Widespread availability, coupled with considerably reduced production costs, has afforded a growth in the use of computers unthinkable 20 years ago. That many of us engage unquestioningly with digital technologies on a daily basis provides some indication as to how easily, yet significantly, they have been assimilated into our everyday lives. Of course, it was not always thus. Indeed, even as recently as the early 1990s very few architectural practices used computers other than as timesaving devices for administrative tasks such as word processing and accounting. The design process was typically analog, using traditional methods including freehand sketching, physical modelmaking, drawing on drafting boards, and manual final rendering techniques. Although computers were being used in other industries, early attempts to adopt them for architectural design, such as the Columbia University Paperless Studio project of 1992, were generally viewed as novel distractions rather than serious propositions for the future of design culture. Fast forward two decades and we find ourselves in a position where almost the reverse is true—we are almost unable to understand the design process of architecture without a degree of integration with digital technologies.
Architecture, of course, is not alone in this radical transformation, but before we begin to examine the potential of computers and digital technologies it is worth having a synoptic understanding of how we arrived at the contemporary situation. It is tempting to suggest that it was simply a matter of time before designers adopted technological developments, but this supposed inevitability belies a much more intricate series of historical events and societal changes. As Antoine Picon concludes, “Technology is seldom the only explanation, especially in architecture where so much depends upon economic, social and cultural factors. The transformations that we are observing today. They are also the result of a much longer and complex historical process than the recent conversion of designers to digital tools.”1
It may be surprising to realize that the foundations for many present-day uses of digital technologies were laid at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A period typically referred to as the Second Industrial Revolution, this era witnessed a primary shift not only in modes of mass production and distribution of goods but also in the rise of information that supplemented these changes. As a consequence, the need to deal efficiently with all this data underscored the development of electric tabulating machines. Such machines evolved during the Second World War, giving birth to the computer as an advanced tool for handling huge quantities of information using mathematical logic, specifically binary operations, and the recent discoveries within electronic technologies to develop computability. The latter was of particular importance as it greatly increased the speed at which calculations and, by relation, information could be processed. These electronic calculators were vital for the military advancements made during the conflict. The ability of these early computers to control missile launches and trajectories alongside other increasingly complex weapon systems meant that the enormous investment in such technologies bred further cutting-edge changes. The first computer network, the Semi-Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) System developed in the 1950s to coordinate radar operations, was one such advance. Inherent in such developments were innovations including video displays, artificial memories, and information-translation processes that, after their initial inception in a military environment, would be integrated into commercially available systems.
Operator using the SAGE System interface.
Ivan Sutherland, with his early parametric CAD computer interface and screenshots, illustrating the use of the lightpen to change a design, 1963.
Archigram’s Computer City, the infrastructural networks that allowed Plug-In City to be more than an inert system of components, 1964.
Beyond this stage of computational development, a number of strands emerged which allowed this newfound technology to explore its limits. Significant here was the research and development into artificial intelligence and cybernetics, which negotiated the boundaries between the human and computer/machine interface. However, this was still primarily driven by a desire to optimize the people’s capability in military scenarios. The relationship between humans and their environment is, of course, a fundamental preoccupation for architects, and so, with the advent of the new era ushered in with cybernetics, came a rich field of inquiry. In his influential article of 1969, “The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics,” Gordon Pask outlined the potential for architects: “The design goal is nearly always underspecified and the ‘controller’ is no longer the authoritarian apparatus which this purely technical name commonly brings to mind. In contrast the controller is an odd mixture of catalyst, crutch, memory and arbiter. These, I believe, are the dispositions a designer should bring to bear upon his work (when he professionally plays the part of a controller) and these are the qualities he should embed in the systems (control systems) which he designs.”2 This highlights one of the most important research themes during this period, that of efficiency. The ongoing experiments with cybernetics and systems theory were developed on the notion that informational processes formed patterns in nature and human endeavor that could be subsequently analyzed for strategic implementation within the built environment. This transformation was also occurring in the corporate field, wherein architecture was responding to the growing need for pattern-based designs to foster better performance within workplaces and corporate hierarchies. The resultant modularization of factory and, particularly, office designs began to span the apparent divide between the theoretically rigorous machinations of a corporate body and the social behavior and patterns of individuals and small groups.
A key development in the evolution of the spatial nature of workplace planning was the design of the IBM System/360 by Eliot Noyes in the 1960s. This system comprised various modular components that could be organized in tandem with office furniture, and reflected the integrative manner in which IBM, among others, viewed the design of such space. This was further illustrated by the “A Computer Perspective” exhibition, curated by Charles and Ray Eames and held at the IBM Corporate Exhibit Center, New York, in 1971. Such events mirrored the increasing interrelationships between architecture and computer culture. In his Fun Palace project of 1960–1, British architect Cedric Price embraced cybernetic theory as the principle upon which his design for a theater and cultural center would operate. Through collaboration with Gordon Pask, Price proposed a backstage computer that would offer a feedback loop between spectators and performers, facilitating an integrated system of continuous interaction. In 1976, Price subsequently developed his Generator Project, this time teaming up with John Frazer, a pioneer of artificial intelligence, to design a modularized system that was programmable and adaptable to its own environment owing to its built-in intelligence. Of course, while Price was one of the most forward-thinking architects of his time he was certainly not alone in his attempts to engage architecture with computer technology.
In Paris, Yona Friedman had, since 1958, been exploring the possibilities of The Spatial City, a vast megastructure or architectural “circuit board,” across which elements could be added, removed, or enhanced. This theory would be developed during the late 1960s in his design for Flatwriter, a computerized system that enabled individual inhabitants of a city to imprint their personal preferences with respect to their apartments, and by using symbols to reference the different elements of these decisions the builder, as well as their neighbors, could understand the choices made. In the United States, Nicholas Negroponte founded the Architecture Machine Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1967. Through his directive to explore the interface between human and machine, typified in seminal papers such as “Towards a Humanism through Machines” in 1969, one of the research strands the group pursued addressed the relationships between humans and computers. This objective eventually gave rise to the Media Lab, which continues to push the boundaries of innovation and experimentation with regard to digital technologies and architecture today.
Gordon Pask’s Colloquy of Mobiles for the “Cybernetic Serendipity” exhibition held at the ICA in London, 1968. Conceived as a reactive, educable, computer-based system comprising five mobiles, the installation enabled visitors to have a “conversation” with the machines by using lights and mirrors to activate the rotating mobiles.
An IBM 360 mainframe computer in use, late 1960s. The modularization of the system’s components allowed easy assimilation into the office environment.
John and Julia Frazer’s Generator interface, developed in collaboration with Cedric Price, 1976–80.
Meanwhile, over in the UK, the avant-garde group Archigram were keen to absorb the latest technological advances into their Pop Art and science-fiction explosion of arresting imagery and provocative ideas. Indeed, the polemic of one of their most influential projects, Plug-In City, 1964, was given further impetus by the novelty of its power source: the “Synthesised Metropolis With Electronic Changeability,” aka Computer City. The key feature of this project was its depiction of computer technology not merely as a representational tool but as an environmental model. In Dennis Crompton’s words: “The activities of an organized society occur within a balanced network of forces which naturally interact to form a continuous chain of change. A METROPOLIS is situated at the point of maximum display of interactive energy and shows the most complex field of forces. In the COMPUTOR [sic.] CITY this energized field is synthesized at a much higher sensitivity and is programmed to respond to changes in activity.”3 The contours of Computer City therefore comprised not information but how information moved from one place to another. Although this was a conceptual project that did not directly involve itself with technology beyond illustrative implications, it signaled an important movement that was occurring internationally as architects sought to address the emerging presence and potential of the computer in society. This position was taken to its logical conclusion in Archigram’s later project, Instant City, 1968–70, which examined prevailing attitudes regarding city centers in relation to networks. As Hadas Steiner has observed, “the urban experience of Instant City was shifting toward a point where information and the city were synonymous. In its ideal form, Instant City would provide a bundle of services; its urban strategy would be connectivity and speed over geographical advantage. To inhabit an advanced network, information and the city would be fully decentralized commodities that travelled the same infrastructure, like computers on phone lines.”4 This essentially describes the contemporary situation of many cities worldwide, wherein the physical urban landscape is augmented by digital networks, and was particularly prescient.
Architectural history books describe the late 1960s and early 1970s as a very rich time for cultural experimentation, and attempts to embrace computers into this mix were also manifold. The introduction of the Internet into the public domain and the mass consumption of personal computers during the 1980s and 1990s, led to an increasing prevalence of computer technology in everyday lives. The effects of this ubiquitous technology upon the individual in society were discussed in Nicholas Negroponte’s Being Digital: “As we interconnect ourselves, many of the values of a nation-state will give way to those of both larger and smaller electronic communities. We will socialize in digital neighborhoods in which physical space will be irrelevant and time will play a different role.”5 Parallel to this was the ongoing investigation into the capacity of computers to drive architectural design. In more radical research areas, this was not simply a case of computers imitating what humans could already do but actually replacing them within the design process. As John Frazer outlines in his widely well-regarded An Evolutionary Architecture, “Architectural concepts are expressed as generative rules so that their evolution may be accelerated and tested. The rules are described in a genetic language which produces a code-script of instructions for form-generation. Computer models are used to simulate the development of prototypical forms which are then evaluated on the basis of their performance in a simulated environment. A very large number of evolutionary steps can be generated in a short space of time, and the emergent forms are often unexpected.”6
This leads us toward the contemporary situation, in which architecture and computers are frequently synonymous. From conceptual design to manufacturing and on-site assembly, computers and digital technologies have transformed not only the way we represent our ideas but also the means through which we generate them. A range of digital tools is now available: Explorative ones allow the designer to investigate emergent concepts via novel computation and generative form finding; descriptive ones, such as three-dimensional modeling and visualization, enable us to understand a design and its development; predictive and evaluative analytical tools allow designers to test the implications and performance of design ideas; and some tools even act as part of the final production of building elements and coordination of construction. It is the last aspect that provides this book’s central focus. However, we will also discuss some of the other interdependent and beneficial approaches to digital technology’s use in architectural design and production. Digital fabrication, therefore, is typically, but not always, a later stage of the design process, and as the name suggests, it is a method using digital data to direct a manufacturing process. That does not mean it follows a conventional route and that design results in the pushing of a button to make something—in fact, nothing could be further from the truth! Many of the fabrication processes featured here require the designer to consider the elements to be fabricated much earlier in the ideation stage.
Detail from the Universal Constructor, a working model of a self-organizing interactive environment made as a group project led by John Frazer, 1990.
The transformational nature of digital technologies is prevalent in a range of architectural projects, such as the iconic Blur Building, Yverdon-les-Bains, built for the Swiss 2002 Expo. Literally an “architecture of atmosphere,” the design uses an intelligent weather system to read varying climactic conditions—temperature, humidity, wind speed, and direction—and processes this data in a computer to regulate the water pressure of the “fog” accordingly.
A key aspect of digital technologies is interactivity. This interface, developed by Coop Himmelb(l)au for their Brain City Lab project, allows visitors to act as emitters or attractors of information within the installation so that their position and movement directly influence the information flow within the virtual city, producing new connections and centers.
Design and manufacturing processes from other disciplines are being integrated with architecture to develop innovative methods of constructing complex geometrical elements. VoltaDom is an installation designed by Skylar Tibbits for MIT’s 150th Anniversary Celebration & FAST Arts Festival, 2011. The project expands the notion of the architectural “surface panel” by intensifying the depth of a doubly curved vaulted surface, while maintaining relative ease in assembly and fabrication. This is made possible by transforming complex curved vaults into developable strips. The assembly could be likened to simply rolling a strip of material.
