Regardless of its tremendous power, the computer has been greatly underutilized in design. As Mario Carpo points out: “It is a well-known pattern in the history of technosocial change that new and potentially disruptive technologies are often first tasked to emulate preexisting ones.” The industry standard today, AutoCAD, although technically superior, is still methodologically inferior to its half century old ancestor. Even considering the fact that over the past decade, Computational Design (CD) has finally started to claim a small corner of the architectural realm, it is fighting a lopsided battle. In order for CD to flourish, the architectural profession must implement a synchronized and parallel advancement of design technology, material technology and construction technology.
I will address two distinct but relevant aspects of design: Technology and Culture.In the first section I will investigate the causal link between technology and design, trace CD’s immolation in the name of industry expediency, and finally situate CD and fabrication within contemporary practice.
In the second section, I will address the cultural barriers imposed by traditional methodologies, how current generations find themselves sandwiched between arrogance and rigor, and how technological change will inevitably cause the latter to prevail. More specifically, I will begin with an investigation in the design potential of Shape Memory Alloys and elastic skin systems. The findings from this initial phase will inform the subsequent study of this technology in larger architectural applications. The final phase will concentrate on a full scale exploration into kinetic structures.