We’re living in interesting times.

It doesn’t take much to realize that we have barely scratched the surface of computational design’s potential in the profession. As I write these lines, schools around the world struggle to grasp not only the rapid technological changes but also how these changes impact the profession.

Although some of these concepts have been around for decades, academia and our learning structures have not effectively capitalized on these new tools, rarely exploiting their potential beyond illustrative tasks.

These fears, while well-founded in the desire to avoid fads, have neglected to consider that the process set in motion with the advent of computational drafting in the ’90s is well underway. Failure to prepare practitioners to properly utilize these new tools often results in professionals who are outdated from the day they receive their certificates.

Factors such as the relatively slow pace of new technology adoption in the construction industry, the traditional reward schemes of architectural services, and the constant diversification of knowledge and regulation also contribute greatly to this ongoing confusion. Architects must continuously expand their knowledge to better accommodate changes that no one fully understands.
The natural paralysis originating from this perfect storm cleverly hides behind the motto, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” causing many to cling to romantic ideas of what architecture means and their lofty aspirations of hand sketches leading to complete projects. Of course, it has little impact on these dreams that, in some of these very practices, rank-and-file architects usually deal with more mundane tasks far removed from the creative ideals of the principals.

The disconnect between academia and demand is more visible in the newly educated or recently integrated professionals, who on the other hand, are now expected to have twice the knowledge of their predecessors. They must master technical rules, which takes years to learn, and be proficient in software and new technologies, which no one else in the practice understands but is often looked down upon as a contribution. The alternative, of course, is joining the ranks of the unemployed, as it’s these skills that are now in demand.

How these scenarios will continue to evolve, I dare not say. Constant new elements such as AI and ML (Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning) integrate rapidly and threaten to further devalue the inherent value proposition of architectural design. For me, however, the solution lies not in shying away from these technologies but in mastering these new methods of production.

New technologies are generally disruptive. The problem with computational design is not the disruption of how architects execute their jobs but rather the duality of the new role in which we are both “builder and programmer.” This programmer, in addition, has to be very good at mathematics—a field we have long tried to distance ourselves from while focusing on a false “artistic pursuit”.

It is my hope that these articles and materials serve as a starting point for this new renaissance in the practice, where we take advantage of the new tools at our disposal and together create a new definition of ‘architect,’ more suited to the needs of the future.