Pizza, pasta and architecture of CADs


My nighttime walks the day before this took me close to an educational campus. As soon as the loose-for-all campus now secured from outsiders in each which manner, I, by hook or by crook, managed to slink past the guards and walked in (in all likelihood because I had learned the art of random exploration and also the way to thieve the L key from the watchman inside the very campus). My meandering internal took me to an extraordinary display of younger thoughts.

It became an exhibition curated via professionals of architectural thoughts of the kids who will quickly inherit the super profession of architecture from beyond I belong. I was curious to see what has been modified over the years.


The maximum placing change became first-class of presentation. As architecture has moved from drafting forums to Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools, communicating a layout idea has moved to a new top, making it very tough (at least for me) to dig out the essence of built architecture from the appealing veneer of graphic layout wrapped around it.

After looking at the mind-blowing show and struggling to fathom what is vital to structure, i.e., the making plans, sense of the area, and scale of the building from the presentations, I was forced to invite myself an old-man question.

Does the structure need computers? Architecture has usually been a harassed branch regarding its scope and objective. In India, the problem is made worse through the completely mindless declaration of its governing body, the Council of Architecture (CoA), that architects are experts in all engineering branches. Still, I constantly experience that there may be a less complicated manner of looking at architecture, which is as a craft of creating homes for human use (while engineering is all approximately integrating technologies with construction).

As humans need to use and enjoy construction, architecture desires the right blend of practical features and aesthetical shape, making it a craft wherein technology and humanities must converge. Replacement of drafting boards with computer systems has looked very attractive at the onset due to the fact architecture is an iceberg with the operating drawings as a visible tip, and this is where computer systems can do wonders, however, as it has overwhelmed the career now, two massive issues have emerged.

The first and sensible problem is that a laptop screen is a scale-much less environment. So, while a clothier continuously zooms inside and outside, he/she loses the feeling of scale that is straightforward to hold tune in the constant surroundings of a bit of paper wherein a 1: a hundred scale drawing can’t be zoomed in/out of.

I would admit that I sensed the scale loss in CAD, which might be because I began on a drawing board. However, the 2nd trouble that I feel is more diffused and some distance more impactful is the presentation tools it gives in an age of gratification zombies.

If we search the modern-day world, human existence seems to be the quest for regular gratification, so novelty holds the key to achievement. The architect corresponds to a fashion designer today as his/her achievement depends more and more on how he/she can be extraordinary in look and experience than the flavor of the closing season. And this is wherein CAD has emerged as an actual and threatening menace.

As often those determining an architect’s destiny aren’t truly educated to examine drawings, we are now transferring to Pizza Pasta’s structure of transient visible gratification driven through mind-blowing CAD presentations.

But then, architecture is a couple of deaths in India, so CAD is simply any other nail to a coffin already nailed. It is difficult employing the council of architecture and the closedness of instructional establishments that can be expected to nurture it. Let us pray that structure survives both CAD and CoA by reinventing itself to the finest needs of current times, e.g., becoming a device for saving the planet by turning energy-conscious rather than stylish.