It means, you can spend all your time diagramming the programmatic distribution of breath across the modes of interstitial space, but do you know how the wall is going to meet the floor?

the basics, if you haven't looked at them lately--Ching's Building Construction Illustrated. Good to thumb through to put together the missing links when there's random CAD details floating in your brain.

Hi

Sorry I can't refuse to add in ---- now if you modeled the thing on a screen in 3D, then why not "press a button" and have the intire framework automatic generated, then you don't even have to vorry to get things together. 3D-H I mean.

here we go again....

you gotta give him credit though, 321 posts and all about the same thing. you wonder if he hates living with himself. singularly focused he is....


but, corpse is right.

the kit of parts, windows, doors, floors, columns, beams, that compose a building can be assembled so many different ways. the architect designs the way the window sits in the wall - the jamb, the material surrounding type stuff. What is shown to the eye, and what is holding things up and keeping elements out? Edge conditions, material connections and abuttments - pay attention to how you can get different effects by looking at buildings around you and know that there is more than one way to skin a cat, err, or a building I mean.

I for one have more and more appreciation for the latest masters of architecture when I struggle with these details of "gosh, how the hell is this going to go together?" In school, I thought BIG DEAL to Geary's blobs and Rem's skins - I can do (conceptualize) that too. But lately I have to wonder how much time Rem spends on the phone asking if the tile is 1/4" or 3/8" thick and if there are nosing accessories to go with it for the stairs, or talking with the engineer about which way the floor framing is going to run to maximize economy. It has to be their staff. One of our principal architects will only do schematic design and then hand it to me or another intern to "make it work". He is good at design as far as the look of the building, but he is not the puzzle master, he must rely on his staff. Is he a good architect? I don't know, I guess I would still say yes.

work for a structural engineer, they know how to "put things together"

try legos.

Ask - Ask - Ask. It was probably apparent to who ever hired you that you didn't know construction so they won't be surprised if you ask, they are probably expecting it.

putting things together is most directly tied into the so-called 'economy of means', which doesn't always mean the best way to put something together.
in the end whatever you choose will get value engineered out by the usual suspects: CM, client rep, GC or sometimes directly by client. then what you thought 'worked' is replaced by the cheapest thing on the market. not necessarily cheaper in the long run either.

i asked the same question to an old architect when i started my first job in architecture. his answer was simple but very useful for me. he said, "in architecture putting things together often means taking them apart". beautiful. worked for me. good luck.

work in construction

burn down the neighborhood if you'd like to see structural details exposed.

it is all about the order of the assembly. its no good to burn down the nabe to see skeletons.... you have to say: what would be the first component i would need to put this together? taking it apart. yes.