Orthographic representation of the plan, section and elevation have been devices of communication since antiquity. However, with the advent of technology that offers new methods of representation (i.e. VR/AR), is it sentimental to believe that we will rely on 2D CDs to communicate our designs in 10/20 years? Ultimately these drawings are communicating how to build things and if we can utilize AR technology to communicate detailing of assemblies and minimize communication errors between builder and designer it seems that we will go this route. Of course there will still be 2D methods of representation, but is the industry as a whole underestimating how quickly we are going to transition into immersive design? Perhaps an interesting transition between flat documentation and 3D documentation is the kit-of-parts construction documentation (think IKEA instruction manual) method pushed forward by SHoP. Does anyone else have experience in updating the CD for the 21st century or have any insight?
Architects convey intent not means and methods. You go to far down this road you open yourself up to massive liability. There is also a fine line between expressing this intent and wasting time and therefore money drawing pretty pictures.
if you are attempting good design ignore everything x intern said above.
"intent" is the devil - draw exactly what you want everywhere you want it and represent it in the best way possible to communicate that to the builder.
Have you done CA on a large project. Pay close attention to the framers and your pretty details. The guys building it probably don't even have a copy of your details
If you are content with sub-standard work based on your shitty drawings conveying your "intent" and not making sure the people managing and/or building your project have what they need to do it correctly your complacency is to blame.
You've done a lot of CA? If you detail every condition of typical construction you are wasting your employers fee. Its balance and experience. Interns draw the $&@ out of unnecessary details. I did it myself but a few years on a job site will teach you what's important. Offices that keep their interns in the office are doing you a disservice.
I think there's a fine line between "wasting time and therefore money drawing pretty pictures" and "communicating with your owner so they select a contractor that isn't a bull in a china shop".
x intern might be talking about a massive core and shell and chigurh may be talking about a detail-oriented small project. Even then there's no reason why an architect cannot, given the right communication, have it both ways.
Don't get stuck in a rut, always challenge the status quo, but don't fool yourself into thinking everyone feels the same way about the same parts of the process.
This is a business regardless of what they taught you in school. You burn through a project fee by 50% you get to finish up for free. A well run firm will let you know when your taking to long so you learn. A badly run firm will make you work nights and weekends because you blew the fee.
I guess this debate elucidates the limitations of 2D representation. Right now there is a significant gap between 100% precision and overall design intent that exists because of these limitations.
I guess a more useful thought experiment is: what happens to architecture when technology closes the gap? What happens when there is 100% design intent communicated and we are not wasting time on RFIs and change orders? What happens when there is no room for error and tolerances taken to 0?
This probably means the construction process is largely if not entirely automated and this mostly likely means a lot of our job is automated as well. I don't want to characterize room for error as what makes architecture a human endeavor or that efficiency is good for the human experience or makes good architecture.
I personally think there will soon be a point in time when the tools we use will be efficient and sophisticated enough to allow architects to communicate 100% design intent in a way that does not impede on an enterprise's financial sustainability. Eventually the model will be used as the construction document and builder/contractor will be able to access it on site in a way that helps them construct the building precisely without error.
"...not wasting time on RFIs and change orders" - But that's where BIM comes to play doesn't it? Further to that point, greg lynn is also tackling some of these questions thru the use of VR but that's mostly for communicative purposes.
As for construction automation, I just don't see it happening in the near future. Sure we certainly are heading toward that direction with 3D printing/Nth-axis CNC so I'm not dismissing the notion entirely but that's only manufacturing process. I simply can't picture a gigantic machine laying a building from foundations down to the details.
If you aren't building it, you're always expressing intent. To think otherwise is, simply, fooling oneself.
I don't think we're going to progress to the point that we are representing every piece of built material in a building. It would be a waste of time. Think about what a pain in the ass each of the drafting/modeling programs can be about certain things. Now think about making it even more complex. Not worth it.
People tend to forget that means and methods are often described in the specifications and references to various standards. As such, there is no reason for the architect to duplicate that information on the drawings. In many cases, attempts to apply that information on drawings leads to issues due to poor coordination between specification and drawing.
Architects and contractors have worked together to make buildings for a good long while now. Broad sweeping changes aren't going to be good. We should just focus on fixing the flaws in the existing system of documentation, first.
"Good" design doesn't mean micromanaging the people who are actually putting your buildings together. Representing intent (rather than instructing where to put every nail) is a much more sustainable solution to getting good design built.
Any piece of technology is only as good as the information we are able to put into the system. It's impossible to document every field condition or material variation.
Strengthening the architect/builder relationship is how technology can work to improve the industry in the future.
BIM in the wrong hands is terrible for design. It's much easier to use the out of the box elements than go searching for a better solution. It also doesn't seem to prevent a lot of the coordination issues it claims because we as architects don't coordinate the subs and if fire suppression gets there first and installs where you wanted mech it's all out the window. I'm seeing tolerances get reduced and leading to issues where we used to give a little wiggle room. Above ceiling for example.
I'm also seeing a strong push toward design build. Many strengths and weaknesses but the most definitive strength is the ability to require performance and not compliance with CDs. The major downside is we architects become sub contractors. We really look lose our position of authority in this delivery method and it's a strong trend on major projects.
"People tend to forget that means and methods are often described in the specifications and references to various standards."
If you often find yourself describing means and methods in your specs, you're doing it wrong. Specifications state requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards, workmanship, and overall quality of the work. The contractor has the sole responsibility for, and control of, the means and methods of achieving those requirements.
You're looking at the question of information through a retinal perspective. Duchamp would have said 'bête comme un peintre' or 'as stupid as a painter.' Go beyond the retinal.
21st Century Construction Documentation
Orthographic representation of the plan, section and elevation have been devices of communication since antiquity. However, with the advent of technology that offers new methods of representation (i.e. VR/AR), is it sentimental to believe that we will rely on 2D CDs to communicate our designs in 10/20 years? Ultimately these drawings are communicating how to build things and if we can utilize AR technology to communicate detailing of assemblies and minimize communication errors between builder and designer it seems that we will go this route. Of course there will still be 2D methods of representation, but is the industry as a whole underestimating how quickly we are going to transition into immersive design? Perhaps an interesting transition between flat documentation and 3D documentation is the kit-of-parts construction documentation (think IKEA instruction manual) method pushed forward by SHoP. Does anyone else have experience in updating the CD for the 21st century or have any insight?
if you are attempting good design ignore everything x intern said above.
"intent" is the devil - draw exactly what you want everywhere you want it and represent it in the best way possible to communicate that to the builder.
If you are content with sub-standard work based on your shitty drawings conveying your "intent" and not making sure the people managing and/or building your project have what they need to do it correctly your complacency is to blame.
I think there's a fine line between "wasting time and therefore money drawing pretty pictures" and "communicating with your owner so they select a contractor that isn't a bull in a china shop".
x intern might be talking about a massive core and shell and chigurh may be talking about a detail-oriented small project. Even then there's no reason why an architect cannot, given the right communication, have it both ways.
Don't get stuck in a rut, always challenge the status quo, but don't fool yourself into thinking everyone feels the same way about the same parts of the process.
x-intern spoken like a true walmart designer.
I guess this debate elucidates the limitations of 2D representation. Right now there is a significant gap between 100% precision and overall design intent that exists because of these limitations.
I guess a more useful thought experiment is: what happens to architecture when technology closes the gap? What happens when there is 100% design intent communicated and we are not wasting time on RFIs and change orders? What happens when there is no room for error and tolerances taken to 0?
This probably means the construction process is largely if not entirely automated and this mostly likely means a lot of our job is automated as well. I don't want to characterize room for error as what makes architecture a human endeavor or that efficiency is good for the human experience or makes good architecture.
I personally think there will soon be a point in time when the tools we use will be efficient and sophisticated enough to allow architects to communicate 100% design intent in a way that does not impede on an enterprise's financial sustainability. Eventually the model will be used as the construction document and builder/contractor will be able to access it on site in a way that helps them construct the building precisely without error.
"...not wasting time on RFIs and change orders" - But that's where BIM comes to play doesn't it? Further to that point, greg lynn is also tackling some of these questions thru the use of VR but that's mostly for communicative purposes.
As for construction automation, I just don't see it happening in the near future. Sure we certainly are heading toward that direction with 3D printing/Nth-axis CNC so I'm not dismissing the notion entirely but that's only manufacturing process. I simply can't picture a gigantic machine laying a building from foundations down to the details.
Good post btw.
Those drawings are legally binding contracts so if you want the builder to realise a shitty project produce shitty drawings.
That said, I've worked on projects where we delivered BIM models to the contractor additional to the traditional paper prints.
If you aren't building it, you're always expressing intent. To think otherwise is, simply, fooling oneself.
I don't think we're going to progress to the point that we are representing every piece of built material in a building. It would be a waste of time. Think about what a pain in the ass each of the drafting/modeling programs can be about certain things. Now think about making it even more complex. Not worth it.
People tend to forget that means and methods are often described in the specifications and references to various standards. As such, there is no reason for the architect to duplicate that information on the drawings. In many cases, attempts to apply that information on drawings leads to issues due to poor coordination between specification and drawing.
Architects and contractors have worked together to make buildings for a good long while now. Broad sweeping changes aren't going to be good. We should just focus on fixing the flaws in the existing system of documentation, first.
"Good" design doesn't mean micromanaging the people who are actually putting your buildings together. Representing intent (rather than instructing where to put every nail) is a much more sustainable solution to getting good design built.
Any piece of technology is only as good as the information we are able to put into the system. It's impossible to document every field condition or material variation.
Strengthening the architect/builder relationship is how technology can work to improve the industry in the future.
^ Seems to me the builder should be fired.
"People tend to forget that means and methods are often described in the specifications and references to various standards."
If you often find yourself describing means and methods in your specs, you're doing it wrong. Specifications state requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards, workmanship, and overall quality of the work. The contractor has the sole responsibility for, and control of, the means and methods of achieving those requirements.
I agree with everything else you said though.
You're looking at the question of information through a retinal perspective. Duchamp would have said 'bête comme un peintre' or 'as stupid as a painter.' Go beyond the retinal.
Go beyond the retinal? What does that even mean, provide the information binary, in morse code or braille? Just curious :)
In other words access the nerve bundles directly. Be heroin.
At first I thought it said 'go beyond the rectal'. Had to read it three times, just to be sure it didn't.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.