This process is only delayed by the scarcity of material resources, and by the slowness with which a sufficient number of teachers are adopting these methods.

ECAADE has set out to analyze the state of this issue during its next conference, and it will be discussed from various points of view. From this confrontation of ideas will come, surely, the guidelines for progress in the years to come.

The different sessions will be grouped together following these four themes:

(A.) Multimedia and Course Work / State of the art of the synthesis of graphical and textual information favored by new available multimedia computer programs. Their repercussions on academic programs. (B.) The New Design Studio / Physical characteristics, data concentration and accessibility of a computerized studio can be better approached in a computerized workshop. (C.) How to manage the new education system / Problems and possibilities raised, from the practical and organizational points of view, of architectural education by the introduction of computers in the classrooms. (D.) CAAI. Formal versus informal structure / How will the traditional teaching structure be affected by the incidence of these new systems in which the access to knowledge and information can be obtained in a random way and guided by personal and subjective criteria.

Assuming the availability of a more general building data model, one must define life and fire safety features of a building before any automatic checking can be performed. Object oriented data structures are beginning to be applied to design objects, since they allow the type versatility demanded by design applications. As one generates a functional view of the main data model, the software user must provide domain specific information. A functional view is defined as the process of generating domain specific data structures from a more general purpose data model, such as defining egress routes from wall or room object data structure. Typically in the early design phase of a project, these are related to the emergency egress design features of a building. Certain decisions such as where to provide sprinkler protection or the location of protected egress ways must be made early in the process.

One cannot conduct such studies on real cities except, perhaps, as a point of departure at some specific point in time to provide an initial layout for a city knowing that future forms derived by the studies will diverge from that recorded in history. An entirely imaginary city is therefore chosen. Although the components of this city at the level of individual buildings are taken from known cities in history, this choice does not preclude alternative forms of the city. To some degree, building types are invariants and, as argued in the Appendix, so are the urban typologies into which they may be grouped. In this imaginary city students of urban history play the role of citizens or groups of citizens. As they defend their interests and make concessions, while interacting with each other in their respective roles, they determine the nature of the city as it evolves through the major periods of Western urban history in the form of threedimensional computer models.

My colleague R.J. van Pelt and I presented this approach to the study of urban history previously at ACADIA (Seebohm and van Pelt 1990). Yet we did not pay sufficient attention to the manner in which such urban models should be structured and how the efforts of the participants should be coordinated. In the following sections I therefore review what the requirements are for three-dimensional modeling to support studies in urban history as outlined both from the viewpoint of file structure of the models and other viewpoints which have bearing on this structure. Three alternative software schemes of progressively increasing complexity are then discussed with regard to their ability to satisfy these requirements. This comparative study of software alternatives and their corresponding file structures justifies the present choice of structure in relation to the simpler and better known generic alternatives which do not have the necessary flexibility for structuring the urban model. Such flexibility means, of course, that in the first instance the modeling software is more timeconsuming to learn than a simple point and click package in accord with the now established axiom that ease of learning software tools is inversely related to the functional power of the tools. (Smith 1987).