The Decline of Architects: Can a Computer Design Fine Architecture without Human Input?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction feels a little light on situating this review within the context of the existing literature. I feel as though the author(s) strays dangerously close to opinion. For example, in stating "the result of an architects work is an aesthetically pleasing design." I'm not sure I agree and I'm not sure the author(s) wants to spend time on this debate. It would be easier to cite some scholarly resources regarding the role of the architect.
Stylistically, the author(s) might consider breaking this into a few more sections and even paragraphs. Lines 258 to 317, for example, have a real "wall of text" feel.
"Computers, that have no senses, could be capable of designing buildings, but it is unlikely that would we ever be able to consciously design works of architecture." This sentence feels like the crux of this paper to me. I wonder if this could be more of a conclusion.
To me, the purpose of a review article is to evaluate a body of literature on a topic and synthesize that information to try and identify patterns or develop consensus. Here, we are presented with a scale with "yes" on one side and "no" on the other, and the concluding synthesis seems to be that there are more people who believe "no" than "yes." I guess that is some level of synthesis, but I think more can be offered.
The author(s) fail to offer a survey of the existing scholarly research on the topic of AI in buildings. Some popular press examples are presented, but there are papers being published on this topic constantly, and some orientation is necessary.
I was disappointed that the author(s) did not address how the nature of the architects work and employment have been affected by technological developments so far. Has BIM reduced architectural employment? Has the elimination of drafting caused man-hours to be reallocated elsewhere in the design process? To my knowledge, in the United States, we are seeing a decline in architectural licensure but total sector employment is stable or even growing. Answering the question of which way this is trending is really important to answering this question.
The author(s) may find "The Architect as Worker" edited by Peggy Deamer, and recent books by Randy Deutsch to be helpful.
It seems as though the points of view presented are mostly those of practicing architects, but there are others (e.g. academics, policy makers) who are conducting quantitative research on this topic. I would love to see the author engage with the quantitative research more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although not unique in its field, the article has merit in the sense it puts together several pros and cons ideas on the future of design and design professions in relation to the technology advances with a mix of architects and non-architect opinions. The topic may well be of interest to the readers of this journal and is very well-written in terms of English language ad style. With that said, the reviewer believes that the methodological approach in particular needs to be improved and/or better clarified before consideration for publication.
Below are some general and some specific comments and recommendations for consideration:
The purpose of this paper is clear y outlined and expressed as a review of "current, implemented, and planned computer technologies used in the design and discuss how they affect and will affect architects' work in the future". However, if the aim of the paper is clearly outlined, the methodological approach is ill-defined. Is it a scoping/ narrative review, a mixed-method review? Or else? - in short what type of review has been adopted? And why each method, if different, is appropriate for each of the questions explored (IT development) and Designers' opinions or feedback on the topic.
The general theme appears to be the progress of computerization and the loss of jobs not necessarily that of architects. The specific human and emotional nature of design is highlighted but as a hopeful barrier to technological advances. This approach refers to architectural practices and theories already attempted in the past with limitations and obvious failures of their proposed products. Nothing to do with technology. Or not technology alone. A close look at these aspects would have allowed the author to push forward the idea that architecture has its own intrinsic issues far from external pressure such as technology, globalization of design, client’s requirements, budget, regulations, etc. This would be an interesting thought venue to explore further, or else to justify the non-consideration.
The review of the advances of the technology and their implications on architect’s and design from past to present is well –summed up but appears to be derived from a very limited number of resources (Reference [5] in particular) along with other non-peer-reviewed s references (Blogs, etc. 1, 4, 9..) Heavy reliance on a limited number of references may provide a biased view of the phenomenon under review.
Similarly in the multi-faceted question related to “will computers replace architects” it does recognize the need to include points of view from different backgrounds but there is no indication for the rationale of inclusion/exclusion or the basis of selecting specific input. It is clear that the topic and the questions addressed may not fit into a systematic review, nonetheless, the selected views may feel opinioned and have no clear and transparent way of selecting them.
For example, the article did very well in indicating attempts by architectural firms (Gehry and Hadid) on adapting parametric design programs (Gehry used AutoCAD as a basis). This shows successful attempts to adapt and use the technology without losing control of the product. However, the reference to saying by Gropius, which we believe needs to be put in context: That design is done without architects. However, taken in context, Gropius was referring to the fact that the greatest majority of buildings in the US are built without architects. The building permit procedures allow it and therefore, owners can build without hiring services.
The article refers to thoughts by non-architects too. A survey method would have reinforced the article with direct facts from those affected directly by the phenomenon?
The conclusion may need to specifically highlight the novelty derived from this review and its utility or contribution to the scientific community.
Some additional minor notes:
- This paper should be listed as a Review, not an Article, right? As mentioned in the abstract and stated clearly at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph h in the introduction
- The outcomes of the review should be stated in the abstract - as its stands, it lists the potential contributions without stating the findings. A summary of the findings is needed in the abstract
- It is recommended to include a keyword that refers specifically to the argument - design disruption – computer control??
In short, the article has merit but the main shortfall of the manuscript as it stands is in the non-addressed method used to undertake the review proposed and the limited number of resources.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript addressed a frontier and a very interesting topic. This manuscript provided different viewpoints of architects and researchers in the field of digital architecture design and traditional architectural design. This article will enable researchers to reflect on the application of emerging technologies in architectural design.The following supplements are suggested: • Discussion on construction (including digital fabrication) is suggested to be added in Part 4 (Theoretical requirements for computers to replace architects). Architectural design and construction should be regarded as a whole. Whether construction knowledge, construction parameters, structural logic, material performance, processing technology, processing accuracy, etc. can be automatically provided to the architect may be an expert experience and engineering practice related factor deciding whether architects would be replaced by computers.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper focuses on a hot topic in architecture field. However, the current version is very limited to conduct a review for making conclusions on the mentioned topic. The reviewer suggests to follow a review method to conduct all the published articles in order to present the results as tables, charts, and figures. The submitted manuscript is very limited regarding the references. Obviously, there are many other papers available in the literature that will be beneficial for the discussions. Therefore, this reviewer suggests to make an extensive search using various databases using the same keywords related to presented topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear editors and author(s)
I have reviewed the manuscript " The decline of architects: Can a computer design fine architecture without human input?", which has been submitted for publication in the journal Buildings.
This paper aims to present a discussion about the role of “human factor” in the design of future architecture. Even if this topic is extremely contemporary and a much stronger debate should be addressed on it, this manuscript presents a works which has very low scientific soundness.
First of all, I would suggest to change the manuscript type from Article, which reports original research results, to Review, which “consists of concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research”, and then to re-structure the manuscript according to this typology of paper.
In particular, I would suggest to give a stronger scientific structure (as suggested by MDPI and PRISMA). One of the first aspect to address, for instance, would be to specify the criteria the authors used to choose the bibliographic resources (which in the presented manuscript are too limited and, generally, quite old).
So, my suggestion is (1) to change the Article Type and (2) to give a stronger scientific structure to the whole manuscript in order to proceed with a new revision of the manuscript.
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My concerns have been adequately addressed by the authors' edits.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The updated version of the manuscript addressed most comments raised. An explanation / justification on which basis the cited stakeholers were selected will be beneficial.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is improved when compared to previous version. However, an important addition is still necessary. Many studies using Grasshopper3D for architectural design and artificial intelligence are missing in "Current capabilities of computers in architectural design" section. Discussions and future directions of these papers can better underline the importance of the discussions in this paper. Thus, this reviewer recommends to include recently published journal articles that have "artificial intelligence", "machine learning", "optimization", "architectural design", "parametric design", performance-based design", "building simulation" keywords by referring the important discussions with regard to this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear author(s),
Thank you for your new manuscript. I think it really improved from the previous one and the decision to present it as “Review” seems to me very appropriate.
Actually, I keep the idea that this research lacks a little bit in originality and novelty, since the topic has already been discussed a lot. For this reason, I would like to underline that, to be considered for publication, I think that you should enrich the bibliography with more contemporary scientific resources.
In particularly, an aspect that should be considered is that contemporary technological changes will be extremely faster and stronger than previous ones. So, considering that changes for design will happen with the same strength and impact as before is quite impossible. Please, refer to contemporary bibliography to have these references (let me suggest you the “2021 Technology and Innovation Report” by UN).
Moreover, you never use concepts related with “ethic” and “moral”, which are aspect that technological development will affect and are basic for design and architecture. Please, consider that some references to contemporary philosophical positions could be useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear author(s),
I hope my comments were useful.
Best regards
