@deprecated_ii The computer has taken as much as it has given in commercial construction design. Initially, CAD radically improved design time. By a lot.

However, over time, the new reality set in, becoming the new normal, and it changed the process. In the manual drafting days, changes were expensive. This front-loaded work in the planning stages, requiring architects to communicate with owners prior to any draftsman putting pencil or pen to mylar. By the end of the project, any changes were minor, and there was an implicit agreement that these would be paid for by the owner if he requested the changes.

Specifications were extremely stable, as re-typing a few hundred pages on an IBM Selectric was onerous. The entire process depended on competent contractors and sub-contractors who knew when they needed to read between the lines.

Now, projects are not finished at the deadline. Addendums are numerous as they are nearly cost-free, and the speed at which changes can percolate through the disciplines means the architect and owner leave many details, some major, until extremely late in the project. This introduces many opportunities for mistakes and omissions.

The level of detail that can be communicated means contractors are now expecting that any deviation, no matter how slight, to become an expensive change order. They know that if they leave money on the table at bid they can recoup quite a bit of that by interpreting the drawings and specifications in their favor. The mistakes and omissions leaves this avenue open.

Meanwhile, all the cost savings of CAD or BIM are baked into the price of design. There's no more fat to cut. This pushes against the design. Why do buildings not look like buildings, but instead look like the box a building would come in? Yes, partially because architecture has been degenerate for a long time now, but also because that's cheaper.

Computers gave us efficiency, but nothing is without cost. And it turns out that efficiency costs us beauty and soul.