I am in the school of Architecture, Art and Planning at Cornell. While I am not an architecture major I know that the architects spend long long hours in the studio drawing and building models of all of their designs. On a side note as a planning student I find it sad that the City Planning department uses 25 Dells to run GIS (Global Information System). I think we should do the same thing that Univ. of Cincinatti did and switch to Powerbook G4s.
Having quickly read the above I thought an English viewpoint might be of interest.
Autocad has become the 'industry standard' here. I've been using it in various forms from release 2.5 onwards, it's still poor value for money in comparison to other programmes.
Although the practice I work for uses LT2000i on PC I use Vectorworks Architect 9.5 on iMac at home.
Apple doesn't need 'legacy' software. As long as the software that is available is good and will work with 'industry standard' file formats then there is no problem.
The AutoCAD for Macs question is mostly a "mindshare" thing -- it shows Macs to be more, um, mainstream. Like Office or Quicken, as long as people know they're available for the Mac, it lends a sense of credibility or comfort in choosing a Mac regardless of whether you actually use it.
Bentley still seems like a pretty big player in the UK, but maybe that's just my impression from stuff like the recent Norman Foster exhibit. I think I mentioned this already somewhere in here, but I'd be *really* happy if MicroStation/TriForma made it to the Mac.
Does anyone still use MicroGDS on that side of the Big Pond?
I've always admired architects (and industrial designers) but lacked the artisitc talent and creativity to become one myself. I use VectorWorks 9.5 on my iBook to design hot air balloons, but otherwise have no experience with any CAD programs. With this limited CAD background but a long-standing appreciation for good architecture, I have greatly enjoyed the discussion in this thread.
The discussion here makes me wish I hadn't given up on architecture and design so easily when I chose (in high school back in Switzerland) to pursue a literary/legal career.
<strong>The AutoCAD for Macs question is mostly a "mindshare" thing -- it shows Macs to be more, um, mainstream. Like Office or Quicken, as long as people know they're available for the Mac, it lends a sense of credibility or comfort in choosing a Mac regardless of whether you actually use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great point, BuonRotto. It's just sad to see how conservative (i.e. adverse to change, unknown things and often progress) human nature is.
Regarding AutoCAD for Mac OS X: My hunch is that Autodesk would experience problems similar to Microsoft's with Office v.X if they were to bring AutoCAD (back) to the Mac. Office v.X helped legitimize OS X in many people's minds. But sales of Office v.X have disappointed Microsoft. AutoCAD for OS X would certainly help legitimize the platform in many environments, but the sale of licences may not be profitable (enough) to warrant Autodesk's investment.
Escher
PS: I'm glad to hear that VectorWorks is one of the more intuitive CAD programs. I'm also going to check out SketchUp and graphics tablets. Nothing beats an intuitive free-form way for fixing ideas.
my wife is finishing up her masters in architecture right now, and i'd be interested in seeing what options are available on the Mac side of things. doesn't look like all that much really, but it was a thought.
she's going to get to use my old iBook during school, it would be nice if she could do her autocad assignments on it as well as word processing stuff.
my wife is finishing up her masters in architecture right now, and i'd be interested in seeing what options are available on the Mac side of things. doesn't look like all that much really, but it was a thought.
she's going to get to use my old iBook during school, it would be nice if she could do her autocad assignments on it as well as word processing stuff.
The discussion here makes me wish I hadn't given up on architecture and design so easily when I chose (in high school back in Switzerland) to pursue a literary/legal career.
Escher<hr></blockquote>
Hey, it's never too late to drop everything and enroll in architecture school, where all of your previous experience doesn't mean anything and you can be treated like you're in elementary school!
I'm only half joking. A number of brilliant people I know, who would have been great architects, opted out of formal architectural training ? either before a program began or during it ? but they've kept their enthusiasm for architecture. I often think that cultivating an attitude toward the built environment and having an appreciation for building, housing and design is as valuable as anything taught in school, and something you needn't to go to school for. Since we all live and work in buildings, we all are 'experts' in our own ways, when we chose to ask questions about these environments.
*is jealous of everyone with the ability to conquer the horrendous math course requirements of an architecture major*
I have a deep admiration for architects, well, most anyway. Especially when after inquiring, I discovered the reason so many new buildings are so horribly bland and sterile is because the clients themselves usually shoot down any good (interesting/adventurous) designs.
And upon looking at older, and very, very complex structures (Empire State Building, World Trade Center, Eiffel Tower) I am utterly amazed by one thing above all else.......
Slide Rule......it was all done with a slide rule. No AutoCAD, no Form Z, no electric calculators. Just slide rules.
<strong>A number of brilliant people I know, who would have been great architects, opted out of formal architectural training...
...Since we all live and work in buildings, we all are 'experts' in our own ways, when we chose to ask questions about these environments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The frustrating thing is, for someone who simply obsees about the built environment (and often the unbuilt one too), many people are oblivious to their surroundings. Some people look at you like you're crazy when you mention "building" and "idea" in the same sentence.
[quote]<strong>Originally posted by Doctor Gonzo:
Especially when after inquiring, I discovered the reason so many new buildings are so horribly bland and sterile is because the clients themselves usually shoot down any good (interesting/adventurous) designs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're obviously familiar with the project I'm working on! A lot of people answer to the lowest common denominator. I can't tell you how many times we have company CEOs tellling us "Buildings? I want a shoebox, but add holes so people won't complain too much. But, ooh, I like trees. I want lots of trees."
I have two good ideas for this "town center" building on my screen right now. I fully expect them to go down in flames come Monday. They will hate them.
[quote] I can't tell you how many times we have company CEOs tellling us "Buildings? I want a shoebox, but add holes so people won't complain too much.<hr></blockquote>
That sounds like some sort of sad joke. I'm horrified to know that it's not.
[quote]".....But, ooh, I like trees. I want lots of trees."<hr></blockquote>
Lemme guess......a bunch of tiny saplings in a large, barren expanse of grass and parking lots?
Here in Memphis, such things are the rule, apparently. No one believes in shade, anywhere for any reason. Even with it being so freaking hot for so much of the year, they still think "Just turn up the AC!" Connecticut was the complete opposite. Except for a few oasies of treeless, zero-lot sprawl here and there, the natural environment was highly valued by most people.
Architecture seems to be a profession of endless frustration. I used to have lots of romantic visions about it. But after I understood that the clients don't want anything above the level of "habitable", I gave them all up. I would rather the current manner of design be a result of some horrible trend in the field, as opposed to a client-side decison. Because, as you very well know, all architectural trends pass eventually.
But the "Blander is Better" mentaility seems to have a firm grip on society. CEOs don't want anything more than a shoebox, and many homeowners are more than willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for a gigantic zero-lot house that looks identical to 50 others on the same street and looks sterile and devoid of life as possible on theinside.
I envy you, but I also pity you.
Feel free to rant some more, I appreciate your insights greatly.
Truth be told, the main reason that designs come off looking so bland is something called "cost engineering". A design starts out with great imagination and innovation, only to be decimated by a thousand tiny cuts.
Hey Dr. Gonzo, might you be working for LRK? I made a friend with somebody who's branched off on his own from there. I was there for a week working on something with Turley and LRK a few years ago. I -really- liked downtown Memphis but I know that I was seeing it from a visitor's perspective...mainly from the conference room in Henry's office in the old Cotton Exchange building. That was really nice having a penthouse office overlooking the Mississippi River!
On topic: I think that I would consider buying AutoCAD for the Mac if it were released, just so that I could have that common application under my belt.
We call it "value engineering" in our office. Nice euphemism, eh? Value engineering = cheaper, plain and simple. Of course, you (almost) never have the budget to go all-out with your buildings. You try to concentrate your budget where it counts, but sometimes even those priorities get messed up.
Right now, the building I just jumped on had its budget for the main entry facade axed (nevermind that I don't think it's the main entry), but they're paying to have the brick in the window openings on the other sides return 8". That's a significant cost added in both labor and materials. While the windows on those sides will look better set back 8" instead of 2", at some point you have to make trade-offs.
Anyway, trying to be on-topic, Architosh pointed out that there is a consortium for the .dwg format now. I've really yet to see seamless .dwg file translation, even with a product like IntelliCAD that uses .dwg as its native format, but this is helpful start (well, it's been around for a while now, but still). Aside from the usual database and .dwg tie-ins, I wonder if simple translation of drawings and views into illustrator or similar specifically graphics and layout application would be a compelling feature. I guess .eps is the format for something like that?
I have only skip read this thread so I might have missed it, but am surprised no-one has mentioned ArchiCAD. By far the best high end Architects CAD software around and its fully cross platfom comptable. By the time you cost up all the autocad addons it is cheaper.
Also it reads and writes to DWG with comprehensive options for mapping the file attributes.
Comments
Nice to see another AAP Cornellian around.
Autocad has become the 'industry standard' here. I've been using it in various forms from release 2.5 onwards, it's still poor value for money in comparison to other programmes.
Although the practice I work for uses LT2000i on PC I use Vectorworks Architect 9.5 on iMac at home.
Apple doesn't need 'legacy' software. As long as the software that is available is good and will work with 'industry standard' file formats then there is no problem.
Regards,
John
Bentley still seems like a pretty big player in the UK, but maybe that's just my impression from stuff like the recent Norman Foster exhibit. I think I mentioned this already somewhere in here, but I'd be *really* happy if MicroStation/TriForma made it to the Mac.
Does anyone still use MicroGDS on that side of the Big Pond?
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
The discussion here makes me wish I hadn't given up on architecture and design so easily when I chose (in high school back in Switzerland) to pursue a literary/legal career.
Escher
<strong>The AutoCAD for Macs question is mostly a "mindshare" thing -- it shows Macs to be more, um, mainstream. Like Office or Quicken, as long as people know they're available for the Mac, it lends a sense of credibility or comfort in choosing a Mac regardless of whether you actually use it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great point, BuonRotto. It's just sad to see how conservative (i.e. adverse to change, unknown things and often progress) human nature is.
Regarding AutoCAD for Mac OS X: My hunch is that Autodesk would experience problems similar to Microsoft's with Office v.X if they were to bring AutoCAD (back) to the Mac. Office v.X helped legitimize OS X in many people's minds. But sales of Office v.X have disappointed Microsoft. AutoCAD for OS X would certainly help legitimize the platform in many environments, but the sale of licences may not be profitable (enough) to warrant Autodesk's investment.
Escher
PS: I'm glad to hear that VectorWorks is one of the more intuitive CAD programs. I'm also going to check out SketchUp and graphics tablets. Nothing beats an intuitive free-form way for fixing ideas.
she's going to get to use my old iBook during school, it would be nice if she could do her autocad assignments on it as well as word processing stuff.
she's going to get to use my old iBook during school, it would be nice if she could do her autocad assignments on it as well as word processing stuff.
<a href="http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm</a>;
However, I'd rather see Datacad on Mac.
The discussion here makes me wish I hadn't given up on architecture and design so easily when I chose (in high school back in Switzerland) to pursue a literary/legal career.
Escher<hr></blockquote>
Hey, it's never too late to drop everything and enroll in architecture school, where all of your previous experience doesn't mean anything and you can be treated like you're in elementary school!
I'm only half joking. A number of brilliant people I know, who would have been great architects, opted out of formal architectural training ? either before a program began or during it ? but they've kept their enthusiasm for architecture. I often think that cultivating an attitude toward the built environment and having an appreciation for building, housing and design is as valuable as anything taught in school, and something you needn't to go to school for. Since we all live and work in buildings, we all are 'experts' in our own ways, when we chose to ask questions about these environments.
I have a deep admiration for architects, well, most anyway. Especially when after inquiring, I discovered the reason so many new buildings are so horribly bland and sterile is because the clients themselves usually shoot down any good (interesting/adventurous) designs.
And upon looking at older, and very, very complex structures (Empire State Building, World Trade Center, Eiffel Tower) I am utterly amazed by one thing above all else.......
Slide Rule......it was all done with a slide rule. No AutoCAD, no Form Z, no electric calculators. Just slide rules.
<strong>A number of brilliant people I know, who would have been great architects, opted out of formal architectural training...
...Since we all live and work in buildings, we all are 'experts' in our own ways, when we chose to ask questions about these environments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The frustrating thing is, for someone who simply obsees about the built environment (and often the unbuilt one too), many people are oblivious to their surroundings. Some people look at you like you're crazy when you mention "building" and "idea" in the same sentence.
[quote]<strong>Originally posted by Doctor Gonzo:
Especially when after inquiring, I discovered the reason so many new buildings are so horribly bland and sterile is because the clients themselves usually shoot down any good (interesting/adventurous) designs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're obviously familiar with the project I'm working on! A lot of people answer to the lowest common denominator. I can't tell you how many times we have company CEOs tellling us "Buildings? I want a shoebox, but add holes so people won't complain too much. But, ooh, I like trees. I want lots of trees."
I have two good ideas for this "town center" building on my screen right now. I fully expect them to go down in flames come Monday. They will hate them.
Rant over... for now....
That sounds like some sort of sad joke. I'm horrified to know that it's not.
[quote]".....But, ooh, I like trees. I want lots of trees."<hr></blockquote>
Lemme guess......a bunch of tiny saplings in a large, barren expanse of grass and parking lots?
Here in Memphis, such things are the rule, apparently. No one believes in shade, anywhere for any reason. Even with it being so freaking hot for so much of the year, they still think "Just turn up the AC!" Connecticut was the complete opposite. Except for a few oasies of treeless, zero-lot sprawl here and there, the natural environment was highly valued by most people.
Architecture seems to be a profession of endless frustration. I used to have lots of romantic visions about it. But after I understood that the clients don't want anything above the level of "habitable", I gave them all up. I would rather the current manner of design be a result of some horrible trend in the field, as opposed to a client-side decison. Because, as you very well know, all architectural trends pass eventually.
But the "Blander is Better" mentaility seems to have a firm grip on society. CEOs don't want anything more than a shoebox, and many homeowners are more than willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for a gigantic zero-lot house that looks identical to 50 others on the same street and looks sterile and devoid of life as possible on theinside.
I envy you, but I also pity you.
Feel free to rant some more, I appreciate your insights greatly.
[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]</p>
Hey Dr. Gonzo, might you be working for LRK? I made a friend with somebody who's branched off on his own from there. I was there for a week working on something with Turley and LRK a few years ago. I -really- liked downtown Memphis but I know that I was seeing it from a visitor's perspective...mainly from the conference room in Henry's office in the old Cotton Exchange building. That was really nice having a penthouse office overlooking the Mississippi River!
On topic: I think that I would consider buying AutoCAD for the Mac if it were released, just so that I could have that common application under my belt.
D
Right now, the building I just jumped on had its budget for the main entry facade axed (nevermind that I don't think it's the main entry), but they're paying to have the brick in the window openings on the other sides return 8". That's a significant cost added in both labor and materials. While the windows on those sides will look better set back 8" instead of 2", at some point you have to make trade-offs.
Anyway, trying to be on-topic, Architosh pointed out that there is a consortium for the .dwg format now. I've really yet to see seamless .dwg file translation, even with a product like IntelliCAD that uses .dwg as its native format, but this is helpful start (well, it's been around for a while now, but still). Aside from the usual database and .dwg tie-ins, I wonder if simple translation of drawings and views into illustrator or similar specifically graphics and layout application would be a compelling feature. I guess .eps is the format for something like that?
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Also it reads and writes to DWG with comprehensive options for mapping the file attributes.