1

DIGITAL REVOLUTION AND ARCHITECTURE: GOING BEYOND COMPUTER-

AIDED ARCHITECTURE (CAD).

SALISU ABUBAKAR (arcsalisu@yahoo.com)

MUKHTAR MOHAMMED HALILU (mhmukhtar62@gmail.com)

Department of Architecture, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

The age of Computer-aided design (CAD) has come and is on its way out especially within

the developed world. It is now Building Information Modelling (BIM), which is creating

enthusiasm among architects the world over. But new thinking is now even making BIM a

construction phenomena rather than a design method. New concepts like Blobism,

Performative architecture, Digital fabrications, Parametricism and Nanotechnology amongst

others have evolved as a result of the digital revolution that swept the world in the first

decade of the 21st century. New digital technology together with new construction processes

are giving the architect new controls over his designs and are restoring the architect back to

his pedestal of being a master-builder. Using rigorous literature review, this paper traces

these developments from the 1990’s to 2011, with examples based on principles made

possible as a result of digital technology and its effect on post-modernist movement. The

paper also considers the possibility of the digital culture in bringing up new movements in

architecture. Consequently it can be seen that accessibility to digital tools and softwares

constitute a major shift in the definition and content to be provided in architectural education

in the 21st century in our architectural schools.

Keywords: Blobbing, Fabrication, Nanotechnology, Parametricism, Performative

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to show that digital architecture (formerly understood as CAD) has

come to play a very important role in the production of architecture. The era of ‘cut and

paste’ has become a thing of the past and the use of computer/softwares as digital tools in

designing and fabricating architecture is no more in question and has come to even influence

post-modernist architecture.

Digital revolution in the world developed through two different routes. The initial computer

networking experiments launched by the American Department of Defence Research Agency

or ARPA in 1966-67 which later developed into the internet and the development of the

personal computer or PC in the 1980’s (Picon, 2010). Together, these two features of

development brought changes to the way the general public interacted and worked. The

digital age in architecture started as computer-aided-design (CAD) in the early 1980’s

(Glancey, 2000). This was merely the automation of the drafting process of architecture and

2

had little or no effect on the aesthetics or nature of the buildings. By the late 1980’s, the first

traces of the ability of the computer (hence the digital revolution in architecture) to influence

not only drafting speeds, but also design became apparent. Two of the first major buildings to

exploit the design capabilities of the computer were the Kansai International Airport, Osaka

Bay, Japan (1988-1994) by Renzo Piano and the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao (1993-1997)

by Frank Gehry. The 1990’s became the era when architects embraced the digital in

increasing numbers. By this time, computers had advanced to the stage where debates could

be held about whether it was possible to create spatial architecture in the virtual rather than in

the real world. For architects, the publication in 1991 of a collection of essays edited by

Michael Benedikt entitled ‘Cyberspace: First Steps’ was the necessary catalyst. The seminal

essay in this collection was ‘Liquid Architectures in Cyberspace’ by the architect Marcos

Novak. In his essay he firmly grounded architectural cyberspace, defining its potential as the

province of the avant-garde (architects with new ideas and methods – innovative and

experimental) and relating its idea of flow or liquidity back to previous avant-gardes both

within and outside of architectural theoretical discourse (Spiller, 2008). The ability (using the

computer) to design ‘out of the box’ has demystified the notion of mass production and limits

on the variety of modules is no longer tenable, henceforth this has encouraged architects to

design non-standard innovative volumetric components and shapes that seem to defy gravity

and to redefine the way architecture has been thought of and taught for ages. This has become

important not only to architects and schools of architecture in Nigeria, but also to regulators

of the practice of architecture in Nigeria.

DIGITAL REVOLUTION IN ARCHITECTURE

One of the few things about the digital revolution we are sure of is that the digital revolution

in architecture consists of a computer and software. But do we say the term ‘digital revolution

in architecture’ should apply to designs made with the assistance of a computer or should it

3

be reserved to productions that put to real use the capacity of the machine to be more than a

drafting tool as it was initially used? Antoine Picon in his book ‘Digital Culture in

Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions’ postulates that digital architecture

has often been characterised by an experimental dimension more pronounced than in

mainstream production. He goes further to say that if the experimental dimension is apparent

in the works of Ali Rahim, Benjamin Aranda and Christopher Lasch, who have gone into

form generation using digital parametricism, how do you explain what is arresting with the

projects of Preston Scott Cohen which is recognised for its innovative geometry not

generated by parametricism or the works of Jacques Herzog who puts accent on surfaces and

ornamentation? Also how does one classify the works of Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid who use

traditional means like sketches and models, but handover the designs to employees who have

more familiarity with the machines and softwares? However this ambiguity is not

problematic, insofar as the digital architecture using the computer in an experimental

perspective is inseparable from the broader trends at work in the contemporary architectural

world. Consequently both the experimental techniques and the applied use of the digital

culture can be referred to as the digital revolution.

The emergence of the digital revolution has become possible as a result of new forms and

techniques of fabrication made possible by the use of new digital tools. This revolution may

be loosely categorised into:

1. ‘Blobbing’ or Blob architecture, Surfacing and Skinning

One of the development of the digital revolution is the ‘blob’ (Binary Large Object)

designated by Greg Lynn. In 1993, Greg Lynn published ‘Folding in Architecture’ in a

special edition of Architectural Design, where he suggested an alternative to deconstruction

and its cult of fractals. He suggested “smooth transformation involving the intensive

4

integration of differences within a continuous yet heterogeneous system” (Lynn, 2004).

Advocating curvilinearity, pliancy, gentle blending and of course folding, Lynn’s prose was

evocative of geometric developments that would soon follow using the computer (Picon,

2010). Frank Gehry’s much praised Guggenheim Museum (1997) Bilbao, became one of the

first examples. Some of these had shapes reminiscent of organic life like the Water Pavilion

in the Netherlands by Lars Spuybroek or the Kunsthaus of Graz by Peter Cook.

Blobbing was not the only concept of the digital architecture referred to in surfacing. Use of

the Moebius strip and the Klein bottle for instance questioned the boundaries between two-

dimensional and three-dimensional spaces, and between the exterior and interior.

Ornamentation and materiality is another component of surfacing which has become part of

the avant-garde in the digital culture in architecture. The flexibility of many contemporary

architectural programs in producing complex surfaces has enabled architects to produce

envelopes, something akin to packaging (Picon, 2010). A good example is the John Lewis

Department Store, Leicester, 2008 designed by Foreign Office Architects.

On the other hand, deconstructivism was not totally thrown aside. Taking blobbing

metaphorically allowed for broader shapes with sharp edges like Libeskind’s extension to

Fig. 1 Water Pavillion in The

Netherlands by Lars Spuybroek

1997

source: Wikipedia.org

Fig.2 Kunsthaus in Graz, Austria

by Peter Cook 2003

5

London’s museum in 2005, but like blobs, they contrasted with mainstream geometry (Picon,

2010).

The development of volumetric modelling methods like surfacing, non-uniform rational B-

splines (NURBS), polygonal and spline modelling in a lot of computer modelling softwares

made it possible to develop forms that were nearly impossible to generate prior to the use of

computers. Envelopes (skins or surfaces) were designed to act as facades independent of the

functions inside them. However according to Picon, this emphasis raises difficult questions of

professional competence and political responsibility and what seemed left to architects is a

task akin to fashion design! But that is his opinion and fortunately not all architects have the

same impression. Patrik Schumacher in his article ‘A New Global Style for Architecture and

Urban Design’ published in AD Architectural Design - Digital Cities of 2009 highlighted that

the desire for an architecture marked by a complex fluid, nature-like continuity was clearly

expressed even before the emergence of the new digital tools in the works of Zaha Hadid in

the late eighties and Eisenmann / Lynn’s of the early nineties. As a result of the ability of the

computer to model forms that seem to defy structural constraints, new paradigms in

engineering are being proposed. Alternative tectonics rejecting the traditional structural

organisation rules is glaringly present today. A structural randomness is quite evident with

examples being the Beijing Olympic Stadium by Herzog & de Meuron and Michele Saee’s

new facade for the Drugstore Publicis in Paris.

Fig. 4 New facade of the Drugstore

Publicis, 2004 by Michele Saee

© M.Saee architect

Fig. 3 Beijing National Stadium ‘Bird’s

nest’ by Herzog & de Meuron 2008

©official website of Beijing Olympics

6

2. Performative Architecture

One of the building blocks of digital revolution is the architectural /engineering quest to be

able to forecast the performance of buildings or proposed designs. With increasing

complexity and sophistication of designs, being able to determine trade-offs and optimisation

of proposals, especially with regards to sustainability, becomes a demanding need which has

to rely on simulation. Starting from the 1970’s, various softwares for simulating energy

consumption, lighting, acoustical behaviour, thermal consumption, traffic behaviour, fire

movement in buildings, and much more were developed to help architects and engineers in

their designs. Majority of these softwares are based on Computational Fluid Dynamics

(CFD), which is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses computers to perform numerical

calculations to solve and analyse the interaction of gases, liquids and volumetric spaces.

Validations are carried out in both laboratory and where possible in real-life settings. The

level of sophistication and advancement has lead to new standards of design like LEED

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers) and IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society

of North America). Specialised softwares have been developed and used with some level of

success. The Radiance lighting software has been used by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

(SOM) and ARUP (a firm of engineers) in a joint project (New York’s Penn Station 1998-

2003) to study the effect of daylight coming through an expansive skylight on electronic

display boards being proposed for the station. With the photometrically accurate simulation

package, ARUP was able to design a system that would reduce the brightness from the

overhead skylights without destroying the architecture of the space and thus specifying less

bright and therefore less expensive display boards and also making them visible without glare

(Raman, 2005).

7

Another powerful tool is Simulex which enables designers to run an emergency evacuation

simulation that considers demographic data of building occupants, including age and agility.

The program produces very specific real-time data that demonstrate the adequacy of escape

from the building (Raman, 2005). Apart from the above, there are various softwares like

EnergyPlus for energy related simulations, SmokeView for 3D smoke visualisation, Fire

Dynamics Simulator (FDS) for predicting smoke and hot air flow.

With the trend in developing more powerful and cheaper computers, and with more architects

accepting the digital revolution, it could be reasonably argued that any architectural design-

however esoteric in nature or appearance- using the tools above, can be tested or optimised.

Quantifiable engineering and environmental data can be generated for both performance

needs and for life-cycle cost analysis. As can be seen in the plates below, the ability for

simulation is overwhelming!

Fig. 5 Photograph of a Computer

Laboratory at M.I.T

Fig. 6 Radiance rendering of the same

Computer Laboratory at M.I.T

Mardeljevic, 1999

8

3. Digital Production and Fabrication

The digital age has reconfigured the relationship between conception and production creating,

a direct digital link between what can be conceived and what can be built (Kolarevic, 2003).

Due to the sheer necessity of the complex forms of the volumetric components and shapes,

the new paradigm brought the architects to be closely related to the production of buildings.

Thus the digital fabrication from the digital information enabled architects to produce scale

models of their design from 3D printers using processes and techniques identical to those

used in the manufacturing industry.

This newfound ability to generate construction information directly from design information

defines one of the most profound aspects of contemporary architecture. The close relationship

that once existed between architecture and construction (what was once the nature of

architectural practice) could potentially re-emerge as an unintended but fortunate outcome of

the new digital age. The envelopes of buildings can be created from a series of braided

surfaces visualised on computers, and if they are built, machine instructions can be sent

straight to the factory to enable full-size fabrication (Spiller, 2008). In transcending from

building information models to construction, it is important to translate two and three

dimensional drawings into digital data that computer controlled machines can understand

(Iwamoto, 2009). This necessitates that architects should learn a new language involving new

machines and new softwares. Understanding materials, machine capabilities and design

becomes imperative for the digitally conscious architect for the present and future generation.

Consequently a reassessment of the architectural curriculum in our schools of architecture is

called for to enable our present and future generation of architects to be universally

competitive.

9

4. Parametricism

Computers, an important technological feature of the new generation has produced not only

breakthroughs in spatial forms, but also in volumetric forms and construction. This led to the

most obvious aspect of the digital revolution- the development of the digital free-form of

architecture using parametricism. Parametric logic allows form to be manipulated but yet still

controlled. In some cases, parametric settings produce unpredictable results in design form

which one can create stunning concepts. This has been aptly proved in the 21st century by

architects like Ali Rahim, Patrik Schumacher and Greg Lynn who have exploited the concept

of parametricism in both their architectural and urban planning works. Parametricism has its

roots in the digital animation techniques of the mid- 1990’s (Schumacher, 2008) and has

become the dominant, single style for the avant-garde practice today. Furthermore, he

postulates that parametricism is a new style which succeeds post-modernism, employing new

sets of tools in producing architecture and urban designs. These tools are completely digital

tools – animation, simulation and form-making tools (splines, polygonal modelling,

morphing, parametric modelling and scripting). This style proposes designs and tests them

using digital tools before they are even built. Schumacher proposes parametricism as the new

defining moment for architecture enabling designers to reach complete fluidity at all stages

and all scales, from initial sketches to construction, from single buildings to major urban

compositions (Schumacher, 2008).Some do not see it as simplistic as stated above, but

nevertheless makes the possibility of generating complex shapes available to enterprising

architects. Antoine Picon in his book points out that if such a vision is certainly simplistic

insofar that it minimises the various technological and economic obstacles that designers

have to still address in their everyday practice, parametric design makes geometric

complexity manageable (Picon, 2010). The defining heuristics of parametricism are fully

reflected in the taboos and dogmas of contemporary avant-garde design culture:

10

Negative heuristics (taboos):

avoid rigid geometric primitives like squares, triangles and circles (lack

malleability)

avoid simple repetition of elements (lack of variety)

avoid juxtaposition of unrelated elements or systems (lack of order)

Positive heuristics (dogmas)

all forms must be soft ( parametrically malleable)

differentiate gradually (at variant rates)

inflect and correlate systematically

With the aid of computers, a new digital tectonic which is generated by the digital revolution,

rather than by structural or material properties is gradually being defined. By using

parametric mathematical equations and paths defined by users together with morphing, a new

architecture devoid of Cartesian principles but based on structural randomness is now the

avant-garde. This calls for a total reassessment of how digital tools are applied in our

architectural schools. The tools are henceforth tools of creativity, assessment and fabrication.

They are tools for defining form and surfaces, directly from the imagination made possible on

the screen. This defines a new, contemporary paradigm which needs to be taught in our

architectural schools for our future architects to remain relevant.

5. Nanotechnology and Digital Architecture

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the smallest scale together with the digital

revolution, promises to transform architecture to a higher level. Together with digital

fabrication, the possibility of producing materials that are sustainable and able to meet

different performance levels in terms of energy, lighting, security and intelligence needs

11

become very possible. The entire distinction between structure and skin, for example, could

disappear as ultra light super strong materials functioning as both structural skeleton and

enclosing skin are developed and digitally fabricated. The ability to design buildings with

self-cleaning windows, dust-eating concrete and toxin sniffing nanosensors is already

possible (www.corearchitect.co.uk). Even though nanotechnology is in its infancy, the

possibilities together with digital architecture are overwhelming and only the future will tell.

APPLICATIONS OF SOME OF THE PRICIPLES OF DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE

Some of the principles of digital architecture can be deduced from above as follows:

the experimentation in form generation

tectonic shift to form follows technology of design

sustainability and performance generative forms

generation of close relationship between architecture and construction in

contemporary architecture.

ornamentation and materiality

These principles have been applied to various buildings by architects to varying extents.

Three buildings that have been influenced by some of these principles are:

The Mobile Art Pavilion for Channel by Zaha Hadid Architects

National Stadium, Beijing by Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron

Tel Aviv Museum Art Amir Building by Preston Scott Cohen

12

1. The Mobile Art Pavilion for Channel by Zaha Hadid Architects

The Mobile Art Pavilion for Channel has been inspired by one of CHANNELS’s signature

bag (www.architectural.com) and was created in 2007 and had travelled to Hong Kong,

Tokyo and New York and was permanently donated to the Institute du monde in Paris in

early 2011. According to Zaha, their architecture is “...intuitive, radical, international and

dynamic” conveying motion and fluidity. This is typical parametricism in action generating

sculptural sensuality created via digital modelling tools and scripting. It is also a totally

organic form following the heuristics of parametricism and created from the distortion of a

torus. In its purest geometric shape, the circular torus is the most fundamental diagram of the

exhibition space. The distortion as evident in the Pavilion creates a constant variety of

exhibition spaces around its circumference, whilst at its centre is a 65m2 atrium. The organic

shell of the Pavilion is created with a succession of reducing arched segments and of a

module size not wider than 2.25 m to facilitate easy transportation during earlier exhibitions

before coming to its permanent site in Paris. Visitors are guided through the space using the

latest digital technology developed in collaboration with the artists (www.architectural.com).

The structure has a surface area of 700m2 with a facade made of fibre reinforced plastic

(FRP) with a roof of the same material punctuated roof lights. The building has a primary

structure made of steel with 1752 different connections together with a secondary structure of

aluminium extrusions for the cladding.

The functional considerations though naturally organised, remain secondary and dependant

on the parametric language of the form. This results in a fully malleable (one of the positive

heuristics of parametricism) form with smooth edges.

13

Mobile Art Pavillion for Channel by Zaha Hadid Architects

Fig. 7 Floor plan Fig. 8 Roof plan

Fig. 9 Short Sections Fig. 10 Long Sections

Fig. 11 Top View Fig. 12 Entrance View

Source: www.architectural.com

14

2. The National Stadium, Beijing by Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron

The “Bird’s Nest” as it is fondly referred to by some, was designed by the Swiss duo of

Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron and completed in 2008. The stadium is 330 metres

long, 220 metres wide and 69 metres high (http://en.wikiarquitectura.com). Its elliptical steel

latticework shell made from a matrix of crisscrossing columns and beams conveys the

sculpture depicting a nest for a big bird. Together with the engineering firm Arup Sport, the

architects designed a series of cantilevered trusses to support the roof which shades the seats.

A secondary pattern of irregular crisscrossing beams is woven through this frame, creating

the illusion of a gigantic web of rubber bands straining to hold the building in place

(www.nytimes.com).

Using 3-d computer modelling, the outer surface was constructed from three principal

surfaces:

a toroid patch for the roof surface

a conical ellipse for the facade, and

a radiused fillet between the toroid and the cone

Fig. 13 3D Model of the Bird’s Nest

Source: www.arup.co

15

The exploration of this complex form and geometry was made possible by a range of tools

including computer aided design visualisations and digital fabrication. Apart from the use of

platonic solids in expressing the digital architecture, another important component of digital

techniques is ornamentation, which is quite evident in this work (Picon, 2010). The ability to

use the computer in generating form, creates form that has little respect for structural

tectonics and gives the ability to the architect to be indifferent to structural limitations.

Randomness which defies conventional structural understanding illustrates the “Bird’s Nest”.

3. The extension to Tel- Aviv Museum of Art ( Herta and Paul Amir Building) 2011

by Preston Scott Cohen .

The building designed by Preston Scott Cohen (who is the chairman of the architecture

department at Harvard University) looks like an elongated Rubik’s cube (www.nytimes.com).

It houses a comprehensive collection of Israeli art, architecture and design galleries,

photography study centre, art library, auditorium and a large gallery for temporary exhibits,

restaurant and offices. The architectural challenge was how to resolve the tension between the

tight, triangular site and the museum’s need for a series of large, neutral rectangular galleries.

Subtly twisting geometric forms, based on hyperbolic parabolas unify this building with its

environment and bring natural light into its deepest recesses (Spiller, 2008). Elegance, rather

than beauty is the term used to characterise the new aesthetics of seamless complexity in

projects like this. Ali Rahim and Hina Jamelle define elegance as a quality obtained

“....through the creation of a family of formal features that are distinctive, yet remain

interrelated as they transform from one to another” (Picon, 2010). The building is composed

of five levels, three above ground and two below (www.archrecord.construction.com)

according to multiple axes that deviate significantly from floor to floor and unified by a 26

metre atrium. Using polygonal modelling, the geometric forms of the facade are extruded,

modified and rotated, whereby the resulting surfaces are transformed into distinctive yet

16

interrelated planes and volumes constructed from precast concrete panels of different sizes.

Due to the flows and deformations, the effects of light and shadows become quasi-objects for

the architect.

.

CONCLUSION

From the principles and examples of buildings highlighted, the use of digital tools / softwares

has now permeated the actual design process of architecture. It is no more limited to the

drafting processes of yesteryears. Practitioners, teachers, regulators and students of

architecture have to acknowledge the influence of these tools. New paradigms have been put

forward by the proponents of the digital styles and these cannot be ignored by the profession.

Past dogmas have to change. It is not only in the design process that change is needed; the

exploitation of the virtual laboratory presented by the digital tools should be encouraged side

by side with the physical laboratories. The ability to ‘test’ a building’s performance virtually

before a single spade of earth is excavated, is a potential benefit of the digital culture that is

Fig. 14 Approach View of the

Extension to the Tel-Aviv Museum

of Art (Herta & Paul Amir

Building).

Fig. 15 Triangulated concrete

panel of the Extension to the Tel-

Aviv Museum of Art (Herta &

Paul Amir Building).

Source: http://archrecord.construction.com

17

easily understood by practitioners and non-practitioners alike. In the era of sustainability, this

is a low cost major benefit of the digital culture in architecture.

Therefore, the total concept of CAD as it is presently taught in our schools should be totally

overhauled. The curriculum should go beyond the teaching of drafting processes to actual

designing with the digital tools and subsequent performance studies. Schools of Architecture

in the country should work in alliance with software companies to retrain their CAD

instructors who should be able to impart this knowledge to the students. CAD which is

presently limited to undergraduate studies, should be converted into digital architecture and

expanded to the post graduate levels and areas of specialisation should be developed up to the

doctorate level. This will enable our future architects to be relevant in the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Glancey, J. (2000). The story of architecture. London: Dorling Kindersley Limited.

Iwamoto, L. (2009). Digital fabrications:Architectural and material techniques. New

York:Princeton Architectural Press.

Grant, A. (2011). New building| The Tel Aviv museum of art. Retrieved from

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/new-build-the-tel-aviv-museum-og-

art/

Innovate Builders London (2010). The nano revolution in architecture. Retrieved from

http://www.corearchitect.co.uk/ the- nano- revolution- in- architecture/

Kolarevic, B. (2003). Digital morphogenesis. In B. Kolarevic (Ed.), Architecture in the

digital age: Design and manufacturing (pp. 12-28). New York: Spoon Press.

18

Lynn, G. (2004). Folding in architecture. West Sussex:Wiley-Academy.

Mardaljevic, J. (1999). Daylighting simulation: Validation, sky models and daylight

coefficients. PhD dissertation, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De

Montfort University, Leicester.

Michele, S. (2004). Publicis drugstore. Retrieved from

http://www.michelesaee.com/content/projects/making/publicis/project.pdf

NOX/Spuybroek, L. (1997). Water pavilion. Retrieved

fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HtwoONOX.png

Official website of Beijing Olympics. Retrieved from http://en.beijing2008.cn/

Pavlovsky, B. (2010). Zaha Hadid Architects: The mobile art pavilion for Chanel. Retrieved

from http://www.architectural.com/zaha-hadid-architects-the-mobile-art-pavilion-for

chanel/

Pearson, C.A. and Gonchar, J. (2011). Tel Aviv museum of art. Retrieved from

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/portofolio/2011/11/tel-aviv-museum-of-

art.asp

Picon, A. (2010). Digital culture in architecture. Berlin: Birkhauser.

Raman, M. (2005). Sustainable design: An American perspective. In B. Kolarevic & A. M.

Malkawi (Eds.), Performative architecture (pp.41-45). New York: Spoon Press.

Schneider, M. & Aistleitner,C. (2006). Graz kunsthaus. Retrieved from

19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graz_Kunsthaus_ vom_Schlossberg_20061126.jpg

Schumacher, P. (2008). Parametricism as style – Parametricist manifesto. Retrieved from

http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm

Schumacher, P. (2009). Parametricism: A new global style for architecture and urban design.

AD Architectural Design-Digital Cities, 79 (4), 14-23.

Spiller, N. (2008). Digital architecture now. London: Thames & Hudson.