responsibility is worked out between the parties involved, if you're in a designer/aor situation. if you're not, it's just part of basic services: schematic > design development > construction docs > c.a.
i usually describe it as the 'proof' time. schematics posit a theory about what might work and what the goals are. design development is where you hunker down and figure out if it really works before you put all the effort into documenting something that has systemic problems.
In this phase the previously approved schematic design is usually fleshed out and all the various details made into a fairly comprehensive set of drawings. Most of the major design elements should be resolved in this phase with only fine tuning afterward.The design development set usually includes near-completion of selection and preliminary coordination of engineering systems, computation and verification of areas and other issues to conform to ongoing cost controls, set-up/semi-completion of initial base sheets for construction documents, which are preliminarily reviewed for code conformance.
Most key design decisions are finalized. At the conclusion of the phase an opinion of probably cost often takes place.
As to who should be responsible: that's completely a matter for the firm management to decide. Every firm operates differently in how they staff and manage projects. "Design Architect" and "Executive Architect" are not standardized titles (the latter in particular is an unusual title...) and either could reasonably be primarily responsible for the DD set - as could a Junior Designer, Principal, Senior Intern, Production Technician, and so on and so forth...
In structural engineering terms, this is the phase when we try to work out all of the big ticket items of the schematic design and address as many of the specific issues of the project as possible. Early on we try to verify initial assumptions about typical member sizes, and especially things like slab and wall thicknesses. Major deviations from the schematic design are reported immedietly, other minor changes may be left for the regular submittal date.
When the information becomes available we'll also address specific issues, such as loads from mechanical equipment or mechanical openings, but often times this information is being developed concurrently with our set, so it may not be ready untill the C.D. phase for final coordination.
hmmm... wish i could work on a project where i'd learn this, instead of the plethora of TIs and additions i always seem to get. fuck i'm screwed if i try to take the ARE in the next 2 years...
there aren't really any hard and fast rulles, wall. (at least not any we follow.) often our projects might be more complete in some places than in others, i.e., if it's a detail or section or three dimensional study that's critical to the success of the project, we better have drawn it in pretty good detail by end of dd. but other things might be less figured out by that point....
we start talking about and drawing some pretty small details even during schematic if we know that they're impt. other aspects of the project might hinge on how those details get integrated. but then some areas might not go much farther than what was in schematic if they're simple, assumed to be known conditions, standard stuff, etc.
if you don't know the relative elevations of things, where things pass each other or run into each other in three dimensions, or if you don't know for certain that the structural condition has been dealt with/understood architecturally, etc, you're not finished with dd.
if you know how far you'd take a project in fourth year undergrad, call that schematic. if you know what cds look like, assume that and then just imagine that dd is somewhere in between....
typically, from my experience, the set is completely laid out at dd issue down to the details, but the details aren't completely resolved. to put it in cad terms, we've xrefed all of the areas where we know we'll need details onto the detail sheets, but the actual construction of those details is not clear from the drawings. everything through 3/4" scale is pretty well determined. in fast track projects, we've bid the dd set.
holz: this isn't the type of issue that the ARE focuses on much at all. You shouldn't worry about your test-taking abilities too much as they relate to your office experience. Some find that applying too much "real world" experience actually hurts them on the ARE.
For the most part it's a test that you study for - not one that some magic number of years of experience or types of experience can prepare you for. If you're close to being eligible to test then just start hitting the books, study guides, and areforum.org and you'll be fine, regardless of what you do or don't do at work.
i'm pretty close credit wise, so that's good to know. i haven't actually started to look at it the exam hard, but it is something i'd like to get out od the way sooner or later.
strawbeary, what do you mean? doesn't everyone do TIs? it's probably 50%+ of the office work right now (and has been for about 8-9 months) and, um, all the good projects seem to go to those w/ master's, even if they be fresh outta school. not that i haven't had any good projects, but timing wise, TIs always seem to land on my desk. good times!
holz, we have a TI here and there, I don't get them though. I get the good projects because the boss knows I'll practically kill myself to make them good and complete. Actually, the lone master's degree holder in our office does all the TI's. Ironic, but I don't think it means anything. This person makes a lot of money to do it, but it is pretty boring.
yeah, it is really boring, and i actually left one job because of TIs, with the stipulation when i was hired at present firm that it wasn't something i wanted to do regularly. but yeah, we do waaay to freakin many. in the 5 firms i've worked in, only the last two really did any TIs. I can bust it out, that is not biggie, but i'd rather gouge out my eyes, especially on the ones with no budget where we are hoping the no-budget TI gets us a decent ground-up or addition at a later date. that's all fine and dandy as a business model, but i needs me some real world non-TI CA experience if i'm ever gonna bust out on my own. that or double my freakin salary!
DD Set
what exactly is a DD Set?
who's responsible for preparing it? the Design Architect or the Executive Architect (AoR)
Thanks
design development
doesn't have to be a architect at all
responsibility is worked out between the parties involved, if you're in a designer/aor situation. if you're not, it's just part of basic services: schematic > design development > construction docs > c.a.
i usually describe it as the 'proof' time. schematics posit a theory about what might work and what the goals are. design development is where you hunker down and figure out if it really works before you put all the effort into documenting something that has systemic problems.
In this phase the previously approved schematic design is usually fleshed out and all the various details made into a fairly comprehensive set of drawings. Most of the major design elements should be resolved in this phase with only fine tuning afterward.The design development set usually includes near-completion of selection and preliminary coordination of engineering systems, computation and verification of areas and other issues to conform to ongoing cost controls, set-up/semi-completion of initial base sheets for construction documents, which are preliminarily reviewed for code conformance.
Most key design decisions are finalized. At the conclusion of the phase an opinion of probably cost often takes place.
As to who should be responsible: that's completely a matter for the firm management to decide. Every firm operates differently in how they staff and manage projects. "Design Architect" and "Executive Architect" are not standardized titles (the latter in particular is an unusual title...) and either could reasonably be primarily responsible for the DD set - as could a Junior Designer, Principal, Senior Intern, Production Technician, and so on and so forth...
thanks a lot guys.
In structural engineering terms, this is the phase when we try to work out all of the big ticket items of the schematic design and address as many of the specific issues of the project as possible. Early on we try to verify initial assumptions about typical member sizes, and especially things like slab and wall thicknesses. Major deviations from the schematic design are reported immedietly, other minor changes may be left for the regular submittal date.
When the information becomes available we'll also address specific issues, such as loads from mechanical equipment or mechanical openings, but often times this information is being developed concurrently with our set, so it may not be ready untill the C.D. phase for final coordination.
I once read that DD is the "freezing of the major elements," and find it to be an accurate description. Nobody wants walls to move in the CD phase.
I'm currently working on a project where the design architect and executive architect each produced sheets for the DD and early CD packages.
hmmm... wish i could work on a project where i'd learn this, instead of the plethora of TIs and additions i always seem to get. fuck i'm screwed if i try to take the ARE in the next 2 years...
you should be 35% complete with the project at the end of DD's whatever that might mean...
who actually creates the documents if for the contracts to decide...
What sort of drawings would one expect to have completed at DD stage? Wall sections and some details? How detailed would elevations and floorplans be?
there aren't really any hard and fast rulles, wall. (at least not any we follow.) often our projects might be more complete in some places than in others, i.e., if it's a detail or section or three dimensional study that's critical to the success of the project, we better have drawn it in pretty good detail by end of dd. but other things might be less figured out by that point....
we start talking about and drawing some pretty small details even during schematic if we know that they're impt. other aspects of the project might hinge on how those details get integrated. but then some areas might not go much farther than what was in schematic if they're simple, assumed to be known conditions, standard stuff, etc.
if you don't know the relative elevations of things, where things pass each other or run into each other in three dimensions, or if you don't know for certain that the structural condition has been dealt with/understood architecturally, etc, you're not finished with dd.
if you know how far you'd take a project in fourth year undergrad, call that schematic. if you know what cds look like, assume that and then just imagine that dd is somewhere in between....
typically, from my experience, the set is completely laid out at dd issue down to the details, but the details aren't completely resolved. to put it in cad terms, we've xrefed all of the areas where we know we'll need details onto the detail sheets, but the actual construction of those details is not clear from the drawings. everything through 3/4" scale is pretty well determined. in fast track projects, we've bid the dd set.
holz: this isn't the type of issue that the ARE focuses on much at all. You shouldn't worry about your test-taking abilities too much as they relate to your office experience. Some find that applying too much "real world" experience actually hurts them on the ARE.
For the most part it's a test that you study for - not one that some magic number of years of experience or types of experience can prepare you for. If you're close to being eligible to test then just start hitting the books, study guides, and areforum.org and you'll be fine, regardless of what you do or don't do at work.
holz, why are you doing TI's anyways?
i'm pretty close credit wise, so that's good to know. i haven't actually started to look at it the exam hard, but it is something i'd like to get out od the way sooner or later.
strawbeary, what do you mean? doesn't everyone do TIs? it's probably 50%+ of the office work right now (and has been for about 8-9 months) and, um, all the good projects seem to go to those w/ master's, even if they be fresh outta school. not that i haven't had any good projects, but timing wise, TIs always seem to land on my desk. good times!
sooner rather than later
holz, we have a TI here and there, I don't get them though. I get the good projects because the boss knows I'll practically kill myself to make them good and complete. Actually, the lone master's degree holder in our office does all the TI's. Ironic, but I don't think it means anything. This person makes a lot of money to do it, but it is pretty boring.
yeah, it is really boring, and i actually left one job because of TIs, with the stipulation when i was hired at present firm that it wasn't something i wanted to do regularly. but yeah, we do waaay to freakin many. in the 5 firms i've worked in, only the last two really did any TIs. I can bust it out, that is not biggie, but i'd rather gouge out my eyes, especially on the ones with no budget where we are hoping the no-budget TI gets us a decent ground-up or addition at a later date. that's all fine and dandy as a business model, but i needs me some real world non-TI CA experience if i'm ever gonna bust out on my own. that or double my freakin salary!
/end rant
ha ha. you seem too talented and knowledgeable for TI work. You'll make it.
Maybe I'm just forgetting or maybe I never heard it before, but what's a "TI"?
If this weren't an architecture forum i think this thread title would be interpreted much differently
i hate you walldrug, i really do!
it's tenant (un)improvement.
nice catch, phu.
Ahh, thanks holz.box. I hate me too.
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.