Archinect
anchor

Full sets of architecture and structural drawings of famous contemporary buildings.

Alex Blacksfield

Is it possible to find a full set of architecture and structural drawings of famous contemporary buildings (Since early 30s modern architecture, but better "new modern architecture", f.ex. SANAA, Ando, Chipperfield, OMA and etc.) 

Just a few weeks ago I graduated from university, and unfortunately still cannot get a place in a good architecture studio where I could continue (or rather say start over) studying architecture. In my point of view in my situation the most reasonable way to learn architecture right now is to go through high-quality architecture experience (as I said some arch. and constr. sets of drawings with details and all this stuff). Analyze and recreate these icon buildings. Explore all the features architects put in their ideas and material interpretations of them.

I believe, that if I will lose connection to good architecture right now as well as for some period of time while working in low tier architecture studio, I will definitely lose all the chances to do this high-quality architecture in the future. 

I know it seems quite ambitious and ethically incorrect, cause of all these ownership issues, but at the same time, I believe that this attitude in the architecture social world cause slow-developing, I believe sharing is an instrument of progress (probably I don't understand smth and that's why I am so unsuccessful in this field). 

So, maybe someone has resources where I can find this kind of material. 

Thank you in advance for your response!

 
Jan 20, 21 2:46 am
Non Sequitur

Plenty of reasons why these don't exist.

  • Intellectual property
  • Client privacy
  • Liability Management
  • Security

Besides the obvious ones, what incentives are there for offices to publish/make available their work in such details to random layman wankers?  You've successfully not dropped out of architecture school but it's not their fault you don't have enough to compete for entry level jobs. It's not the responsibility of working offices to fill-in-the-blanks left in your education. 

Want to learn? Then put in the work and try to figure things out by yourself. Those are skills worth developing.  What you're suggesting is the same thing as looking at the back of the math manual for the final answer but never doing any of the calculations.




Jan 20, 21 6:37 am  · 
1  · 
Alex Blacksfield

Thanks for your answer and honesty! In my question, I wanted to observe the issue of architecture development in general. I know I am too inexperienced to make some conclusions about architecture development, probably I don't know some particular backstage arch. community rules, but I believe that I can say smth about my point of view. given the fact that architecture is my second education (in my first direction I am quite successful at the moment), I can see that architecture has been developing for an incredibly long time, especially given the fact that

 · 
Alex Blacksfield

architecture is my second education (in my first direction I am quite successful at the moment), I can see that architecture has been developing for an incredibly long time, especially considering the fact that we have already entered the 4th industrial revolution, but architecture still engaged exclusively formalism and builds a pretty cynical and arrogant frame around their craft. The architectural community must learn from other professions

 · 
Non Sequitur

A big part of this profession is getting paid to find creative solutions to complicated design problems. There is nothing arrogant about keeping that process and it’s many solutions, away from public eyes. That is where we add value and there is nothing to gain by openly making our work available for others to copy. Perhaps your intentions are honorable, but for everyone person like that, there are a thousand who are not.

 · 
Alex Blacksfield

Of course, if that kind of approach making someone suffer and pay from his own pocket, we should avoid it. But as I see from my perspective, everything moving to main architecture forces depreciation, for example nowadays architecture firms need more machines to produce the product (today architect should know few different types of drawing soft, 3d soft, rendering soft and etc), rather than creative architects, who could create a new solution. Especially construction development companies, who exclusively want to make money, and they usually (i don't know how does it work in your country) use good architectural firms as a consumable. Also, we should take into account the development of AI, which I believe will change the game. So, based on this, it seems to me that it is necessary to somehow change the approach to development and interaction within the architectural community, otherwise tomorrow the profession of an architect will disappear.

 · 
Non Sequitur

It really shows you've have no real experience in this field.

 · 
Alex Blacksfield

I said it earlier. Just stating the obvious is not the answer. Anyway, I am grateful for your answers.

 · 
midlander

2 thoughts:

One of the key reasons to work in top-tier firms is for the experience of learning how they put together a set of drawings. I really enjoyed my first job where there were old sets of excellent buildings lying around to flip through and study. And as NS notes, this material is in many cases proprietary - both because clients want to keep the technical parts of their building designs private, and because the knowledge in them is part of the value in a firm which contributes to future projects.

But secondly - these sets by themselves actually teach remarkably little! They merely document a design, and provide no explanation of why the design was made in that way, or how the systems were selected and developed. It's hard to understand without the experience of being active on the design team that MOST of the things documented in a building design aren't really 'important' to the quality of the design - they're simply things that need to be there being put in in the most convenient way, but could equally well have been done differently.

Many of the most consequential decisions architects make are barely visible in a drawing set, or hard to envision only by studying the drawings. Material selections and site-coordination for example. One thing you'll find working is that there is often more to be learned reviewing the concept / SD / DD design presentations (PDF image-based books usually) than from the final CD's. Those presentations show you the thought process and the intent of the design. The CD's only show you what was done to execute that intent.

Jan 20, 21 9:41 am  · 
3  · 
Alex Blacksfield

I am grateful for your answer. I do remember my first experience, in my first job, where I've found one of the famous in my country villa project sets (this firm was a part of the most famous studio in my city, so there was a lot of interesting materials). And I just went through these pages, and model almost every corner of this project with all details in SketchUp, of course, I was asking my master to explain some of the details and solutions. It was the most interesting thing I've done in my short career period.

2  · 
midlander

this approach of studying the documents and reviewing them with the design team is the best way to learn. it doesn't need to be a famous firm - you can learn everything important from a good respected but not widely famous office. the things that lead some architects to become famous aren't in the way their buildings are put together.

 · 
Alex Blacksfield

Yea, you are right but unfortunately in my country, good architecture is kind of a rare thing, and there are not so many studios that are making this architecture. But now more and more new young studios appear that make high-quality architecture, so I hope, it will become easier for people who are looking for good architecture to find a job and learn.

 · 

Block this user


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

  • ×Search in: