According to a statement released by Paul Smetanin, President of the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis.

The discussion of digital twins and Virtual Reality might not be a new exciting topic, but this piece of observation will reveal a new perspective on its application. 

As stated in Daily Commercial News. 

Creativity in architecture extends beyond aesthetics to address functionality and sustainability. Technology and tools are being used to enhance the field of architecture today.

Many of the chief architectural innovations in history were due to engineering and mathematical breakthroughs, including vaults, aqueducts, and classical columns. With every new invention, design barriers shifted one step higher; pushing the succeeding generations to explore more.

From the development of reinforced concrete and steel to the development of contemporary technology, every generation has been fortunate to witness such advancements. Architecture flourishes as a common ground tying up various disciplines, namely computer science, engineering and environmental science.

Speaking of technological developments and their repercussions in the construction field, let’s deep dive into the recently booming subjects digital twins and VR. 

The Power of Digital Twins

In this age of advanced technology, almost everything has become practically possible. As we strive towards an efficient future, we are reimagining the possibilities of visualization. Although rigorous design processes and detailed planning are considered being at the forefront of any structural development, close to real-time digital representations weigh higher attention.

On that note, Digital Twin has been brought into the limelight, and industry experts who realized the true potential of its application are reaching new heights.

Digital twin – as one may presume, is not a mere latest technology but is a powerful tool with which AEC firms are exploring new ventures. It is as flexible as it could be applied to any physical entity, be it a 3D product or a city planning. Digital twins, in other words, represent the exact digital replica of the original design. Only that it exactly replicates the dynamic character of the design.

When considered in terms of the AEC industry, it will replicate the nooks and corners of the physical structure, making it easily accessible for future reference. Imagine you could figure out if there’s an issue in the MEP system of a building by just referring to the digital twin of it from the comfort of staying at home/office. 

VR and Digital Twins – A Comparison

Because of its built-in acting capabilities, virtual reality (VR) is a well-suited tool for facilitating human interaction with CPPS (Construction Phase Plans). Virtual reality does, in fact, provide lifelike rendering, intuitive gesture interactions, collaborative features, comprehensive 3D scale-one visualization, and fast navigation tools in a large area. As a result, it makes it simple for users to concentrate on each system component—from the smallest to the entire factory.  

Meanwhile, digital twins in the AEC industry enable firms and owners to minimize conflicts by providing data-rich assets throughout the design and operation process. It guides the professionals to access and keep track of data during their planning stage and act as a reference material after it is occupied by the users.

Real-World Use of VR & Digital Twins

Now that we are aware of the potential and characteristics of digital twins and VR, ‌let’s interpret the way they’re applied in various sectors of the AEC industry. VR and digital twin technology can be applied at any scale ranging from residential to urban planning, rather than merely at a selective scale.

Adaptive Reuse

The indestructible combination of VR and digital twin has elevated the construction industry to a new height from restoring old structures to designing new ones. Regarding VR, it uses an advanced tool called photogrammetry to scan the existing physical entity with exact features and scale. 

This process can be implemented in adaptive reuse projects, where it can be used to perceive the characteristics of the depleted structure and how exactly it can be remodeled to meet the new requirements. Not only that, it allows you to document any historical structure without any disruption.

Efficient Project Management

1. Bringing Down Coasts

Planning, designing and constructing a building is an extensive process, where every step takes time and ample amount of effort to be executed. On that note, when you’re able to perceive real-time data and plan a few details beforehand, you can cut down both the budget and time. With digital twins, you can replicate and observe the entire process without fabricating the actual design.

With precise cost estimations and maintaining your cost limit at every stage, digital twins can boost your project’s timeline.

2. Optimize Utilization

With increased accounting of remote work culture, digital twin allows users to collaborate effortlessly whilst managing complex work schedules. It can increase the efficiency of workflow by allowing the team members to access real-time data and saving ample time. 

For instance, if a building designed with the help of a digital twin is about to face an issue in its HVAC system. The real-time data that digital twin has been monitoring gives you an indication that an air filter or any part has to be changed. At the end of the day, the more you feed into the database, the more we will benefit out of it.

3. Effective Functioning

Besides the aforementioned aspects, adopting digital twins paves the way to advanced collaborations and lets you prioritize the type of data you actually require. Irrespective of the size of a team, it allows sharing and work on the saved data.

A digital twin allows workers to detect issues instantly, allowing solutions to be implemented quickly and reducing costly delays caused by faulty shipments or bad weather.

CASE STUDY
Digital Twin Example in Construction- Canada Line SkyTrain in Vancouver, Canada

The Canada Line, operational since 2009, has embraced new technologies to enhance daily operations. An accurate real-world model of the line has been created for operators using LiDAR scans as part of the digital twin initiative. Subsequently, sensors were attached to crucial assets like switches to continuously update the digital twin with real-time data.

Sensors were installed on certain switches identified as ‘golden assets’ essential to meeting performance targets. This data accumulation over time establishes a baseline for normal switch behavior.

Any deviation from this norm triggers alerts for operators, enabling them to proactively create maintenance plans and prevent downtime. This shift towards data-driven decision-making has already proven effective, significantly improving the overall performance of the Canada Line.

Elevating Beyond Boundaries

As architects and designers, we have the responsibility of building a better and efficient future. Moreover, we embrace a future in which distances diminish, problems become puzzles waiting for solutions, and our collective dreams shape the reality of the next generation.

While we go to work every day and work mundanely on the same software, there is some innovation happening in the background.  Tomorrow beckons, and with digital twins and VR as our guides, we shall embark on a journey towards a future redefined.

The post How digital twins and VR will help build a better tomorrow? appeared first on Archipreneur.

As a result of that research endeavor, they have founded a company and system delivering 3D printed façades, which are multifunctional and sustainable, soon to be unveiled at the new entrance of the Deutsches Museum in Munich. In this in-depth interview with the founders below, learn why they’ve earned international recognition for their very first project, and check out their advice for Archipreneurs looking to take a similar leap into the world of architectural products.

+7

Could you tell us a little about your background?

Moritz: After working as an architect I returned to university for my PhD. I found this research period to be very fulfilling because in some ways I had missed this opportunity at the beginning of my career. At first, I focused on getting acquainted with new technologies and new materials, and I was interested in 3D printing. Then I started concentrating on facades, and I began to develop a 3D-printed multifunctional façade as my PhD project.

Oliver: For me, working with computational tools, 3D-printing and the principals of nature is very fulfilling. I believe it’s relevant today, because they enable concepts that can create an inseparable unity of formal and functional aesthetics. Also, resources are limited, cities are growing.

I believe we need to build better performing and sustainable architecture with less materials. This is part of my approach and philosophy with which I develop computational methods and techniques. One of them a concept for smooth folded surfaces. Back then, people said I should use it for façade shading and it became a major motivation for “FLUID MORPHOLOGY” for me.

How did you come up with the idea of developing 3D printed façade elements?

Mortiz: I chose the 3D printed facade topic for my PhD after searching for a truly useful and appropriate application for 3D printing in architecture. My dream was to close the chain from the digital design to a really productive piece of architecture in one-to-one scale so that the normal process of creating architecture would be a lot easier, quicker, and with less possibilities of making mistakes.

In my experience of having built several buildings, the planning process is straightforward, but then a lot of people come together and try to build the design, and it gets a little bit messy and it’s not that easy anymore. I thought it would be nice to use the digital possibilities in a smarter way and to really create architecture in 1:1 scale, all 3D printed.

“3D printing was not only about creating a crazy, new form in architecture but as well, creating multifunctionality out of one piece, out of one material, and in one production step.”

After researching different construction elements, the façade was then really the focus because there are a lot of different functions on a really narrow space, such as sun shading, ventilation, insulation, structural behaviors, and so on. This was the point where 3D printing was not only about creating a crazy, new form in architecture but as well, creating multifunctionality out of one piece, out of one material, and in one production step. So, this was then the challenge really to get going with this idea.

After working in other groups and trying out different concept approaches, the three of us did a project together called “FLUID MORPHOLOGY”. Oliver and I were supervisors and Luc was student at that time. In a team with four more students we developed a the façade element in 1:1 scale, which we installed in a testing station to get some real data out of it and to prove that the idea could work.

Can you tell us more about the process of 3D printing architecture? How does it work and what steps did you take from the idea to the first prototype?

Moritz: We followed a typical research progress. These considerations were all melted down, where we tried really to pin down all the different parameters.

1. DEFINITIONS The first step was really to define functions in the façade, which could potentially be printed. Since 3D printers can only print geometry, I created this topic of “functional geometry” to define geometries which have certain function attached to them. We researched this topic by looking to nature for similar problems, similar functions, maybe in a different scale but we then transferred those ideas into an architectural scale.

2. PRINTABLE Then we considered what would be printable. What kind of printer could print this functional geometry? After we printed samples and tested them for a year, I had an overview of what is possible and what can be combined in one production step. Since some functions had to be printed with powder bed printers and others with FDM and it is hard to combine them, it was clear that we needed to choose one printing method.

3. MATERIAL Choosing the material is also a big topic because some concepts only work with a new material, which couldn’t be printed yet. We needed a transparent material which is not very expensive, and the only transparent material that could be printed was with the FDM printer. This was then polycarbonate.

4. SITUATION With the definition of the material and printer parameters defined, the next step was to look into the place where it was situated. We selected the solar station at the rooftop of the TU Munchen. Orientation plays always a big role in the geometric evolution and definition.

5. FUNCTION Our task was to include 5 different façade functions in the design prototype of a single element: structural geometry, insulation, sun shading, acoustic surfaces, and ventilation. This was the crucial step, to prove that it could work.

6. MODELING Next, we needed to tackle the complexity of the 3D modeling, always checking to ensure our design could really be printed.

Oliver: After the framework for “FLUID MORPHOLOGY” was laid out, we developed multiple concept ideas and made first parametric sketches of them. One of them was based on the idea of smooth folded surfaces, which translated into water-like ripples. Because they were logically oriented to the sun and aesthetically appealing, we selected it. This is a lot how we work for 3F Studio projects.

Digital tools are really great in these early stages. You can quickly communicate the potential of the idea, because when you change parameters such as the folding angle, you can intuitively understand how the façade adapts to its environment and how it will look.

And if you have all the digital geometry, it is easy to print out scale models and even 1:1 prototypes, which are great to convince clients that the concept is feasible. You can touch it and see whether its sturdy enough. It’s the most effective way and further enables us to estimate production costs from the first day.

Luc: Exactly. A lot of people think that with 3D printers you can produce anything. But especially with FDM printers, you have certain limitations. For example, printing certain overhangs isn’t possible because you can’t print in air without a certain type of a support structure, which would cause longer printing times in order to produce it.

We completed a lot of different loops in order to optimize the geometry to be first-hand printable, also in a reasonable amount of time. And there are different aspects also in production, like, segmentation, the connecting details, but also the inner structure in order to get structural good façade element, but also adapt to other functions like insulation.

What made you decide to turn this into a business? What makes you unique?

Moritz: When we succeeded with this university project, we decided to start a company out of it and the system, 3F Studio.
There’s a huge interest right now in being able to close the gap in supertopics like digitalization and industry 4.0. Everybody is talking about it across different scales, and I think we’re really representing this in a way by translating a digital design into a physical façade which is 3D printed in one production step.

Our process is also incredibly sustainable. Initially, I wasn’t a big fan of using plastic, but in this case, we established a closed material cycle so that we can shred our plastic waste and make a 3D printing material out of it again, and then print a façade again without any downcycling.

Normally in architecture and construction, you can re-use material in different way but not again as a façade, for example. I think this closed material cycle is really a big benefit that we’re pushing. I’m proud that we are thinking out of the box and developing new materials for the building industry in the respect of sustainability as well.

“I’m proud that we are thinking out of the box and developing new materials for the building industry in the respect of sustainability”

I think our story is a great example of starting out as a research project at university, trying out new things that were just developed and finding the application for this technology as a serious product, that could influence the market and be a benefit for society.

This was really a great step where architects, with their overview of different topics, can play a really important role to maybe start businesses, or at least to give initial ideas from their research to develop a better environment.

For us, it is the perfect opportunity to develop more know-how in different fields, from developing complex geometries first hand to solving complex problems and creating those geometries, and then being able to produce them as well. This in-depth understanding and experience with the full process is shown in our company portfolio as well, which many other companies don’t have yet. This is what makes us really special.

Oliver: To link to what I said earlier, I think because of the aesthetic quality of the concept and because it reflects computation, 3D-printing, principals of nature and it addresses the issue of limited resources, it felt very natural and even assuring to start a new business with it.

What I believe will make us stand-out in the future even more is the approach of “Fused Form and Function”. I think with the technological possibilities today it is very important to have a solid philosophy on how to use them. I look deep into nature, because it gives me a good understanding on how those possibilities can be used for real application in an informed manner. Also, I think our sometimes different practical, design and visionary perspectives really do help.

What kind of projects and clients are you targeting? What projects are you working on right now?

Oliver: Since it’s an avant-garde technique and use of technology, this is a high-end product. It works especially well for cultural buildings, museums, libraries, and similar functions that benefit from diffuse lighting, which we can control through the design.

It also works well in interior design where there are even fewer physical restraints, from retail environments to conference rooms where acoustic improvement is a benefit. We can generate a surface that not only improves the acoustics of the room, but one that adapts to the exact scenario in the room, based on where people are seated for example.

We get requests from architects and clients like the Deutsches Museum in these two areas. We also hear from large automobile companies that want to incorporate 3D-printing technology in their corporate architecture. In combination with interiors, we see potential in furniture and event pavilion projects as well.

We can literally print one piece of bespoke furniture in one go. For both we started to work with companies in Paris, one of them is Nicolas Laisné Architectes who works with Sou Fujimoto.

Your first built project will be a 3D-printed façade for the new entrance of the Deutsches Museum in Munich. What is the story behind this project?

Moritz: We got in contact with the Deutsches Museum about 3D printing, after giving a lecture at the Association of Munich based Architects. That conversation then turned into an offer for us to create a façade for their new temporary main entrance while their museum building alterations are underway for at least five years. This temporary entrance will be right on the Isar (the river through Munich) side, widely visible from all the different bridges in Munich and from the other riverbank.

Creating a translucent skin for a temporary building, to show state-of-the-art technology at such a high level for the technical museum was the perfect project for us, and we were the perfect match for them. I think they have at least 1.5 million visitors a year, so it will be viewed by a large audience from international visitors to German school children.

“Creating a translucent skin for a temporary building, to show state-of-the-art technology at such a high level for the technical museum was the perfect project for us, and we were the perfect match for them.”

How many elements do you produce for the façade?

Oliver: What makes this project so special is the scale. The façade is about 750-square meters: three stories-high by about 50 meters wide. This is really taking 3D printing into a new scale and requires an industrial production line. Plus, since it’s a temporary building, after this huge industrial scale 3D production, we can take down the façade and use the material again.

It’s all really exciting, 3D printing at this scale for a temporary building in sustainable way, and how it will attract worldwide attention to this technology and to Munich. Roughly 800, because the technology that is available at this moment for this project can produce 1 square meter segments.

And it will be a very good push for your company, right?

Oliver: I think it’s the best opportunity for us to introduce us as a young company. When we proposed our design, even though it is a very bold, they were really excited and appreciated that this was the first of its kind. We both knew it would get enormous attention from the public and the world.

Will you focus on a high-end market with more unique products or are you thinking about mass production façade products?

Oliver: At the moment, the technology in its infant stage is costly, so we focus on high-end projects. However, 3D-printing technologies develops fast and this field is very competitive, the market should evolve quickly and prices decrease. We’re already planning to widen this out into a broader market in the future.

Moritz: We also get requests from architects to do intensive research and development or research and design for other applications. There’s enormous potential for this technology and with so many parameters, to integrate functions that we could not integrate with before, so we have a huge agenda for that.

We also consult other architects. From a business perspective, we take a step back as designers and then really look into their designs and their ideas, and how could we actually develop a feasible application for their idea.

So, you are offering design consultancy services on the one hand, but also act as the production company?

Oliver: Yes, if they have their own 3D-printing design idea, we can help them to develop it further and to produce it. They don’t have to use our design. Either way [whether it is our design or theirs], it’s very interesting to us.

In addition, I find collaborative projects inspiring, because of the intersection of different fields. A good example is a project I started before 3F Studio, an art piece for the parish church St. Laurentius. Here, I collaborated with the artist duo Empfangshalle.

The artists wanted to use 3D-Printing and I wanted to apply one of my lattice morphologies. The concept then is part artist idea of an 8-meter high sculpture (macro) and part architect idea for a cellular lattice (meso). Because, the filigree structure shares the same philosophy and logic of the architecture of the Gothic, it creates a unique bond with the church and quality because it unifies visual and constructive aesthetics in one object.

I think this project as another concept example shows best, besides being able to work with other designers, the possibilities of the approach and philosophy which gives us a plethora of ideas for future projects. We aren’t nailed to one wave-like surface pattern. We are actually working on a few different ideas already, and our R&D agenda is what I believe makes us especially valuable.

How did you finance your startup, the prototypes and everything which comes along with that?

Moritz: We started with a printer at the Research Lab ARI at the university and material from sponsors. The next step was with the project with the Deutsches Museum. We made a research and development contract with the museum and with TU Munich’s department of Architectural Design and Building Envelopes where I still work. This project made it possible for us to work together on this first phase, to produce all these geometries for testing.

For everything else, we are bootstrapping. We are financing all by ourselves. We are not getting any money from anybody yet because we wanted to take the first step alone to show we are capable of doing it this way and to increase our value, of course as well.

As with research projects, we found that the best thing is just to do it as quickly as you can by yourself, if possible. Getting funding could take half a year, most likely even longer, which is too long. So, this is how the project got started, we said let’s just do it, let’s not wait for any company to give some money. Just go.

And you would have to give investors shares of your company…

Moritz: At the end, yeah. But even to start a research project, first you have to write all these applications for funding and then it takes time. I was in this happy position that the faculty of architecture really supported the project, they made it possible for us to have a bigger printer, for example, to print out these pieces.

This was a great starting point. I was really impressed with the university for believing in this project and helping us to get it started without this big administrative structure, which is normally the case. We were quite lucky to get started quickly.

We also had support for the testing from a printing company, BigRep, and we had support from Extruder for the materials.

Are you all working on 3F Studio in the moment?

Moritz: Not right now. Since we are bootstrapping 3F Studio, we are all working other jobs as well, but this project is our main focus. Soon we will have to expand. We need more people as we have a lot of requests.

Oliver: Yes, we still do other projects. I have been self-employed for a while and there are actually projects that are being designed at this moment, that are being built. The goal is to really push 3F Studio as a company because the business plan is feasible and it also can gain a lot of traction in the architectural industry very quickly, I believe.

What is your opinion on the influence of technology on architecture in the future?

Oliver: The possibilities of constructing and designing architecture as well as design, both physically and digitally today are so much greater than ever before. The technological impact will be enormous, and I think what’s needed is a solid philosophy on how to do this in an informed manner.

Do you have any tips for Archipreneurs who are interested in starting their own company in the built environment?

Moritz: Don’t believe anybody. If you believe in your idea, just go for it. Try it out yourself first and then talk to others. Also, it’s good to focus on one topic because at the beginning, there are so many things you could want to do. Once you focus on one topic, go for it, then you should open up again and explore the other different topics.

We had some setbacks, of course, as well. Sometimes it’s tough. Don’t give up because it’s a rollercoaster. Sometimes it goes up and then it goes down again, and you’re like, “Well, why am I doing this?” Keep steady, keep going and it will work.

Oliver: There are always naysayers, but don’t swerve off your path. Actually, they can be the best indicator that you are onto something. Practical, functional structures for your working environment are very important. Create a reliable system that actually facilitates your teamwork and keep it open.

This is especially key in creative and artistic work, to have an open and collaborative working style. The most crucial thing in the team is that you have the ability to take on different roles. Consider the relationship between a leader and a team member. I think those roles need to switch occasionally. I think the old-fashioned model of a rigged top-down structure needs to adapt.

“There are always naysayers, but don’t swerve off your path. Actually, they can be the best indicator that you are onto something.”

Also being rigorous in your own decisions what to prioritize, what aspects of the project to prioritize is good advice. Have a keen understanding of the crucial elements.
Regarding the business, for business planning, advisers in all fields from strategy, marketing, financing and beyond help us to quickly find a good business design path.

Know your limitations and include people in your team who have different opinions and different strengths, even if they sometimes don’t relate very much to what you do.

Any experience, even stressful and unpleasant once, if well reflected and processed, can be a learning. Sometimes different opinions force you to question the crucial parts, and you’re able to see what’s most important more clearly.

What are your thoughts on the future of the built environment? How can it improve, and what continues to inspire you?

Oliver: I find this is a crucial question. On a fundamental level, we are confronted with limited resources and we have to think about reusable material cycles. This steers a lot of the aspects of sustainability in our projects and using 3D printing in general, because first, we are looking to nature to see how things can be constructed efficiently, and second, we’re looking for new manufacturing techniques, to design smarter and build with less material.

Architecture design language is primarily representing our cultural and societal identity. And if you look back in history, technology that is faster and more cost-effective has always replaced old ones and radically changed architecture. I believe this is a time of great opportunities. The increasing resolution in which you can design and actually manufacture and the flexibility that comes with re-usable or even biological building materials is very motivating.

You automatically have to think more in details, how architecture or nature is constructed. I like to think back of the Gothic Architect’s, how they derived the catenary model from nature and developed the ripped vault. Even if you take all the ornaments away, the basis is beautiful because it has an implicit natural logic.

Today, with building blocks of the size of a sand corn and with digital instead of analog tools you can free yourself of formal approaches and better understand the underlying principal of why nature grows and the built environment is done in a certain way. Suddenly designing programs instead of drawing geometrical simple shapes by hand seems to be appropriate for an architecture agenda of the 21th century. These possibilities and in-depth reasoning, what possibilities they enable, is truly inspiring.

Moritz: The aim is to reduce all these technical devices on the buildings, which are taking over more and more. You have all these sensors and electric engines ready to control everything, and no one is really able to control it. We want to reduce all this technical infrastructure by still having the same performance and controlling complexity to create smart geometries to solve those problems in another way, a more reliable way.

We also have to rethink this topic of materiality. I was taught that sustainable architecture just used steel, wood, glass, and concrete, and then it’s sustainable. No plastic please. But now, there are new processes that allow us to reuse plastics, and in a way, we can regrow materials. I’m inspired by wood as a structural building material, even massive wood constructions for skyscrapers, for all applications. But then, we still need a transparent material to do the building skin.

Plastics have a great future, especially if we use biodegradable plastics or bioplastics, with the same performance as the oil-based plastics. Even if it’s not that long-lasting compared to glass, we can re-use it again.

Thinking ahead as 3F Studio, this is what inspires us. We’re not looking only at Germany or Europe. We’re looking to the areas where there will be a lot of new building in the future. There, we’ll be even more competitive. —

The post From Research to Reality: Recyclable, 3D Printed Facade appeared first on Archipreneur.

+3

The last time we spoke, you were based in Beijing, China. Since then you have built your own studio in the mountains of Austria. What inspired this change?

Yes, quite a lot has changed. Before we were surrounded by skyscrapers – now we are surrounded by mountains. The short answer is, I relocated because I get distracted in the city, and I find it’s easier for me to focus on my work in a studio far off the grid. But that is also a bit of a superficial answer…

What’s the long one?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this question recently. I think it starts with my dad. He was an extreme free-climber: no ropes, no security, just him and the mountain. He had a very direct connection to our natural environment. The more I climb and hike, I feel that my dad’s determination to climb is similar to my determination to be an architect.

My dad was always fascinated by how small he felt at the bottom of the mountain and how humble he feels on top of it. It is a change of perspective. You become insignificant and surrounded by millions of years of evolution. You become part of a larger story. The same is true for architecture. It can become this transmitter of history and culture and this can create something long-lasting in times that are driven by nearsightedness and short attention spans. As architects, sometimes we need this change of perspective.

When my dad fell from the mountain and died three years ago, some said that my dad had achieve the creation of his own universe, his own reality far away from the real world. However, when I go to the mountains, I feel there is nothing more real than being up there. You with all your emotions and senses, with your fear, your joy, your strength and your weaknesses. And you are with nature, with all its beauty and danger. I don’t think that my dad created his own reality, distant from our reality in the cities. I think he was as close to an objective reality as possible. This direct connection to our environment is more ‘real’ to me than what we consider to be ‘the real world’ with our invented stories of consumption, consumerism and capitalism.

Yuval Harari wrote in his books that our being and doing is shaped by fictional stories that we invented, which only exist because we all agree on them. Stories like money. A dollar bill is in the eyes of a chimpanzee a worthless piece of paper. Further stories are political systems, the economy, religions or nations. Our lives were shaped by those stories.

The same is true for architecture. For most of history, those stories shaped our buildings. We built pyramids for gods, churches for religions, palaces for kings. We built in different architectural styles for different eras, for different political systems. Now we mainly build skyscrapers for the economic system. We mainly build expansive real estate. Architecture was shaped by those stories. We care about those stories, but our planet doesn’t.

The countryside connects me more to an objective reality. For example, growing and harvesting my own food reconnects me to my senses. This is something I really missed in Beijing: to breathe in nature, to taste self-grown vegetables and to touch haptic materials. I would like to base my work as close to this reality as possible. How can architecture increase the health of people? Do we find strategies to build without harming other species or the environment? How can buildings give something back instead of just consuming from their environment? How can buildings reconnect people with their senses?

I think those are important topics of the future. If we lose our connection to our environment, we won’t be able to solve the problem of our generation: climate change.

Are you still working with Penda or do you pursue your own practice from your new studio now?

Yeah, we relocated our studio to the Austrian mountains two years ago and we rebranded our studio as ‘Precht’ at that time, for a couple of reasons. The main reason was that I wanted to work closer with my wife. Projects from the last couple of years like the Toronto Tree Tower, the Tel Aviv Arcades or the Indian Projects were already done by Fei and me. However, Fei wasn’t a partner of Penda and it was about time that she gets a proper recognition. Another reason is that we are working on the countryside and authenticity is here very important. It makes a difference if you stand with your name for your projects or with an invented synonym. So there are a couple of reasons, but we are very excited about the path ahead and all the feedback we are getting.

You represent a new generation as a aspiring young architect. What are your thoughts on the future of our profession? How do you think we need to change and be ready for the future?

We live in uncertain, fast changing times. What will artificial intelligence and machine learning do to architecture? Or does it something for architecture? No one knows what the future of architecture holds, but I will put forward two possible scenarios, one optimistic and one pessimistic.

Optimistically, we will introduce nature back into our buildings and connect residents with their senses. There will be sensible architecture with materials that you want to touch, with plants that you can smell and eat, and birds and bees that you can hear. Buildings will be healthy for the residents and for the environment. There will be buildings that people care about and get inspired from. We will find a way to reinvent the building industry and our sector will detach from the notion of economic growth and our towers will become more than vast real estate.

A more negative path could be that architecture will be based on fictional stories, but it won’t be a political system or the capital market. The currency of the future is not Dollars, Euros or Renmimbi. The currency of the future is data, and architecture won’t be an exception. If that is the path, the capital for buildings won’t be money any more, it will be data, and the developers won’t be Soho, a fund or an investment group. The developer of the future will be called Google or Amazon, and the architects will no longer be Rem or Bjarke, they will be called Apple, Baidu, or whatever comes after those tech giants.

I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I am a possibilist and I am excited to be a young architect in our time. The challenges that are ahead of our generation are enormous, but so are the possibilities. In the end, it is up to us to determine the future we want to shape.

What are your further thoughts on technology and architecture? Around the world, venture capitalists are excited to disrupt the built environment. What are your thoughts about that as a young architect working and living in times of change?

The question is whether the change is coming from within our industry or from the outside. At the moment I see our architecture too occupied with ourselves to change anything. We are still driven by intellectual, theoretic and academic statements, but there are more urgent problems than form and styles. As we remain distracted, most likely the change will come from the outside, but maybe that wouldn’t be as negative as I previously described. In recent years, the tech companies have revolutionized other sectors that were highly insufficient, such as the mobility and transport industry. For years, innovation in that sector stagnated and it needed Uber, Hyperloop, Tesla and Google to bring change. On one hand there is a lot of place for innovation, on the other hand there is possibilities to collect data and make a profit. This is true to architecture. Our sector is insufficient and there is a huge potential of innovation and profit.

In my mind, two things are certain: The business model of architecture will change and the architectural bubble will burst wide open.

Perhaps investors and large technology companies will use their collaborative resources to create the most coherent and sustainable buildings systems. Perhaps they will use their greed to collect data in exchange of cheaper real estate. It’s very hard to predict. In my mind, two things are certain: The business model of architecture will change and the architectural bubble will burst wide open.

At the ASA Forum Bangkok you said that the era of the Star Architect is over. Could you elaborate on that?

There will still be famous names in architecture, but I think the era of the ego is over. The era of the Vitruvian man is over. The celebration of the individual will be replaced by the power of
collaboration. I am inspired how Danish architects are working on collaborative projects. From the outside it looks like couple of bands who are jamming together from time to time. I think that is a path to a future.

I used to do ski-jumping and I have to say that in sports there is less competition than in architecture. There is a lot of elitism and egoism and I hope that a new generation of architects will find ways to work together, learn from each other and lift the quality of our industry.

You are very active on social media and you have built a personal brand among young architects. Is social media also a channel to attract projects for you?

As an architect I have two goals: Create good buildings and inspire others to do so. I use Instagram mainly for the second goal. Being active on social media certainly creates opportunities, but it takes calls and meetings to establish trust. A project will never happen without trust. Similar to a dating app, social media might get you in contact, but getting married requires more effort.

Social media does something else to our projects: it’s now very common for clients to ask us to design an “Instagramable spot”. They want one shot that will make the project viral. That’s an interesting part of the brief and I am not sure if that is a particular request for my studio since I’m active on Instagram and they think I have a clue about viral marketing of spaces. I don’t know, but I find it interesting. One can say it’s superficial, but maybe it adds another dimension to the design, because it lets you also think in stories.

You also just started a food startup based in Tel Aviv and Toronto. Could you tell us more about that? What inspires you to look into the startup world?

The startup culture is a beautiful part of our time. The playing field for creativity is wide open. You don’t need to study architecture to be an architect and you don’t need to work as an architect after studying architecture. We are trained with a unique skillset that is also needed outside of our industry. We combine business with creativity. We combine history with a future vision. We combine craftsmanship with cutting edge technology. We are strategic dreamers.

We are trained with a unique skillset that is also needed outside of our industry. We combine business with creativity. We combine history with a future vision. We combine craftsmanship with cutting edge technology. We are strategic dreamers.

I try to make use of this skillset and combine it with opportunities of our time. With that in mind, I’m part of a couple of startups like Halvana (a sesame seed business), Tmber (a startup for wood distribution) and Baumbau (a startup for prefabricated structures).

As much as I am in love with architecture, the business side of it is horrible, so I try to stand on a couple of more legs to create a stable future.

What are the bad parts of the architectural business?

As Koolhaas put it, “We are in the business of uniqueness” I think that’s a pretty stupid business model. We create always a unique prototype, but we never ship. Architecture is not scalable. If you design a small house, you need two architects on your team. If you get an airport, you hire 30 architects, but your margin stays the same. This is unlike other creative industries like product design, where if you design a chair and you can sell it a million times and have a scalable business.

As Koolhaas put it, “We are in the business of uniqueness” I think that’s a pretty stupid business model.

What are your thoughts on the future of the built environment? How can it improve, and what continues to inspire you as a young architect?

I am now a five-year-old architect. An architectural toddler. As a toddler, I ask a lot of questions about our profession and try to find some alternative answers for the status quo. How did we end up with a building system that is highly insufficient, inefficient, damaging and harmful for us, other species and the environment? At the same time, less than 5% of buildings today involve an architect. Did 95% stop listening while we were busy talking to ourselves? Do we have the wrong message?

The challenges that are ahead of our generation are enormous, but so are the possibilities. In the end, it is up to us to determine the future we want to shape.

I think architects can have an important message for the problems of our time. The biggest one for our generation is climate change. But for that, we need to get our message straight. Does the world really need another glass-tower filled with ACs? The international style of a concrete structure and curtain wall killed thousands of years of building intelligence, and it makes our cities look undistinguishable. The urban fabric dies in conformism.

Maybe we have to look back to build in a location appropriate way: culturally and climatically specific. Climate change won’t be solved with new technology. It will be solved with empathy, and architecture has a lot to offer here. We should try to create buildings that connect us to nature. and to our senses. Because if buildings isolate us from our environment, we become numb to it, and if we become numb, we won’t be able to solve anything.

What continues to inspire me? Well, I am a toddler. I am naturally inspired. Wherever I look I see excitement and possibilities. If I wouldn’t be inspired as a young architect, how could I ever keep up my passion. I believe the best time for me comes in my 60s and 70s. Everything until then is learning. —

Climate change won’t be solved with new technology. It will be solved with empathy, and architecture has a lot to offer here.

About Chris Precht

Founder of Studio Precht & Penda

Chris is a young architect from Austria and founder of Penda and Studio Precht. Together with his wife Fei, his team and 2 cats, he is working from a remote place in the mountains of Salzburg. From there, they are working on projects worldwide, which range from ecological High-rises to Bamboo-buildings. Chris is an advocate for a new generation of architects that finds meaning in their work and that is a leading voice to design an ecological future.

The post Transforming Practice: Chris Precht Represents a New Generation of Design Entrepreneurs appeared first on Archipreneur.

Could you tell us a little about your background? What made you decide to found BIMMUNITY?

Sherif Abdelmohsen: Since my graduation from architecture school in 2000, I have developed a growing passion for computational design and the exciting cross-disciplinary studies between architecture and computer science. I first encountered this during my Masters thesis (2004), when I explored the integration of mixed reality and artificial intelligence in architectural education. This led me to further investigate this interesting area of research, where I pursued a non-degree   Fulbright program at the Computational Design Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. This experience allowed me to develop further modes of inquiry in areas at the intersection of design computing and design cognition. Following this highly experimental and eye-opening experience, I embarked on my PhD journey at Georgia Institute of Technology, where I was exposed to a wide array of concepts, tools and methods in computational design, specifically those concerning research and development in building information modeling (BIM).

After participating in several research and professional projects that involve the implementation of BIM practices in the United States and Egypt, and with the growing potential of BIM, GIS, database and cloud technology, a group of like-minded researchers and myself joined forces and established BIMMUNITY, a technology solutions company, with the purpose of developing a set of applications that address the efficient management of the built environment. Our team shares a lot in common, as we are all architects by virtue of our undergraduate education, but at the same time it embraces different and unique perspectives and experiences. Our team includes Ayman Assem, an expert in space layout planning and management and geospatial analysis, Mohamed Ezzeldin, a seasoned professional and expert in spatial design experience, and Ahmed Ibrahim, an expert in software development and information technology.

Since 2012, our team has been experimenting continuously and in different contexts and projects with computational approaches that involve behavioral mapping, space efficiency and optimization, building management, project planning, and many other concepts that all aim at enhancing conditions of the built environment. With the growing regional and global interest in management systems – both at the building and information level – and the corresponding advanced hardware and software leading to the development of smart systems, Internet of Things (IoT) at the level of cities and buildings, we decided to venture into that exciting market and contribute to the area of space and building management using our computational concepts and approaches.

How does your product help architects, engineers, asset managers and owners?

Ayman Assem: BIMMUNITY aims at the core of its technology solutions not only to deliver smart or efficient management tools but rather to empower its users. As numerous stakeholders are involved in the management of the built environment, including architects, engineers, property and asset managers, facility managers, owners, service providers, BIMMUNITY is primarily interested in meeting and supporting the needs and objectives of all those concerned parties through enhanced scenarios of operation, automated workflows, performance monitoring and tracking, optimized management of building facilities and spaces, and informed real time decision-making.

BIMMUNITY utilizes state-of-the-art concepts of building information modeling (BIM), geographic information systems (GIS), and database and server technology, to provide smart and real-time solutions, involving a variety of building types and stakeholders, within a fully integrated and customized platform. Our technology solutions range from managing not only spaces and buildings, but also communities and cities, using our flexible and scalable “city-to-room” services. Rather than a “one-size-fits-all” platform, BIMMUNITY’s fully customizable features address the needs of a wide variety of building types, including residential, commercial, educational, and mixed-use buildings, as well as stakeholders, including property holders, facility managers, service providers, and building tenants.

All stakeholders can navigate seamlessly through BIMMUNITY’s dynamic and user-friendly visual interface using its interconnected portals. Property holders can manage their properties worldwide and track income, expenses, and performances on their PCs or smart devices. Asset managers can work on enhancing the lifecycle performance of their assets through continuous tracking and monitoring of their performance. Facility managers can issue tickets and work orders to service providers and monitor all building systems and operations. Service providers can monitor their stocks and inventory and conduct their assigned work orders. Building tenants can visually navigate through their units and perform a variety of requests including services, bookings, and maintenance and operation requests. Architects and engineers can evaluate the impact of their design decisions while simulating scenarios of building operation for an improved and optimized building lifecycle. Using the analytical power of both BIM and GIS, all stakeholders can better understand the issues and impacts of their decisions. Other strengths include the support of data retrieval, tracking of component development and maintenance history, dataset availability for maximum on-demand use and recall, therefore supporting integration with other collaboration platforms.

You wrote your dissertation on design intent communication in BIM-enabled architectural practice. What did you explore with your research and what have been your key conclusions?

Sherif Abdelmohsen: My dissertation was based on the premise of challenging the archetypal postulation that BIM encompasses all the required parameters and rules about a design product or process in a way that is comprehendible by all disciplinary participants sharing the model and that communicates their goals, needs and intentions, besides communicating design information. Typically, studies involving BIM in practice tend to overlook some of the socio-cognitive interactions that occur in the workplace such as the negotiation of meaning and the active participation of multiple communities of practice, indicating that there might be discrepancies between what is exchanged among participants as design information when sharing a building model and what is exchanged as goals, needs and possibly conflicting intentions and interests when sharing a common ill-structured problem.

An ethnographic study was therefore conducted based on the question: what are the affordances and limitations that exist in BIM-enabled architectural practice in terms of communicating design intent among teams of designers working in interdisciplinary collaborative environments? The objective was to identify if current BIM exchange mechanisms convey what design teams really intended, if critical design knowledge is not conveyed using BIM data exchange capabilities and authoring tools, how effective shared building models in practice are in terms of communicating product data, design decisions, tacit knowledge and expertise, and to what extent they are hindered by tool complexity, learning challenges, or other factors.

Using personas as an additional method of analysis, and grounded theory coding as a basis for analytic induction, the dissertation arrived at the following major findings and conclusions:

Affordances and limitations of BIM differ according to individuals, disciplines and communities. Affordances included ones related to the tool such as parametric flexibility, and affordances related to collaboration such as coordination of information and conflict resolution. Limitations included incompatibility among tools, the cost of 3D modeling for participants and teams, and conceptualization limitations;

The communication of design intent involves not only interdisciplinary interaction between architects and consultants, but multiple and overlapping communities of practice that embrace interdisciplinary, intradisciplinary and non-disciplinary interaction, in addition to emergent communities that develop along the course of a project;

The BIM model can be described in terms of states that denote the level of its completeness and correctness and describe how effective it is in conveying and capturing the intent of participants in the context of their practices and interactions;

The shared BIM model can be represented partially as a boundary object with different relative weights and meanings in each design stage and for each community of practice;

The BIM model presented an amplification of the participation and reification processes in the workplace, where multi-membership and mutual recognition among participants belonging to different and overlapping communities of practice augmented the sense of participation, while the model provided different values and levels of interpretation for members of different primary and secondary communities of practice through reification;

In principle, the BIM model as a shared repository of information and boundary object is assumed to take into account all participation and reification activities. However, in practice, the convoluted meaning making processes, and the goals, needs and intentions of multi-member communities entail much more interaction patterns that are not necessarily captured in current BIM systems;

The differences in multi-memberships, values of BIM for different members, participation and reification activities, and the structure of primary and secondary communities of practice, should all be accounted for in technology development efforts in the larger population of AEC firms and practices.

What is your opinion on the future of BIM. How will it develop and continue to change the industry?

Sherif Abdelmohsen: The AEC industry has only just scratched the surface regarding the potential applications and merits of BIM in practice. As experienced with earlier tools, concepts and methods, BIM will still have its ebbs and flows, but will however inevitably prevail as a significant lead component of mainstream practice, perhaps just in a different fashion. As with CAD, there will still be that sector of the industry that deals with BIM as a single piece of software – as opposed to a workflow or mindset – that executes specific CAD commands only more efficiently, the same way CAD was used as a more efficient alternate method to manual drawing.

On the other hand, more progressive firms and AEC practitioners will start to develop mechanisms of adapting rather than purely adopting BIM in their everyday practices. With advances in other parametric and digital fabrication tools, approaches to many of the phases in the design, construction and operation processes are expected to change. Developing scripts and smooth translations between different pieces of BIM software will allow for a more streamlined, efficient and informative design and analysis process, allowing for a richer and more comprehensive design solution space with multiple iterations featuring a vast amount of detailing regarding assemblies, spatial qualities, materials, etc.

In my view, BIM will become so entangled into the profession that it will become harder for practitioners to even perceive it as unique or revolutionary. Advances in interoperability, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT) and smart systems will probably make the future less about BIM with respect to modeling and databases, but rather more about highly automated processes, tasks and workflows, advanced real-time performance simulations and optimizations, and highly integrated and efficient building lifecycle management.

To me, BIM will reach a point of saturation in the future with respect to its maturity and development concerning modeling and translation capabilities, to the extent that it will become part of standard practice, also similar to the early days of CAD/BIM transition. I think we are relatively close to this peak point, and it will be all about what’s the next generation of BIM? Whether we will be dealing with actual generations of BIM, layers of maturity and development of BIM, or whether it becomes totally obsolete, is up for discussion, but what is most certain is that we will be witnessing soon a state of transition from BIM.

Will software algorithms and robotics drastically change the design/build process?

Ahmed Ibrahim: I think these are two of the main technologies that will revolutionize the design/build process. We have not come even close to realizing their potential. We have always been focusing on such tools in terms of an aid to the conventional design or fabrication process, mostly at the prototyping level. In other words, we have been developing scripts and translated design-to-production algorithms for predominantly conventional methods of design and construction. What if these methods in essence are revolutionized? What if we can actually program tools and scripts that would design and build for us from A to Z? Is that even a valid idea? Can we simply run a script and use a bunch of robots and drones to translate our thoughts, concepts and requirements into designs, structures and functioning operations?

A first shot at this thought would perhaps leave us confused, or relatively scared, especially when we realize that many of us as professionals could be jobless in a matter of a few years. While we take this thought with a grain of salt, it might strike us that we are not that far from that (virtual) reality. Existing developments in each of the fields of artificial intelligence, algorithmic design, digital fabrication, and robotic manufacturing reveals a closer look that might speak to the validity of such a wild idea. Yes, human designers will never be replaceable – well till now – but the truth of the matter is we are moving to more and more automated components of the design/build process, including conceptualization, modeling, optimization, fabrication and construction, and building operation and lifecycle.

Recent efforts in machine learning and heuristic methods are addressing the process of how human behavior and thinking can be utilized, captured and simulated to produce intuitive design solutions. The power of current graphical algorithm editors such as Grasshopper and Dynamo is already producing overwhelming results concerning conceptualization, geometric editing, parametric adaptation, and advanced simulation and optimization. BIM interoperability tools and techniques are making it easier for software tools to talk together and address issues of synchronized modeling, analysis and evaluation regarding cost, energy, construction and operation logistics. Robots and drones are already being used in some cases to build large scale on-site construction using automated scripting related to manufacturing and site logistics. 3D printers, previously used only for rapid prototyping, are now moving into a mode of rapid fabrication of custom non-traditional building blocks and new materials. Sensor networks, IoT and smart technologies introduce yet another layer of technology related to construction and operation which is specifically appealing to contractors, fabricators and facility managers.

In fact, this digital chain is already there but is not fully captured in its totality. The future might be much closer than we think!

What is your advice for architectural offices which have not set up a BIM project strategy yet. What steps should they take?

Mohamed Ezzeldin: Apart from architectural offices that are not convinced with change to start with, many are willing to consider BIM in their practices but either have a false preconception what BIM is or are not fully aware of the ramifications of such a decision and what it entails in terms of the firm workflows, practices and logistics, and the accompanying implications, challenges, risks and obstacles along the road. Some other firms are willing to move forward with BIM but at a later stage when all issues are resolved and the process has become mainstream enough to learn, or when it results in a more intuitive design process and tool. In all cases, what is crucial is to first understand what it really means to adopt BIM in an architectural firm, which is not by the way just about hiring BIM software gurus, and purchasing and using the relevant BIM software.

One of the issues that many firms face is peer pressure, where they feel obliged to follow the trendiest software out there or suddenly want to detach from the past or the traditional. This might result in hasty decisions by firm owners to purchase software just for the sake of following the crowd or expecting a fast return on investment, and hence they force their employees to use it with an eye always on investment in product rather than process, which is ultimately destined to fail.

First of all, BIM should be embraced as both a tool and a process, so purchasing and implementing a specific BIM software such as Revit or ArchiCAD does not magically guarantee a full BIM adoption or experience. Second, what most firms should be considering in reality once the decision has been taken to adopt BIM – whether at the level of a single project or within the firm practices at large – is that what lies at the core of this adoption is transformation. Before purchasing the necessary software, it is all about the will to change; to transform in terms of mindset, thinking, workflow, process and collaboration. BIM was originally marketed as a business process, and yes it comes with endless merits and benefits, but what many do not realize is that what lacks in this package is the consideration of human dimension.

A multitude of issues are often not considered when adopting a BIM process or project strategy, including the work culture within the firm, workflows, mindsets, roles of different parties, and the nature of collaboration and communication within and among other disciplines. In essence, the adoption of BIM changes the nature of thinking, workflow and communication within a given project, and therefore the firm has to be conscious of these before moving to merely use any software. Implementation also typically requires a learning curve and a training plan for its employees, and this should be taken seriously. Other issues that need to be addressed before adopting a BIM strategy include the ability to manage transition and change, besides leadership, expertise and cross-generational dimensions.

Nevertheless, there are some myths and misconceptions surrounding the adoption of BIM practices. Some of these go as far as claiming that BIM is not suitable for design phases and designers do not benefit from it. Others address the drastic changes required in terms of project delivery, liability and legal issues, the changing role and responsibility of the designer, credibility of model information, besides the difficulty of handling all model information in 3D. In fact, many of these issues are exaggerated and can be considered obstacles to adoption. In many cases, the resolution of such issues can be easily dealt with better communication and through developing a shared system that addresses the nature of the desired workflow, communication method and model exchange format per project. In a nutshell, my advice is to consider and resolve first and foremost the social challenges and benefits related to BIM as a process within the firm then move forward with product-related issues such as software, model interoperability and other technicalities.

What are your plans and goals for BIMMUNITY in 2019?

Ayman Assem: Our goals for the development of BIMMUNITY as a smart management platform are endless. The current version of BIMMUNITY represents only the first phase of our ambitious project to develop a comprehensive building management platform. Our objectives for 2019 focus mainly on integrating our platform with an IoT framework, whereby our BIM and GIS databases become linked to real-time data input from the hardware equipment, sensor network and infrastructure of buildings, communities and cities.

Our platform initially targeted issues of optimization and efficiency of building operations primarily at the level of space management. Our aim is to incorporate energy management at the core of our extended platform, where real-time feedback from a building’s equipment feeds into our energy analysis and management system, whereby data related to energy consumption, carbon footprint, and waste consumption and reduction is measured, monitored, and tracked to generate real-time results and sustainability reports regarding existing buildings.

Currently, our system focuses on the smart building management of residential towers and commercial buildings. We intend to release versions of our platform that accommodate different building typologies. Our goal is to extend our platform to include educational buildings and hotels in the short term and more complex buildings such as hospitals and airports in the long term. Moreover, and in an effort to adopt a smart city approach, we intend to extend our platform to be more inclusive and customized, and to incorporate different levels of detail of management from spaces and buildings all the way to neighborhoods and cities.

What are your thoughts on the future of architecture and the built environment? What are the major opportunities and what continues to inspire you?

Mohamed Ezzeldin: Architecture is currently at a crossroads that creates a unique opportunity for designers and all parties concerned with the built environment. We are now at a more mature phase; a post-digital post-parametricist era that sails away from the typical formalistic associations in the architectural discourse. From a computational design perspective, the imminent question for practitioners, educators and researchers becomes: how perpetual or ephemeral are the computational strategies, processes, and methodologies that will influence the thinking, knowledge production, formulation, and resolution mechanisms in the area of architecture, engineering and construction in the future?

As an increasingly loosely defined term, computational design is growing – past the conventional morphogenetic-centered perspective – to encompass a plethora of transformations in activities, strategies, and methods. A paradigm shift is forthcoming in the area of architecture, engineering and construction and is yet to be tested; from generative to performative and automated, from the tangible to the intangible, from the physical to the phenomenological, from experimental rapid prototyping to large scale rapid fabrication, from mass production to mass customization, from the artifact-centered to the human-centered, from top-down formalistic approaches to bottom-up informed decision making, planning and management, only to mention a few.

Along all these perceived transformations in the industry, yet another set of questions emerge; where does creativity lie? Where do visionary opportunities for genuine innovation stem from; from rich local contexts and authentic values and inspirations, or blind replicas of routine automated processes, settings and configurations? And how will digital design change the nature of architectural practice? What is really more interesting and intriguing within this dialogue is the changing role of the architect in the future. Despite the anticipated anxiety resulting from the expected diminishing role of the architect due to these transformations, it is my assumption that some of the major opportunities and inspirations for yet some unique innovative roles for the architect lie within these future transformations. —

The post Beyond BIM: Architects Create a Wider Building Management Tool appeared first on Archipreneur.

+3

Could you tell us a little about your background and how you came up with the idea of cove.tool?

I think my career path was influenced by my upbringing. Since my father was a diplomat, growing up we moved to a new country every four years. We moved to a new place with a new climate zone, new building types and a new culture, and I believe this exposure to different environments interested me and pushed me to become an architect.

While practicing as an architect, I kept wanting to design green buildings, but I had no real way of quantifying this impact. I wanted to understand how one solution better or greener than other solution quantitatively, but there were no numbers. The information I found was very general, saying a solution is green, so therefore it’s great.

That’s what brought me to my Master’s program at Georgia Tech. I concentrated my studies on building physics and high-performance building design. This jump-started my career into sustainability consulting, energy modeling and building performance.

After my studies I worked at a large firm and I started their energy lab, a small consulting unit serving 26 offices across the globe. It developed like a startup inside a giant company.
Soon after that, I founded our sustainability consulting company called Pattern R+D. The consulting company grew rapidly, which confirmed the strong need. We worked as Pattern R+D for a few years on many amazing projects, but then we realized there were some parts of our process that were the same manual process over and over again.

We had the idea to automate these parts of our process instead of continuing to do it manually. That is how cove.tool started, by automating our own consulting company to make it even more efficient and process-driven. Once we had the software, we began selling it and everyone wanted it. We’ve just been adding features ever since.

Who is the founding team behind cove.tool?

Patrick Chopson and I both originally came up with the idea, and got in touch with Daniel, our CTO, to be a part of this vision.

Patrick and I met at Georgia Tech and we were in the Master’s program together. We both have a background in architecture, sustainability and high-performance building. Patrick also has a background in mechanical engineering.

We didn’t have a beautifully written software at first. We gained a lot of traction with our early software, which was hacked together code connecting this plug and that plug, but it needed improvement. Later we brought on Daniel to be our CTO, to actually write the software beautifully.

What exactly is the core product of cove.tool?

If you’re one of our core clients, you’re either an architect, a mechanical engineer, a sustainability consultant, an owner or a contractor.

To get an energy model, our core clients would typically need to appoint an expensive energy modeler to the project. Maybe about two weeks later, this consultant could describe how a building is currently performing and make recommendations, but it’s a very time-intensive and expensive process.

cove.tool automates that entire process. Clients can use the software and select their building location, building size and provide some basic geometry. cove.tool can also automatically import the geometry and data from models in other programs like Revit, which is a BIM software, and from Rhino or Grasshopper for example.

The product evolved slowly from a consulting agreement to a software solution, so our first clients came right to us.

Then all of the energy modeling inputs are automated. They’re pre-coded based on an energy code. The moment a project is started for an office in California, or an office in Germany, cove.tool knows what the lighting requirements should be, what the HVAC requirements should be, has all of the weather data required and in less than five minutes, it can provide an energy number.

Then as the design develops and selections are made, for the type of roof, type of windows, type of walls, cove.tool can calculate the energy number for these elements in comparison to an energy goal. There are so many different products out there and for example, there’s no way of knowing that if the energy goal is 20% better than the energy code, where in the building to invest in products to improve the overall performance.

For example, should you buy the better glass, or the better roof, or spend money on the HVAC? You can define multiple options for all of these parameters, and it can run the entire optimization in the cloud for every option with every option to find the most cost-optimal ways, the cheapest way to get to your energy target. This is unique to our software.

Does that mean architects could also use your product within the design process of a building to test and improve different versions of the design in terms of the energy sufficiency?

Yes, you can vary the glazing percentage specifically for example or you can even change within the software. For example, you can change the window to wall ratio from 60% to 50% very easily. Or if you’re passionate about having a lot of window area, then you can change your glass type, and perhaps you would learn to then use a more efficient glass. This allows the user to consider all of these factors in an automated and optimized way, holistically. You don’t have to go back and change your geometry. Once your geometry is in, you can make all your changes within cove.tool. 

How do you deal with building codes which are regionally very different around the world?

That is a very complex issue and we do a lot of it manually. We created our own database code by code. Currently, the software supports all of North America including Canada and it’s based off of the ISO standard which is used in Europe for code compliance as well. We haven’t pre-loaded all of the ISO baselines in it yet, but that’s coming early 2019. We will start to support Europe in 2019.

How did you find your first clients when you launched your Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?

The product evolved slowly from a consulting agreement to a software solution, so our first clients came right to us. We were using the software while consulting and our clients asked for a software subscription because they had already seen it work. They saw how, for instance, in one project we did over at Emory University which was a $90 million building, they saved a little over half a million dollars by using our software which is a lot of money.

Our clients were then able to use that money elsewhere in the design. Since we already had many case studies with real numbers and real savings and real project teams that had tried it out, and we were able to publish these case studies, most of our first clients came to us. Then all of our future clients we’ve reached through email marketing, phone calling, webinars, trade shows, everything! Now we have thousands of customers.

What was your most effective marketing channel?

Email marketing and webinars. We have AIA accredited webinars where architects would get credits for participating, like the LEED Learning unit. We would show how to design and build a sustainable project using cove.tool. Each time we would show how to go from nothing to having fully complete brand-new project in less than 15 minutes. After a sample project, at the end we would show a case study which users found really helpful.

You recently closed a $750K seed round. Could you tell us more about the process of raising venture capital for your startup?

Our venture capital journey started after we won the Atlanta Startup Battle.That particular year, over 600 people had applied to that startup battle and the whole process took two-and-a-half-months. Once we won the startup battle, it opened a lot of doors for us because a lot of people then heard about us. From all of the investors I met, it seems they all either know each other or have heard of each other. Once we had our first set of investors by winning the startup battle, the other connections were made more easily. It opened the door to pitch to a few investors and they made our seed round.

How did you calculate the amount of money you needed for your seed round?

This was a very rigorous process because we didn’t want to take too little that we ran out, but we didn’t want to take too much so we were giving away such a big chunk of the company. We did the calculation of what we thought all of our future hires were going to be, how many sales we were anticipating to make, essentially the total burn, total expenses.

Do you have any advice for Archipreneurs who are interested in starting their own company in the built environment?

There’s so much room for innovation. I truly do think that the AEC industry (Architectur, Engineering, Construction) is the slowest progressing of all industries out there. There’s still so much that needs to be done, that any good idea you come up with, you should do because there’s a very high chance you could be the first.

Also, bootstrap as far as you can. I think we were able to get a good valuation for our company because we already had a product and customers (from bootstrapping). Had we gone out to raise money with just an idea, we would have had to give away more than half of our company just to get little amount of money. I really think bootstrapping is a great idea early on, and then when you have a concept together and you’re raising money to grow your markets to get more customers, that’s the best time to raise capital.

What are your thoughts on the future of the built environment? How can it improve, and what continues to inspire you?

I feel it needs to be all more automated. There are too many manual steps. But anytime I say that in conferences, architects get a little worried that this implies taking the design away from the designer. That’s not the case. Automation would just take the chore out of the design work, so designers can truly design.

I feel it needs to be all more automated.

We are now able to design for the experience, and are not spending all our time validating, wondering if a building will pass the energy code, building code or meet the budget in the end. I feel all of those things, hopefully, will be automated. Some of them currently are, and more and more automation so that the people are able to spend their time a lot more efficiently and are able to concentrate on the user experience and what the space truly feels like, instead of how to fit 20 apartments in a certain amount of space. That should not be a designer’s problem. —

About Sandeep

Sandeep Ahuja
Co-Founder Cove.Tool

Sandeep Ahuja, co-founder of cost and energy optimization software cove.tool, Inc., has worked with a variety of clients in academic, hospitality, healthcare and corporate spheres. She is pioneering the integration of energy analysis into the design and construction process. She recently won the Atlanta 30 Under 30 Award for developing cove.tool, a unique methodology to optimize for cost in sustainable buildings. As a building performance specialist, Sandeep specializes in informing performance-related building decisions in careful consideration of cost.

The post Design Tools for Sustainable Building: Cove.Tool Automates Energy Optimizations appeared first on Archipreneur.