Hi,
Just having finished a semester in a studio where almost EVERYTHING was
done on a computer, I think I can say something about the topic of how
computers affect design.
Those who were quoted in the article were right---and they were wrong.
Here, we used the Web for research and consulting (via our web pages at
http://umbra.arch.bsu.edu/pentarch), MS Office for word processing,
calculations and presentations, and Microstation for the design work.
I found that Microstation can do everything I could do with pencil and
paper, and more, once I got a bit comfortable with the interface
(definitely its weakest point---you can tell this has the heart of a
defense contractor tool). You build in 3D, full size. You can place
lights (source and solar), drop in a camera and look around, and develop
flythroughs. You can develop 3D site topography, plop in trees exactly
where they are, and see what the built job would really look like. It's
possible to attach (fairly realistic) materials. blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, one of my classmates is VERY proficient at it and kicked out
amazing stuff in less time than it could have been drawn manually.
The big advantage is that once you "build the model" you can slice
through it for sections and plans, get axons, whatever you want. I hear
Microstation 95 will also have a utility to generate real 2D drawings for
CDs right from the 3D database.
How were the quoted folks right? No doubt about it---the computer
generated images don't have the "feel" of a manual drawing. They aren't
as pleasing to look at from an aesthetic viewpoint, beacause we expect
renderings to be a level of abstraction removed from reality. The
computer stuff is at a different level, sort of like comparing the
Photorealist painters to the Impressionists.
One thing the architects' comments revealed, though: a computer database
is just too precise. You can't hide the fact that you didn't work out the
structures as you can in a drawing. It's either there, or it isn't.
Mark