Theory of Architecture | #10 - Planning Must Be Digitised

In this article I talk about why the planning system needs to undergo radical digitisation and suggest some policies that might help in that process.
Please support my channel:
SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/theoryo...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1THgwBl...
Podbean: theoryofarchitecture.podbean....
My other channel:
/ @bruce_buckland

[@bsmeekes]

Another interesting thought I had which is closely related is incorporating regulations in BIM. For example, being prompted (and maybe showing the problem in a highlighted colour) whenever regulations are ignored. If the building is too high, the top part would be highlighted with a message explaining the regulation.
It could make the process of designing for architects and reviewing by the government easier and quicker tasks. Resulting in a shorter process from ideation to realised building. Anyways, interesting stuff, keep it up :)

[@devildoom9761]

As with all architectural drawings, models etc, there is a great disparity between the final result and the envisioned one and I understand the need to use 3D modeling software to breach the gap, between the two making it easiers for others to see what a architect is proposing.
However I do find that in the pursuit of complete accuracy we do in fact create lies within the imagery and models, as it's accuracy through the software user creates errors, the need to sell through imagery create falsifications, then the software it self creates further limitations making architects to design to the software and not to the real world. Would these issues not create concerns in the final results? As to limit how designs are proposed by the way in which it's presented damaging to final result?

[@mwarchitectural4350]

Unfortunately I think that there are a few difficulties in your proposals for new policies. The first that springs to mind is the notion that BIM will improve the level of detail put into a planning application. While I agree that this is the case, you focus on the three dimensional aspects (the VR/visualisation potential) and not the 'back of house' fundamental data management that is the core of BIM. The extra time and level of expertise necessary to deliver a scheme to Level 2 BIM compliancy (I'm talking BIM execution plans, Information Release Schedules, asset parameter population, Uniclass knowledge as well as the expensive software that is best suited to this kind of work) is way above and beyond any sort of use to a householder extension and will add additional costs to architects, planners and the consumer. What you are descibring is a form of BIM-lite which is not really BIM at all given it won't focus on the data contained within the model. There is a reason why BIM in its current iteration is best suited to large, governmental schemes.
Additionally, there are increased calls for more responsibility to be given to the architect (I've heard you pioneer the use of architect-led D&B contracts which I find an extremely interesting concept) and yet adding more professionals to the successful delivery of a project is further reducing the impact that a designer can reasonably have (for better or for worse as a result of increased building complexity and regulatory reform). I respect your background in BIM as I believe that we need more architects to be heavily involved in other areas of a building's design (BIM, structure, M&E, lighting design etc) rather than alienate themselves in the seemingly-mystical shroud of 'high design'. This way, architects can be most effective in the modern design world, working with a firm understanding of the work of these other vital professionals and applying positive design pressure from all angles.
Linked in with the above and commenting on your third policy, I think that equating 'I am a good designer' to an accreditation such as with the ARB can be dangerous. I'll make the age-old case that some of the best-acclaimed architectural designers have not been licensed architects. If this were to be incorporated we need to have a fool-proof education system that means anybody and everybody who achieves accreditation is a good designer (which is defined by what and who?) else the point is null. The system would also be open to circumvention like you see in Ireland where a lot gets built that is only designed by architects in name as they sell their badge to a group of Architectural Technologists who are perfectly capable of and experienced in designing to their client's brief/budget in a manner that could be classed good design and yet they face restrictions due to lack of accreditation. Consequently, you are demoting every good designer out there that isn't interested or who can't afford to achieve accreditation. All of this returns to the education system which needs significant reform in order to function according to how you see this policy being implemented - it needs to be an extremely rare qualification, open to all, with a very carefully considered definition of 'good design'. While this is possible, I do not have the pedagogy knowledge to present a solution and would be interested to hear some more of your thoughts?

[@bucklandarch]

Thanks for taking the time on this! There's certainly a lot to consider that you've mentioned and I agree with a lot of it. I'll have a think and take that into account in my future episodes and interview selections. :)