Fortunately, large factions of the architectural community are still concerning themselves with the search for new and more appropriate architectural form, composition and theory. The various practising architectural factions who continue to investigate possibilities of new architecture (or indeed, the continuing evolution of architecture) appear to be comprised of three basic groups, which could be summarised as follows:


Digital Groupies
The search for ever faster, more efficient, more adaptable, and more creative software to facilitate the design and documentation process has inevitably led to architects experimenting with animation and modelling software developed for entirely different industries. These investigations ultimately led to the discovery of animation software and scripts which generate three dimensional patterns or maps which can be interpreted into built form. Proponents of this method of generating architecture argue (rightly) that the forms generated by the software we use are entirely appropriate to the digital age and that the software is actually providing us with the foundations of a new architectural language – one of scripts, units and abstract generative forms.

The fundamental issue with digital architecture at this point is that it appears to have no meaning beyond form, nor does the application of generative scripts appear to provide any information relating to architecture outside of pattern and form. In time, I’m certain software will become available where the input of the fundamental constraints of a site and the client brief will provide an actual working building model (the software division of Gehry’s office appears to be coming the closest at this point) but until that time digital architects are predominantly pattern making. Beautiful, appropriate patterns, but patterns nonetheless.