Thanks a lot Josh. Please check it out.

First, I’d like to clear up any confusion over my attitude to digital technology; my research heavily involves the use of emergent digital technologies, and I have a CompSci background. I do feel though that, having been enamoured by psuedo-3D online worlds and the early days of the web, after nearly twenty years some of the lustre of the “hi-tech” has faded for me. In particular, I’d like to point out that I have no problems with Parametric systems, just some concerns around the use of generative computer processes.

Much of your response is defending the use of parametric systems. For the casual reader, parametric tools allow modelling of the complex relationships between disparate parameters of a system. Their use involves the formalising of parameters being considered in design, and allows you to weigh up and test different configurations.

This isn’t necessarily the opposite of Generative; for example an evolutionary algorithm could run through thousands of generations of building, with consideration of the constraints and relations between parameters and effectively solve it for the dips in cost-vs-benefit for parameters such as (as you suggest) “ecological, social, infrastructural”.

However, generative systems are far from transparent. The generative system for Voxopolis did not seem to involve any interplay of parameters.

I understand that these videos are the result of experimentation, and I really think that the room to play should be respected as a serious necessity of creativity. My concerns are not exclusive to the use of digital technology in architectural design – I wasn’t casting judgement on the basis of technical mastery, I don’t think it’s relevant that this is work by new programmers. At issue for me was the nature of the play. As far as I see it this is play in the dual domains of scripting languages, and urban design, which excluded consideration of the body/human/social. It’s my personal feeling that these should be fundamental/inseparable to urban design.

I think that – intended or otherwise – those who watched your video (circulated outside of its original context) were presented with an implicit narrative of emerging urban design approaches. As you say, it was an experiment, and these flashes of experimentation, as they pull across into popular media, have a way of piquing the imagination and defining the cutting edge in peoples minds. The video certainly wasn’t ironic, and having gone back to source and read around the CAAD course pages I did not see anything which challenged my initial impression of the video’s intent. This might be a lesson to us all on the power of sound/video bites!

That aside, we do have an opinion about computational design and we are far from enamored wide-eyed followers. In fact, we recently wrote a paper abstract reflecting precisely on the shortcomings and potentials of such technology. For us, it holds potential as a tool that augments decision-making processes in design. In a future, more advanced, version the parametric controls would allow for iterative testing on simulated time and therefore allow designers to test ideas before implementation. This means they can begin to integrate performance requirements for ecological, social, infrastructural as well as formal aspects of design. For us, parametric tools are not recipes for automatic cities nor do they absolve architects from dealing with all the exigencies that they normally face. The parameters are just a framework, a set of variables that still need to be defined and still have to be given form. Computation is a powerful tool, but only when understood properly. And we would say that applies to both those who unquestioningly use it as well as to those who categorically dismiss it.

We do not try to make excuses for what we do but we also think that categorical dismissals often close doors on opportunities and innovations that may be discovered in more open engagements. However, we appreciate your invitation to comment and we do think it is a valuable topic for discussion.