Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Uncovering the Revit Subscription Advantage Pack | Main | Ending the quarter on an up-note »

November 11, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Algorithmic architecture is standard practice in most European and Asians firms which is why Revit hasn’t gained any moment in those countries. In the United States, this type of design approach is still viewed as something done by starachitects or students. Unfortunately, because of this, Revit’s methodology is truly catered towards the typical North American traditional architecture, where design innovation takes a back seat. While, from a business stand point, it makes sense to create software where you can pump out off the shelf brick colonials, which suits most firms, it truly kills the concept of a robust tool for architecture. What’s even more disturbing is that Autodesk has a strong opinion about Algorithmic architecture. For years, there has been said that algorithmic architecture is just for the lucky few and Revit needs to concentrate on the day by day AEC industry. Even now, when it’s clearly (and painfully) obvious that cheap and easy to use tools like Rhino Grasshopper is taken over, this discussion whether Revit should be able to generate geometry through rule-based algorithmic computation is still ongoing. It just can’t imagine any Autodesk rep feeling comfortable at an Acadia conference where Revit is viewed as the fat kid in the playground that can’t jump hoops.

At the end, it seems that Autodesk still believes that BIM and algorithmic architecture are two separate things. The push for BIM worldwide can only be achieved if these two worlds meet and are fully integrated. Only then, Revit can be taken seriously as tool a full proof architectural tool.

Very good post, totally agree with Rob.

nice article, and i also do agree wih ROB's post.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Subscribe