994 22:18:29 GMT

In article <baw2-230194120836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bradford A. Wellstead <baw2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <gibsonf1CJqpvr.CFG@xxxxxxxxxx>, gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx (Frederick
>Clifford Gibson) wrote:
>
>> Architecture and Virtual Reality - Is a convergence near?
>
>In response to the incredible technology advances you describe I am
>curious... How long did it take for the Virtual Realists to input the
>information necessary for these flyby's (throughs?)

Actually, building models in three dimensions requires the same amount
of time whether the model is intended to be experienced in 2.5D (on a
terminal) or immersively. There is additional time required to prepare
a model for immersive experiences, but it's not onerous. How about the
time it takes to prepare a professional rendering by an outside consultant
(which I hear goes for $30K a pop these days) or build a carboard model?
All things are relative.

>I have been an architect for 10 years in numerous contexts and am
>reasonably proficient in the current technological tools. Costs of the
>hardware and software aside, if it takes an extraordinary amount of time to
>input a model are there truly going to be advantages to the profession?
>Once a client has flown through and approved the proposed design it still
>has to be drawn and built. Are there really any specific advantages.
>Designers must still make the same number of decisions, in fact more up
>front, in order to make a reasonable client presentation. What happens
>when the client makes the massive and unforeseen changes? A lot of time
>has been perhaps misallocated.

Although it's too soon to conclusively test the hypothesis, early ad hoc
experiments with potential clients in immersive environments have so far
produced positive results. That is, there is greater confidence in the
client's response to the presented model, whether that response is pro or
con or something in-between. We know for a fact that conventional modes
of presentation produce results in which all parties have low confidence,
so again, the issue is one of doing things in the not-so-inexpensive
traditional way, and failing; or perhaps trying another way and succeeding.
The problem is the immediate redundancy of having both methods coexisting,
which merely doubles the costs.

As far as changing a model to suit client preferences, it may be easier
to do in a 3D environment than with conventional sketches and blueprints.
In a large construction project, blueprints may cost up to _seven percent_
of the total project cost, so that's not the way! CAD and CADD gets us
closer to 3D and makes the transition fairly painless.

>At the same time, I have found the profession in need of a good kick in the
>rear -- a change of paradigm if you will -- in order to make it a more
>viable business _and_ profession.

The danger to the profession is that it sits on its butt while the
contractors and builders, not to mention the more aesthetically
inclined engineers, start using these tools to supplant architects.
If representing space is technologically feasible, then the architect's
claim to exclusivity based on his or her ability to "envision" space
and then represent it via a sketchpad and a good shpiel is threatened.

>Don't get me wrong, I am all for great technologocal advances for
>architects but tools doth not a process change (much)

What precisely is the "process" of architecture? Seems to me that it's
all up for grabs.


Bob Jacobson
Partial thread listing: