Editorial

Research undertaken in the computer-aided architectural design (CAAD) field is grounded on the belief that the world of designing (which is believed to be informal) and the world of computing (which is believed to be formal) can be brought together in productive relationships and that it is possible, through computers, to support humans’ creative dealing with the world. This IJAC special focus issue on computational geometry and design exploration invites the reader to (re)assess this belief. It probes our field’s capacity of – and progress made in – reconciling what Kvan (2004) calls the dual heritage of CAAD research in the sciences and in the creative arts. It has been argued that CAAD researchers have yet to convincingly substantiate their trust in the merits of designing with computers at a general level. Sceptics include Page (1962) who at the 1962 Conference on Design Methods expressed his view that “computers contribute practically nil to creative design. Essentially they help analyse and evaluate” (ibid., p. 213). Less than a decade later, Alexander (1971) noted that “the [architectural design methods] people who are messing around with computers have obviously become interested in some kind of toy [and] definitely lost the motivation for making better buildings” (ibid., p. 309). Ten years ago, Lawson (1997) observed that “the computer has become a sort of advanced drawing tool [..] producing drawings [that] are not at the heart of the design process but largely concerned with the end products of that process” (ibid., p. 303). More recently, in assessing whether the computer really helps in creative design, Lawson (2007) describes today’s CAAD community and its research as “the faithful [who] come together to reinforce their common belief in the wonderful benefits of CAD” (ibid., p. 331). The above quotes offer our field tough food for thought and it must be acknowledged that CAAD research, as research elsewhere, has room for improvement.This seems to be the case particularly where “formally scientific” rhetoric convinces only those who exercise the kind of tolerance towards personal expression that is usually granted to creative artists. Meanwhile, continued questioning of the belief in computer-aided designing and the implied insistence on its conclusive justification risks failure in avoiding the “déjà vu” phenomenon, which Maver (1995, p. 21) identified as another shortcoming of CAAD research.With this IJAC special focus issue we believe to be able to demonstrate that the state of affairs should be approached in a more differentiated manner. Practice, advanced practice in particular, and the ideas and people it draws from our field and from the education we offer, have long ago rendered the if-question of creative CAAD moot. In our opinion, the question is no longer if the computer “helps” (computers allow one to help oneself!) designing “better” (than what? – see Rittel 1984, pp. 318-319).The questions we are interested in are