Blog

How did the development of computational technology resonate beyond SOM?

Neil Katz: In 1980, SOM published a brochure called “Computer Capability” that identified all the tools we were using, and how they modeled or analyzed a design, structure, or site conditions like topography and sunlight. We had tools that analyzed electrical design and plumbing, modeled doors and furniture, and helped create drawings and schedules. It introduced a computational point of view: that buildings could be perceived as a network of data, where every discipline’s input impacts the whole. It also showed potential clients that we had developed a greater level of sophistication, and other companies started taking notice.

Shane Burger: Around that same time, Autodesk created AutoCAD, which digitized the manual process of drafting. So the other firms who were using computers did so mainly to help them document and create drawings. The key difference for SOM was that we were integrating computational processes as part of our interdisciplinary thinking process—finding ways to better explore and execute our vision for each project, rather than just using the technology to create drawings. Our approach was to think of buildings fundamentally as systems or components. That same concept is what ultimately led to Building Information Modeling (BIM), which is prevalent at many firms today, and also to modern computational design tools like Grasshopper.

Neil Katz: Right. IBM recognized how forward-looking our approach was in the mid-1980s, and partnered with us to start making our tools available to other architecture firms. Together we developed Architecture and Engineering Series, or AES, which aided designers in analysis, rendering, and 2D and 3D modeling. AES could explore different designs, factoring zoning laws and other criteria that a project might have to navigate. For our own workflow, we wrote scripts that helped us create construction documents and enabled large teams to use the same set of information, so that if a change was made, it would automatically be reflected in every part of the model.

How did computational technology help SOM collaborate with contractors and consultants?

Shane Burger: That became one of the first challenges when computers caught on around the industry in the 1980s. There was a disconnect between the commercially available tools and the way SOM thought about building design, so we had to find a way to create a more seamless process with our consultants and contractors.

Neil Katz: We were beginning to share electronic drawings with them around that time, but we had to translate everything to a format that these other companies would be able to use. Translating files from AES to AutoCAD was a time-consuming process. AutoCAD had become mainstream, but it was designed for only one person to work on one file at a time, which was not the way we worked. To make AutoCAD support our design process, we customized it to behave like AES did. That customization enabled multiple people to work on different components of a building simultaneously.

SOM faced a similar challenge at the turn of the century, when our tools didn’t align with what our consultants were using—particularly during the design process for One World Trade Center.

Neil Katz: One World Trade Center was one of the most technically complicated projects we’d ever done. 9/11 facilitated new, stringent requirements in building codes, particularly for this site. We had a massive team—an entire floor of our office—and we were in the process of transitioning fully from AES to AutoCAD. Then, in 2002, Autodesk acquired Revit, which was a new tool at the time, and recommended we use it. But it was not made to handle a building as large and sophisticated as this tower had to be, so they sent members of their software design team to our office to work with us and refine it. They were teaching us, and we were teaching them.

Shane Burger: Revit began primarily as a tool for multi-story residential buildings, so Autodesk saw this as an opportunity to partner with an architecture firm that would challenge them, and help them turn it into a tool for any kind of building. For SOM, it was an opportunity to really push our approach to architectural thinking into the broader software industry, helping influence the next generation of building design.