Do they also copy the volatile temperament? I've always wondered how important that is to managing creative or groundbreaking teams. I work in architecture, where that temperament is way more common than vision and talent.
Not the GP, but I've been in a few situations like that, where yeah, they copy the volatility too. I think it was deliberate. Worked with someone who morphed in to that, and I think he thought it was either expected or somehow a requirement for 'success'. Being volatile and yelling and copying other aspects of Jobs (and that behavior in general) is ... not great, but it's doubly so when you're pulling that on people who you're not even paying.
Getting berated or public raked over the coals from a jackass 'founder', but you've got decent $ coming in - some people can justify that to themselves, at least for a while. Expecting people to take that shit when they're working for 'equity'? Have seen that and it's insane. Good thing was/is that I've not seen it much, and haven't seen those situations play out successfully. But... the Apple/Jobs myth was powerful on that part for a long time (probably still is?).
You’re right on but I would like to add in data interoperability. Revit is the standard and the 2700/year is nothing compared to paying 25-50/hour to retrain employees. But Revit doesn’t even open its own files from the past. If you built a building in Revit 2015, you need that exact version to keep using the model for maintenance and repairs. We all have a cascade of versions from our first project to the current year. Further, integrating structural and mechanical engineering into the BIM process is great but all three firms (or more for larger or more complex projects) must be on the same version to share files.
Insanity.
I now use ArchiCAD which is focused on Open IFC as the interchange format. It’s not perfect but it’s a good step. Once data interchange works then mixing in more specialized tools for certain tasks becomes easier so FreeCAD wouldn’t have to compete with the entire Revit toolset all at once.
That is not correct. You can open old files with a newer version of Revit, it will upgrade your file to the current version you are using (though not always a smooth process on large files), what you can’t do is open a newer files with an older version of Revit, regardless if it’s one or five versions different. This, for me, is absolutely wrong for a software company to do, only so they can keep you on subscription!
Still waiting for the “Revit killer” app, but sadly FreeCAD is not it.
I'm genuinely interested - do you (or a firm you know) work that way or do you keep models siloed to their Revit years? I left Revit in 2017 so I'm not sure if the upgrade model features now work well enough that standard practice is to move forward with each new version. And I'm also ready for a Revit (and Archicad and Vectorworks and also drawing as architectural products) killer... Is anyone working on one that you know of?
I'm an architect and I have a few thoughts to offer to possibly help your thinking about your future dream home.
First up is I would strongly encourage you to keep all the pieces of the project separate in your thinking. In residential construction you're buying a printed drawing set and printed specification manual with architectural stamps on it - for commercial and high end construction, the product can be a BIM model but residential architects won't have experience delivering that product so it will take some research. The contractor is providing physical materials arranged into a house matching the plans and specs from the architect.
You can and should take as much control as you want over that process but just have it clear in your mind what the products are. The house you're going to live in will not be better or worse based on the means of creation but rather the product. Some methods will give you a better end result more efficiently, but many paths will lead to a wonderful, high quality home that you is exactly how you want.
What you will gain by controlling means of creation is the ability to control the drawings in the future if you want to make changes or repairs. BIM models are now delivered to clients in commercial projects because they offer great power for maintenance and energy use control in the future.
Relating to your interest in simulation and generative design: The easiest way to get into generative design right now is Rhino with Grasshopper. If you're primarily interested in energy simulation then adding in the DIVA plugin would help too. Grasshopper's built-in functions can handle the geometry simulation already. Grasshopper support Python as well, if you're fluent. Revit + Dynamo is relevant due to Revit's market dominance. Those are the standards to which FreeCAD's tools will be held, both in ease of use and power of output. Additionally, any unbiased rendering engine can simulate daylight for you.
I'm not aware of anyone using FreeCAD, but it's on my radar as something to look into over time. I currently professionally use Archicad, I have used Revit, and I have used Rhino and AutoCAD. Training on new software is very time consuming and switching for a single project would guarantee a loss for the architect if the traditional 10-12% of construction cost is used as the fee. If any of my firms had to use a new software and make money on a single project the cost would be about double.
I would suggest you aim at working with someone local to you since there are such wide differences between how things are done in different markets. Also try to get the contractor and architect on board early and together if you want the most control on the outcome. In commercial construction that's "design build" or "integrated project delivery", more or less. It will be hard to achieve that integration in residential construction but money talks and if you offer to pay the architect hourly and pay the contractor hourly for pre-construction services then you have a chance of achieving you dream process, but at a higher cost.
I wish more of the industry worked how you envision. I'm hoping to work toward that goal myself. Good luck when it eventually happens for you!
I currently professionally use Archicad, I have used Revit, and I have used Rhino and AutoCAD. Training on new software is very time consuming and switching for a single project would guarantee a loss for the architect if the traditional 10-12% of construction cost is used as the fee. If any of my firms had to use a new software and make money on a single project the cost would be about double.
I am not an architect, but I would second this based on my experience with 3D modeling and having to dabble in AutoCAD at times. The learning curve for this type of software is steep, so steep that it is almost generational. In other worlds, it takes a new generation to come up using something else for the market factors to change.
Having done both, 3D and dev work, I would argue switching 3D packages is harder than getting up to productive speed on a new language and it's stack. This is why Blender has taking so long to get uptake and adoption by the industry.
The issue at hand is it is really frustrating to be able to do quality 3D work in one software package and then in another you can't do anything but get basic shaped on the screen. Compounding this is these packages are almost all keyboard based when you get to a power user level. Switching package means all that muscle memory just evaporates. When I was doing simulation we were on 3D Studio Max and there was an initiative to move to Alias/Wavefront (now Maya). We lost a significant amount of productivity over the next 6 months. The only reason the 3D artist switched was because it was a company wide initiative. They were happy afterwards as Wavefront had some features did not have at the time, but it was painful.
Regarding part about contracts. I live in Europe, so I'll look into local code about agreement between architect, owner and contractor. I suppose they are quite a lot differences between USA and Europe (not to mention European countries themselves).
Generative design is very interested for me as I am generally into optimisation problems. Ability to interact with design programatically is also first priority. I'll look into Rhino + Grasshopper. It looks nice, but as I mentioned in other comment I'd prefer my tools to be free if I'm going to learn them (I generally think that 3D/parametric drawing is becoming important skill nowadays, even outside architecture/engineering). I also have an engineering physics degree, so writing a solver for some building physics is not out of the scope, therefore my bias towards FreeCAD.
I surely understand that cost of switching would make it a loss if standard fee is applied. Billing hour is absolutely fine by me. Thanks for the tip about getting contractor and architect on board early and together.
To add some details I have the site and I'm not in a hurry at all, since there is already one house on that property, already built. I also have rough idea how it should be placed, look and function. At the moment it's more of a hobby project than true need to build a house.
Sorry to have assumed you're in the US. I don't know much about European residential architecture (although I did get to spend a semester in Barcelona and a semester in Helsinki in graduate school for one studio each), but I do know that European contractors on average produce much better work than US contractors. Your energy codes will be more stringent and so many more people you encounter will be familiar with simulation in order to hit tougher targets. But yes each country has its own set of standards, codes, and local knowledge that will come together differently in each case.
If you already have your site and you have a lot of time then I can say that one of the most productive ways of designing is through mapping. Guy Debord's map of Paris is an extremely subjective example, and at the other end of the spectrum might be to overlay a grid of half meter intervals all over the site and measure somewhat precisely some physical phenomena - the angle of view to various points of interest, or perhaps how loud ambient sounds are, or the sun exposure in hours, or any number of things. Putting these maps together can result in emergent designs or at least bring about considerations that maybe weren't foremost in your mind about siting, window placement, or program location. Of course, the most important map is the terrain map, tree placement height and canopy size, and rock placement, the more detailed the better.
Hopefully one day someone will compete with Rhino + Grasshopper in open source. At least the maker of Rhino has the OpenNurbs toolkit to develop geometry translators, so that's something. It does look like an exciting time to learn FreeCAD and I hope it goes well for you.
There's nothing really definite about generative design in literature yet, but there has been some useful stuff published. One of the more impressive researchers I've ever heard of is Achim Menges http://www.achimmenges.net working with the University of Stuttgart on biomimicry and optimized structures. Very cool stuff.
Also if you don't yet you might visit Archdaily regularly and check out what the industry is doing. Perhaps something will inspire you.
Architect here. This gets much more difficult if you dive into the deeper problems that architecture attempts to address. Victorian/Queen Anne homes are based around smaller, more numerous, and more specific rooms. The exterior appearance flows from the way that people lived in that time, with the HVAC and construction materials and methods available to them. Ornate hand detailing on the high-quality surviving examples looks right because of the scale and use of the spaces within, as well as the market of hand carpenters. Applying a kit of modern materials to diverse spatial problems won't really yield good designs.
There's a reason that modern architecture developed around the international style when concrete, steel, glass, and mechanical HVAC all developed and became cost effective at the same time as open-floor plan living and the decreasing number of household staff. All of these factors go hand in hand and a robust solution would have to touch on these deeper considerations. Not to say it's impossible, but trying to put out there that architectural design is more than skin deep.
To use your analogy, you can use React to build what used to be a mid-90s static styled HTML site, but you probably wouldn't.
Sorry the late/long answer. Took a couple of stabs to get this brain download for you.
I've been wrapped in that very question. I'm trying my first spec home right now and residential construction is a total mess, as the article makes clear. Small, informally organized contractors are a real problem at this scale, and the labor + material cost is already so high that it's a real struggle to compete with existing buildings in my market. I'm expecting to break even or perhaps net $50k for about 1.5 years of work, but part of that is tuition for the learning process.
At the high end - commercial buildings, complicated skyscrapers and so on - construction work is becoming vastly more streamlined, controlled, and predictable. It's now possible to have daily laser scans of your construction progress, automated inventory management of pieces scanned on site, detailed digital models that everyone can access and comment on, and all of that is becoming the norm. Check out Leica laser scanning, ProCore, and Trimble Connect for examples. From the design side, the push is heavily into generative design with some progress being made with machine learning informed generative design. These processes are mostly about enabling new, more complex designs or more fully optimizing specific parameters, not about automating what is already tedious like updating drawing sets and checking that code compliance (especially ADA clearances) is kept after changes (a big opportunity for disruptive software to take on incumbents, I think). At residential scale and cost, generative design is generally a very high-end luxury. I worked at a high end firm in New York City that had some details that were done in Grasshopper, but we're talking about $5,000 interior doors fabricated from aluminum - well beyond what a typical residential customer would want.
The best tool for small scale and cutting edge design is Rhino with their included Grasshopper plugin. There's no building intelligence in that tool so all the work is very manual, modeling each component in 3D from scratch. But that's the gold standard. The generative tools are visual programming interfaces, but there are many ways to delve into Python and C# if you're more comfortable there. You can write Python in Grasshopper and you can write C# and Python (with some limitations) plugins in Rhino. Revit is the standard tool for design (at every scale other than residential) in the US and they include a generative tool call Dynamo, which also supports Python and C#. Revit is a BIM tool so it includes components that can adapt to geometries, contain wall assemblies, nest objects like windows and doors on walls, and ties in to energy simulation more fluidly. For pure geometry development and home design, SketchUp is still widely used. I don't have a concise thing in mind about those but at least that is a starting point for you.
Something that will continue to become more important is environmental impact. Net-Zero and Passivhaus certifications will become more mainstream eventually. We're getting to a place where LEED is important but pretty watered down compared to more effective programs. Energy modeling (another software opportunity - better integrated and always-active energy modeling) will become the best way to control comfort and energy use.
In terms of best practice, the lesson I keep learning is that it's about interfacing with the industry. Contractors expect certain inputs like 2x6 stud walls made with Doug Fir No. 2 @16" on center. If you try to get them to use screw-together metal framing, true steel framing or concrete to get those expansive enormous windows, or even heavy timber, they will take longer and the product may be worse unless you find the right person. If you want to go down the cutting edge route, working closely with your fabricators is very important. What metals can they source, what tolerances can they run their particular laser cutter / CNC / water jet systems at, what software stack do they use etc.
For books... Form, Space, and Order by Francis Ching is a great first purchase.
For something light and very accessible, I enjoyed Bill Bryson's At Home, which investigates how the modern home came to be. Really fun. Doesn't really address what we're talking about directly but gives some insight into why you might choose different forms to express different cultural norms and ways of living.
I'm not an architectural historian and I don't know a lot about the theory of detailing before modern architecture. But I do know that a lot of it boils down to thinking and especially proportional thinking from Ancient Greece and Rome. There is a strain of critical architectural history that even contemporary architects learn. Vitrivius - the Ten Books of Architecture, Alberti - On The Art of Building, Palladio - Four Books on Architecture, Semper - The Four Elements of Architecture, Le Corbusier - Towards a new Architecture. Sprinkle in some Laugier - an Essay on Architecture, Rasmussen - Experiencing Architecture, Wittkower - Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, Giedion - Space, Time, and Architecture, (along with a couple others I'm forgetting) and you have a good start on architectural theory. Those books comprised about 1/3 of my theory training. The rest was history textbooks. As a side note, architecture is interesting in that rigorous study can take place with pictures, so don't write off just getting photo books of buildings that interest you.
In terms of building technologies, Francis Ching is widely respected and very accessible. I haven't read his Introduction to Architecture but he's fantastic so give that a shot. What I have on my desk always are Building Construction Illustrated and Building Codes Illustrated. If you intend to take on a building project and be involved, I would consider those essential.
I just got The New Net Zero by Maclay and it is so far a really accessible and pretty comprehensive look at approaching zero energy buildings.
Modern Architecture Since 1900 bur William Curtis is my favorite textbook on the development of modern architecture (which is most of the important bit for contemporary work). Kenneth Frampton is an excellent architectural historian and his book Modern Architecture: A Critical History is great but more opinionated. His book Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture is not as accessible but is probably the best look at the topic we started out on - the relationship between space and technologies. Le Corbusier's Toward an Architecture is much more accessible and makes the case but just for the introduction of International Style.
In terms of getting at what architecture can be when it's truly executing as art, I can recommend three books very highly. Bachelard's The Poetics of Space, Pallasmaa's The Eyes of the Skin, and Peter Zumthor's Atmospheres. I really strongly recommend reading those as the primary way to understand what building art is or can be.
The other thing I would suggest is that if you're interested in developing your own designs, architects are incredibly cheap comparatively. If you want a recently licensed recent graduate to help you with the process, even suggesting books or just sort of meeting with you and critiquing your thinking, you could probably find that for $20-$50/hour. Even some very experienced good architects would do it for $120-150/hour. It's like the movie industry - as long as you're not booking the top A-listers you can get a lot of value.
I run architecture software on Windows and Mac on my MBP.
On software that supports it I use it and vastly prefer it to F-keys. For instance, I never remember the F-key shortcuts for AutoCAD. In the macOS version, with icons on the Touch Bar, I use them all the time and it's fantastic. For system shortcuts, I find it about the same as using the F-keys on the previous model.
On Windows, I frequently brush by the Touch Bar when entering numbers (for dimensions) and pressing escape to cancel commands. Even the side of a finger is enough to trigger a shortcut, unlike a physical key that requires some amount of force directed downward. This is quite frustrating and likely a real productivity loss with no real gain for software that just shows standard F-keys. I should re-map my caps lock key but I need to switch between camel case for naming objects and all-caps for notes frequently.
I hope that I can eventually customize the bar in BootCamp and then it will be a mild improvement over the old way but neutral-to-negative unless you're in macOS on supported software only and then if you don't already have muscle memory for the shortcuts.
