Bill Gates' Architect: AutoCAD Makes My Employees Stupid

So why is he still using AutoCAD?

I have heard that his office uses Graphisoft, but I don't have any confirmation on this.

AutoCAD is just a tool. If they can't see 3 dimensionally, that is not the fault of drawing with or without CAD.

If they can't draw 2d with AutoCad how can they draw with a pencil. They're the same, a tool for making drawings.Maybe they should get Architectural Desktop with is 3D. Any GOOD draftsman should be able to visualize in 3d in there head.

AutoCAD cannot be blamed. Everybody knows it is 2D. It´s just incapability of users and decision makers to select other tools, e.g. 3D CAD-tools which are available in the market for years.

Some people are just scared of technology!

I hate to tell you, Wolfgang, but AutoCAD has been true 3D for more than a decade....

I wonder how Gates' architect managed to get all those rooms to line up correctly without someone thinking in 3D?

Try it you may like it. It cuts down wasted energy.

Anybody know how to get in touch with Bill Gerry? (He designed the Disney Symphony hall in CATIA) I'm sure he'd have an interesting counterpoint.

Fact #1 - AutoCAD is the CAD standard and is widely underrated as just a 2D tool however it is fully 3D capable. Also, AutoCAD is accurate to 14 decimal places. I don't know a pencil that is that sharp. Nor a person using it.
Fact #2 - Packages like Arch Desktop or Revit aid the architect in managing 3D design and collaboration. BTW it is easier to use than paper. Just give it a try.
Fact #3 - Any architect that solely relies on paper is not advancing his/her skillset. The mechanical drafting argument was lost about 15 years ago.
Fact #4 - Paper is 2D the last time I checked. (Unless you are skilled at origami) Isometric drawing is not 3D it is a 2D optical illusion.

"Stupid is what stupid does" - Forest Gump

I think the point he is trying to make is that CAD -- especially 2d oriented and rote oriented CAD based practices -- dumb down architects' ability to stay three dimensionally oriented. We fight this everyday in our office but mostly with the younger architects, who ironically have the most 3d CAD training/experience.

His comment on Autocad is probably based on the fact that its the most visible culprit of this type of CAD system. Does Autocad more than any other CAD system foster this loss in 3d orientation? It's a fair question and the fair answer is probably wrapped up in the comments you will see from Autocad users who claim that its the fastest and best darn CAD system in existence.

His comments expose the rift between design-oriented architectural thinkers and business-oriented efficiency CAD management thinkers. In my 20 years in this biz there is such a rift, unfortunately.

If you buy a car for your monkey, you will still notice, that he will climb up the tree furthermore. Poor employees from the sight of a poor boss!

Not true! It isn't the tool but the worker/bosses' ignorance (or fear of) the right tool for the job. Every day I'm ever more disappointed by the failure of middle-upper management to research those tools and make forward-looking decisions; admittedly many of my 'coal-face' colleagues are just as technophobic (or lazy?) preferring to "do it as we always did it".
Petrochemical plant design would have been a very early adopter of 3D modelling software more than 20 years ago; nothing much has filtered through to AEC since, it seems. How depressing! Currently I'm contracted to a large (billion dollar value) mining development being designed- wait for it- in 2D. D'oh!!!
Architects have themselves to blame, by and large; the most conservative profession was the last refuge of the drawing board (some still keep them) which says it all, really.

"If they can't draw 2d with AutoCad how can they draw with a pencil."

In my 18 yrs. I have met a couple of guys that if I gave them a pencil they wouldn't have known what to do with it. It is so untrue that if you know how to do AutoCad in 2d that you can draw with a pencil. A good draftsman learned how to draw with a pencil first, and learned AutoCad afterwards, but hey I come from a time when they still taught you to use a pencil first.

I'll have to read the entire article before I'm prepared to speculate as to Mr. Cutler's true thoughts, but I do know something (not everything) about the documentation systems Cutler Anderson Architects has and is currently using.

One of my ski buddies is an architect who I met while he was working on Gate's place, The Medina Residence as it was called in the fashion of the '90s. The entire project, at least those drawings produced at Cutler's Bainbridge Is. office—remember the project was a joint partnership with Bohlin Cywinski Jackson— was done pen-on-mylar. It was extremely laborious. Many young architects, my friend included, were recruited to do the grunt work and yes, they all needed to know how to wield a pencil, or in this case a pen.

In late 2002, having decided there must be something better than VectorWorks for architectural practice, I bought a copy of ArchiCAD on ebay and started attending the Seattle ArchiCAD Users Group. There was a woman there who was just an ace, and very self confident. During the time I knew her she went to work for Cutler where she had worked "back in the day". She evangelized ArchiCAD there and reported at the time that they had a few ArchiCAD licenses and many more AutoCad. She liked to brag about how much faster she was than the autocad jockeys. Especially, once she had built the model, which she did with amazing speed and alacrity, how easily she could produce the required documents.

I now work with a another woman who just came from Cutler Anderson and was mentored by the woman I just mentioned. We use ArchiCAD in our office so she was quite a find as most new hires need to be trained (or should I say retrained since some amount of autocrap usually needs to be deprogrammed before they embrace ArchiCAD). I have had the pleasure to study a CD set she recently worked on at Cutler's using ArchiCAD. All I can say is it is quite a departure from the CD sets I'm used to and a breath of fresh air. I'm speaking strictly about the document, not the design, about which you can form your own opinion since I'm sure it will be published like all Cutler's work these days.

The set comes off as unbelievably spare. There are very few notes on the site or floor plans or anywhere else for that matter. It follows a clean logic of providing more detail as scale increases. And that's where things get interesting. There are no details in the ArchiCAD set. All details appear in a detail binder and are hand drawn. As I understand it they are produced by the senior associates who not only get to think through the details but use their hand drafting skills to finish them. An excellent use of resources that I would love to see where I work. On the other end of the spectrum the ArchiCAD model is fully available, and true to what I'd heard, thoroughly modeled, cabinets, roof framing, trim, etc.

All in all I find the set very successful in conveying both the big picture and the minutia cleanly and with minimal waste. There is also an inherent trust in the building trades and their own specs and details that I find refreshing. This set demonstrates a great deal of craft while not succumbing to the cult of the drawing . After all the goal is great structures, well designed and well built, not pretty pictures.

I find his comments ironic because, while I am facile with the CAD software I use (not AutoCad) I prefer a combination of 3 dimensional modelling on the computer and 3d paper sketching (mostly the latter because fast)to visualize. My productivity, however, tends to be measured by 2 dimensional CAD output. A characteristic of architecture tends to be the need to solve issues affected by many factors simultaneously. Any efficient method of considering these issues in 3D tends to facilitate this since the spatial aspect is a large part of this complexity. I find, though, that many people in the profession are not adept at solving issues simultaneously. The usual 2 dimensional CAD representation assists those whose favored method of resolution is reduction and simplification. While not very efficient, this does produce the illusion of productivity since a skilled cad operator can produce a lot of very finished appearing drawings rather quickly. I find myself spending inordinate amounts of time fixing these, which can be difficult to justify since so much time has gone before and such seemingly complete drawings were already produced. That the cad drawings finished appearance was mainly illusory can be difficult to convey.

Autocad is tough at best I have used it for years and still don't really get it. ADT is the program I use but again its not builder friendly to say the least. A simple wall or window but get into a cut up roof and you will die trying to get it right. There are better programs out there for this. I find myself always buying the subscription but at times I wonder why. Take a look at solid builder www.digitalcanal.com its just a smarter program with a lot more for the builder or designer.
Chris Frassett
Canyon Construction and Design
Napa, Ca

All drafters not matter what discipline should be taught to work with their brain and a pencil before moving to AutoCAD. We have had many young trainees who can make CAD dance before your eyes however the actual content leaves much to be desired. An understanding of materials used, construction methods and spatial relationships is usually only gained through experience and something no consultancy seems to have enough time for. This is unfortunate because while CAD has levelled the playing feild as far as presentation is concerned it is these factors that make good designers today but too many are diverted by the technology.
The end product should be the focus not the 'assembly drawings'.

This is the "Great Debate" in education. CAD systems have infiltrated curricula in Visual communication, materials technology, Art and design all the way back to years 7 and 8. I've been selling a 3d capable package for 6 years and find Autocad, PTC, CATIA, Cadkey/IMSI, and just about everything else on shelves and on the system for student use. The teachers are driven by administration requirements that they introduce technology but grew through a system of apprenticeship where skills were acquired in situ/on the job. Many kids become CAD capable and are able to "build" impressive 3D models. A few can even take off dimesions and building information. The ONLY ones that have ever been able to explain the relationship between their drawing and the materials and processes required to produce it, have on further discussion used what is euphemistically called "reverse engineering'. They built something, added and strengthened until it finally stood up, and then they drew it.

Knowing that AutoCAD is 2D and expecting a 3rd dimension out of it confirms that you are classic stupid. Use a 3D program and some common sense - you will get what you want.

I started in Cad about 5 years ago and would never return to paper and pencil except to wo a client that I can draw upsidedown and backwards fro their enjoyment and to express an idea. I use DataCad which is 3D capable. I use it seldom in that I am a one man firm and need to get production drawings out the door. However, I see and think in 3D therfore, I must be - an architect!

BIM
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-22_11-5394888.html

....stay tuned

To John Burrill

John Burrell
Frank Gehry (formerly Frank Goldberg) designed the Disney Hall using Catia. Who is Bill Gerry?

AutoCAD sucks. Full of bugs. Try programming with it and you'll find them!

I hear ya man! Try using the help you will have better luck guessing.

Have you see the house , its not autocad to blame that he and his employees are stupid...
Even more stupid : why his employees are not working with 3d programs.

Why can't you give "James Cutler" (not Bill Gates' Architect) the full credit. It seems like this is an intentional mis-direction by Mr. Newton to "sensationalize" this from the CAD perspective.

MR. BILL GATES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS INTERVIEW OR THE ARTICLE.

This is kind of a cheap shot at negative publicity.

By the way, there is no connection between Mr. Gates and myself.

Thanks,
Larry - AutoCad User

I've yet to read the article by Mr. Ivy, but my best guess is that the point being made by Mr. Cutler is that AutoCAD, or any other software, for that matter, makes very pretty pictures that give the appearance of being complete, just because they are so neatly presented. Starting off your design thinking of a DETAIL with a computer instantly makes what used to be a sketch look like a finished product. At that point, there is a tendancy to never re-visit the "thinking" because the computer makes the drawing look finished, even if it is not.

Just 25 Details! I will love to take a flight from NY to LA with this man, I'll come up with 250 details on cad: 3d, 2d, Perspective, Axon...

Bring it on!

Autocad has 3d you have to learn to work in 2d and 3d its means that you desing in 2d but have to check how it looks in 3d the real architet works,by hand and then go to the autocad to finisn the details and it help you to show the project to your clients ,if you have drafsperson you must tech them how to works in 2d and 3d