Archinect
anchor

I want to be architect but...

celineangelaquizon

I always love to draw since I was elementary. Such as to draw a house, buildings etc. Until when I become high school student drawing is my sweetest escape. My friends told me that my ideas in drawing a house structure is very creative. I was planning to take architecture but I sucked at Math so hard. Fine arts is awesome but Architecture is my dream. I want to become Architect but my mind is always think I'm not capable to take that course because I'm not that smart and good especially at math.

 
May 20, 18 6:03 pm
Non Sequitur
Math is not essential but it sure as shit is important. I sucked at math in high school too so I retook my classes through summer school just to make the minimum grade cut off. I excelled in university math/physics immediately within my first year in arch school.

Take the time to do the classes and learn. Having even a pedestrian level understanding of math will go a long way.
May 20, 18 6:21 pm
shellarchitect

If you can handle algebra 1, you'll be fine

May 20, 18 7:33 pm
RickB-Astoria

celine, Not every architecture program is equal but almost every degree in a bachelor's level requires College level Algebra (MATH 111 for those in Oregon but the equivalent in other states) as the minimum. Basically, you'll have a command of college level algebra, geometry, trigonometry on a basic level and introductory calculus. This is by far less demanding on the math level stuff as engineers which is basically math throughout EVERY course in engineering. I'll tell you something, in practice, you can determine the size of beams, joists, and almost any basic structural calculation with just the math and basic algebra you learned in middle school let alone high school. As long as you can determine mathematically what A=2 (B+C) if you can determine B and C from your drawings and the building codes. Some of those equations in basic engineering for architecture as you may find in the book "Simplified Engineering for architects and builders" may seem daunting but in reality you can replace those variables in the equation with numbers but understanding tributary area (which you would determine from your design drawings), sequences of equations (what I mean is, you need to follow specific sequences of equations to calculate because some equations depends on another equation), and how to find information such as material properties such as modulus of elasticity of a wood beam. You have to follow the right steps. The one universal mathematics rule is the PEMDAS rule known as the Order of Operations rule. You don't absolutely need to take 2nd year, 3rd year and 4th year math courses. They can help but they are not absolutely required. The simple math equation I put above is merely representative of the Elementary Algebra that is what you'll really be doing because as you understand architecture as a system and the geometry of architecture, you'll understand principles like load-bearing structural systems and the geometry concept of tributary algebra and the math. For example, you might ask, how do you determine tributary load on a beam. One, you'll need to understand load distribution. For example: On a floor, you may have a uniform distributed live load of 40 psf. The floor are might be 25 ft. x 50 ft. You want to solve for the size of a center beam. The beam will have columns support every 10 ft. along the beam. The center beam in along the long access. That means the beam will have a 12'-6" (or 12.5 ft.) on each side of the center line of the central beam. On the end are bearing walls to support the floor joists above. Lets assume the floor joists are 2x12 at 16" o.c. douglas fir #2. You'll also can use similar equations or load-span tables for sizing the joists but lets just say we'll be just fine with the 2x12 joists for 40 psf live load requirements. The beam needs to be sized to support the load. The exterior walls will take up half the joist span. The joist spans are going to be around 12' clear span. You know, 2x6 load bearing stud framed exterior wall plus some of taken by the beam. You're probably going to have a tributary width of a little less than 6-ft. on each side of the beam. Lets call it 6ft on each side of the beam or 12-ft. in total. The tributary area tributary width x tributary length. Now, remember earlier the 10 ft. o.c. spacing for the columns. The tributary length is 10-ft. (5 ft. on each side of each column point. Remember the beam would have columns at 10 ft. o.c. Had the beam been continuous with only end-point supported by exterior walls, the beam would be very large and require glulam beams. This might be too excessive as beam depth would be over 3-ft. deep. OUCH. The columns allows the beam to have shorter spans between supports and in turn allows for beams of smaller beam depth to be used. In our example: we have 10-ft. span on-center (center to center) between columns. This means we can use a much smaller beam. Let's recap: We have a 12ft tributary width (6 ft. on each side of beam) and 10 ft. tributary length (5 ft. on each side of column support). The column continues the transfer of load on floor to foundation to ground. Basic engineering is about knowing how to transfer the load to the earth through the structural design of the building. Most requirements will be to know what size beams and components to use so the maximum intended loads as required by building codes and project requirements do not have excessive deflection let alone fail. For example, you'll be wanting to design so the deflection of beams (like your floor joists) will have minimal deflection. Over the length of the beam between each column, you will want to have deflection of 1/360th the length of the span between columns or a smaller deflection. Sometimes, you may have stronger requirements where you don't want maximum deflection be less than 1/8". We have 12' x 10' tributary area.... or 120 sq.ft. tributary area with 40 psf (pounds per sq.ft.) uniform live load. This means each 10-ft. beam span will have (120 x 40 pounds) loaded on it or 4,800 pounds of load on the beam. That's 480 pounds of live load per lineal foot on the beam. We'll probably use Douglas Fir-larch structural select grade. Lets not forget that we are not only supporting live load but dead load as well. Dead load is basically the static weight of itself. So lets figure 20 psf dead load. This would mean an additional 2400 pounds on each 10 ft for 7,200 pounds over the supported span of the beam between column supports. So, that will be a total of 720 POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT of beam. We have to calculate Maximum bending moment: M=(WL)/8 which means M = (7200 x 10)/8 which = 9000 ft-lb. Now the flexure formula with allowable stress to determine section modulus. S=(M)/Fb. Fb = Fiber bending. This is 1500 psi but if you use the Table 5.1 (in the "simplified engineering for architects and builders" (11th edition) book, under the Timber, beams, and Stringers" section, the allowable is 1600 psi. Now, we have to convert our ft pounds to inch pounds to be in the inches. Now: (M)/Fb is calculated as (9000*12)/1600. Now, if I want to over engineer a little, I'd stick with the 1500 psi. This means M=(9000*12)/1500 = 72 Cubic Inches. Now, the book has a table, Table A.8. Now, I'd be looking at table for section Modulus (S) for section modulus of equal to or greater than 72 cu.inches (in^3). The two smallest sizes are 3x14 and 4x12. You usually won't find 3x14 but 4x12 are more common. Personally, I would size up a notch to 6x12. In some cases, I'd go up to 6 x 14 because I want to have extra room both width and depth of beam above minimum. But a 4x12 would be adequate. 6x12 or even a 6 x 14 would be even better. I may go to 8 x 12, 8x14 or even 8x16 or equivalent built-up beam with comparable cross-section area. The reason for that would depend on the cross section of the columns. I wouldn't be surprised by using an 8x8 columns.

RickB-Astoria

Short answer: If you go through the steps, you'll be able to calculate structural loads and apply the engineering equations without advance math courses. You can do it with basic math skills that you learn in grade school.

RickB-Astoria

I will want to add, I agree Xanakis. If you can learn calculus and excel at it, whether you do it in formal classes or not, it will come to benefit you when you can actually do calculus when your colleagues can't. It can also be useful outside of conventional architecture.

shellarchitect

holy hell, if you can read and understand the above you'll be just fine. I can't make myself do it

bowling_ball

RickB, are you really so oblivious that you think you're helping by writing a wall of text that nobody will read? I don't want to pick on you, but there's a reason you don't see anybody else - in the history of archinect - doing this. It's not helpful. It's rude. It's condescending. And ultimately it turns people off.

RickB-Astoria

I'm not sure no one else in the history of archinect is doing this. I've seen some wall of text by others but probably not as much as me. If the post I written is boring to you use the scroll wheel on your mouse or use the Page Up or Page Down key on your keyboard.

Remember, in college, you are expected to read through 100 pages of reading material in two days. I've done it and was expected to in college. We are expected to read and comprehend what is written. My historic preservation courses at UO had us read and ask us questions in order for us to communicate in our own words, analyse what was being read. We had 100+ pages of reading and had to write a short essay to each of the questions by the next class day which was as short as two days apart.


RickB-Astoria

Having said that, perhaps the post earlier was long. That's why I wrote the short answer following it. There isn't a lot of time to edit a post once it is written. In my opinion, short posts often lack content. It's always easy to write short posts to razz someone but if you want someone to learn something, there has to be content to the post. 

Xenakis

One of the reasons I went into architecture was to do more applied math like what I did in previous lives in the flight simulator and video game worlds. NOT - in Statics, you use basic algebra and trig. Only in Concrete structures do you get into any complex stuff, and that's just chain expressions - no calculus

but here's the biggest secret to success in architecture - Do you want to be above average(average Joes and Janes get laid off) so to be one one the smart ones, learn calculus, you will never use it, but trust me on this one. Most of my co-workers are from China and they all take calc in high school and they are smart, they are getting the jobs - so don't be a dummy, take calculus and excel at it 

May 20, 18 10:57 pm
RickB-Astoria

:)

randomised

If you want to excel learn how to manage a team and how to talk to clients, suppliers and builders...all this calc stuff is for the lower level labourers (in architecture)

RickB-Astoria

True but then you want to be the business ownership level not the flunky that is hired and fired at will. It is when you no longer have to play that game to get hired.

shellarchitect

what will you do with calculus knowledge ?

shellarchitect

I just don't see the point in learning something that will never be used outside of school

RickB-Astoria

Here's something on calculus in architecture: https://www.quora.com/How-is-calculus-used-in-architecture

You may ask, the engineers will take care of that but they use software to do this. Well no shit sherlock but you kind of need to know the equations and how they work to proof that the software is performing correctly. How are you going to prove or be certain the software works correctly? How do you make sure the Excel spreadsheet that you may use to perform the calculus is working correctly? 

shellarchitect

It would be difficult to find a more niche application

RickB-Astoria

That's true. There are opportunities for jobs and/or job functions outside conventional architect roles and job functions. Be it an energy analysis consultant for example. The point is a person needs to broaden their horizon because conventional architecture field is pretty much a dying field because of a variety of reasons.

shellarchitect

can you expound on that thought? I would think that so long as people need buildings to live and work that there will be architects

RickB-Astoria

Builders/Clients/etc. with engineers in their back office pretty much practices architecture. The general lack of demand. There isn't an explosive growth in population like it was with the Baby Boomers. There are all these buildings already built that it really doesn't need architects because you can have an interior designer and engineers design remodels. In many places, builders can do interior design as part of their remodeling services and use an engineer for structural alterations that may be required. There is a big relevancy issue. How relevant are you? How much actual need of big office towers when we can virtualize the office? With these changes, people can operate from home offices. It might not be a dying profession per se. It is a profession that is downsizing. Architects are trying to redefine themselves and impose their licensing in fields where they had not had a role in and so they usurp it and impose their licensing. That is telling us that the role of architect as designer of buildings is becoming less of a central role in the core day to day business of architects. Architects are having to provide non-architect services into their business because the business model doesn't work. A profession must have a functional business model of the occupation otherwise you are not making money and therefore no longer a profession. What makes the difference between a profession and a hobby is making a career long livable income for a household. If a profession no longer customarily earn a household income for that profession's members then it is kind becoming more a hobby than a profession. If the customary business model of a profession is broken then a profession is no longer really a profession but a hobby. I think one of the regular pervasive arguments by the plethora of disgruntled architects which out numbers the number of really happy and satisfied architects is that they complain about the income and work involved to earn a living. When architects are more artist than professionals then the more they are seen as hobbyist. Art is not viewed as a profession in the U.S. except among artists. The rest of people sees arts as panhandling derelicts. Do architects really want to be associated with panhandling derelicts?

shellarchitect

I think you are extrapolating based on the comments of disappointed architnect architects. the biggest failure of the profession is that it doesn't provide an income congruent with the costs to attain licensure. Many architects have a very good income and job satisfaction. It is worth remembering that money isn't everything and that many high income professionals (lawyers, drs, finance) also hate their jobs.

RickB-Astoria

It isn't just Archinect. It maybe some of the same individuals but I don't know with certainty since some people use different aliases on different forums. Nonetheless, I agree with you.

mikelo

.

thatsthat

Honestly, I was almost a math minor in college.  I took geometry, trig, calc 1, 2, and 3.  (Geom and trig were required; all of the calcs were just for fun.)  Slept through all but Calc 2 and 3 - those ate my lunch.  I was about to start engineering-level maths but chose to focus more on studio instead.  Now, practicing I think I use maybe geometry the most with trig a close second.  You'll be fine if you understand the basics of geometry and trig.  Now what your program requires you to take may be a different story.

May 21, 18 9:59 am
RickB-Astoria

thatsthat, technically you use multiply, divide, addition, and subtraction and all other basic mathematics the most but as for special areas of math, I would agree with you in geometry and trig being most commonly used areas of math being the basic math. Then elementary algebra. If I were designing buildings so complex that I used calculus all the time for building design and did the calculus by hand, they would be issuing me a license.

thatsthat

I guess I assumed if you were an adult human, you'd probably be able to do basic elementary-level math, therefore I did not include it in my rankings of most used math skills.

RickB-Astoria

I'd figure you shouldn't discount it because ironically, that is what you are using since they do teach geometry in 5th grade. Don't forget geometry is generally taught as part of the elementary mathematics that they teach in grade school. The irony is this profession doesn't usually use the more advance math skills. It's usually using applied mathematics, geometry, and trig as well as applied elementary algebra. It is because traditionally architecture isn't really a math oriented occupation. It isn't devoid of math but it isn't as focused on math.

Le Courvoisier

Balkykins, you can't even lie correctly about buildings you say you worked on. Who would ever issue you a license?

May 21, 18 1:34 pm
RickB-Astoria

What the &%#! are you talking about? You seem to thought I was serious with the joke that if I was designing buildings so complex that I use calculus all the time for designing the buildings that they would issue me a license. Seriously, you are a dumb ass if that was the case. Licensing boards don't issue architectural licensing or engineering license just because you know and use calculus. It's not how the real world works.

Threesleeve

Rick have you taken and passed a calculus course? Yes or no. I don't care about your self-study of pdfs - I'm talking about a for-credit course with a final exam.

mreed

Off topic, but Le Courvoisier is the best name on this forum hands down

RickB-Astoria

Threesleeves, not exactly a formal education course. Over the years, I did a bit of self-study and via something online like: https://www.edx.org/learn/calculus

I never bothered to take it for formal grades and credits. It was for learning how to do it not for letter grades. It wasn't something I absolutely needed to take or do for a degree. I wasn't a math major.


RickB-Astoria

To be honest, if I wanted to, I would probably take these online programs as a refresher. Unless I need Calculus for a degree or something, then I would take Calculus for a grade. At this time, I am not particularly in a pressing need to do that.

null pointer

Yeah brah, and I could jump from the Empire Building and survive the fall.


Just because you say something, it doesn't make it real. You are ill. Seek help.

Broadstreetexpresstrain

I am the product of an urban-inner city -mid level public school education (Philadelphia). I excelled in highschool but my math courses only included up to algebra. However I excelled at and had a burning passion for architecture and design despite only ever taking algebra in highschool. While in college I quickly learned how weak and behind in math I was compared to my peer architecture students, while initiallly struggling in my Structures and MEP Systems courses. My passion for architectural design would not allow me to be defeated by my relatively weak math background. So, I had to buckle down and work that much harder than my peers to improve my math while taking the Structures and MEP  Systems courses, in addition to the challenges of studio. I was a good athelete in highschool (captain of football team and a wrestler) so I was used to always working hard to take on challenges....I applied the same athletic intensity of sports to my academics. I worked so hard at improving my math that I eventually went on to earn A’s and B’s in Structures and MEP systems classes. I eventually graduated, earned a Masters Degree and have been a licensed practicing architect for 20 years, specializing in large -urban buildings. Throughout my career I have only ever used geometry, algebra and rarely trigonometry. So, I believe that you can succeed with the knowledge of algebra, geometry and trigonometry......Do not be intimidated by math. Do not let your “beleived” weak background in math deter you from becoming and Architect. You can improve your math skills while in college with additional coursework and practice........Frankly, I believe that in order to succeed in architecture school and the profession, your ability to communicate, learn, listen, adapt and to effortlessly devise alternate design schemes are exceedingly more important than your math skills.........so don’t let your perceived problem stop you, instead use it as an opportunity to strengthen you.

May 22, 18 9:14 am
shellarchitect

well said

randomised

waiting for the tl;dr

RickB-Astoria

amen. 

There are also some online coursed like EDx that you can take at your leisure to sharpen up your skills on some math subject matters before or after taking them for grade. In some cases, it could be helpful to do it before you take it for grade especially if it is free. It may just be something you can do to help you understand the certain advance math topics like Calculus before taking it for letter grade & credit. I

f I were the OP, I'd probably take them in advance of taking some of those advance math courses for grade in order to sharpen my understanding so that when I do take it for grade, I'm a little better prepared. 

Use the online resources in Calculus and other advance math topics to help you learn and understand the topics even before taking it for grade as well as refresher on the topic especially if you don't use it regularly.


Xenakis

try Calculus for Dummies - I use that a lot to review calc

you will probably never use Calc in architecture - but it will make you smarter - it changes your mind - 

May 22, 18 5:36 pm
RickB-Astoria

good idea for us dummies. :)

tintt

Study psychology, not calculus. 

Seriously though, math is far, far harder in math class than it ever will be as an architect. It is worth studying though. Try Khan Academy. Learning at your own pace might show you that you CAN do math without the pressure of a classroom, teacher, exams, etc.

May 22, 18 7:58 pm
RickB-Astoria

That's a topic that is worthy of taking in architecture. It is something that I'm considering taking at some point in time for a class or so.

null pointer

All of the impressive architects that I have met can do math quickly in their head and do it accurately.

All of the shitty architects I've met can't.

I'm not going to candy-coat it like a lot of the people here have. If you want to be a good architect, you need to get good at math.

Math isn't something "you're not good at". It's a skill. You learn it. You master it. You trick your brain into thinking you enjoy it. There comes a point after Calc II where your brain literally knows the answer to things before you can even articulate it - you can discern patterns in a lot of things just because you know how they can be mathematically described. You get these math-based intuitions which are extremely valuable when working with complex systems.

Complex systems are not bathrooms remodels. Complex systems are 1,000+ unit campus projects with set capacity/performance requirements and set budgets with onerous code and zoning requirements.

But don't worry, there are a lot of shitty architects. You can always just be another one of them.

May 22, 18 8:16 pm
RickB-Astoria

Amen.

Xenakis

null pointer  - nails it

or as my high school algebra teacher would always say

"get it the first time or get out"


May 22, 18 8:27 pm
Xenakis

Also:

My H1-B coworkers from China can all do math in their head quickly and they are the ones getting the jobs

May 22, 18 8:33 pm
Schoon

I agree wholeheartedly with Broadstreetexpresstrain.  I think most people who say they're bad at math have a self-defeating attitude.  You might not be a natural, but if you practice often enough you will get better and it will become second nature.   

Like Xenakis said, not only is math an incredibly useful skill, knowing higher level math like calculus really does change the way you think.  I think everyone should give it a shot, who knows, you might even end up loving it! 

May 22, 18 10:05 pm
Non Sequitur

I've always felt very uncomfortable when someone proudly claims they don't know math. It's not a quality to be unable to do basic calculations... why is it a source of pride?

Xenakis

Non Sequitur

Project architects are always busting my balls when I use these math expressions for doing area calcs - "Hey, It's not rocket science" or " why didn't you become a structural engineer instead"

May 22, 18 11:42 pm
RickB-Astoria

Architects used to be the structural engineer of buildings. Building engineer was the domain of ARCHITECTS. Engineers (as in Civil Engineer... aka Civilian Engineer to differ from Military Engineers) was one single discipline of engineering non-habited structures from earthen structures to steel structures to mechanical, electrical, etc. systems. When civil engineering was dividing itself into multiple disciplines, certain disciplines started to tap into the domain that was that of the ARCHITECT. Architect was Building Designer & Building Engineer. In those days, it was before licensing laws. Building Designer & Building Engineer basically was ARCHITECT. In Japan, the title for Architect is more explicitly translates to Architectural Engineer. Your body of knowledge is the complete art and complete science of designing buildings and applying that art and science. A segment of the architectural profession wants the big pay and do the glamorous artsy work. They didn't want to do the boring yet harder work of science. They just want to get the big pay drawing pretty pictures and leave the hard work of making it actually work to others and pay them the least. No wonder engineers are simply taking on the work of architects in way they can because they are smarter than most of the architects and any buffoon and draw curvy and squirrly lines. This is why it is important to remain a real profession to have a true professional level of intelligence and skill. I'm not slapping all architects. I'm slapping the dumbass ones with a big fat trout. Now I have to pass the trout to Xenakis to slap me with it.

randomised

Yes, but you're not an architect so leave that poor trout alone or I'll report you to PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Architects)

RickB-Astoria

Or am I? My service area includes Sweden which does not have an architect licensing requirement for the practice of architecture or the title.

RickB-Astoria

In your case, I'll just slap you with a devil's club. ( Oplopanax horridus )

I have miles of this plant from hell for the whole PETA group.

RickB-Astoria

Even the leaves have f---ing thorns.

It's an evil plant that only an evil unholy f--- would have allowed to be created !!!! but a great security wall.

RickB-Astoria

Now that's how to make Trump border wall !!!! That or wall of cacti.

randomised

Just because the title of architect is not protected in Sweden, that doesn't mean you're an architect (in Sweden). Ever did a project there, built there, heck did you even once visit Sweden? Or did you just google countries where the title of architect is not protected? Stop kidding yourself, the time you spend on archinect could be easily spent finishing your degree to become an architect in the real world.

RickB-Astoria

I'm too old to be starting to take an architecture degree. Architecture school isn't going to admit people my age to their B.Arch program. I'm too old for that stupid all-nighter life schedule because the instructors literally schedule assignments that can't be performed adequately without taking numerous all-nighter sessions a term. I'm not 18 years old anymore. That all-nighter cycle is unhealthy when you are past your 20s.

randomised

You don't need to do all-nighters, just dedication and inspiration:


RickB-Astoria

They've done a few pleasant changes with UO B.Arch admissions process. UO: "Please describe what experiences you may have already had in relation to art, construction, design, craft, what inspires you about the work we do or how traveling and seeing inspirational work abroad has influenced your interests." The question is personally better than they were having back in 2011. It is an interesting question for an admission essay. However, it currently feels like I'd be chasing after a ship that has already set sail.

RickB-Astoria

Already been through paying off nearly $40,000 in student loans over the past 12 months.

randomised

Wow, that's a lot, hope it was worth it.

Non Sequitur

so many responses to a post originally addressed to me... jeebous!.

shellarchitect

$40k in 12? i'm at $95 in 72. You win this one

RickB-Astoria

Part of it is to clear up the student loans so if I were to decide to go through college for a degree, I would have more room to pay student loans. You understand that the cost of going to a university has ballooned so fast that it most certainly outpaced inflation. It is patently ridiculous.

Non Sequitur

Imagine how much more ahead everyone would be had there been equal pressure for free university as there was for silly gun ownership rights.

RickB-Astoria

Ownership rights of guns isn't necessarily silly. However, I'd agree with the basic point you are making. If politicians were as much caring to make cost of education affordable as they are in military spending, we would actually have affordable education. Between federal and state putting money towards subsidizing tuition, fees, and housing expenses, and so on would be great. Personal gun ownership is irrelevant. The government spends maybe $190 Billion in financing FAFSA. Lets say about $200 Billion in federal aid. Military budget is about $1.3 TRILLION. Imagine how much more coverage student aid would be if even 0.3 Trillion was moved from military budget to financing student aid.

randomised

So you're paying off student loans in order to take on more student loans...makes total sense!

RickB-Astoria

Not exactly. There is a limit of how much direct stafford loans that can be taken out at a time known as the aggregate loan limit. I was approaching the limit as it was at undergraduate level albeit not quite to max. I'm back to full availability amount *IF* I need it. Preferably, I would want to avoid it if you understand despite how diametrically that may sound. It isn't really just that. It is getting the those friggin' monkey-fucks off my back.

Paid that off ahead of schedule at that !!!!

shellarchitect

Rick, I'm certain that no university will make an admission decision based on a potential students age.  You are definitely not too old for architecture or any other degree.  I had a couple 40ish and one 50ish people in my class, they were by far the best students.  All-nighters are only done by people who want to do them.  

Professors are generally good people who prefer their students avoid unhealthy decisions.

I wouldn't blame you if you did not pursue architecture, but I do think that you should pursue some type of useful skill. 

For example, plumbers and electricians make a great living for a fraction of the educational costs.

May 23, 18 10:07 am
RickB-Astoria

Part of the problems is some of the studio courses requires use of computer software that you have to learn on the fly. Believe me, these programs are complex pieces of software that you can spend 15 credits in college for a 3 years and still not master it and some instructors assume you learned it in elementary school. 

When I was in elementary school, they had Apple II. So, really, they had 3d Studio Max back then???? Riiiiight. "Use Revit" but they don't teach or have instructional courses in Revit so they expect you to have like a 2 year Associates study in Revit. Excuse me, Mr. Professor.... you expect fresh out of high school students to have learned this already? Many high schools don't even teach drafting or CAD or any of this stuff so how the hell are they going to master that software in the time frame. F--- you, Mr. Professor, I'll do it by hand drafting it. 

shellarchitect, that wasn't really directed at you but sarcasm about how some of the professors somehow magically expect people to learn how complex programs like Revit or 3DS Max works on the fly of doing a studio project with professional quality 3d modeling and rendering, without you even being taught how the works. No guidance? Uh, right. 

It still takes a lot of time and to do that in a studio project, there just isn't the time available. Google Sketchup can be learned fairly quickly but Revit is a bit more of a beast. Honestly, I'd hope you and most professors in architecture schools are kinder and more sensible than some of the assholes I've seen and/or heard about.

shellarchitect

I don't recall and specific software requirements form UDM or LTU. I think the first couple studios mandated hand drafting and modeling. After that it was up to the student to chose the best way to communicate their design. I believe that both schools offered classes in revit and 3dmax. Regardless, some how thousands of students seem to overcome this obstacle and graduate every year.  One of them could be you.

RickB-Astoria

yeah. I could attend the PSU program in Portland at some point but it would be a drive to get there on a regular basis and be rough to do at a full-time level enrollment. In some ways, it would be nice to take some of the stuff online as in convenience.

null pointer

Please bitch Balkins, I switched between four separate 3d programs in grad school and touched Autocad once for a single drawing (some exploded axon that I could have done by hand). Most schools actually start by teaching you basic drawing and then allow you to pick pretty much any software you want as long as you can deliver the visual goods. I had friends that used Rhino for 3 months and never did a digital 3d model after that. They graduated with better grades than I did. You have zero clue what goes into being a graduate student. Zero. Stop writing as if you're some sort of authoritative source. You are not.


Also, I taught myself Revit on the fly after I went solo and I'm probably just as old as you are. It was not hard. In fact, if you know what you're supposed to produce (fucking visuals) it is worth every fucking penny of the subscription cost.

Non Sequitur

^bingo. By end of my 4th term in undergrad I was using 4 different modeling programs (Rhino2, ArchiCAD, FormZ, Sketchup + 3D AutoCAD)... having done all previous 6 studios producing all projects by hand.

thatsthat

NS, if you weren't Canadian, I would almost think we went to the same school from some of your descriptions. My school had the 1st studio completely by hand, and some others as well if you chose a certain professor. After that we did Sketchup, some AutoCAD, FormZ, 3DSMax, ArchiCAD, Revit, and then you got to choose between Rhino and Maya. The only thing required when entering the program was AutoCAD, and if you didn't have that, they made you go to a weekend short course. But most of the instructions on how to use these programs were in separate courses not studio. For studio, you chose what you wanted.

Non Sequitur

Thats, autocad was straight-up banned for us until my very last undergrad studio.... and sketchup was in it's infancy so hardly anyone even knew about it. FormZ was all the rage for years then slowly all the others came into our labs. As a side note, I banned CAD for one assignment when I taught first year studio and students were lost. No undo? no downloads? no copy paste?

thatsthat

I hated FormZ! Looking back, I probably just didn't know how to use it correctly. My 3rd year studio prof banned illustator because people were using it to draft instead of learning CAD... only 1 or 2 people chose to do things by hand to get around using CAD. I wish I had gone to school when more was by hand. :-\

Threesleeve

There were no particular requirements for software use or software knowledge when I was in architecture school, and there are none now where I'm teaching. Some students take software courses, others don't. Some faculty still require that some studio assignments be done by hand, especially in early years of the undergrad program, but most have no restrictions on the means by which the work is completed. I can't imagine a professor dictating to grad students what methods to use to product their work (unless of course it's a support course specifically about drawing or software.)

If I were a prospective architecture student and I were especially concerned about this, I'd visit some crits at the programs in which I was interested, to see the work being produced, and I'd talk with current students about their experiences. There are many factors in deciding whether or not to pursue an architecture degree, but fear of software requirements shouldn't be one of them.  Many students in M.Arch programs come from undergrad backgrounds completely unrelated to architecture, and are in their late 20s, 30s, 40s, and beyond, with no CAD or BIM or 3D modeling or rendering experience whatsoever.  There's no expectation that anybody already know Revit or any other software coming in.  Some students do choose to learn various applications as they go, and some do not, but I've not seen any pressure from profs either way.

RickB-Astoria

I used Form Z a while back. Some time before that, I used programs such a Lightwave 3d, Caligari 24, and XCad on the Amiga. That's goes back to late 1980s, early 1990s.... long before Form Z was the craze. The problem is if they aren't offering the instruction on how to use the program and you are having to figure out how to use it while jam packed with unrealistic schedule for the doing the assignment in an time-allotment of about 3-5 hours per credit for the course. In an undergrad program, the assignments for courses (whether it be studio or subject courses) should be reasonably doable in around the same outside of class and in-class time allotment as other courses in an academic institution. A 6 credit studio course would mean you should be able to do the assignment with 18 to 24 hours a week time allotment. Students shouldn't be forced to do what takes 54 to 72+ hours just for a six credit studio course especially when you also have another 6-10 or so other credits worth of classes. If students then also have to learn some complex piece of software sufficiently to do the assignment, it might be a little bit tough to possibly do it without pushing all-nighters on frequent basis. If the assignment load is that much, then maybe it should be small group assignments when you pair up students in groups of 3 and then have to account for group coordination which sometimes isn't as efficient in decision making steps because you have 2-3 different minds having to discern what they all agree to because in solo projects each of us can make design thinking decisions on the fly with efficiency of unilateral decision making authority. The democratic process of groups decision making may be slower even though there is the opportunity for parallel division of labor distribution. However if you have to come up with floor plans, elevations, section drawings, photorealistic 3d rendering and a fly through animation in say 3 weeks for a crit session. That might be a bit hard if you have to also have to teach yourself how to use a full blown photorealistic 3d rendering and getting proper lighting and rendering settings. I've seen assholes demanding that kind of requirement which was a little unrealistic. 


RickB-Astoria

It is not that is can't be done but you have to put an unfair disproportionate amount of time just to get a C let alone a B or an A that you are expected to get in the degree program. It wouldn't be fair to assume the student will be able to perform the task with said software as efficient as you the instructor who may have been using said software for 10 years on a daily basis. They have to learn and become familiar with the UI. It will be a year or more before it becomes fully intuitive that they don't have to think about where any of the functions of said software is in the UI. The UI on some of these software programs is more complex than that of a car's dash. In ways, some of them are nearly as if not more complex as that of a Boeing 777's instruments panel. It takes time to master such things. 

When they are trying to get students to do projects, solo, as complex as the one by Calatrava, in the image below in 3-5 weeks or even around 10 weeks, it's a little bit ridiculous in my opinion.



Non Sequitur

It's not ridiculous Ricky, it's the norm. Had you ever attended an arch school, you would know this. Now give me a coffee stained canary yellow scrap of trace with some sharpie lines over a photo realistic model any day. It's likely that sketch took just as much effort as the rendering.

Threesleeve

Rick it sounds like the school where you observed all of this is not the best program for you. That does not mean there isn't a better fit somewhere. Think about it: at least a third of M.Arch students are coming from unrelated undergrad majors where they've had no drawing/modeling/rendering background at all. You have some sort of CAD certificate already, so software-wise you're ahead of that third. You've also had years of free time during which you could have been learning software if you were really that concerned about it. Software just isn't that big a deal, most professors don't care what you use, and are more likely to be impressed by gum wrappers glued to museum board with charcoal smears than with the image you posted above. Software changes all the time, and whatever you use in school is unlikely to be what is used in the first firm you go to, which may use something different than the 2nd firm, and so on, and you're always going to need to be able to pick up new software and learn it. You have got to stop using all these excuses to make everything seem so impossible. You spend tons of time defending your intelligence and skills - so why is everybody else able to do these things and you can't? I don't care at all whether you study architecture or not - frankly it doesn't seem like you've got any aptitude for it whatsoever - but whatever you do, stop scaring yourself and just do it. Otherwise you're going to end up like that 30 year old "failure to launch" guy whose parents went to state supreme court to kick him out of the house.

RickB-Astoria

Non Sequiture wrote: "It's not ridiculous Ricky, it's the norm. Had you ever attended an arch school, you would know this. Now give me a coffee stained canary yellow scrap of trace with some sharpie lines over a photo realistic model any day. It's likely that sketch took just as much effort as the rendering." 

 Haha... amen. I prefer to not use "photorealistic" rendering because in general, I don't want to make an implied claim that the actual building built will look exactly like the rendering. Watercolor rendering & Sketchup quick rendering is my preferred color renderings. This isn't to say I'm opposed to ink rendering (non-colorized). If I did a watercolor rendering for a real world project, it would likely be watercolor over ink based drawings. As long as the sheets aren't TOO big, I can scan it with the typical scanners capable of 11x17 size for inserting into digital content. Without a large format scanner, it would be impractical for me to use large format watercolor rendering on projects using CAD/Revit/etc.

RickB-Astoria

Threesleve wrote: "Rick it sounds like the school where you observed all of this is not the best program for you. That does not mean there isn't a better fit somewhere. Think about it: at least a third of M.Arch students are coming from unrelated undergrad majors where they've had no drawing/modeling/rendering background at all. You have some sort of CAD certificate already, so software-wise you're ahead of that third. You've also had years of free time during which you could have been learning software if you were really that concerned about it. Software just isn't that big a deal, most professors don't care what you use, and are more likely to be impressed by gum wrappers glued to museum board with charcoal smears than with the image you posted above. Software changes all the time, and whatever you use in school is unlikely to be what is used in the first firm you go to, which may use something different than the 2nd firm, and so on, and you're always going to need to be able to pick up new software and learn it. You have got to stop using all these excuses to make everything seem so impossible. You spend tons of time defending your intelligence and skills - so why is everybody else able to do these things and you can't? I don't care at all whether you study architecture or not - frankly it doesn't seem like you've got any aptitude for it whatsoever - but whatever you do, stop scaring yourself and just do it. Otherwise you're going to end up like that 30 year old "failure to launch" guy whose parents went to state supreme court to kick him out of the house." 

I agree. Maybe I'm representing that issue as current for myself. Yes, on my own time, I am periodically learning new software as I go. However, it isn't some small feat to learn a new program at the same time you are taking the class requiring you to use said program. There has to be some lead time to learn some piece of software before you can even hope to use it, obviously. I have to technically get the B.S. degree before I start an M.Arch as you mention. 

Maybe there are options for conditional admission but I have to get that squared away properly. I'm technically close to obtaining one in Geography major but I have to get back down to Eugene, Oregon for that last bit or find a way to complete the required course through distant education to complete it. That's the shortest route based on number of credits otherwise I have to basically redo the bachelor major with one I can do via online at a reasonable price. It is something I have to evaluate the options but they need to be from accredited institutions.

It's not an excuse to not do it. It is a current hurdle that hasn't yet been addressed. Part of the hurdle related to money and it is somewhat resolved in part.

RickB-Astoria

I could consider going to PSU's program but is a 4+2 program but okay. I've talked about it before and mainly money issues but I haven't ruled out it completely. I have to have get a few things in order because for one, I wouldn't want to be completely depending on student loans because at this point, the only options for financing is scholarships, money earned & saved, and student loans. At this time, there isn't money yet saved. There are several options to consider but that's not really a problem. Just something to discern about and plan appropriately for.

Threesleeve

A 4+2 program isn't going to make sense for you, because you'd end up doing at least 2 more years (and more likely 3 years) of undergrad to finish a qualifying "4" component pre-professional architecture major anywhere. Nobody's going to admit you to the "2" component without a full 2 or 3 years of architecture studios.  The shortest route for you would be to do whatever you need to do to get the money for one more semester or quarter or whatever, on-campus, full time, to finish your non-architecture BS. That would also be better for you because you seem to get overwhelmed with long-range plans, and are better at finishing one step at a time. Financial aid opportunities are usually better for grad students anyway (more available grants, the way your finances are calculated is more of an advantage to an older independent students, etc.) , so doing a 3-year M.Arch would almost certainly cost less for you than back-tracking to do extra undergrad work to do a 4+2. In the long run, even if you don't pursue architecture, a completed bachelor degree will make you much more employable in practically anything.

RickB-Astoria

Threesleeve, the funding has to take housing for the whole academic year. I can't use on-campus housing if enrolled part-time or partial year. That basically means, I have to take more courses than I need to complete the degree to get the courses. UO is a bitch that way. Just a logistic irritation. That housing is basically half the cost of attendance. At the moment, it isn't out of reach to do it on the loans but I'm looking at how to minimize that so I don't have to use them. If I were to enroll in fall of this year, it would be practically all on student loans and the cost of attendance would be $25K to $27K or something like that. Then it's just a B.S. in Geography (GIS Concentration) which is not all that employable in and of itself. 

 Another option, I could take: http://www.gbcnv.edu/programs/bas-ls/docs/ls_prog_2015_flyer.pdf along with other courses of interest (online). While a little longer with a potentially a little more cost in the long run but more applicable and able to apply to work. I can do that while here in Astoria, Oregon. There are other options I am assessing and looking at so there is no specific decision.

NOTHING IS FINAL AT THIS POINT !!!!

shellarchitect

Honestly it really bothers me when I hear or see anyone with a litany of reasons not to do something.  Just identify a goal and do what you need to do to achieve it.  

Bad at math? so what, get better, end of story.  

Need money? we all do, find a way to make what you need.  

The cost of doing nothing is far higher than you might expect.


May 23, 18 12:29 pm
tintt

I spent a few years teaching math. I taught underlying skills in trig and calculus to 2nd and 3rd graders. Through this experience I decided more than a few people probably knew calculus before someone told them they didn't know it. It is change. You can visualize change. Input a value and export a value. Change the input, change the output. Yes, that is good thinking to have, pretty basic. Take calculus but not in the university, do high school or cc. Now, statistics, don't ask me to do any of that. 

May 23, 18 4:58 pm
tintt

Algebra 2 was harder for me than trig and calc.

May 23, 18 5:04 pm
RickB-Astoria

Abstract Algebra? That can be annoying. However, from my programming experience, I grasp elementary algebra and basically any algebra where I am working with variables that contains a numeric value. Solving for an algebraic expression with another algebraic expression is more frustrating in my personal experience. It would take so damn long to solve that it was tiresome and exhausting in my experience. However, it was never explained clearly in a concise and straightforward way. It was my personal experience that if someone explained more clearly it would have been understood better and saved a whole hell of a lot of hours.


Le Courvoisier

Algebra? Yeah, I know algebra. From my experience surveying buildings using old methods no one uses anymore, I used a lot of abstract algebra to make buildings look like they are exempt from needing a licensed architect, because as you know I'm a certified grade-A hunk of building designer - even my middle names can be abbreviated as water closet! You know what else I know? I know how to program too - and on a Commodore 64! Not many people know that so I have a super rare skill, but no one will hire me. Also, I should be teaching at a college but they won't give me my degree because a professor is out to get me after I threw a hissy fit in a class. It is my personal experience that I'm an insufferable asshole and have no damn clue what I'm talking about.

May 24, 18 5:41 pm
RickB-Astoria

Hahaha!

wynne1architect@gmail.com

Sounds like most architects.

May 27, 18 12:10 pm
wynne1architect@gmail.com

"an insufferable asshole and have no damn clue what I'm talking about."

May 27, 18 12:12 pm

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: