I applaud Sophia A. Gruzdys, the author of this review, for taking a stand against this book’s argument that drawing is no longer a viable tool for architects.
Read the review: The Death of Drawing: Architecture in the Age of Simulation | Book Review | Architectural Record.
Feel free to share the content of this posting, but please provide a link back to 2H Pencil.
2H Pencil 
Representation is the central issue, here. Thinking about building in design is not just thinking about construction. Architects also think hard about human experience and the myriad aspects left out the digital world (e.g., gravity, orientation, movement, parallax, sensuousness, day-night distinctions, transformations over time, consciousness, feeling, need I go on…?). BIM is only effectively transforming the correlated aspects of construction, bidding, budget, and management and is only changing design thinking by force of its newness. As Moore’s Law approaches its limits so too will the hype for change brought on by digital tools.
Whilst I totally agree with the defense of drawing as a means of representation I actually find the opposite is true in both practice and education. I find Architects are often rabidly pro-drawing and often reject technology as some kind of non-authentic interloper, Alan Dunlop got cheered loudly by an audience of architectural students in the University of Washington’s lecture hall when he stated SketchUp was the spawn of the devil (whilst not BIM its evidence of a somewhat wistful romanticizing of traditional skills within the architectural world), Ok sketchup is an easy fashionable target but can you imagine graphic designers or product designers rejecting technology in such a cheerful way.
Pencil + hand/eye is my preference, and works well for me. I’m not anti-computer, but choose to use it selectively. As for Sketchup…would like to see more creative uses.