Summary Transcript of "ASLA/Digital Thread"
(& the subsequent 'CAD/Pencils' thread)
from 8 October -> 9 November, 1998.
Edited & formatted by
Stephen Ervin
The exhange below is an interesting 'conversation' which took
place on the Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum
(LARCH-L mailing list) about things
digital in the practice and education of landscape architects. I've
posted it here for the sake of those who aren't on the list, and also
to separate this (evolving) thread out from other interesting things
on the list.
The first two weeks was 't\he ASLA/Digital'
thread;
then around Tuesday, 23 October it transformed into the
'Cadd/Pencils' thread.
Then, towards 4 Nov, it briefly became a
'Master Planning' thread.
and then 'ends' with John Danahy's eloquent summary of the
POLYTRIMS
project.
(Since the 'thread', or 'Subject:' line varies from contributor to
contributor throughout this braided exhange, I have here gathered
together the postings in chronological order as I received/ perceived
them. I have ommitted other interesting posts for the sake of
clarity, & have performed some minor editing to remove redundant
content, advertising, etc. Nowhere have I intentionally misquoted or
abbreviated anyone. Let me know if I made a mistake.
S Ervin.)
The "ASLA/Digital thread" began with
this post:
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 00:00:33 -0400
Sender: Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum
Topics of the day:
...2. ASLA meeting and Ed Flaherty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 23:54:33 -0700
From: "James A.
Kirkpatrick"
Subject: ASLA meeting and Ed Flaherty
Greetings.
I attended my first ASLA meeting this past weekend in Portland, and being
a student it was a SOMEWHAT enlightening conference. I attended a session
moderated by Ed Flaherty who I am sure I have enjoyed his commentary on
this mailing list over the past few months. I would like to personally
thank Mr. Flaherty for the wonderfully innovative and informative session
that he tried to run. Unfortunately from my perspective it seems as
though a highly unattentive crowd and panel group turned the discussion
into something entirely off topic and nowhere near as fascinating. So if
Ed is out there and listening I would like to tahnk you once again and I
don't know if you felt the same way as I did, but I thought you were
trying somnething much more groundbreaking and the people there just
didn't get it.
Thanks
James Kirkpatrick
-----------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:32:00 -0500
From: Madis Pihlak
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 7 Oct 1998 to 8 Oct 1998
James
Well put. I went to the same session and I agree with your comments. A few
comments from the audience were downright rude. I know how much work Ed put
into his session. I came away from the session disappointed with my profession.
If we continue down this technologically illiterate path at some point we will
have no future as a profession.
Let's be positive and try to put together a great digital session in Boston. I
think Jim Tolliver at ASLA is interested in making Landtech interactive. I can
bring some interesting digital work from Penn State.
See you in Boston
email me or he list.
madis pihlak
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:24:03 -0600
From: "David Racker, FASLA"
Subject: Portland ASLA meeting and Ed Flaherty
James Kirkpatrick hits the nail on the head re: Ed Flaherty's effort to
moderate a session in Portland. Apparently some in the audience felt
it their prerogative to moderate the panel instead of leaving it to the
organizer. It was unfortunate for the rest of us. Portland was my 17th
meeting in 20 years and fortunately, that kind of thing dosen't happen
often. Perhaps the dialogue should continue here on LARCH-L were it
might get a better reception. Let's see.
David C. Racker, FASLA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 07:01:32 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
Subject: Re: Portland ASLA meeting and Ed Flaherty
David Racker, James Kirkpatrick, and Madis Pihlak all seem to agree:
>Apparently some in the audience felt it their prerogative to
>moderate the panel instead of leaving it to the organizer.
So what were the disruptive questions/comments? What was it that the panel
wanted to say? Was it only one or two people, or several?
Jim Palmer, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:29:01 -0500
From: Madis Pihlak
Subject: Re: The Invisible Computer
Jim and the list.
Knowing Ed a little bit from the list and an afternoon in London, I knew how
much work he put into the session and the effort it takes to get from Kuwait to
Portland. It was only a few people who were rude, but it seemed to be a general
trend that the audience wanted to hear the consulting news from Edaw, Sasaki,
JJ&R; etc. rather than the topic Ed had set up. I was sitting next to the
student web master from Oregon, and she seemed to agree that Ed had some
interesting things to say and the older non digitally literate LA's should
"listen, and think before they speak".
On another subject, now that I have the floor, there is a new book called "The
Invisible Computer". I bring this up because of a list debate a few years ago
where we discussed this topic. Steve Ervin said the best we could hope for was
transparent technology.
I would be interested in what he list thought of invisible computing and
whether we would ever get there. In my opinion the issues are simplicity,
versatility, reliability and ability.
madis pihlak
Stuckeman Center for Design Computing
SALA
Penn State
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:49:57 -0700
From: Cara McLane
Subject: Portland ASLA meeting and Ed Flaherty
The audience members, at least those who spoke, seemed to me to be =
'techno-phobes'. One woman spoke of her small-town clients who =
mistrusted slick computer renderings. Apparently they've never seen any =
slick hand-drawn renderings (or bad computer ones, for that matter). =
Another audience member asked what the panel thought of the ASLA awards. =
I was also disappointed in the panel -they didn't seem to be using =
technology in any ground-breaking ways, or modifying their project =
processes to take advantage of technology. I wonder if that's because =
they aren't in touch with what their own offices are doing with =
technology, or because these offices haven't adapted to it. Maybe these =
'leaders of the profession' aren't actually in the lead.=20
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 06:22:37 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 12 Oct 1998 to 13 Oct 1998
Cara wrote about the ASLA Ed's panel:
>I was also disappointed in the panel -they didn't seem to be using
>technology in any ground-breaking ways, or modifying their project
>processes to take advantage of technology.
What would you have in mind Cara? How is technology enabling SWA Group to
do things differnetly and innovatively?
>I wonder if that's because
>they aren't in touch with what their own offices are doing with
>technology, or because these offices haven't adapted to it. Maybe these
>'leaders of the profession' aren't actually in the lead.
Actually, the panel seemed to be learders in business. I suspect the more
innovative things are being explored in small firms where risk and
innovation normally takes place. It is difficult to find them, though.
Jim Palmer, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:41:35 EDT
From: Kelly Houston
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 12 Oct 1998 to 13 Oct 1998
In a message dated 98-10-14 00:20:18 EDT, you write:
> Maybe these =
> 'leaders of the profession' aren't actually in the lead
Not to be flippant, but then who is? How does one define "in the lead"?
Kelly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:00:23 -0700
From: unlisted
Subject: Oregon "web master" speaks out
I've often wondered what topic would eventually get me riled enough to
post a message to LARCH-L ... and I definitely wondered what interesting
results would come about from sitting next to the infamous Madis Pihlak
at Portland's ASLA meeting ...
Hi! This is Sarah Birger, the University of Oregon's LA Department web
MANAGER and I figure I should add my own two cents (in my own words) to
this talk about Ed Flaherty's ASLA session.
In four years of graduate school, I have gone from digital phobia to
digital competency (I'd love to boast digital wizardry but I know from
comments in the halls today that my U of O colleagues are watching).
I looked forward to Ed Flaherty's session because I thought it offered a
broad range of perspectives on new ways of doing business. In actuality,
the session offered a limited range of perspectives on how to continue
doing the same, traditional kind of business in a new, digital climate.
The panelists all claimed that profit cuts were not an issue in need of
examination in their practices and digital technology apparently is just
another tool to help them continue to do the same type of things they've
always done in a more efficient, i.e. cost-effective, manner.
I don't think most practitioners would agree that profits are not a
problem in today's market and even if the large firms are turning ever
greater profits, is this sustainable and equitable? Additionally, digital
"tooling up" is not all that cost effective for small practices with
inadequate access to maintenance gurus.
Perhaps emulation of the few corporate leaders is not the path our
profession should follow.
Madis was correct in that I tuned out to the sessions's rhetoric but
I don't think it is as simple as saying that people should "think
before they speak". I believe we all think (and feel) when we choose to
speak out and often what people say is very illuminating about what they are
basing their decisions and actions upon. The four senior white males on
the panel and many of the audience members were speaking out from a
position that holds much sway in our current society: people want to earn
income and survive, even thrive, in an unequitable global market system.
For those who think beyond the standard paradigm of financial success
(like those of us who have to in order to deal with so much graduate
school debt), the most useful new information in Ed Flaherty's session
involved the definition of "landhacker" as it appeared in a brief
printed discussion on the overhead monitor.
This LARCH-L discussion could continue on (at least) two tracks:
the notion that practitioners are not in a position to do what Ed Flaherty
wants to do and what needs to change to get us in that position, or
this group could get over the initial dissapointment that the audience
wasn't ready and go forward anyway with a discussion of the topic
of new ways of doing business: are there any "landhackers" out there?
Sarah Birger
Graduate Student
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Oregon
E-mail: sabirger@darkwing.uoregon.edu
P.S. I am the same Sarah Birger who spoke out about mentoring at the
Global Perspectives forum during the ASLA meeting. Thank you to panelists
Tom Papandrew and William Roberts for being inspiring models who are
willing to widen the platform to make space for young idealists.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 00:04:09 -0700
From: "James A.
Kirkpatrick"
Subject: moving forward from the ASLA meeting
I guess I can take some of the blame for starting this string with my
initial attempt at thanking Ed for a highlight in a mostly bland weekend.
I guess as a student, and a extremely optimistic and visionary one, I can
often get let down by things, Landscape Architecture included. It seemed
to me that the focus and most popular event of the ASLA weekend was the
trade show, a notion that is very foreign to me, and sort of scares me.
But what I really wanted to comment on was a follow up on the request from
I believe James Palmer, and that is what are some important things to
press on from Ed's session. The question I wanted to ask at the session was
how can we develop the future through the minds of our future, ie the
students. Being a student myself I often place more importance on my group
reather than the professionals hoping that students will create a bigger
and better future for Landscape Architecture. Without being a spokesman
for my school or the education it provides, which I think is fantastic by
the way, I can't imagine the field of Landscape Architecture getting more
advanced unless their is further training from within. If firms
continually bring in outside groups to set up computer systems and teach us
all the ins and out, how are we supposed to make leaps that suit are
specific needs. Learning Autocad certainly isn't going to provide us with
the know how to create and use technology to our advantage. I guess only
time will tell if technology management, networking and computer science in
landscape architecture will become thesis topics for LA students. But I
believe, just like the push to get LA's in public office and government, we
can make the most change for the better by being on the inside. I was glad
to read the comments from Sarah Birger, and hope their are lots of students
out there who are concerned about the future of Landscape Architecture,
beyond just their bank balance. I would also like to take the time to
thank any people I have received responses over the course of my time on
the list encouraging me as a student to provide commentary, I find it
difficult as a student to make comments to people who have much more
practical and educational experience than me, and at the same time trying
not to bring any negative thoughts on my school, which I have grown to love
very much especially now that I am briefly away from it on exchange.
Thank You.
James Kirkpatrick
University of Guelph
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:24:24 -0500
From: Brian Culpepper
Subject: Landhacker....?
Sarah and other ASLA attendees..
I did not attend the conference, could someone define the term "landhacker"
sounds rather interesting....... ;)
thanks in advance
R. Brian Culpepper GIS Specialist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (fax) 501 575-5218
Rm. 12 Ozark Hall 501 575-6159
University of Arkansas brian@cast.uark.edu
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Home Page: http://www.cast.uark.edu
=====================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:06:48 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Portland ASLA1998
Dear Readers,
Reviewing the Larch-l posts from the month of October, I wish to respond
and comment regarding the Project Process 21: Born to Rule presentation I
made in Portland.
First, my expectations were simple--lots of practicing landscape architects
would make a rich source of ideas in an audience driven panel discussion.
This was to be heightened by the dynamic of large firm CEOs speaking to and
questioned by smaller firm practitioners in the audience. Simple enough,
right?
Second, my plan was to lay out a loose structure of key vectors, forces in
the profession, whose tendency toward convergence, I thought would yield
fertile ground for idea generation and discussion. Those vectors included
public participation, environmental activism, maturing information
technology and pressure on profit margins. Straight forward enough?
Summary findings: the audience has so much work in a profession that is
nowhere near market saturation(a very key conclusion) that discussion of
proposed impacts from these vectors over the next 3-5 years was beyond
their interest. Business as usual is too profitable. Therefore, the
audience, rather than stretch in a lateral mode for process adjustments,
implications and directions, was most satisfied to be spoon fed by the
large company panel members.
At one point, I stated that an audience question about the ASLA awards was
off topic and a fair number of the audience requested to hear the answer
anyhow. Hey, this is reality. I am certainly no Reverend Schuler or Oprah
Winfrey when it comes to audience manipulation...far from it but the
audience was the resource that I had hoped to learn from.
In my Project Process 21 introduction on the day, I laid out the above
mentioned vectors and asked for questions. I was _breathtakenly astounded_
that there were none. Some 80-100 landscape architects had no questions,
comments or ideas on the converging vectors of maturing information
technology, environmental activism and public participation. I surely must
have put everyone to sleep in the intro...
Nobody bought into distributed small office networks in watershed
demarcated geographic regions, no one bought into win-win partnerships with
the information infrastructures of the big firms. Nobody asked what does
this term 'landhacker' mean? Some audience members did not want to hear my
summary explanation of how "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" relates to
landscape architecture...and they were not shouted down by others who might
have been interested.
Sooooo-o-o...what you see is what you get.
Ken Bassett of Sasaki Associates explained how IT was being built into his
firm and showed some in-house booklets on training and system use. He did
not see how the vectors might converge in a way to restructure his office
profile.
Joe Brown of EDAW spoke of an 'office without walls' idea within EDAW but
did not elaborate on how this would impact the existing office profile.
Kurt Culbertson of Design Workshop, in a very thought provoking comment,
which the audience did not respond to, stated that civility has been lost
in the public participation process and that this had huge implications for
democracy.
George Sass of JJR/Smith Group expressed the direction his firm is taking
with interaction with schools as a means to closing gaps between the
educational system and the needs of the private office.
>From the audience, Greg Polubinsky asked about the lack of specialization
in software for landscape architects--perhaps Rob Wright would like to
comment on CLR efforts at the University of Toronto to put together a
software package that includes all the planning and graphics issues that
cut through landscape architecture planning and design...
Conclusion?
The profession is fortunate to be flush with work. The breadth of
activities referenced on this list is the front edge of digital stuff in
the profession. The ASLA position on digital activities reflects the
overall professional situation--very little attention being paid--much like
the early 1970s environmental and GIS movements--so there is every chance
that our profession will be blindsided somehow by more adventurous people
grasping maturing information technology and intuitively sensing landscape
opportunity in public participation and environmental activism.
Anyone into beating your head against insitu concrete walls? How about
next year's ASLA meeting having a proper technology sector reflecting all
the range of digital work being done in schools and in the profession--with
more detailed discussions on planning and design processes having been
affected by digital processes. This year in Portland digital work was just
a side show--freaks and geeks? Maybe I bit off too big a chunk this year
in Project Process 21.
People are making CDROMs, people are doing public participation on line,
digital design studios are everywhere--all these projects should be highly
visible at the annual meeting and readers of this list are the only ones
that can increase the visibility.
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:14:40 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Pilgrimage to USA
Readers,
I would like to share a couple observations I made in the US following my
Project Process 21 presentation in Portland.
I visited Homewood Flossmoor High School in the south suburbs of Chicago.
I attended this high school from 1960-1963 and had not been there since.
The principal(5 years in position) gave me a guided tour and responded
frankly to my questions. For the sake of brevity and to remain on focus in
this list here are the key points, remember this is a _high school_, (4000
students, ages 13-17)(last school before university):
1.Two most oversubscribed elective courses: computer graphics; and
organic growing(greenhouse and composting); and,
2.Manual mechanical and architectural drafting courses have been supplanted
by CAD and CAM. There is still a small old fashioned drafting room. Kids
still learn how to physically make architectural models, but machine shop
is full CAD/CAM. The kids are into it. There is a _building_ dedicated to
computers/video/multi-media.
Then I spent a week on the Carnegie Mellon University campus in Pittsburgh.
This is a school of about 6000 students--a very interesting liberal arts
school with a throbbing technology history and present, with huge Computer
Science(CS) and Electronics/Computer Engineering(ECE) majors. I sat in on
a Cisco(Internet routers) presentation for graduating seniors and
interns--where they promised any idea you have can be followed, open access
to all senior management, lots of profit sharing options, long vacation,
advanced education support in return for, what? Working as many hours as
required to get a hot project out? Isn't that what most LA offices expect
out of their employees for crap wages and benefit packages? Little doubt
why that in Portland I heard from the Head of the SUNY Syracuse that entry
to LA curriculum is soft...hmmm...smelling coffee, yet?
Also at CMU where architecture, art, drama and music share the same
building, freshman architecture majors begin their first term with FormZ,
still with other classes requiring long hand skills, but the modeling
program is the first computer software formally instructed. They also have
the high end Mac/SGI multi-media lab like Madis set up at UMD, but they
share it with multi-media art majors--now is that sweet or what?
Architects meddling with FormZ as freshmen...hmmm...smelling coffee, yet?
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
PS
Quoting from CMU Department of Architecture publication:
"The role of computing technology in the Department's undergraduate
curriculum is based upon two premises:
1.computer aided design and decision making tools offer unique and
novel capabilities to designers of buildings; and
2.that the true potential of these tools cannot be understood or
realized when they are viewed as mere substitutes for traditional largely
paper based design techniques.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:42:46 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Defining Leading Edge
Cara, glad to hear from you as a representative of SWA Group.
On 13 Oct 98, Cara McLane commented:
>... Maybe these =
>'leaders of the profession' aren't actually in the lead.
What would be the lead these days? The list, which is quite heavily
academic, would certain like to hear how digital leading could be defined
today.
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:42:52 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Landhacking(The Cathedral and the Bazaar)
Readers, certain(Sarah, Brian) have asked about landhacking references
taken from the Project Process 21(PP21) presentation in Portland.
In the PP21 presentation, I set up a Director silent movie to play on the
screen as a backdrop to the panel discussion. The movie was a compilation
of text and images recently grabbed off the Internet. The text and images
all related to information technology, public participation, environmental
activism and landscape architecture.
One bit of text I found from a link on Eric Raymond's home
page(http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/), follow the FAQ links. Anyhow, as
I read about the traditional description(as opposed to current mass media
descriptions) of a hacker, I realized that the lateral thinking, can-do
problem solving nature of a hacker is the same as a site-experienced
landscape architect, so in the PP21 movie I replaced each reference to
hacker with landhacker. Credit to Eric Raymond, who also wrote The
Cathedral and the Bazaar, links to which can be found on the same home page
url.
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:29:11 +0000
From: stephen ervin
Subject: Re: ASLA/digital thread
Friends;
I am sorry to have missed Portland recently, I do love the pacific northwest.
I've enjoyed the virtual aftermath experience of [one part of] the ASLA
meeting, in this thread, and I've commented separately, privately, that:
a. things havent much changed in fifteen years in this regard;
b. to students: don't let the bastards get you down. :)
I've taken the opportunity presented by this thread to pose the following
questions for reflection & discussion to some of our graduate students; I'd
be interested in others' thoughts/replies/questions...
1. Is there a ëtimeless way of doing thingsí that lies at the core of
landscape architecture as a discipline? If so, how might you characterize it?
If not, why not?
2. Are there 'new opportunities' and ways of doing things that are presented
by digital technologies? If not, why not? If so, what are they?
3. What are the salient differences (aside from cash flow) between being a
practicioner vs. being a student?
4. (Remembering Jory Johnson's famous infuriating article substituting
'pencil' for 'computer'...) What are the important/interesting differences
between 'drawing' with pencils vs. with CAD systems?
5. What are the important/interesting differences in digital technologies,
constraints and opportunities for students vs. for practicioners?
6. What do you suppose a ëlandhackerí might be?
7. What are some appropriate roles for computing in landscape architecture
education and practice? What about inappropriate roles?
Stephen Ervin
Assistant Dean for Information Technology
Lecturer in Landscape Architecture
Harvard Design School
servin@gsd.harvard.edu
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/~servin
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:39:13 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
Subject: Re: PP21
Thanks to Ed Flaherty for a series of great posts. Maybe we can keep a
discussion going on them for a while?
>Summary findings: the audience has so much work in a profession that is
>nowhere near market saturation (a very key conclusion) that discussion of
>proposed impacts from these vectors over the next 3-5 years was beyond
>their interest. Business as usual is too profitable.
As an educator, this is frightening. LAs could go the way of Swiss
watchmakers--the best designers in the world but hired only by the
ostentaciously wealthy to make Rolex gardens. On the other hand, 3 to 5
years is the period when our students target entry into the profession.
Maybe they will be there to create new markets.
>civility has been lost in the public participation process and
>that this had huge implications for democracy.
Is anyone thinking about and investigating this? This may be one reason
that showmen like Nelessen are left alone in the field. I think that there
are several such practitioners in the New Urbanism circus too. I dropped
off the new urbanism listserv when 'granny apprtments' were used to
demonstrate that Seaside did in fact have low cost housing options (though
these units were admittedly targeted for 'the help' and relatives).
>The ASLA position on digital activities reflects the
>overall professional situation--very little attention being paid--much like
>the early 1970s environmental and GIS movements--so there is every chance
>that our profession will be blindsided somehow by more adventurous people
>grasping maturing information technology and intuitively sensing landscape
>opportunity in public participation and environmental activism.
It is interesting that the issues today are the same ones that energized
the original Earth Day. Why did it quiet down in the 80s? On the digital
side, it was a bore to deal with punch-cards and trying to get time on the
mainframe computer. But why has the constructive practice of working
cooperatively with local citizens not taken over our practice? (Refer back
to the discussion a couple of months ago -- we seem not to be in agreement
about the desirability of this form of practice.)
>How about
>next year's ASLA meeting having a proper technology sector reflecting all
>the range of digital work being done in schools and in the profession--with
>more detailed discussions on planning and design processes having been
>affected by digital processes...
I guess next year the ASLA meeting will be in Boston for the 100th
anniversary. This would certainly be a good time to show-off our vision of
future professional practice. This year the LandTech area suffered from
last minute planning. The difficulty is locating the projects Ed
identifies: -->
>People are making CDROMs, people are doing public participation on line,
>digital design studios are everywhere
I am willing and interested in gathering and organize a list of
projects/people/firms/places that could exemplify our vision of future
practice. Just send them too me and I will make sure that ASLA gets them
(in my role as chair of the Open Committee on Computing). Beyond this, I'm
looking for volunteers to provide the physical presence.
Ed goes on:
>Quoting from CMU Department of Architecture publication:
>"The role of computing technology in the Department's undergraduate
>curriculum is based upon two premises:
> 1.computer aided design and decision making tools offer unique and
>novel capabilities to designers of buildings; and
> 2.that the true potential of these tools cannot be understood or
>realized when they are viewed as mere substitutes for traditional largely
>paper based design techniques.
Other than CAD and GIS, what sorts of "computer aided decision-making
tools" are being used by LA in practice and instruction? We are begining
to use spreadsheet models, but it is in just the last year or so.
In Ed's relply to Cara McLane at SWA he asks:
>What would be the lead these days?
Is this 'lead' as in going some place, or 'lead' as in weighted and sinking
into the muddy bottom? (Sorry, I can't resist.)
Ed, would you be willing to post your (The Cathedral and the Bazaar)
Director silent movie?
>I realized that the lateral thinking, can-do
>problem solving nature of a hacker is the same as a site-experienced
>landscape architect, so in the PP21 movie I replaced each reference to
>hacker with landhacker.
I agree with this, but wonder if today's (and those for the past 30 years)
students have 'site experience'. I think there will be a lot of facility
in creating great virtual designs in digital media. However, this is no
guarantee that it will map successfully into real physical space. We
experience and know less and less about the physical environment, and
become more and more proficient working/living in a virtual modeled
environments. Maybe we should have a requirment to intern as a grounds
keeper or member of a construction crew.
Jim Palmer, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:43:19 -0600
From: "dstaley@ttu.edu"
Subject: Pencils vs. CAD, etc.
At 12:01 AM 10/17/98 -0400, stephen ervin wrote:
>4. (Remembering Jory Johnson's famous infuriating article substituting
>'pencil' for 'computer'...) What are the important/interesting differences
>between 'drawing' with pencils vs. with CAD systems?
One important difference is that a CAD system places an enormously complex,
and very expensive, additional system between the mind and the drawing. I
teach traditional graphics and CAD in our landscape architecture program at
Texas Tech, and while not denying the editing and speed-of-info-transfer
advantages CAD drawings afford, a well trained human mind can produce more
communicative drawings of all sorts faster, and more economically, by hand
than with the aid of CAD. When we draw with a pencil, we convert our
thoughts to visible image in a direct, mechanical way. When we "draw" with
CAD, we must convert our thoughts to the language of the CAD program via the
mechanics of the computer keyboard and mouse. Then, if we want a
transportable image that transcends class, we must print our "drawing" on
another complex and expensive piece of computer hardware. I suspect one
reason so many CAD drawings are graphic tragedies is because the simple act
of varying line weights with a pencil (alter pressure) requires myriad
commands within a CAD program. One unfortunate example of my point can be
seen by contrasting the figures in the second and third editions of
Landphair and Klatt, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTION.
>6. What do you suppose a 'landhacker' might be?
How about...a landscape architect who spends more energy concentrating on
computer technology than on landscape.
Have a nice day!
Don
____________________________________
Don Staley, Associate ASLA
Assistant Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
Box 42121
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-2121
(806)742-2858, FAX -0770
____________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 18:00:06 -0400
From: Madis Pihlak
Subject: Re: ASLA/Digital Thread
Steve
At the risk of being sliced and diced with that critical Harvard approach, I will attempt to answer your questions.
>
> 1. Is there a timeless way of doing things that lies at the core of
> landscape architecture as a discipline? If so, how might you characterize it?
> If not, why not?
The design studio is the core and really hasn't changed since MIT started a School of Architecture and Harvard started LA courses somewhere before 1900. (My own school started teaching
landscape architecture in 1907.) I joke that we are still using the same drafting tables ;-). What was taught and learned in these studios was :
ï Graphic Communication (drawing/drafting/photography)
ï Design and Design Process
ï Nature and after McHarg Ecology
ï Information Processing
ï Professional bonding/peer learning
> 2. Are there 'new opportunities' and ways of doing things that are presented
> by digital technologies? If not, why not? If so, what are they?
Yes. The design studio becomes an information processing arena.
The virtual studios and "seeUseeMe" experiments of Ervin, Steinitz, Mitchell, Danahy,Schmit,Wright et al.
The technology can de-skill and de-school. If McCullough's digital craft is not pushed some students fall into the bad CAD drawing approach or the poor quality photoshop filter trap.
Pushing CAD at a student before she/he wants it is just as bad as keeping CAD away form the student that wants it. Relating to Ed Flaherty's points....the high schools now teach
autocad, formZ, web page design and some of the other baby CADs. It makes no sense to these students when their first design studios hide the computers from their prying eyes. What they
can't have, they want even more. My analogy is that we should look at the grade one teachers that introduce addition and subtraction and then also demo calculators. My graduate school
experience banned calculators and only allowed slide rules. Production line legacy CAD packages are not the right tool for the first studio years. However by the upper division of
undergraduate programs and certainly the second term of graduate school the student should have access to a software library where she/he can choose
minicad/formZ/microstation/autocad/archicad/architrion/designworkshop/Maya/terraformer,etc.
> 3. What are the salient differences (aside from cash flow) between being a
> practicioner vs. being a student?
During this transitional period (digital/hand drafting/drawing) the student needs to pick up as many skills as possible. This does not mean that the student gets only one design
computing class in their 4,5 2 or 3 year LA experience. Design Computing needs to be broadly integrated throughout the student's academic career. Information Technology allows digital
sweat shops , CAD Corners and other backward and cruel implementations of what could be liberating technology. See Eiseman's (sp) firms use of formZ or Omehe Van Sweden's firms use of
minicad and autocad for positive examples.
> 4. (Remembering Jory Johnson's famous infuriating article substituting
> 'pencil' for 'computer'...) What are the important/interesting differences
> between 'drawing' with pencils vs. with CAD systems?
See the Invisible Computer by Don Norman 1998. Brooks Breeden also talked about how students at first have trouble understanding the computer's precision. FormïZ is a very different
issue than Autocad in the design studio.
> 5. What are the important/interesting differences in digital technologies,
> constraints and opportunities for students vs. for practicioners?
Students at the good schools should have a choice of he latest technology. Offices generally limit themselves to one of the legacy cad packages .
> 7. What are some appropriate roles for computing in landscape architecture
> education and practice? What about inappropriate roles?
Digital Design Studios.
GIS manipulation/Analysis
High end Computer Labs
Ubiquitous distributed computing.
Plotting and rapid prototyping. (Z Corp)
Inappropriate
CAD operators
Drafting schools
Madis Pihlak
Associate Professor and Director
Stuckeman Center for Design Computing
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Penn State
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 00:50:23 MDT
From: Mary & Ryan
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 16 Oct 1998 to 17 Oct 1998
When we draw with a pencil, we convert our
>thoughts to visible image in a direct, mechanical way. When we "draw"
with
>CAD, we must convert our thoughts to the language of the CAD program
via the
>mechanics of the computer keyboard and mouse. Then, if we want a
>transportable image that transcends class, we must print our "drawing"
on
>another complex and expensive piece of computer hardware. I suspect
one
>reason so many CAD drawings are graphic tragedies is because the simple
act
>of varying line weights with a pencil (alter pressure) requires myriad
>commands within a CAD program.
Hmmm, this assumes that you have more proficiency with a pencil than
with a computer. If you're used to using a mouse and keyboard then this
is as "direct mechanical" a way of converting your thought processes
onto paper as a pencil is. I'll admit that I've not done any complex
3-D modelling but I've used AutoCAD 14 for site diagrams and the
ARC/Info (UNIX) GIS program for very complex geological maps and have
found the translation of thought to keyboard very simple.
It takes a shift in thinking from people who do things the traditional
or "old" way to people who do the same things with the new technology to
people who do things with the new technology that nobody thought of
before. It takes a while and it's all what you're used to. If you
learned to draft with a pencil then CAD systems might seem cumbersome
but if you've had a mouse in your hand since you were a toddler, you
might just think the pencil is a rather cumbersome form of expression.
Mary MacIntyre
Environmental Technologist
Cirrus Environmental Services Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:00:56 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
Subject: Re: ASLA/Digital Thread
Madis decides to take a shot at stephen's questions.
>The design studio is the core and really hasn't changed since MIT started a
>School of Architecture and Harvard started LA courses somewhere before 1900=
Has it really been this stable, or is that because it is the way we learned
it? I agree that it is hard to imagine a studio without graphic
presentation of ideas. However, has the design process remained so stable?
Has the use and emphasis of nature remained stable? By information
processing, I assume you mean a part of the design process related to
diagnosing a problem, gathering appropriate information, applying it
through a proposed solution, and then using it to evaluate the proposal.
Has the type of information and the process of using it changed? I don't
know. I assume that the bonding/peer learning refers in part to gaining
the skill of working in teams -- something we do not explicitly teach (to
my knowledge), though it is a teachable skill.
>> 2. Are there 'new opportunities' and ways of doing things that are presen=
ted
>> by digital technologies? If not, why not? If so, what are they?
>Yes. The design studio becomes an information processing arena.
But Madis, you just asserted that information processing has always been a
part of the studio (number 4 in your list). Is the introduction of digital
methods more akin to the shifts from slide rule to calculator and water
colors to markers, or is it more fundamental? At other times stephen has
emphasized that the real potential is not the new graphic methods, but the
previously unavailable opportunity to evaluate the results using digital
models (of say, runoff, successional growth, solar gain, visibility, etc.).
How much of this modeling is really going on? Do our students evaluate
designs with canned models (in the same way they might use the canned
render program rather than marker), or do they write their own assessments
in visual basic via Excel, or in the CAD scripting language?
>> 4. (Remembering Jory Johnson's famous infuriating article substituting
>> 'pencil' for 'computer'...) What are the important/interesting difference=
s
>> between 'drawing' with pencils vs. with CAD systems?
>
>See the Invisible Computer by Don Norman 1998. Brooks Breeden also talked
>about how students at first have trouble understanding the computer's
>precision. Form=EFZ is a very different issue than Autocad in the design st=
udio.
Last week's New York Times Book Review had an interesting review of this
book by a software engineer and author. She (Ellen Ullman) had some
difficulty with his glib solution: "but reading the book, you wouldn't know
that the tradeoff between versatility and simplicity has long been debated
among computer scientists. It is no mean feat to make something extremely
easy to use...that also allows us to exercise our enormously powerful
ability to use our intelligence in unpredictable ways." She is quite taken
by his short chapter: "Being Analog." "Norman touches on the fundamental
mismatch between humans and computers that underlies our ambivalent
relationship with technology. We are biological creatures who swim, and
manage to thrive, in a sea of errors. We live with half-failures,
misperceptions, miscommunications. But we have surrounded ourselves with
machines devoted to precision, hugely intolerant of error. These machines
are supposed to be our complements, doing the tasks we're bad at while we
go about our messy, imprecise ways. But by now we've come to rely on them
for much of daily life. To live with our own creations, we muct become as
intolerant of error as they are.
This mismatch between biological and machine intelligence is rarely
discussed in popular literature. Even researchers in the field of
artificial intelligence do not often admit the great disparity between
human knowledge acquisition and the ways we teach computers to 'know'
something. So I wish that Norman had taken the time for a long, thorough
look at this issue, that he'd perhaps named this book 'Being Analog,' that
he'd goen full tilt against Nicholas Negroponte's well=3Dknown book 'Being
Digital' and all its true belief in technology"
This seems to ring in harmony with Don's comments about Pencils vs. CAD:
>One important difference is that a CAD system places an enormously complex,
>and very expensive, additional system between the mind and the drawing...
>When we draw with a pencil, we convert our
>thoughts to visible image in a direct, mechanical way. When we "draw" with
>CAD, we must convert our thoughts to the language of the CAD program via th=
e
>mechanics of the computer keyboard and mouse.
>> 5. What are the important/interesting differences in digital technologies=
,
>> constraints and opportunities for students vs. for practicioners?
>
>Students at the good schools should have a choice of he latest technology.
>Offices generally limit themselves to one of the legacy cad packages .
I don't know why LA students should be that different than students in the
sciences and other technology fields. Schools will never have sufficient
funds to keep up on the technology side of things, because it changes too
fast. Chasing that will-o-the-wisp will only lead to frustration and
unhappiness. I think we would be much better served with focusing on
things of the mind, and make do with the best technology we can afford.
>> 7. What are some appropriate roles for computing in landscape architectur=
e
>> education and practice? What about inappropriate roles?
How about:
a. Learn how to evaluate the accuracy of information gathered on the web
(we use to rely on peer review and publisher liability).
b. Using photographs to create 3D models of historic details/materials for
manufacute by CAD/CAM systems.
c. Evaluating the environmental efeects of our designs on the surrounding
area for such things as wildlife, water quality, noise, solar effectsetc.
d. Creating new approaches of public participation that soften digital
communications for us analog beings.
e. Pay more attention to the management and maintanence of our designs
throughout their life cycle.
f. Introduce cost as a limitation in studio designs.
g. Develop mentoring relationships with school kids through digital links.
h. Specialize in evaluative models that meld natural factors (e.g., plant
growth, solar gain), with human factors (e.g., thermal comfort, sense of
place appeal).
Jim Palmer
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:15:41 -0700
From: Gregg Polubinsky
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 16 Oct 1998 to 17 Oct 1998
Responding to the last two weeks of Larch-L
Next year in Boston and 100 years would be the perfect time to showcase the
profession in digital media. Landtech was extremely interesting not only in
what was presented but in the response, questions and comments from people
who wandered in and out. I was as much interested in the questions and
comments as I was in the presentations. Landtech didn't have enough room
and it was hard to find. Landtech needs two meeting rooms with three days
of ongoing discussion, presentations and even software demonstrations from
manufacturers of Adobe products, Form Z, AutoCAD, ArcVIEW, and MiniCAD among
others. Manufacturer's should be invited so that they know we exist.
I think Project Process 21 needed more hours to be truly successful. Most
of the audience was hardly able to grasp the import of Project Process 21
and then the session was over. Project Process 21 should be repeated next
year and should weave in and out of Landtech; expanding the discussion as
the days proceed.
I started my career in 1977 and managed a Soil Conservation Service field
office for 7 years. After graduate school until 1996 I worked for a Civil
Engineer. When I left the employ of the Civil Engineer they said keep
working for us and live where you want. My last 12 months with them was
spent living 250 miles distant and telecommuting to work everyday.
For the last two years I've had my own practice and I maintain it as the
sole employee. Most of my practice is production oriented. I've committed
my design practice to be completely digital and if there is a Landhacker,
I'm probably one (and have enough education and experience to be good at
it). My practice is growing (not yet thriving) by providing Service,
Information, Construction Drawings and Name Recognition. I was surprised to
find that these are the same four components of the new world economy that
the book "BLUR" describes. But I don't think those are new.
Everthing I do is transcribed digitally as soon as possible. The cost of my
technology did not come cheap and it was acquired over a few years. But the
costs weren't that expensive either, understanding that I now have the
capabilities to produce almost anything in almost any form having drawn it
once. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker. These three products allow
unlimited graphic presentation which I can take to any size or format. I
use AutoCAD because my work requires production drawing and I share my
drawings with too many other professionals not to need AutoCAD. Everybody
e-mails drawings back and forth. I also use Softdesk and LandCADD. I use
Adobe Acrobat Distiller to change drawings and graphics into PDF files that
can be viewed by anybody who has a computer. My first application of
Acrobat was to work with a biologist friend who works in another part of the
state. She needed professional graphics for her reports and our cooperation
has since grown into providing some GIS support through AutoCAD Map for her
field work. It has been two years since we last met face to face.
I work with a Landscape Architect who has her office twenty miles down the
road. I provide irrigation design on her institutional projects. We e-mail
drawing files back and forth and when they are complete the drawings are
e-mailed to one of two Reprographics services who plot them out and deliver
the blueprints. We go weeks between the need to have a meeting and our only
problem is agreeing over her offices lineweight and font aesthetics versus
mine. We both produce beautiful drawings using drawing line color to
establish line weight. Will this replace art? No, not yet. Does it produce
clear, beautiful drawings? Yes.
I use Adobe PageMill for my website. For $25 a month I have e-mail, a
website and FTP capabilities through a local ISP. My website provides
marketing and exposure that I could not buy. Some 150 people a week find my
website and I've gotten seven jobs from clients that I would not have
otherwise through browsing from outside of my yellow pages region. I have
three residential clients with whom I publish their residential design
progress on my Website and they browse the design upgrades with their free
Netscape plug-in DWF browser. A current residential client selected me over
four other Landscape Architects simply because I had e-mail and the busy
client had electronic access and "convenience" that the others could not
provide.
I'm surprised when I hear a design professional in their 40's say they are
too old to adapt to new technology or that they prefer hand drafting (I hear
that from local offices). I overheard someone in Portland say they couldn't
make LandCADD work and therefore haven't used it in over a year. This is
the same software that I use daily. I heard the woman in Project Process 21
who said her clients prefer hand drawn. I thought about all the clients I
would not have if I weren't digital.
I think that there is no longer a choice on whether to be digital and I
worry about being able to stay current. I also worry that our profession
may not be large enough to be worth maintaining software for and Portland
gave me no assurances that that wasn't true. Is it still possible to argue
that the hand is better than the computer? Not if you are thinking forward
to next year. From what I heard in Portland, I think the profession is not
understanding the future.
I apologize for this being lengthy but I don't get a clear understanding
that you know how a small office (meaning one person) can work digitally or
even the services available which provide digital access.
Gregg Polubinsky
Pacific Green Landscape Architecture
on the Monterey Bay
Phone: 831.763.0355 Fax: 831.763.0356
and also at http://www.pacificgreen.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:03:27 -0700
From: Cara McLane
<cmclane@SWAGROUP.COM>
Subject: our digital future
>What would be the lead these days? The list, which is quite heavily
>academic, would certain like to hear how digital leading could be =
defined
>today.
I don't know who the current leaders in this are. I personally am
overwhelmingly concerned with meeting project deadlines, and this
doesn't leave much time to innovate. Additionally, even though I'm
digitally literate, I still have to spend a lot of time just making the
thing work. Upgrades in software result in upgraded expectations - so
I'm not any more satisfied with the technology now than I was 5 years
ago. Overall, I'm more efficient, but the end result still doesn't leave
extra time. As Brooks Breeden once said, "If we spent as much time
playing with our pens as we do with our computers ..." we'd all be
fired.
I think that the best opportunity for inventing a new project process
paradigm comes not with any one kind of office
(small/large/independent/corporate/academic), but with partnerships
between office types & clients. The fact is, money is too important for
anyone to do anything without it, and so somebody has to foot the bill
for the innovations. There are clients who use landscape architects a
lot, and it seems that they would be interested in researching/inventing
new & profitable project methods. Some of the partnerships could be:
A large office partnered with an academic institution and a land
developer.
A small office partnered with a large office and an institutional
client.
I attended the ASLA session because I was interested in hearing ideas
about project process that I could implement in my own projects.
However, I think it is ultimately more important to have a improved
product than an improved process. The current technology can help us do
better work within our current project process. We ought to be doing
better analyses across the board, to minimize environmental impacts. In
terms of the information available over the internet, there is no reason
not be able to explain to clients what the regional/ecosystem/watershed
impacts of their projects are & be able to design landscapes that fit at
these larger scales.
Every office should now be able to have a GIS set up for their local
area, with most of the critical environmental data available on the Web
at no cost. In addition to project-specific uses, it would allow them to
look at the region where they practice & be able to see how their own
projects make an overall positive/negative impact onto the environment,
physically & aesthetically.
-------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:34:31 -0400
From:
"Joe Dunstan"
Subject: ASLA Hey
larchers - the recent thread on digital techniques has been a good one.
Stephen Ervin asked some interesting questions (below) which I think Wendell
Berry answers quite well in his essay "Why I am not going to by a Computer"
I would say that while this discussion is good, let's not fall into the trap
of deriding folks that don't want to change or adapt, or assuming that
someone who does not agree with you is "less intelligent". I think the other
thread that is interesting here is the one on civility and democracy - both
of which are highly needed. Having said this, Wendell Berry lists criteria
for choosing any new "tool or technique". They are:
1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the
one it replaces.
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
5. If possible4, it should use some form of solar energy, such as
that
of the body.
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence,
provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as
possible.
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that
will
take it back for maintenance and repair.
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already
exists,
and this includes family and community relationships.
Wendell Berry "Why I Am Not Going To Buy A Computer", in What Are
People
For?, 1990
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:58:26 -0400
From: Madis Pihlak
Subject: Jim
, Mary,Gregg,Cara
Some great points are being raised.
> It takes a while and it's all what you're used to. If you
> learned to draft with a pencil then CAD systems might seem cumbersome
> but if you've had a mouse in your hand since you were a toddler, you
> might just think the pencil is a rather cumbersome form of expression.
This is the cultural shift I have spoken about. With the right
programs, mary is absolutely correct.
>
> But Madis, you just asserted that information processing has always been a
> part of the studio (number 4 in your list).
>
The issue is that now you can bring much more information to bear on a
design or planning problem. Stever Ervin's What if article also applies.
Many more design alternativesa can be studied.
> Last week's New York Times Book Review had an interesting review of this
> book by a software engineer and author.
>
The review is better that the book.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:26:12 -0700
From: steve french
Subject: hi to another sole practitioner
To respond to Gregg Polubinsky's post.
I'm also a sole practitioner. I've had my own practice since 1988.
I try to be as digital as possible.
I've had similar experiences as Gregg. I recently completed a project where
the architect and I traded plans by email. The project is in Willits
(northern calif.) and the architects are in San Francisco. I've never met
the architects, however we've had numerous phone conversations as well as
email exchanges as the project emerged.
I'm a bit behind Gregg in my digital accomplishments. I'm just now creating
a webpage. It's been a slow process to acquire the tools I need. I almost
went completely broke during the 91- and on recession and it's been a climb
to regain a financial footing. I pay for my computer tools as I go, so as
not to grow into debt.
I too run into other l.a.'s who will not learn to use computers. They say
that clients want hand -drawn documents. I haven't seen this - clients want
speed and cost containment. It's also not difficult to create handsome
looking documents that are easy to read. My plans are clear and crisp and
easy for contractors to read in the field.
I enjoy drawing with a pencil. I have a hard time setting aside the space
to do it. I started as an artist before becoming an L.A. I think hand-drawn
has its place, but I save it for observation and personal expression/fine
art. I'm currently making a painting using as a starting point a photo
image of a city council meeting I attended concerning funding for a local
wetlands project. I've changed much of the forms and colors and something
different is emerging. I'm using colored pencils, acrylic paints and
brushes and a 'sharpy' felt pen. We'll see if it turns out ok.
Most of my inspiration to 'go digital' has come from other small office
L.A.'s and architects and contractors. There is a lot of innovation within
these groups. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' When you have limited
resources you have to get the most from tools at hand. Computers have saved
me. I can create professional presentation drawings and working drawings to
meet deadlines. I can trade drawings and text by email and zip disks. It
really beats vellum, lead and stickybacks!
I wish I could have been in Portland. I would have liked to attend Ed
Flaherty's panel. I've shared emails with Ed and feel a certain gut
response from his observation that the "vectors including
public participation, environmental activism, maturing information
technology and pressure on profit margins are converging."
Somethings going on here, but I don't know what it is.
I could go on and on about that as I see this convergence every day in my
community. The innovation is coming from many divergent places at once in a
noisy, messy and unpredictable way. (the bazaar, not the cathedral) This is
all leading to something new concerning how we relate to each other and our
planet.
It was refreshing to read Gregg's post. Most writing on Larch-L is
academic, which is fine and useful and inspires me at times. But I was
overjoyed to see another sole practicioner. The list benefits from a
diversity of people responding.
sorry for my long post.
Steve French
Steve French Landscape Architect
2616 Meier Rd. Sebastopol, CA 95472
Laguna de Santa Rosa tributary
Russian River Watershed
Shasta Bioregion
North America
tel: 707-829-1200
fax: 707-829-7808
sfla@monitor.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:22:02 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
Subject: Re: ASLA/Digital Thread
Many thanks to Gregg Polubinsky for letting us know whaqt life is like for
one person digital office. It is helpful to know there is someone really
practicing this way.
Jim Palmer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:50:38 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Cathedral and Bazaar Prequel
*PP21 and LandTech Portland 98 Last Words*
There appears to be a traditional format and schedule structure to ASLA
annual meeting educational events. lectures and displays. It does not suit
the breadth and dynamic of digital issues. Next year should be different.
Schedule and format should reflect the 24 hour a day international nature
of on-line activity.
My own Project Process 21(PP21) presentation at Portland was a unilateral
cathedral(according to Eric Raymond) (http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/)
effort, despite my well-intentioned efforts to bring on board outside
comments and opinions. We ought to use this list to try the bazaar
approach (we all contribute to the concept and design) to develop the
format, schedule and structure of next year's digital component to the ASLA
annual meeting.
Stephen Ervin's recent post recalled to me some of the digital landmark
contributors that this list has seen over the past 5 years and it is this
wealth of contributors(including all current contributors) that could form
the core of the bazaar effort for next year's digital show. James Palmer
wonders about examples of work? I contend there is a surfeit. I think
that most of the serious digital people have stopped even contributing to
this list, as they have stopped interacting with ASLA, because there is
just too much exciting digital stuff to do.
On the other side, the ASLA people who have such busy practices apparently
have no time even for email, what to speak of IRC, Web, list servers, news
groups and all the related resources online. They are ignorant except for
what the CNN shows(no cynicism intended). We need to show these resources
to them during the meeting.
I picked out a part of an old exchange on larch-l(archived at CLR Toronto)
from January 1995 written by David Hulse regarding digital activity:
>I don't think enough credit is being given in this discussion to the work of
>Doug Johnston(Illinois), Stephen Ervin (Harvard), Jack Ahern(UMass), Brian
>Orland (Illinois),
>Jim Sipes(Oklahoma), Joan Nassauer(UMinn.), Walt Bremer (Cal Poly San
>Luis Obispo) folks like Steve Mullen at Design Workshop and others I am
>neglecting to mention.
All of these people have continued with their digital work in the
succeeding three, nearly 4 years, though we rarely hear from them even on
this list. They are just the beginning of what should be displayed at the
ASLA annual meeting digital component.
Lastly, Stephen asked in his recent post about how computers can be used in
landscape architecture. I would like to add the obvious--as an information
resource via the Internet. Additionally, they can function as an interface
for public interaction. Two active research and development areas follow:
1. Look at Kurt Fedra's work at http://www.ess.co.at/
He specializes in the development and implementation of Integrated
Environmental Information Systems and model-based Decision Support Systems
for environmental management applications.
The ESS team designs, develops, and deploys customized environmental
information systems, and provides training and continuing support world
wide. Products: High-performance simulation and optimization models,
GIS, and expert systems integrated in a distributed client-server
architecture with a multi-media user interface and Internet/Intranet
support are our main products for environmental management applications.
2. Look at William J. Craig's work for the Center for Urban and Regional
Affairs at http://www1.umn.edu/cura/whatsnew.htm, regarding GIS and
Neighborhood Groups.
Are geographic information systems (GIS) and other information technologies
contributing to a more democratic society or further stratifying the haves
from the have nots?
GIS is widely used by urban planners today, but can it also be used by
neighborhood groups when they plan for changes and improvements? Sarah
Elwood, the Borchert Fellow winner for 1997-98*, is investigating how four
Minneapolis neighborhoods groups use GIS in preparing plans for the
Neighborhood Revitalization Program. Using ethnographic methods, she is
following how GIS is used by People of Phillips, Hawthorne Area Community
Council, Prospect Park/East River Road Improvement Association, and
Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association. She asks: How do these diverse
neighborhoods use GIS? How does it affect their agendas and internal
dynamics? and How does it affect their participation in the planning
process and their ability to influence that process? She hopes that her
research will point to public policies that can allow GIS technology to be
put to its best use at the neighborhood level.
Hey, I never met an enviromental or geography issue that did _not_ have a
landscape component!
;)
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
--------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:37:00 +0100
From: David Watson
Subject: Pencils vs CAD
Don Staley wrote:
One important difference is that a CAD system places an enormously complex,
and very expensive, additional system between the mind and the drawing. I
teach traditional graphics and CAD in our landscape architecture program at
Texas Tech, and while not denying the editing and speed-of-info-transfer
advantages CAD drawings afford, a well trained human mind can produce more
communicative drawings of all sorts faster, and more economically, by hand
than with the aid of CAD. When we draw with a pencil, we convert our
thoughts to visible image in a direct, mechanical way. When we "draw" with
CAD, we must convert our thoughts to the language of the CAD program via the
mechanics of the computer keyboard and mouse. Then, if we want a
transportable image that transcends class, we must print our "drawing" on
another complex and expensive piece of computer hardware.
********************
I also teach traditional graphics and CAD in a landscape architecture
program and I take a slightly different view. Most of what Don says is true
but I don't think he has quite got to the hub of the matter.
I believe that "design" is largely an intuitive process and in order to
express our design thoughts most effectively we must use an intuitive
medium, therefore placing the smallest possible barrier between thought and
representation. Since we all can use pencil and paper intuitively (we have
all been using them from a very early age), this becomes our preferred
medium. There is no doubt that computers, plotters etc. place an enormous
barrier between thought and representation. Only when computers can be used
intuitively can the intuitive design process run its course unhindered.
Most if any of my students ever get to this stage but this is only to be
expected. I have worked with CAD on a regular basis myself as a practitioner
for the last 15 years. I rarely, if ever now use a pencil and paper for
original design ideas but it has taken time to reach this point. I now
consider myself to be an intuitive user of CAD.
The fact is that most people of our generation (I am 36) can only hope to
work with computers intuitively by long exposure to it. Each year I see
groups of students getting progressively closer to the point of intuition.
This appears to be a function of two things. Firstly they have had longer
exposure to computers at an earlier age (I was in my teens before my first
hands-on experience). Secondly the software and operating systems are better
designed/easier to use. I expect that in perhaps 5 years time we will see
students for whom the choice between pencil and CAD is a real dilemma
because both media will be intuitive to them.
David Watson
Senior Lecturer, University of Greenwich
Landscape Architect & IT/CAD Consultant
Beech Cottage, Wadwick, Andover, Hampshire, SP11 6ET
Tel/Fax 01264 738 639
dw@watson.u-net.com
http://www.watson.u-net.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:13:45 +0900
From: aaron isgar
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 15 Oct 1998 to 16 Oct 1998
Stephen Ervin asked the following questions. I figured that as
a graduate student that I ought to reply even though I
should be working on my thesis.
>1. Is there a timeless way of doing thing that lies at
the core of
>landscape architecture as a discipline? If so, how might
you characterize it?
>If not, why not?
Yes, in the sense that the designer should take into account
all the qualities of the site and its context, the users now
and potential uses in the future, cultural expectations and
when to bend or break them, and when, where and if it is
appropriate to push the art towards new directions...
>2. Are there 'new opportunities' and ways of doing things
>that are presented
>by digital technologies? If not, why not? If so, what are they?
Yes. For better or worse, I have never done much drawing or
drafting. Drafting perspectives is an interesting process
and undoubtedly good for learning to visualize a design, but
MiniCad gives me the ability to check the perspectives as I
design. In fact, I feel that I am learning to visualize this
way as well.
I can make changes before I've invested a lot of time in the
ground plan and save as many variations of it as I want.
Then, there is the potential to show the design to others in
not only a static format, but also to allow them to interact
with it in person or via the internet.
Perhaps, the most important thing digital technologies can
do is help us communicate with people who are not trained in
landscape design. This enhanced communication will also
become increasingly important in the related field of
landscape ecology where complex systems can be modeled not
only for the practitioners understanding, but in order to
explain things to planners and policy makers.
>3. What are the salient differences (aside from cash flow)
>between being a
>practicioner vs. being a student?
Having more time to pursue interests is the main advantage.
I can study and think about landscape architecture, from
pure design to social, political and ecological issues. I
have more freedom to enter competitions and think about
theoretical designs. I can take my time looking at sites. I
am also learning various software programs that will, I
expect, make me more productive and creative in the long
term. I can write inordinate amounts of e-mail. Well, that's
how it used to be, but now my thesis has me by the throat...
Downsides of being a student include lack of respect and
having only one installed project. Lack of a sense of
concrete responsibility, but still carrying the weight of
the world on my shoulders, though, is probably the worst
part of being a student.
>4. (Remembering Jory Johnson's famous infuriating article substituting
'pencil' for 'computer'...) What are the
important/interesting differences
between 'drawing' with pencils vs. with CAD systems?
See above.
>5. What are the important/interesting differences in
digital technologies,
constraints and opportunities for students vs. for practitioners?
Not having the technology is the main problem in my program.
The students are more or less on their own if they want to
learn and our budget for computers, software and other
equipment is limited. I am at a public research oriented
university in Japan, though, so this is probably not what
other students on the list are experiencing.
I suppose having the money, but not the time to learn how to
use the technologies is the main problem for practitioners.
>6. What do you suppose a landhacker might be?
Sorry, I don't like that term, but I think it should mean a
landscape designer who can use the available technology, not
just for design and presentation, but also for information
gathering and interpreting. I prefer 'digitally-enabled gardener.'
7. What are some appropriate roles for computing in
landscape architecture
education and practice? What about inappropriate roles?
In addition to design and GIS, students should be able to
use computers to study everything from site planning (thanks
to J. Breeden) to statistics to horticulture. It is much
easier to learn many things from an interactive cd-rom than
a book. And, sometimes easier than learning from a teacher
as well.
My biggest fear about computers in landscape architecture is
that we'll see more and more design where plant materials
are just for trimming or architectural purposes. I worry
about people, including myself, who are becoming more in
tune with virtual reality than the physical world. Then
again, I know people who spend all their time in the
drafting room with the blinds closed, the air-con on and the
radio blasting.
Thanks for the thought provoking questions.
aaron isgar
Kyoto University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:36:58 -0700
From: "James A.
Kirkpatrick"
Subject: LA's and computer use.
Greetings
In regards to some of the posts on waht tools Landscape Architects can use
to increase productivity and communicate effectively with their peers and
clients, I would like to share my experiences. On a daily basis I use 3
e-mail accounts, IRC, ICQ, AOL instant messanger, the World Wide Web, FTP,
4 mailing lists, post to message boards, and use newsgroups occasionally.
This past summer I employed some of these methods in my research job
within the field of landscape architecture. Here's where my plug for my
research begins. I was hired as a research assistant to help startup a
webpage for the new Centre for Canadian Landscape Architecture Archives.
An online reseource for professionals students, educators, etc, to access
visual images of Canada's great Landscape Architects and information about
them and their work. To begin getting the word out, I compiled a list of
email addresses for every Landscape Architecture educator who has an email
listed at the school homepage, as well as any member of the Canadian
Association of Landscape Architects. I also posted messages to this list,
as well as other related lists, posted on international message boards, and
linked the site to any Landscape Architecture resource I could find. This
was an attempt to find if there were any similar projects and to get
feedback. Well from my experiences the Landscape Architecture world does
not seem poised to fully embrace technology. Besides the incredibly low
amount of LA's who had email addresses in the first place, most did not
respond. Of the estimated 500 people I contacted we got 20 to 40
repsonses. My thoughts regarding this response and the general condition
of LA's on the computer is as follows. LA is a relatively small field,
and a relatively small percentage of that field is 'online'. Therefore
when you send an email to someone or post on a message board people are
less likely to see it and less likely to respond. There just simply
doesn't seem to be enough substance to the existence of Landscape
Architects online.
Now of course this will slowly change, but for now people get frustrated
and turn to other means. Such is the case with my current thesis reserach.
Researching Olympic Design for my Toronto 2008 Master Plan, I have
approached firms involved in past Olympics electronically to no avail,
pushing me to use direct phone contact to ensure results. It is not
guaranteed that you will get a response when you work online, and the best
way to change that is to get more and more people using online services.
Sorry for the long winded address, but I just wanted to share some of my
experiences.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:09:41 +0300
From: Ed Flaherty
Subject: Rage Against the Machine
Readers,
Please let me open the door for getting together some ideas regarding the
format, structure, content and schedule for the ASLA99 digital component.
Land Tech 98 was in way too small a physical area and unfortunately
well-hidden in the traditional warehouse trade show. The 90 minutes of
PP21 was in the main educational sessions area in a longish rectangular
room with a pew type seat arrangement for say 200 people--not good for
interaction.
I think the 200 person lecture room size is about right for a digital
arena. I think the room(arena) should be a separate, yet centrally located
facility dedicated the entire meeting to digital stuff. And I think it
should be open 24 hours a day, everyday, for the entire event.
This is why.
I think that there should be a central kind of internet cafe with
drinks(coffee/tea/water) and about 12 terminals on at least an ADSL speed
link to the internet. Use of machines should be free to all attendees.
Twelve machines on line around the clock. Should also have jacks for road
warriors--if there are any. :)
In this central hub should also be a large projection screen with live IRC
windows receiving input from ASLA members who could not attend as well as
landscape architects and other interested people from around the world.
Advice about the IRC stuff would be set up say 2-3 months in advance so
that students, professionals and interested people from around the world
could join in. Should we consider video conferencing?
At this hub could be organized short 1/2 hour informal discussions timed to
occur during the breaks in the education sessions, like between noon and 1,
and between 3 and 5PM. These could be the same every day so that visitors
could drop in any of the three days. Topics like: Problems in Networks,
Problems in OSes. Problems in Graphics Formats--problem related stuff.
Around the internet cafe hub would be a large number of topic oriented
nodes with clusters each of about 6 terminals. The user interface for the
terminals in these topic oriented nodes would be pre-organized so that
users could easily link to examples and explanations within the range of
each specific topic.
My first go round on topics yielded this bag:
1. Graphics Issues in CAD
2. Graphics Issues in GIS
3. User Interface Issues in Public Participation
4. Web Internet Resources
5. Non-Web Internet Resources
6. Graphics Issues in Modeling
7. Graphics Issues in Rendering
8. Graphics Issues in Animation
9. Graphics/Sound Issues in Multimedia
10. Graphics Issues in Planning and Design
11. Server/Network Issues
12. OS Issues
That would be a cluster of 5 or 6 terminals for each topic. All open and
available 24 hours/day. ...hmmm, lots of terminals--but hell we need them,
so that people can put their hands on them at their leisure and learn
something(other than rage).
Now, what to do about the trade fair? Should there be a digital trade fair
in this room--manufacturers and suppliers who choose not to be physically
present but who would like to have visits to their Web sites for special
offers, for software downloads or some such...
Should there be invited the people who make the digital hardware that
enables data collection in the field and transfer to the office and
presentation to the client? All that survey and GPS stuff... and what
about digital still and movie cameras... What about the projection devices
and alternatives... What about the hardware/software packages for digital
video and the pros and cons for output, DVD, CD, video tape...? Now it
_is_ getting exciting!
I'm sure all this stuff should be there!!! Don't get me wrong, I love
plants, I admire cultivars, and building/molding landscapes/gardens is
exhilerating, but...
We don't need the keys we'll break in, as Rage Against the Machine politely
says.
In conclusion, this post is an attempt to start a larch-l dialogue on, and
hopefully pursue to conclusion, some concepts for the format, structure,
content and schedule for the ASLA99 digital component. It can be as useful
as we can make it.
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 19:36:49 -0400
From: Anne BLOOD
Subject: to compute or not to compute...
I thought I would make a few comments on the technology war that seems to
be going on in landscape architecture. I am actually a postdoctoral
fellow in Neuroscience, but I am thinking very seriously of changing
careers and becoming a landscape architect. I have subscribed to this
list for awhile, and have been following the recent discussions about the
quickly changing technological circumstances in landscape architecture,
and thought an outside perspective might be of interest.
I happen to work in the brain imaging field of neuroscience (PET, MRI,
etc.), which has been swamped by continual advances in hardware and
software to the point where it can become quite easy to spend all
one's time just working on the technology, and none actually running
experiments! I am also in the generation which was not raised on
computers, yet was introduced to them soon enough to be able to
learn and integrate them quite well into my work; thus, I can see both the
advantages and disadvantages of integrating computing technology into the
workplace.
I have not actually used CAD yet, but I have used a number of other
imaging programs such as Powerpoint and Adobe Photoshop. What I have
found is that there is, initially, a quite steep learning curve in
mastering these programs; however, once I have conquered that curve, I
find that use of the program becomes quite automatic and, even more
importantly, that other programs are quite similar and easy to pick up.
Another issue is the fact that hand-drawing versus creating images on the
computer definitely involve two different ways of thinking. However, I
find that these two processes can be used in a complementary way--I tend
to sketch out figures for a paper before actually using the computer
program, but once I start assembling the figure, I find it extremely
useful to have the precision and time-saving features of the computer.
One further point that I find extremely frustrating is the fact that
people in my field often let themselves be lead by the technology, rather
than the other way around. That is, they say 'Wow, here's this neat new
toy, what can we use it for?' rather than 'I need to do x or y--now what
program could be created to help me out with this?' In my mind, this is
the biggest danger of using computers in any field--when the work you do
is dictated by the existing technology, rather than using the technology
as a tool to facilitate and enhance what you had already wanted to do
(although I must admit that being led by the technology has, in some
circumstances, lead to serendipitous discoveries). In a field as creative
as landscape architecture, I would think that this would be particularly
relevant; the creativity and individuality of each architect should not be
compromised by technology.
In summary, I definitely believe that as long as it is used intelligently,
the digital world can be integrated into and positively enhance a field
such as landscape architecture without compromising the field in a
negative way. However, I can definitely say from my own experience in
neuroscience, that disagreements about both the use of the technology
itself, AND which programs should be used (leading to problems of
incompatibility between firms, etc.) are, unfortunately, inevitable.
I hope some of these comments are useful. I am planning to begin a
career in landscape architecture as soon as I finish my postdoc at McGill,
so perhaps I will speak with some of you in person in the future.
Anne Blood
-------------------------------
Anne J. Blood, Ph.D.
Montreal Neurological Institute
phone: (514) 398-6644 x1842
fax: (514) 398-1338
email: ablood@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
------------------------------
[Eeditors Note: About here, the thread becomes 'PENCILS/CAD';
partly echoing a previous post by Jory Johnson entitled
Pencil Fantasy]
Subject: CADD vs. Design
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:37:39 -0400
From: Laurene Gilbert <lmg4@CORNELL.EDU>
I work in a multi-disciplinary engineering firm. There is an on going
debate within my department as to the use of CADD drafters regarding
their design capabilities with regard to landscape design. None of our
drafters have landscape or civil engineering backrounds, but are rather
schooled in architecture and/or mechanical/electrical engineering.
I often getting called on the carpet because I don't hand my designs
over to a drafter, but prefer to do most of the drafting myself. I feel
CADD stands for Computer Aided Drafting <bold>and </bold>Design. To me
those two go hand in hand, especially if the majority of the people you
work with don't have an LA backround. I find I do my designing
<bold>while</bold> I'm drafting. To me those two aspects occur
simultaneously. To hand a rough sketch of a road/parking lot
reconstruction where design layout includes pavement, walkways, lighting,
drainage, landscaping, site amenities, grading, etc. to a person who
doesn't have the knowledge, or "know the lingo" or doesn't know the nooks
and crannies of the site only leads to multiple field changes on site
when construction occurs.
When drafting my own design, and I see, for instance, a radius that
won't work during design development the way it was intended during the
schematic phase, it more often than not leads to quite a few other
changes in that particular area of the site that I work out as I'm going
along. Someone else may not see that, and just proceed with the drafting
based on what they see on a sketch. That's just an example, but it
happens continually. I've often seen construction where a drafter in an
office somewhere stopped their grading plan along the contract limit
line, and matched up existing grades to proposed grades that just don't
make sense because they didn't understand what was actually going on out
in the field. These things often get overlooked during review by the
initial designer, because they didn't have the experience of doing the
drafting themselves.
Anyway, I'm wondering if this is a problem that happens in other offices
as well as mine. Our management wants to see us making use of drafters
for budgetary reasons; they can charge the designer out at a higher rate
and use lower paid drafters to finish off the design. The particular
section I work in, Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture, can't
seem to make them understand the benefits of doing our own CADD work.
Opinions are appreciated.
Subject: Re: CADD vs. Design
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:13:48 -0400
From: "J. Brooks Breeden" <breeden.1@OSU.EDU>
Laureen Gilbert just wrote a beautiful short essay on the reason my "boss"
(when I was in private practice in Atlanta) refused to hire "drafters."
They couldn't or wouldn't make design decisions---if they did, they were
really "designers" not "drafters." If they were designers, they should BE
(and get paid as) designers. All this was back in the dark ages when we'd
just graduated from ruling pens to rapidographs; and a "computer" was
defined in the dictionary as "a person who does computations for a living."
The French have a saying, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la mème chose." I
think that it roughly translates to, "the more things change, the more they
stay the same." Welcome to Landscape Architecture.
Laureen, you just nailed one of our profession's major problems: You, the
designer, are "too valuable" to drive the CADD machine; but if you don't
drive the CADD machine, you can't BE the designer. Joseph Heller
("Catch-22) would love it!
b.
----------------
>...To hand a rough sketch of a road/parking lot
>reconstruction where design layout includes pavement, walkways, lighting,
>drainage, landscaping, site amenities, grading, etc. to a person who
>doesn't have the knowledge, or "know the lingo" or doesn't know the nooks
>and crannies of the site only leads to multiple field changes on site
>when construction occurs.
>
>When drafting my own design, and I see, for instance, a radius that
>won't work during design development the way it was intended during the
>schematic phase, it more often than not leads to quite a few other
>changes in that particular area of the site that I work out as I'm going
>along. Someone else may not see that, and just proceed with the drafting
>based on what they see on a sketch....
J. Brooks Breeden, Professor
Austin E. Knowlton School of Architecture
The Ohio State University
E-mail: breeden.1@osu.edu
URL: http://www.larch.ohio-state.edu/larch/Faculty/JBB/JBBPAGE.HTM
Subject: Pencils vs. CAD
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:17:11 -0600
From: "dstaley@ttu.edu"
<p8djs@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
While there have been some very good points made regarding Pencils vs. CAD,
none of them have been made with regard to the cost differences between the
two technologies. I have a hard time separating the generation of graphics
from the cost of doing so, and I suspect the implications are great. The
assumption that intuitive design and graphics production can be as fast and
communicative whether using CAD or a pencil, so long as one is raised on the
technology, may be true (you'll have to convince me). But, the vast
difference in cost is certainly going to determine who can get to that point
with CAD.
How about these additional questions...
1. What does the CAD designer do when the power goes out?
2. What are the environmental and social impacts of silicon production?
3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
Don
____________________________________
Don Staley, Associate ASLA
Assistant Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
Box 42121
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-2121
(806)742-2858, FAX -0770
____________________________________
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:02:34 EST
From: "Warren S. Roberts ASLA"
<wsroberts@CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: lights are out, lets go home
Hi Don ...
>How about these additional questions...
>1. What does the CAD designer do when the power goes out?
Got me there :-) given that many CAD 'designers' dont get to design ...
probably go home, and so to the designer who is dependent on the CAD
person. Note also that the lights are out, as well as the elevator, xerox,
blueprint machine and perhaps the phones :-)
>2. What are the environmental and social impacts of silicon production?
not sure .. good question, but we already know the impacts of gasoline to
commute to the office and the airlines to deliver the drawings and the
xerox ink to reduce and enlarge the faded blueprints and warped plastic
mylar. But we can save a few trees in the meantime with less pencils ...
well maybe a few.
social impacts ... computer nerds are actually fun folks
>3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
Be sure to add the 'change factor' such as base changes, delivery times,
phone and fax time. And, if the LA is not the lead, make sure the lead
consultant will accept it as a paper project.
----------------------------------------------------
Warren S. Roberts ASLA
Department of Landscape Architecture
117 49'64"W 34 03'43"N
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
3801 West Temple Avenue Bldg 7-101C
Pomona, California, CA 91768
Phone: (909) 869-6891 Fax: (909) 869-4460
E-Mail: wsroberts@csupomona.edu
WWW: http://www.csupomona.edu/~la/
-----------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:02:34 EST
From: Edward Keplinger
<EKeplinger@AOL.COM>
Hi, my name is Edward Keplinger and I have been lurking on this newsgroup for
a year or so. I thought I would take a shot at answer Don's question
regarding pencil vs. CADD. For some personal background, I am a licensed
Landscape Architect in New York and have been in business for the past 6+
years exclusively using programs like Autocadd/Landcadd, Accurender, Photoshop
and Pagemaker in preparation of construction documents, reports, renderings,
and marketing materials. When I graduated from SUNY ESF in 1988, life for an
LA was much simpler, we had our ink, our pens and our mylar. Some offices
had CADD but it was not required by our clients and its costs were too
prohibitive to most offices. In 1991, I worked in an office that had Autocadd
and Pagemaker on a computer but nobody really knew how to use them. I knew
that this was the wave of the future so I better learn them. Since 1992, I
have exclusively prepared all presentaion and construction materials in
digital format.
<< How about these additional questions...
1. What does the CAD designer do when the power goes out?
Go for a bike ride. Seriously, in the past six years there may have been 2 or
3 instances where a power outage has affected my business.
2. What are the environmental and social impacts of silicon production?
Moot point. Computers will be here whether we as landscape architects use
them or not.
3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
I would accept your challenge. There may be a much higher costs associated
with starting and maintaining a digital office but these costs can be offset
over time by creating libraries of digital projects. For example, if I were
asked to prepared construction documents for a running track, as my starting
point I would go back to my archives and retrieve a similiar running track
project including details that may have been prepared say four years earlier.
Since the project is in digital format, we can then design the project, easily
borrowing elements and details from the previous project saving time and
money.
Edward Keplinger
Subject: Re: lights are out, lets go home
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:49:27 -0500
From: Robert Wright
<wright@CLR.UTORONTO.CA>
>
> >1. What does the CAD designer do when the power goes out?
>
> A question that will be answered by the Y2K issue perhaps?.......but really,
> when the power goes out you hit the generator, slap in the extra battery and
> keep away form the chaos on the streets
>
> >2. What are the environmental and social impacts of silicon production?
>
> The impacts are devistating......the computer industry is one of the most
> dangerous produces countless types of invisible type of pollution.....they
> are improving however slowly and while were at it lets cut nuclear power
> development and military spending....please keep planting trees
>
> social impacts ... Nerds rule
>
> >3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
> and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
>
> Be like comparing apples and oranges, computers are not good replacements for
> analog technologies but are best in areas of repetitive and extension
> technologies (stuff we can't do any other way)
________________________________________________________________________
Professor Robert M. Wright
Acting Associate Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
Director, Program in landscape Architecture
Acting Director, Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI)
Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
230 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R2
Tel: (416) 978-6788 Fax: (416) 971-2094
r.wright@utoronto.ca, wright@clr.utoronto.ca
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:16:03 -0700
From: steve french
<steev@MAIL.MONITOR.NET>
Dear Larch-L,
Don Staley made some good comments:
>While there have been some very good points made regarding Pencils vs. CAD,
>none of them have been made with regard to the cost differences between the
>two technologies. I have a hard time separating the generation of graphics
>from the cost of doing so, and I suspect the implications are great. The
>assumption that intuitive design and graphics production can be as fast and
>communicative whether using CAD or a pencil, so long as one is raised on the
>technology, may be true (you'll have to convince me). But, the vast
>difference in cost is certainly going to determine who can get to that point
>with CAD.
>
>How about these additional questions...
>
>1. What does the CAD designer do when the power goes out?
>
>2. What are the environmental and social impacts of silicon production?
>
>3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
>and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
I'm of the opinion that if one wants to be a competitive L.A. one should be
skilled in the use of both pencil and CAD. I think thats a tough one
though. I have spent a lot of time learning CAD and other computer
applications. While doing that, I wasn't improving my pencil skills. I
think we should all be proficient in drawing - drawing from the imagination
as well as drawing what we see. I think of Laurence Halprins wonderful
sketch books of drawings and studies he's made over a long time. His skill
has enriched his design ability.
To answer the questions:
1. When the power goes out , you're out of business. With poor to no
lighting, its not easy to do hand-drafting
either. With no power you cant use other office machines. I think you're
stuck computer or not. When the power goes out on me I assume it's nature
telling me to take a break.
2. I don't know.
3. That would be fun. And, the cost is a huge factor. I save my $ to
improve my computer tools and constantly try to keep a balance between that
and spending to learn more about designing or the environment or to spend
the money on marketing for new clients. Switching to CAD and further
computer use is addictive. Once started, you cant go back. I do know that
it keeps me competitive.
Steve French
Steve French Landscape Architect
2616 Meier Rd. Sebastopol, CA 95472
Laguna de Santa Rosa tributary
Russian River Watershed
Shasta Bioregion
North America
tel: 707-829-1200
fax: 707-829-7808
sfla@monitor.net
Subject: Pencil vs. CAD
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:37:55 -0800
From: Lindsay Gowler
<lindsayg@AXIONET.COM>
I have been out of town for most of October but would like to add my two cents
worth to this thread. In my experience this question has come full-circle. On
most of my designs I sketch my ideas on trace, then scan them into a program
like CorelDraw, add notes and dimensions and end up with crisp, sharp graphics
that look hand-drawn. Once past the design stage these scanned images can be
easily converted to vector images for construction drawings. In addition, with
the scanner I can add site photographs and other images to enhance presentation
work. I've found that CorelDraw 8, although sometimes frustrating to use, is a
cost-effective alternative to Illustrator and Photo-shop.
One thing I haven't seen in this discussion of computers so far is the huge
advantage practitioners can gain in data filing and retrieval. I've been using
Autocad since 1985 and doing regular backups on projects since then. Except for
eighteen month spent in Japan working with pencil and paper, I can now put my
hands on most of my drawings relatively quickly. I find that I quite often refer
back to projects and sometimes use spreadsheets or details as templates on new
projects. Accurate and regular backups also save a lot of time and wasted energy
searching through old flat files or tubes for drawings that must be revised. The
cost for tape backup systems is still relatively inexpensive, in the past I've
used Colorado Systems but have recently switched to Iomega.
In the end it still comes down to the fact that the "computer" is nothing more
than a tool that we can use to get our ideas planted. As Anne Blood says it's a
matter of not being lead by the technology. Once people (students/professionals)
understand the basics of electronics it becomes simpler to look at a new piece
of technology and have the ability to say "what if".
Lindsay Gowler
West Vancouver BC
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:46:12 -0500
From: CAV Dweller
<trtoland@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
In response to Don's string about Pencils vs. CAD, I would like to extend
the argument to Pencils vs. Computer Generated Graphics. This includes not
only CAD, but also image processing and vector drawing programs that could
be used in the production of illustrations for landscape graphics, and
desktop publishing programs. At one point in the not to distant past, CAD
programs were percieved as a stand alone program that could do it all. The
reality of late has been that this is not true. CAD is just one tool with a
specific use in a wide range of computer graphics.
As a user of both analog and digital technologies (yes, it is possible for a
computer user to still be able to draw), I think the argument of which is
faster in initial production has been well argued that it doesn't matter as
long as you are comfortable with the medium. A pencil drawing can be done
just as quickly as an equivalent CAD drawing by skilled individuals.
Where the computer generated graphics begin to excel is in the reproduction
of those same graphics. The illustration of revisions to a plan in CAD has
been well documented. It is easier to redraw a part of a drawing than having
to go the full route (esp. with ink drawings). But what about marker
renderings, or detailed axons or perspectives, or collages? Moving some
elements around in a vector drawing program or recomposing images in a
desktop publishing program then hitting the print key is alot faster than
re-rendering a sheet. Same applies for multiple copies. Need to distribute
multiple copies at a board meeting? Then print multiple copies.
This is related to another issue of efficiency. The same 24x36" graphic
created in Illustrator or a CAD program can also be printed at 8.5x11" for a
publication, or 11x17" for field documents. With today's software, multiple
individuals can be working on the same file, in different parts of the
office or different parts of the country, without having to wait for the
first to be done. People do not have to be hovering over the same sheets of
paper anymore.
And analog and computer graphics do not need to be mutually exclusive. Spent
alot of time rendering an exquisite marker rendering but need multiple
copies to distribute (or want to use it in your next brochure)? Then scan
it, convert it to a digital format, then reprint and paste to your heart's
content.
Now the arguments of costs is always going to be sticky, because with the
digital workflow we are talking about multiple programs and hardware. But as
this workflow can be made more efficient, and things like printing and
desktop publishing brought in-house, costs elsewhere can be reduced.
The days of stand alone applications is behind us. Many software companies
got burned with trying to sell proprietary software. It is only recently
that most vendors are making it easier to move between programs. Because of
this, and because the bottom has fallen out of computer hardware pricing,
it is easier and cheaper to invest in the digital workflow.
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:41:16 +0800
From: Richard Weller
<rweller@CYLLENE.UWA.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: not the sum of its parts
I dont know if its productive or even interesting to pit the pencil and the
machine or have discussions trying to convince each other about good bad or
better worse.
I can hardly turn a computer on but i sit in the office with a pad and make
a scribble and the new generation work it up and do all these strange-
incredible things. As a designer its like being delivered to a whole new
set of possibilities and dimensions - new ways of thinking and doing - even
if in part the newness is a return to older forms of perception.
As a designer - the important thing is to think about what it all means;
that reality has now bifurcated so clearly and whether it controls you or
you it - what is at stake in design as both a creative form unto itself but
also as a field which is of and in its time - dealing with the world around
it - not just about whether its more efficient to go virtual - thats the
curse of technology - its reduced to mere efficiency.
in terms of design its about the selection of a medium and an exploration
of that medium.
in our office we have everything we can get our hands on - from clay to
silicon.
the end point of it all is not how you did it but what you did.
Firstly ;
the big point is that virtual technologies are now the metaphoric
structure we apply to the mind and the cosmos (ie nature) and thats really
important because form that everything else flows. Consider a mechanistic
world view - it changed everything.
There is something profoundly organic and evolutionary about threading the
planet in cybernetics.
even if it is a sort of self securing sony buddhism to think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Anyway - regarding design (which has barely had a mention so far in the
teenagers talking about car parts scene.)
its a very fast list - a rough map- in no apparent order.
1. there are spaces which simply can not be hand drawn.
more so in architecture but also in landscape. there is an obligation on
the behalf of designers to understand new ideas and geometries of "nature"
which are only modelled and illustrated and discovered by virtual
technologies.
2. virtual topography and forms are ushering in a return to the sensual.-
remains to be seen if this is at the expense of the literal. not that
mainstream landscape architecture has much literary credit to burn.
3 a hyper naturalism - as opposed to a niave mimesis of vegetation etc
or a serpentine reduction.
ie complex geometries , iteration, morphing etc. also ability to montage,
stretch, bend, colour , rotate , reflect , fold , repeat, and appropriate
and alter. - a whole new artistic empire in fact.- although much of it
staked out by modernism in painting and sculpture.
4. less reliance on plan view - a landscape dynamically and temporally
designed by immersion is possible.
radical return of the picturesque and intimacy with spatial quality even
though disembodied from actual earth bound site.
5 radical maleability of form and pattern - form precedes or dances more
complexly with language as influence and generator of design
6. big questions of whether the real starts to become (look) more virtual .
or whether the virtual retreats unto itself. Many interesting designers
have given up on reality and bureaucracy and just design Newspace in
virtual environments. and yet for offices to use the new technology solely
on the grounds of efficiency and to just do more accurately what they would
do with a pencil - is to entirely miss the point and the potential.
The gap between design potential and buildability is yawning.
7. the myth of clean and green silicon - curious yet dubious corrollary
between virtual reality and arcadia.
thats a different and general sociological conversation. as is next point
8. penultimate cartesain mind body dualism effecting culture at large -
plato would have loved cad - ironically occuring at a time when dualism etc
is discredited - and yet there is a new embodiement albeit a denatured
cybernetic coupling of human and machine - same thing happeniing (or has
happened ) on a global scale in regards to the denatured.
9. general disgruntlement and boredom with gravity and euclid - also a
transcendance of the grid yet is not the technology still underpinned by
the grid ?
10 massive impacts on engineering - can they build what we can now form..
11. mass produced yet individualised components - fractal components that
can be drawn and produced.Cad cut models also of note here.
12 - the technology itself could lead to new spaces and forms not be used
to mimic carbon reality.
13. redefinitions of the self and culture at large (see cultural studies in
general obsession with this nexus)
14 designers inventing their own programs to create new spaces = a
relocation of what is avant garde
15 meaning relocated to complex mathematics and abstraction as opposed to
narrative and naturalism.
- a techno sublime.
16. dimunition of planting as a design structure because it doesnt look
good in the machines. Computer however tends to make everything look much
more seductive and we find ourselves doing what will be good in a
render.but it was like that with pencils .
Regarding the office ;
. I can send drawings from the most isolated city in the world to a friend
in a hut on the north sea when in fact the job is for Munich.
my office is both here and in sydney - and we relay drawings FLUIDLY - we
can enter any drawing and change it immediately.
BUT WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS A"BUILD IT" BUTTON INSTEAD OF A PRINT BUTTON !!!!
Richard Weller
Senior Lecturer
University of Western Australia
Architecture and fine arts.
ph 08 9 380-1567
fax 08 9 380 1082
rweller@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:50:03 +0300
From: Edward Flaherty
<ehf@MOC.KW>
Subject: Entropic Threshold(used to be Pencil [vs CAD]not)
Recent posts on this subject have been very fresh and very enlightening; and.
an appropriate subject title is rather, as some readers have already
pointed out, pencils _and_ computers. More specifically, we are actually
talking about how to enhance, by use of a range of digital software,
hardware and network options, the design services that pencils(we) provide
to the client.
So, what is the first step over the entropic threshold, the first step to
provide these added value services to the client? Maybe the following: if
you are flush with work and looking for a new employee...wait a
minute...when I was at the ASLA Portland98 Annual Meeting, I sat in on an
Edu-session entitled, 'Dispelling the Mystery of Satellite Imagery' by
David Bier,ASLA.
He did a great job of showing the breadth of two things:
1.Advances in high resolution image availability, and
2.Extraordinary range of applications for these manipulated images
at _all_ levels of planning, design and public communication.
He also addressed the complexities of gathering accurate data and formating
it for use. During the question period, I asked him, suppose I have a
medium size firm(5-10) or smaller and see the ways that digital imagery can
enhance my services to the client and I need to hire a new employee, should
I hire a recent grad LA with a smattering of GIS, CAD, DTP, Web to assist
or should I go to the Computer Science(CS) Department or the Geography
Department and find a person who understands the variety of operating
systems, networks and knows the programming languages as the basis of his
digital image interests?
Mr. Bier said that the CS/Geography graduate would be preferable, beyond a
doubt.
With that in mind as the basis for taking the first step over the entropic
threshold, please consider reading the following CNN
article<http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/28/campusraid.idg/>. CNN talks
about the pressure and need for IT graduates in all businesses and how some
firms have developed a recruitment/summer training strategy--yes, a
strategy to get the quality of new hire necessary to enable enhancement of
added value services to the client.
If we wait for CNN to confirm a trend...I guess...of all the professions,
we alone, because of the nature of our work(?), move like a Quercus robur.
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:01:40 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
<zooey@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: CADD vs. Design
Laurene Gilbert comments on the interaction between CADD and Design:
>I work in a multi-disciplinary engineering firm. There is an on going
>debate within my department as to the use of CADD drafters regarding
>their design capabilities with regard to landscape design...
>I often getting called on the carpet because I don't hand my designs
>over to a drafter, but prefer to do most of the drafting myself.
>...I find I do my designing <bold>while</bold> I'm drafting. ...
>Anyway, I'm wondering if this is a problem that happens in other offices
>as well as mine. Our management wants to see us making use of drafters
>for budgetary reasons; they can charge the designer out at a higher rate
>and use lower paid drafters to finish off the design.
I certainly share Laurene's preference, as yall all (I'm told that is the
proper plural of you all) can tell by my common spelling errors.
I think root issue contrasts two styles of (professional) work. On the one
hand the boss/professional prepares content in a draft mode that is
delivered to an assitant to implement in final mode. On the other hand the
professional is responsible for the full completion of their work, through
final presentation.
Many of us experienced the first relationship with secretaries in a typing
pool or the old style room full of draftsmen (I guess they really were
mostly men). There seems to be a dramatic sea change in the role of
secretaries. In my department, we all do our own typing (except the chair,
who still does some hand writing). We began to do this because there are
16 plus faculty and one secretary--no one would not get their work back in
a timely fashion if we all relied on the secretary. Now most of us prefer
to write/type our own material because we have greater control over the end
product (we do not need to go back for endless corrections). I think one
of the real changes that digital technology has made is that anyone can
produce printed-looking material. Whether the content is equally high is
another story. What has been lost is the 'editorial' function served by
good secretaries. Management has taken the opportunity to remove
two-thirds of the secretatial staff (rather than a faculty line) because we
now do our own typing. However, there is a failure to apprecaite that
secretaries served funtions other than typing -- e.g., editing, proper
archiving, critical review, etc. I do not know if the drafting room
provides any of these functions, but they are important and need to be
accomplished somehow. Perhaps we need a new way to organize ourselves to
accomplish them.
Jim Palmer, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:52:36 -0700
From: Blake Cullimore
<bcullimo@DESIGNWORKSHOP.COM>
Subject: cad/ pencil
This will not be a rebuttal to Don but just an add on to some of the digital benefits beyond
CAD.
Spatial analysis and the running of numerous models is far more efficient digitally, time can
be spent in looking at more
options.
3D models and perspective generation uses the same information as CD package and site
analysis package allowing better and
often times more concise communication with contractor.
Even with a basic 3D model (volumetric) presented in the landscape and then exported to VRML
one can share information, fly
through the model and generate as many perspectives as is necessary to communicate the extent
of the design. Is it a design
tool? thats will always be a question about every technology, but it provides a great way to
critique and visualize decisions
that are made in the design process. We use a combination of::
(excuse the acronyms...if you have any questions email me or ask a computer nerd)
CAD
GIS
Image processing tools
VRML
MPEG
QT
FTP
digital whiteboards
scanners
3D modellers
and yes, hand graphics
all to get to one goal to communicate the intent of the design that is in our heads and to
provide as much possible critique
of it before it goes out the door for the least possible cost.
Blake
Landscape Designer/Planner
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:38:57 -0500
From: "David P. Adler"
<dadler@TACONIC.NET>
Subject: Re: CADD vs. Design
I guess I'm still sort of in the middle in this issue.
I think that when it comes to repetitive tasks, the computer can't be beat.
I can remember when I first was introduced to stickybacks! This was cutting
edge technology as far as I was concerned. Teamed up with a photocopier I
could draw a detail once and use it over and over without much redrawing.
Now I can use the cad program to serve the same function with the added
opportunity for very easy changes relative to site specific questions as
well as new opportunities of sharing details with other professionals and
consultants. I feel this is a big improvement, especially when I want to
change the print out scale or learn a better way of doing things.
As far as design goes, I still do most of my preliminary design work on
paper with markers, pencils and whatever strikes my fancy. I still do tons
of overlays and find a nice pile of balled up flimsy at my feet. There is
something about the smell of the paper, the feel of the pencil and the look
of these preliminary drawings that stimulates my creative juices. But once
I've got a concept that I like, or a couple, I put them on the computer,
overlaid on a base plan, from then on all the design work is done on the
computer with periodic printouts to get red lined. All drawings that go to
the client are from the computer based drawings, I feel that this makes my
work look "cutting edge" and the client feels that he/she is dealing with
someone who is "modern" and keeping up with the rest of the design
community.
As I work alone most of the time there is no opportunity to give drawings to
drafters (is this the correct gender non-specific term?) so I feel that
designing as i work on the computer is efficient, especially after the
client has reviewed and changes have to be made or engineering drawings come
in that need to be incorportated.
I feel that my production time is reduced by using this combination of
preliminary work on paper and design development in the computer.
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:27:14 -0500
From: Tony McGee
<wamcgee@NR.INFI.NET>
Subject: Re: CADD vs. Design
This seems to be one of the more cogent approaches to this "issue" that I have
seen. I've only been on this list for a week or so ...but I must admit that I
am floored by the amount of time that is being devoted to this... I guess it
just seems like so much staring at our belly buttons... I mean, is this
discussion really moving us along as a profession or is it just so much
nostalgia for the "good ole days"
"David P. Adler" wrote:
> I guess I'm still sort of in the middle in this issue.
>...
> I feel that my production time is reduced by using this combination of
> preliminary work on paper and design development in the computer.
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:04:45 -0000
From: David Watson
<dw@WATSON.U-NET.COM>
Subject: Pencil vs. CAD
In response to Dons questions:
I think responses to questions 1 and 2 have been adequately made in previous
postings but I think there are a number of points which arise from question
3 which are worthy of further discussion.
>
>3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two technologies,
>and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
fdhgfioiuuguiifg
In order to fairly judge such a competition I assume one would have to
include a number or criteria. Which might be expressed as follows:
1. Clarity of drawing
What we are talking about here is communication. In my personal experience
computer drawings are much clearer. Just ask any contractor whether they
prefer working from a hand drawn planting plan or a computer generated one.
Printed text is always going to be clearer than hand written text.
2. Intrinsic beauty of drawing
Some would say, without hesitation, that hand drawn drawings are more
"beautiful" than computer generated drawings. By established principles I
would be bound to agree. Unfortunately this issue is far from simple. I
believe that to successfully describe the qualities of computer drawings we
must first devise a new "Digital Aesthetic". A new medium requires a new set
of principles by which it can be judged/analysed. I don't think we are yet
anywhere near a digital aesthetic and so to think that digital and analogue
images can be compared in this way is misguided.
3. Cost of Production
Cost does seem to be a big issue in many peoples minds, understandably. It
is certainly true to say that from a standing start it is much cheaper (by a
few orders of magnitude) to produce analogue drawings as opposed to digital
drawings and this may seem to be a crucial point. In the real world,
however, things are changing. It is no longer possible for most landscape
architects to work without CAD. CAD is now a commercial imperative. The
reason is clear, In terms of project management, communication with other
disciplines etc. CAD is by far the more efficient medium. It is a fact
(certainly here in the UK) that landscape architects who don't use CAD are
simply not invited to be involved with any projects larger than a private
garden. To equally compare the cost of digital and analogue drawings we need
to consider not only the cost of production but also the cost of project
management.
There are many other criteria we could use to compare the two, portability,
presentation and reproduction costs, longevity and re-use, some of which
have already been mentioned. By and large CAD drawings are more efficient in
use and happen to be my preferred medium. This is not to say that I am
against analogue forms of presentation, I am not. The two media types have
their advantages in different situations. Although this thread has generated
a lot of attention and a number of interesting ideas, the concept of a
"Pencil vs. CAD" discussion is largely irrelevant. Commercially the
decisions have already been made, CAD is used because it is more efficient.
I also happen to think it is an excellent design tool, but that's another
thread!
David
David Watson
Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture & Landscape, University of Greenwich
Landscape Architect & IT/CAD Consultant
Beech Cottage, Wadwick, Andover, Hampshire, SP11 6ET
Tel/Fax 01264 738 639
dw@watson.u-net.com
http://www.watson.u-net.com
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:51:37 -0500
From: David Iman Adler
<dadler@TACONIC.NET>
Subject: Re: Pencil vs. CAD
Re:
> >3. Wouldn't it be fun to stage a competition between the two
> technologies,
> >and shouldn't that competition factor in cost of production?
Kind of reminds me of the legend, song, whatever of John Henry who was
pitted against mechanized rail building. He, of course beat the machine, but
in the end he "died with a hammer in his hand..."
I'm not drawing (oh gosh bad pun huh?) an direct analogies, I doubt if even
the most dedicated drafter would (or could) draw him/her self to death but
it seems to me that is definitely is a case of apples and oranges. As I said
in an earlier post, I am using pencil drawings in an entirely different
manner than the final product produced by the computer. Also, there is just
no similarity between incorporating information from other professionals.
Can any pencil drafter compare overlaying base information with the way it
is done on computer?
I think this thread has very little justification anymore, computer
technology is now a part of our toolbox and any neo-luddite movement is
doomed to failure simply because ALL of the other design professions are
embracing it. The design still comes from our heart and our experience and
our harmony with the land. Any tool that increases our ability to do good
work is valid.
We should be discussing what that work should be, not how we draw it.
David Iman Adler
Landscape Architecture
http://www.taconic.net/adler
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:39:09 EST
From: Ann English
<Englishla@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: LARCH-L Digest - 28 Oct 1998 to 29 Oct 1998
Re: Pencil vs CAD
For the sake of argument, lets assume that CAD has become a necessity even (or
maybe ESPECIALLY!) for the small office, particularly for non-plant related
landscape architecture. Some interesting threads that I would like to see
pursued here would focus on how the pencil dependent can
1. Approach learning CAD for themselves (i.e. if you're not in school and in
a non-CAD environment, where and how do you go about getting the skills and
what is that education cost?),
2. How a non-CAD office can discern among the CAD packages that might make
sense for them (what sort of packages handle which scales/ sorts of projects
well and interface with the systems predominant among the engineers and
architects etc.) and
3. Reasonable expected capital investment that the non-CAD practitioner/office
will make in the afformentioned CAD system and training.
Any takers?
Ann English
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:21:13 -0400
From: "james f. palmer"
<zooey@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Converting to CADD
Ann English asks several questions to move us off the Pencil vs CAD
'debate' and onto advice for the pencil dependent.
>1. Approach learning CAD for themselves (i.e. if you're not in school and in
>a non-CAD environment, where and how do you go about getting the skills and
>what is that education cost?),
The cost for someone in an active practice is primarily time. I always
brwos the manuals of new programs as a good source of information. ;-)
Most programs also come with a basic self-tutorial. Generally you will
need to make the bridge from generic drafting to landscape architecture on
your own.
If you are not a comfortable computer user, I highly recommend a course as
a way to keep you on track. CADD is avaialable at most/many community
colleges and technical high school evening classes. There are also 1 or 2
week training courses for professionals that usually cost at least $100 a
day plus room and board.
>2. How a non-CAD office can discern among the CAD packages that might make
>sense for them (what sort of packages handle which scales/ sorts of projects
>well and interface with the systems predominant among the engineers and
>architects etc.) and
If you work with other CADD oriented offices or public clients, then you
will be asked to submit drawings in a standard format (usually AutoCAD's
DWG format). Several CADD programs are said to read and write AutoCAD
format reasonably well. One good choice is MiniCAD for either Macs or
Windows for under $600. It includes 2D drafting, 3D rendering, and a good
macro language. There are some special features that are of particular
interest to LAs.
>3. Reasonable expected capital investment that the non-CAD practitioner/office
>will make in the afformentioned CAD system and training.
Assuming that you want a Windows 98 machine (not a Mac), $2,600 will get you:
- 400MHz Pentium II (fast enough for several years)
- in a mini-tower case (which has some room to add boards or drives if needed)
- with a 19" monitor and 8MB graphics card
- (1) 128MB of memory DIMM (this is a substantial amount of memory, and
allows expansion)
- a 9GB hard disk (this is big, but if you use images it takes up room fast)
- 1.4MB floppy drive (standard)
- 100MB Zip drive (to allow exchange of big files)
- CD-ROM (take whatever is standard. Possible exception is to get a
CD-Writable for about $350 so you can archive your work and make backups.
A blank CD costs about $3 in quantities of 10 and has a long lifetime. You
cannot change them once written, so they are good archival stroage.)
- a 56K modem (to connect to AOL at the top speed your phone line is likely
to support)
- make sure it has a USB connector for peripherals (this is the new
standard for connecting scanners, printers, etc.)
If this is a little too pricy, you can get a slower procesor (e.g.,
333MHz), a smaller hard drive (e.g. 4GB) , no Zip drive, and a 17" monitor
in a desktop case for perhaps $2,000 or less. Look at the mail order web
sites, such as http://www.dell.com , http://www.gateway2000.com ,
http://www.micron.com
Add on to this standard office software: word processing, spreadsheet,
presentation (e.g., Micorsoft Office Pro give you Word, Excel and
PowerPoint). Many deals bundle this in with your purchase. Additional
software is dependent on what you expect to do with this machine.
If you have a place you go to get your prints made now, they probably plot
digital files as well. However, you will need a printer for text and draft
drawings. A basic HP laser printer costs about $500. A faster one with
more memory etc. for graphics is about $1000. If you need cheap (but good
quality) color printing, get an Epson Styluswriter for $200 to $350. It is
s-l-o-w. These printers do not handle paper larger than legal size.
The bottom line is that you can expect to invest $3500 to $5000 for a basic
setup. These are all mail order prices. If this intimidates you, and you
do not have a very dedicated friend who is also computer savey, then you
might consider buying locally with the proviso that they set everything up
and get it working before you pay for it.
Just a couple of notes. If you write an order, specify full printed
documentation for your software. There is a growing trend to ship partial
printed documentation and have the rest on a CD-ROM. A CD may make it
easier to search for something (or it may not!), but it is uncomfortable
for many of us to read a screen. Also remember, there is always something
you forget -- a cable or something. Don't let it get you down.
Jim Palmer, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210
In a recent post, David Watson wrote
>> ... I also happen to think [CAD] is an excellent design tool,
>> but that's another thread!
This of course is the thread *I* was hoping might emerge on this list of
design professionals, design instructors and design students...
Not wanting to beat the dead, irrelevant horse of peer pressure, commercial
viability or productivity enhancements (with respect to 'CAD'), I wonder if
David, or anyone else, has some thoughts or comments about this 'excellent
design tool?' or on 'design tools' in general?
What are the qualities of a good design tool? What's a bad design tool? What
are some other examples?
Are pencils and computers both equally good -- albeit different -- design tools?
Can *anything* be a design tool? Is there design without tools?
Surely, if computers are to aid design, we should seek to better understand
design, designing and designers, and their tools, as well as to understand
computing. Simply taking 'pro' and 'con' positions doesnt really seem to help
make progress.
I think there are already some opinions on designing with design tools
articulated, although scattered, throughout this evolving thread (which I'm
maintaining on the web at: http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/~servin/larchl/ )
but I'd be most interested to hear some more...
Peace
Stephen Ervin
Director of Computer Resources
Lecturer in Landscape Architecture
Harvard Design School
servin@gsd.harvard.edu
Stephen Ervin asks:
>> I wonder if David, or anyone else, has some thoughts or comments about
this 'excellent design tool?' (CAD) or on 'design tools' in general?
I think one interesting aspect of Computer Aided Design that hasn't yet been
discussed to any great degree is the extent to which CAD enables the
development and use of new design methodologies, especially those which were
not previously possible using analogue techniques.
It seems to me that in professional practice and in education (which is, of
course, is where professional practice starts), far too much design emphasis
is placed on the Masterplan. Which, in turn leads to an over emphasis on
PLAN. The masterplan (along with sections, elevations etc.) evolved as a
design tool or methodology that attempts to illustrate a three dimensional
design in two dimensions. Unfortunately the masterplan itself has become
more than this. In an attempt to convey style, many masterplans fail to
convey much useful information about the 3D design and end up being little
more than ciphers, abstract representations or icons. I have seen far too
many beautifully drawn masterplans by both students and professionals which
aim to seduce the viewer whilst concealing the true inadequacies of the
landscape design.
We have to ask ourselves now, is it still justifiable to use a two
dimensional medium to design a three dimensional world? Erase from your mind
(if you can) all of your preconceptions about landscape design and ask
yourself whether it is more logical to use a 2D medium rather than a 3D
medium to communicate your own 3D design ideas.
CAD gives us this 3D design medium, the masterplan is dead.
Many of those who don't get on with CAD complain that it is more difficult
to do the same things they were doing before, quite happily on the drawing
board. Of course, this completely misses the point. Any attempt to follow
the same old design methodologies with the new medium is bound to fail. So,
we not only need to learn new design tools, we also need to formulate new
design methodologies. Until we, as a profession, have developed digital
methodologies which can be used to replace the masterplan, CAD will be only
slowly accepted as the correct way to design.
In my teaching work, I find it difficult to implement many of my new digital
methodologies because the structure of the design teaching generally is
formulated around a "traditional" design method. In most instances students
are obliged to submit a masterplan as their main piece of design work. How
refreshing it would be for students to be required to submit a 2 minute
animation (walkthrough) of their design and just imagine how much more
information would be contained in that piece of work and how much more
rigorous the design process would have to be.
We can no longer justify the use of masterplans as either a method for
design or as a medium for communication. Computer Aided Design gives us so
much more.
David Watson
Senior Lecturer, School of Architecture & Landscape, University of Greenwich
Landscape Architect & IT/CAD Consultant
Beech Cottage, Wadwick, Andover, Hampshire, SP11 6ET
Tel/Fax 01264 738 639
dw@watson.u-net.com
http://www.watson.u-net.com
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:20:21 -0500
From: Madis Pihlak <madis-pihlak@PSU.EDU>
Subject: CADrafting vs CADESIGN 24hr
Steve Ervin's points are well taken.
I have believed for some time that many people confuse CADrafting with
CADESIGN. Design benefits from simple flexible tools. Hence the
architect's napkin with pentel sign pen or Montblanc fountain pen status
symbol. (A nice Merlot or a pale ale doesn't seem to hurt.)
Now in my opinion the Legacy CAD systems of autocad and Microstation are
a long way from this simple flexible design tool goal. Programs like
form*Z, Minicad (soon to be VectorWorks), PowerCADD,
ArchiSite,DesignWorkshop, Canvas, Illustrator, Painter, Freehand, etc.,
are much closer to this ideal. There is also an issue of digital craft
involved, to invoke Prof. M McCullough's term. You need to use the tool
frequently to master the craft.
The transparency of the tool is important. Now that Microstation
Imagination Engineer LE ships with Windows 98 Resource Kit, the
CADrafting will become more familiar. At last count there are 10 million
copies of Win 98.
Also to deal with the question of student access to labs and printers, I
would like to ask the list if they know of any academic location that
provides 24hr/365 day printing/plotting. I have just begun to direct a
series of labs that provides such nonstop access. I would like to
continue this excellent service access. I would particularly like to
find out how Lab Directors deal with waste and abuse.
Madis Pihlak
Associate Professor and Director
Stuckeman Center for Design Computing
Penn State SALA
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:29:38 GMT
From: TURNER THOMAS H D <T.Turner@GREENWICH.AC.UK>
Subject: Death of the Master Plan
Death of the Master Plan
I agree with my colleague, David Watson, but for different reasons.
Here are some of them:
1. The notion of landscape architects 'master planning' comes, I
believe, from an analogy with mechanical engineering. Engineers need
component plans, assembly plans and master plans. The master plan
shows how everything fits together.
2. Landscape design is not this kind of activity, at all. The land
existed before our species evolved and will continue to exist when we
have left. The most we can hope for is to leave footprints in the
sands of time. To 'master plan' a landscape one would require, at
least, the power to raise mountains, contro climates and direct
the movement of peoples.
3. Master Planning has unwelcome sexist overtones. It implies that
landscape designers have a dictatorial and bossy attitude to the
environment and those who use it. This is inaccurate.
4. A good case can be made for Mistress Planning, starting with the
details and working towards the general. This is closer to the
traditional craft approach to design.
5. We should remember Karl Popper's advocacy of 'piecemeal planning'
and scepticism about 'blueprint planning'.
6. Christopher Alexander observes that with master plans, 'The
totality is too precise: the details are not precise enough'
7. It has been remarked that a master plan is incomplete for 25 years
and out of date thereafter.
Use of computer-assisted design techniques offer many alternative
approaches to modernist 'master planning'.
Tom Turner
University of Greenwich
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:59:07 +0300
From: Edward Flaherty <ehf@MOC.KW>
Subject: Computer Tools
Recently there has been discussion of computer tools. Essentially, the
landscape architect hacks together a set of computer tools and sets of data
to fashion a solution according to a client requirement.
Remember what working with text and graphics was like before Photoshop and
Pagemaker? Landscape architects could use a tool that combines GIS
analysis and mapping with CAD detail with 3D rendering and animation with a
user friendly interface ready for conference and Web use...
Did not the people at the Center for Landscape Research in Toronto get
started on something like this about 5 years ago?
How could we organize to encourage private sector software development of a
tool like this?
Edward Flaherty
ehf@moc.kw
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:52:59 -0500
From: John Danahy <jwdanahy@ROGERS.WAVE.CA>
Subject: Computer Tools
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> Remember what working with text and graphics was like before Photoshop and
> Pagemaker? Landscape architects could use a tool that combines GIS
> analysis and mapping with CAD detail with 3D rendering and animation with a
> user friendly interface ready for conference and Web use...
>
> Did not the people at the Center for Landscape Research in Toronto get
> started on something like this about 5 years ago?
> How could we organize to encourage private sector software development of a
> tool like this?
>
These objectives are part of the continually evolving Polytrim testbed
we have created. The main goal is larger than these technologies. The
idea is to capture, represent and engage in dialogue about landscape
architectural knowledge. Therefore, we will never be satisfied with any
software for at least as long as I get to live. The problem is too big
and too interesting. So we struggle to build our own tools --> so we can
build our own knowledge bases --> so we can think creatively about more
aspects of design and engage others in dialogue --> to mediate between
people's values and needs.
Polytrim has evolved through a process of doing, practising, teaching
and trying to research. When we needed something, we made it and heaped
it up on the digital charette (cart) to get to our deadline or
hypothesis. We call it a research testbed.
Rodney Hoinkes and I did a paper a while back about Polytrim. Its
available on our homepage by clicking on the tiny picture of Steve Ervin
talking with Shannon McKenzie staring at C code to make a modification
to the system in "real-time" while running one of Carl Steinitz's famous
GIS workshops with our students several years back (the larger image is
Figure 2 in the paper). You can get the paper directly at
http://www.clr.utoronto.ca/PAPERS/CAAD95/caadf.jd8.html
What's going on in the scenes depicted in the image is the essence of
our approach. Dialogue, debate, in essence spatial literacy is acting as
a prosthesis to our thinking and imagining ability. Ian McHarg focused
my thinking on this attitude to computing in the keynote address I heard
at a LaBash conference at Penn State. He introduced me to the idea of
thinking about computing as a prosthesis to one's intellect. In the case
of his talk, it was referring to GIS as a chance for our thinking and
planning to catch up with our amplified capacity to wreck havoc on the
environment with physical technologies.
A second thing to learn from our tool building experience is that its a
team effort, its expensive and its never done. I think coding is still a
mandatory requirement if one wants to expand the potential for computing
in our field. The tools are getting more useful but the tool concepts
are far from complete (particularly in terms of terrain that is
digitally represented as more than a simple continuous surface). And
then, once we have enough good tools we have the question of
orchestration. My focus is on real-time and no CAD system has come even
remotely close to addressing this requirement of seamless integration
and robustness. Occasionally, polytrim teases me and I think we've got
it.
The closest analogy to this game for me is formula one racing. Its high
technology, its never good enough for long, it needs more knowledge and
ability than one person can possess behind it before a driver (designer)
can be satisfied. And like formula one, its not real - its fun and its
research. Eventually, some of the inventions prove useful and they show
up in your Honda. We are in that process now at CLR. We have 15 years of
play (experience) and we are going to try to take some of that
experience and see how much of it we can fit into a commercial
CAD/GIS/Rendering/Database/Hypermedia system that talks to a commercial
real-time visualization system. Don't hold your breath.
Note FYI: when we wrote the paper above we had a game plan and the
staffing to move Polytrim onto NT and OpenGL so our students could use
it on their own machines and then carry it with them into practice. Our
goal has always been to transform the profession from the bottom up. As
some of you may know, the infinite wisdom of our University's Provost
has set that project back a few years while we switch to what he judges
is a more "productive" graduate model of teaching and research. We don't
get to re-staff our efforts in earnest until we kick off the MLA
Programme this coming fall, so time will tell.
And Chris Hermansen wrote:
>
> The problem here is one of understanding. People use CAD tools to make
> maps because they think of maps as drawings, not as abstractions of the
> surface of the earth.
Good point Chris, I would go even farther by saying we can't think about
technologies (CAD or GIS) in this way. I would prefer it if we could
call it abstractions of landscape and inhabitation.
> Then what happens? After using your GIS to create your umpteenth master
> plan, you realize plans aren't abstractions of the surface of the earth,
> they're a process of dialogue with the stakeholders, and that what you
> really need is a planning tool that recognizes this dialogue as the
> central element in its design principles.
This is the key motivation in our interest in computing and its
prosthetic potential to enhance dialogue - hence spatial literacy.
> .... Topics such as real-time
> generalization of large datasets are hot research areas in computational
> geometry these days, so I think we're some distance away from being able
> to build the ideal planning tool, even if we could get the planners to
> sit down with the programmers and come up with a system design.
Yes it will be a long time in coming and even longer if more people in
our field don't get involved building systems (even if it is just a
macro in a commercial system). At CLR, we built amazingly robust
real-time interactive 3D tools, then we found we were doing as much real
design thinking work in an hour as we had been doing previously with
older off the shelf tools (taking a week or two to complete work). The
problem for us for over seven years has been getting relevant data to
feed our machines in the first hour or two of a project. Our Ottawa work
began this effort, followed by our automated historic reconstruction of
17th Century Montreal from land records in a research project with the
Canadian Centre for Architecture. Rodney Hoinkes and Eckart Lange at
ORL-ETH applied these ideas in work at the ORL Institute at ETH Zurich
and they formalized the methods in a paper on our website.
http://www.clr.utoronto.ca/LINKS/GISW/origarticle.html
or at Eckarts site http://www.orl.arch.ethz.ch/~Lange/eckart.html
So what comes next once we have good tools and good data?
I think its interpretation, knowledge production, creative thinking and
dialogue.
How many commercial tools are there to seemlessly and robustly amplify
our ability in these areas?
--
John Danahy, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture
Director, Centre for Landscape Research, http://www.clr.utoronto.ca
Director of Academic Computing, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and
Design
University of Toronto, 230 College Street,Toronto, Ontario, M5T1R2
Canada
Phone: (416) 978-3551 Fax: (416) 971-2094
< Editors note: end of thread. >