BIM as Cyberpunk Providence!

So I'm fast away working on a parametric model listening to the re-released Daydream Nation (Geffen) by Sonic Youth, and recollecting on a recent job relocation I made from Manhattan to Denver almost a month ago. I'd just caught the live performance of this very album by the band in Greenpoint, Brooklyn before I left from New York to work here, in Colorado. Now, working on a BIM platform I much prefer, I draw parallel the usage of such technology to that of the innovative post-punk, avant-garde, rock music contained in this late 80's masterpiece. What melodies and harmonies of grunge style guitars (and the manufacturers thereof) have in common with BIM technology are somewhat apparent within their controls and cyberpunk undertones.

But the most important thing to compare is the "post" emphasis. Sonic Youth is considered "post" punk, or cyberpunk, in genre/sub-genre formats. Can it then also be said, if we understand that "CAD" is what's now being superceded: that BIM is also "post"; revolutionary; eclectic, even from progressive CAD? Like post-punk, BIM constitutes a departure from the "norm", in software, and in digital-architecture categories.

I tend to metaphorize about these things, I know. However, working on virtual 3D projects, for me - at least, are like the musically created compositions I enjoy listening to most.

Did you know that the Library of Congress has the Daydream Nation album in its collection as one of the most innovative albums of our time? With the musical style of such a band that both epitomizes the necessity and advancement of technological innovation, (that others surely follow) is, without a doubt, the same direction I feel BIM technology should be heading in - as parallel.

The parallelisms to controlled information (within a studio social order) are absolutely the very next thing generations of designers, engineers, and constructors should be aware of - as a movement. When information is managed flawlessly and effortlessly, and virtual deconstruction is witnessed, then what's attempted is the same as what's resolved. Thus, deconstructivism can be an über attaché for the BIM cause by association of virtual similarities to artistic and architectural process. This deconstructivism, not necessarily the deconstructivism of Gordon Matta-Clark (although the assessment of virtual buildings are easily sliced up with tools similar to his mind's eye,) is, arguably, without the support of the AEC status-quo.

If BIM can be thought of as a haven for the cyberpunk CAD drifters and grifters, the fringe techno-heads working in AEC, or the architecture grads who echo the sentiments of Matta-Clark's AIA, then all focused on BIM right now should carry what seemingly is considered "self interest" to the next level. They should be motivated upon by being as much a self proclaimed evangelist of BIM, as being a pragmatist; and to foster cybernetic awareness at all costs. If you think you fall into this category, you have safety with those who think and behave the same.

If you're not around too many, then, by default, you may have to be the one who is sticking your neck way out there. I was in just this situation recently for a past employer. But this story is not unique, from what I'm finding. We're probably just seen as CAD slackers...if we're using, or attempting to, use BIM - if you're in one of "those" offices.

Even if you're being pleasant about it, fear for your own job being on the line - if you're executing BIM awareness successfully to your peers, it most likely is. It's a risk you take (acting autonomously,) but if you really think you know your stuff, you should prevail in some small way. You'll turn others on to BIM, possibly better than you are aware of. Simply experimenting with BIM programs reveal the secrets because they are developed intuitively to how designers and constructors think alike. Make provisions to others by sharing what you know. Sharing simple tricks of the trade can go a long way - and influences wider usage in AEC.

Be courageous. What have you got to lose? Push the envelope a little. The corporate backing is already there by industry types of the same vein - who know the validity of BIM. They're making it happen.

Change is never going to be widely accepted thing, but before you know it, the strength in numbers thing is more of a reality. If you're getting flack about trying to introduce a new technology within your firm, start a user group. Tell your higher ups it's a good thing - what your doing. If there is no motivation whatsoever to move to at least a small percentage of BIM seats in your firm, maybe it's time you found a new firm. Your bosses will understand. Tell them to think about it in their sheltered corner offices (maybe while listening to Barry Manilow) - hey, I actually like Barry Manilow.

From my own testimonials, and from others, I've concluded stories of a delimited BIM profession. Some, attempting to break out of a mold by using this technology (while getting their wrists slapped frequently) are perhaps seen as "renegades" - occurring especially in firms not fully embracing BIM: perhaps they fear some kind of "conspiracy" or movement against them. Of course, this is as much ridiculous as it is amusing to most BIM users who've already seen the benefits of working in the next generation of proverbial CAD, some of whom have been at it since the mid 90's, or even earlier. Perhaps those who oppose BIM sense BIM as some kind of placebo effect within the industry.


Perhaps it's all about the first glances our ruling class AEC professionals our having on us, the next generation of design professionals. They hold disdain over us for our "business casual" attire. They question our effectiveness with an "out-of-the-box thinking" technology, even though we're quickly absorbing it & proving our proficiency. But we shouldn't be worried about anything to the variables of their underadvancements. After all, we're the generation of Malcolm Gladwell, we listen to Sonic Youth, we love movies like BladeRunner and own the Matrix trilogy. (Ironically, in Denver, the studio apartment I almost rented was "#303", while unrelated: I was assigned seat '#4D' on the flight from NY to Denver, when I first interviewed for a "4D" job.) Coincedence? Perhaps. Although, I still think there's a force to be reckoned with.

BIM is instinctual to a carefully planned chaos - as an approach to conceptualizing, sketching, designing, cost calculation, clash detection; using 3D, 4D, 5D, and beyond.

Did anyone ever consider how environmentally correct BIM is? Paper use, for example, for printed sets is decreasing largely because of its electronic drawing file management system and with IAI's IFC classification structure. This will help conserve our natural resources in a big way.

Just a reminder, while my own wrists have been slapped for using BIM technology, I am hopeful that many others come forward to the fact that many folks are more frightened by our cyberpunk determination (more so than being hypersensitive to the fact that they'll soon be embracing what we already know). One thing I've taken away from witnessed misconceptions, and imperceptibilities, is to persuade that the thinking behind BIM is the only substitution to better designing - from the misconception that it's not. This only because the design is made virtual, and can me managed from infinite amount of angles and explored interstitially that way. It most certainly is "better designing", because BIM allows you more time to design. In studio culture - time is of the essence. Graphically, you can work cumulatively, with parametric controls, not having to go "back to the drawing board" always. What a waste of time that use to be. Not everyone agrees on this, nor will they ever. Still, this is OK because of how that whole horse-water saying goes....

Perhaps the BIM technology preference is not for every AEC professional, just as the music of Sonic Youth is not for every listener. However, the intelligence behind BIM should be acknowledged, historically, whether one feels it's correct or not.

Users of corrected, improved-upon, advanced methodologies usually are on the exits of banal function, as they live/work on the fringe. Perhaps they listen to post-modern music while doing this. BIM users are no strangers. But are these users also going to be leaving a "trail of dead" in their wake? Who knows?

Some BIMheads may know this is a possibility, and either gloat and revel, or take quiet pride in it. There are so many new opportunities out there for us now, why should we take a back seat to CAD traditionalism? Who are the CAD traditionalists? They're most often the architect who just finally learned how to use CAD three years ago and think they're knocking 'em down. Which is fine (I learned much of my architectural skills doing hand drafting and then going to CAD - a valuable experience), it'd also be fine if CAD were the future of design, but it's not anymore. And many established architects are just plain stubborn and don't want to meet, halfway, the promise of Building Information Modeling. They won't change. There's a lot of risk at stake for them, obviously.

Just as a side note, when I used to work back in New York, I'd often gauge BIM use, demographically, by visiting Barnes and Nobles stores to see if any books on Revit where on sale. In about a dozen attempts, in NYC, I came up empty every time. In my first few weeks here in Colorado, I've found 2 different B&N's that carry the book. Interesting, I thought NY would have a greater need, I guess not...

There needs to be providence for correct thinking in the technological exploration of BIM - in the workplace. Until then, it will remain somewhat cyberpunk (just as post-punk rock itself). This is also alright with me - just as long as it's accessible for my own use, wherever this may be: Colorado, (hint, hint).

-Joseph Nicholson