‘Virtually Home’ May Be Deceptive in Real Life
It was with great interest that I read the article “Virtually Home” (Sept. 23). But the article perpetuates a common misunderstanding of how buildings should be designed and does a disservice to your readers in the process.
The article states, “Builders aiming to save money and provide the customer with more than cookie-cutter tract housing are turning to software that creates virtual model homes. . . . By choosing options offered by contractors, users can customize a floor plan to meet their needs.”
The design of a building or an addition to an existing one involves many issues. A rational structure must be devised, commonly with the help of a consulting structural engineer. A smooth and appropriate functional room layout has to be created. And to tie it all together and give it life, an aesthetic system must be envisioned. An architect is uniquely qualified through years of education and experience to deal with these concerns simultaneously. Through an intense process of study, revision and discussion with the client (consumer), a solution eventually emerges. Drawings are only a record of this complex operation.
To imply that by the simple act of manipulating building parts with a computer one can somehow “design” or save money is misleading. It could as easily be said that being handy with a needle and thread qualifies one to be a surgeon, or at least could save on hospital bills!
Or we might say that typing 40 words a minute opens the door to being a writer.
By pursuing this quick, seductive shorthand as a means to building design, consumers could very likely be committing themselves to decisions to their detriment, because their choices have been based on incomplete information.
Since a computer-generated “solution” has a unique persuasiveness, half-thought-out or even ill-conceived ideas easily assume a premature credibility. True enough, that is not the fault of the machine. But if the computer and the user together produce a solution, then human nature must be factored into a consideration of this system of problem solving. By trying to “save money,” the comprehensive design process is short-circuited. And the best thing an architect can offer--a building with integrity--is thereby compromised or lost.
Regarding buildings, computers must be seen for what they are: a sophisticated tool, but not a magic wand. To look at the design of any building as just a matter of pushing a few walls around is a superficial approach that ultimately cheapens the final result and contributes little to the neighborhood to which it belongs.
ERIC L. SEARCY
Architect
Beverly Hills