I think I agree with a lot of what you said to some extent, but not entirely
> Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right?
For what it’s worth, I’m not saying “too much construction” - I’m value-neutral on how much construction will happen over the next few decades and was just trying to state the fact that there will undeniably be a lot of it, for better or for worse.
> Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC?
I mean I know people working on the sorts of tooling being discussed here, and yes some of them either go on to work at Autodesk or sell IP to Autodesk. A major path in academia is to try things out that are even farther at the bleeding edge than industry R&D, then go on to form startups (which yes often result in failure when they realize that production-grade development is significantly harder or that there is no market for it or, like you said, Autodesk folds it into a pre-existing product).
> This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit?
You say that like it’s a bad thing. It might be a depressing realization for people who hope to change the world with their work, but even if just a handful of buildings end up taking advantage of a certain feature that results in a better column grid (eg), it can end up offsetting more carbon than the original researcher would by riding their bike into school for like, 20 years rather than driving. In fact, if you really care about maximizing your impact as a researcher, having your tool folded into an Autodesk product, even if they copied your methodology from the papers you published and you get 0 financial compensation of any kind, is kind of the ideal outcome (even if that makes you a chump). You should just go work for Autodesk if you are upset about being a chump.
> You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then.
While I love this last paragraph from a literary perspective, and it does resonate with me, I’m not entirely sold on the idea that the entirety of analytically informed design should be viewed through such a pessimistic lens. I agree that a lot of numerical analysis of building performance in the context of clients/sales/etc is just smoke and mirrors/dog+pony show stuff, but that doesn’t mean that it does not still have a real impact on the actual buildings being designed. The point of these tools is not to make better pitch decks, it’s to make better buildings (from a carbon perspective, from a user perspective). It’s not like the work just goes out the window.
Architecture outside of the academy has been pessimistic for decades.
If you want scientifically-driven interventions that could make a difference, create tools that let investors and laypeople completely bypass the pre-existing real estate economy. Make software that designs spec homes, make robots that build spec homes, make self-driving cars, make telepresence to eliminate commutes entirely, make chatbots that file permits and respond to nuisance neighbor lawsuits, make gasses that can turn deserts and tundras into temperate climates, make safer sedatives and painkillers to put smiles on gruesomely NIMBY boomer neighbors. Tall order, right? That's like saying, "Destroy California."
> create tools that let investors and laypeople completely bypass the pre-existing real estate economy
> Make software that designs spec homes,
But isn’t that effectively what the original projects in top level post and in my top level comment are aiming to do? Make it possible to rapidly and easily generate architecturally and structurally meaningful designs within a fully automated end-to-end pipeline (even if the whole pipeline isn’t in place yet)?
> make robots that build spec homes
Yep there are people that I know working on this or adjacent to this (ie rapidly constructable pre-fab homes/tiny homes, 3D printable homes using on-site dirt and mud, drones that assemble structures, etc etc).
> bypass the pre-existing real estate economy
At the same time, you have to be somewhat pragmatic and recognize that this is so entrenched that the likelihood of successfully disrupting and sidestepping is low and there is value still in tactically intervening within existing frameworks…
Out of curiosity what is your involvement (if any) in AEC? Just curious as it helps to understand each other’s perspectives. For context I am in academia (duh lol) but also at a decarbonization/retrofit planning startup which works with large portfolio owners (ie thousands of buildings at a time).
> Big picture, sometimes people are saying too much construction (you). Other people are saying not enough. It’s complicated right?
For what it’s worth, I’m not saying “too much construction” - I’m value-neutral on how much construction will happen over the next few decades and was just trying to state the fact that there will undeniably be a lot of it, for better or for worse.
> Why do free R&D for Autodesk and EPIC?
I mean I know people working on the sorts of tooling being discussed here, and yes some of them either go on to work at Autodesk or sell IP to Autodesk. A major path in academia is to try things out that are even farther at the bleeding edge than industry R&D, then go on to form startups (which yes often result in failure when they realize that production-grade development is significantly harder or that there is no market for it or, like you said, Autodesk folds it into a pre-existing product).
> This is true but what does it add up to besides more features in Revit?
You say that like it’s a bad thing. It might be a depressing realization for people who hope to change the world with their work, but even if just a handful of buildings end up taking advantage of a certain feature that results in a better column grid (eg), it can end up offsetting more carbon than the original researcher would by riding their bike into school for like, 20 years rather than driving. In fact, if you really care about maximizing your impact as a researcher, having your tool folded into an Autodesk product, even if they copied your methodology from the papers you published and you get 0 financial compensation of any kind, is kind of the ideal outcome (even if that makes you a chump). You should just go work for Autodesk if you are upset about being a chump.
> You’re talking about stuff that goes into slide 30 in the pitch deck. The prince has already walked out of the room by then.
While I love this last paragraph from a literary perspective, and it does resonate with me, I’m not entirely sold on the idea that the entirety of analytically informed design should be viewed through such a pessimistic lens. I agree that a lot of numerical analysis of building performance in the context of clients/sales/etc is just smoke and mirrors/dog+pony show stuff, but that doesn’t mean that it does not still have a real impact on the actual buildings being designed. The point of these tools is not to make better pitch decks, it’s to make better buildings (from a carbon perspective, from a user perspective). It’s not like the work just goes out the window.