Introduction
The construction industry has arguably been one of the major beneficiaries of technological advancements that have been made in the through the years. As a result of this, most facets of the construction industry including building designs have undergone radical transformation so as to make use of new technology. This technology has mostly been in the form of computerized systems which aid designers in their works. Over the years, new computing technologies have become fundamental components in building design and no worthwhile architectural organization can boast of success without the aid of computer systems. Aliakseyeu et al. (2006, p.529) underscores the fact that new technology has resulted in much progress in terms of product quality and process efficiency being made in the design of buildings.
While these benefits in the form of higher levels of precision and rapid development of buildings are evident to all, there have been questions as to at what cost these benefits come. Arguments have been advanced that new technology hinders creativity and novelty which are desirable in coming up with building designs. This paper shall set out to assess the truth of this proposition by reviewing arguments made concerning the impact that new technology has on creativity. Arguments made proposing that new technology hinders creativity and those refuting the same shall be reviewed so as to present a balanced view of the subject. The observations made in this paper shall be used to authoritatively state if new technology is indeed hindering creativity in the building design discipline.
Argument that New Technology Encourages Creativity
Many authorities in building design contend that the design sketching stage is indispensable in the early phases of the design process. Brown (2005, p.166) reaffirms that “Sketching plays a manifold role in design and design education now as much as it did in the computerless days.” It is for this reason that the initial omission of the sketching stage by new technologies was blamed for hindering creativity. However, this is not the case with modern technology which makes room for the sketching phase in the design process. Digital sketching tools have been developed that enable a designer to sketch directly into a computer interface in a similar manner as sketching using a pencil to a piece of paper. Tools such as the Wacom tablet drawing boards and the ANOTO video-based pen which use touch sensitive surfaces to digitalize the designer’s actions have been developed to ensure that the sketching phase can be undertaken in the traditional way (Aliakseyeu et al. 2006, p.532). Szalapaj (2005, p.258) notes that the imprecise and intuitive forms of digital input offered by this sketching technologies support a persons creativity and in some instances even lead to its stimulation.
When designing, there are hundreds of factors that have to be taken into considerations. This factors include; the structure lighting, wind and heating consideration to name but a few (Minke 2006). Caldas, Norford and Rocha (2003, p.386) underscore that seemingly trivial considerations such as the size of the windows in a design may affect factors such as illumination and heat losses. It is therefore evident that there are a lot of factors that a designer has to take into consideration when coming up with any non trivial design. The amount of time and energy that had to be applied is significant especially when one is not using advanced technological solutions. The usage of new technology allows designer’s to evaluate hundreds of design alternatives by use of only one initial design. This leads to better creativity since the developer can concentrate on the creative process without having to burden himself with the finer points which can be generated by the computer simulations.
While new technology is held by many as being the primary hindrance to creativity in building design, Emmitt (2002, p.83) proposes that there are other factors such as legislation and the environment which are indeed the root hindrance of creativity. Emmitt (2002) suggests that legislation such as building regulations and codes inherently impose restrictions on the designer as well as limit the scope of new technology. Developers of new technology therefore have to adhere to this strict laws therefore leading to technology that may be termed as restrictive to the creative process. As such, new technology does not hinder creativity but rather encourage a designer to stick to the set standards. All parties involved agree that for all their ills, building standards and regulations are important since they ensure that quality is maintained for the safety of the public.
While simple building design projects can be achieved by individuals, projects of a significant scale require the collaborative effort of various individuals or teams. Collaborative efforts have been known to yield to innovative designs as the various parties involved are pushed to be as creative as possible. Whyte et al. (2000 p. 46) states that modern technology and virtual reality systems in particular enable the transference of data between designers. In addition to this, new technology dictates that set conventions be followed by all designers. The establishment of conventions and rules leads to the development of a uniform design that benefits from the input of various people without suffering from inconsistencies that would be unavoidable without the use of these advanced technologies. Whyte et al. (2000, p.43) also suggest that as a result of using interactive building design tools over a network, the final design is richer and more elaborate as a result of the collaborative visualization that leads to improved construction processes.
As with most other industries, the building industry aims to create products for a particular individual or groups of consumers. It therefore makes sense for the creative process to involve the end users (consumers) as much as is possible (Demkin 2004, p.11). In the past, designers made use of paper models and drawings to involve the users. These methods were abstract and many consumers could not reconcile the end product with the presentations that the designers made. This led to a situation whereby the end users where not able to offer any valuable input in the design phase. New technology includes features that encourage user involvement. Computer tools such as the Virtual Building give a “formalized digital description of a planned building” enabling the proper communication of the behavior of the real building to clients. Using technology such as the model walkthroughs, users can comment on their experiences and make observations therefore stimulating the designer’s innovation and creativity (Christiansson et al. 2008, p.250)
Arguments that New Technology Hinders Creativity
One of the defining characteristic of computer aided designs that are used in building designs is that they contain many pre-defined functions and objects that can be used to come up with a new product (Aliakseyen et al. 2006, p.529). While this is one of the attribute that endears computer software to designers who wish to perform rapid design developments, the same attributes have been blamed for hindering creativity. The reason for this accusation is that when a designer is dealing with a predefined function, he/she is tempted to adhere to some already set idea. The designer therefore does not feel compelled to come up with a novel idea of his own since he/she must work within the set constrains that the pre-defined functions and objects allow.
New technology in building design does not allow for the flexibility and natural intuition that have traditionally led to the most epic creations in architecture. Traditionally, the first step in coming up with a building design involved sketching rough drafts of the building that. This process was fast and imprecise and owing to the lack of limitations such as scale, this conceptual design gave the author free rein. This design was then refined and modified until the desired final product was achieved. However, this traditional approach to designing involved many stages before the final product is realized leading to an incurring of additional expenses to the designers. Emmitt (2002, p.122) suggests that the traditional approach brings about creativity and enables innovative solutions despite the time and financial overhead that it may create to an organization.
The tools that are available in most Computer Aided Design technologies greatly limit what a designer can or cannot draw. Al-Qawasmi, Guillermo & Velasco (2006) illustrate that a designer is limited from drawing what is in their mind since most designers in mind are not strictly geometrical. CAD on the other hand greatly favors geometrical shapes and a designer feels inclined to conform to these limitations so as to come up with a design using computers. This rigidity imposed by technology leads to the hindering of creativity since a designer has to adapt to standards that may not be natural to him. The overuse of line-based models also results in a more mechanical design which renders creativity almost unnecessary (Szalapaj 2005, 259).
Most of the new technologies include modules and templates that demonstrate stages that one has to go through to come up with a new design. However, hierarchical structures and predefined ways of doing things have been known to hamper creativity (Braun, Gromling & Bleher 2005, p.10). A designer is therefore less likely to come up with novel ideas when using this prepackaged samples. The availability of “models” that the designer should mimic also creates a barrier that inhibits the willingness of the designer to make use of his creative talents.
Discussion and Conclusion
Technological advancements are important in building designs and their implications to the creative process need to be reviewed so as to establish whether they are a hindrance to creativity. Without a doubt, the main attraction of new technology is the speed and accuracy that thy afford designers therefore making them more efficient in their tasks. However, this attributes should not be a substitute for creativity and innovation which continues to be the defining mark of successful and unsuccessful architectural organizations. Jefferis and Madsen (2004) assert that while “computers can help in the design process; creativity takes place within the person”. However, this is not to undermine the role that technology plays in the creative process since the authors further contend that creativity is enhanced with Computer Aided Design tools that handle the repetitive aspects of design more effectively (Jefferis and Madsen 2004, p.88).
While computer oriented building designs have been blamed for limiting creativity by restricting the designer to predefined models, this is not always a negative attribute. Designers in the present era have to take into consideration issues such as energy conservation and the use of solar energy for lighting purposes (Kolarevic & Malkawi 2005). Most of the models that are present for designers to use take into consideration this energy factors and while some may contend that this is detrimental to the creative process, it should be noted that this models present the most efficient means of achieving sustainable designs. Apian-Bennewitz (1998, p.351) asserts that without the use of technology, the layout of structures such as office buildings is poor with deeper parts of the rooms being poorly lit. The use of new technology therefore enables the designer to come up with a novel design that is structured around sound practices and considerations.
This paper set out to offer a detailed discussion as to whether new technologies hinder creativity in building design. From the arguments presented in this paper, it is evident that the likelihood of new technologies hindering creativity is minimal compared to the benefits that can be reaped from exploiting new technology. While the validity of the arguments proposing that new technology hinders creativity is without question, this paper has demonstrated that novel technological advancements such as the digital sketch pad can overcome these shortcomings. It is therefore conceivable that with time, building design will be able to reap all the benefits that new technology presents without hindering creativity.
References
Aliakseyeu, D, Martens, J & Rauterberg, M 2006, A Computer Support Tool for the Early Stages of Architectural Design, Science Direct Vol. 18 528–555
Al-Qawasmi, J, Guillermo, P & Velasco, V 2006, Changing Trends in Architectural Design Education, Csaar.
Apian-Bennewitz et al. 1998, Computer-Oriented Building Design: Advances in Daylighting and Thermal Simulation Tools, Renewable Energy. Vol. 14, No, 1-4, pp. 351-356.
Braun, H, Gromling, D & Bleher, H 2005, Research and Technology Buildings: a Design Manual, Volume 10, Springer.
Brown, A 2005, Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005: proceedings of the 11th International CAAD Futures Conference held at the Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Caldas, L, Norford, L & Rocha, J 2003, An Evolutionary Model for Sustainable Design, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
Christiansson et al. 2008, User Driven Innovation in the Building Process, Tsingua Science and Technology. Vol 13, No S1.
Demkin, JA 2004, The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice Update 2004, John Wiley and Sons.
Emmitt, S 2002, Architectural Technology, Wiley-Blackwell.
Jefferis, A & Madsen, A D 2004, Architectural Drafting and Design, Cengage Learning.
Kolarevic, B & Malkawi, A 2005, Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality, Taylor & Francis.
Minke, G 2006, Building with Earth: Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture, Springer.
Szalapaj, P 2005, Contemporary Architecture and the Digital Design Process, Elsevier.
Whyte, J. et al. 2000, From CAD to Virtual Reality: Modelling Approaches, Data Exchange and Interactive 3D Building Design Tools, Elsevier Science.