​No that would be the study.

We would have thought that would be the hobby room for a HOBBY 'architect'. The study room would be where you would be glossing over the magazines.

Aha, that joke got lost on me. Why is it bland...

Should be strawbale, or concrete domes. Maybe remove the top of a shipping container and use it as the pool?

Only if you can use the 2nd floor corridor as a bowling alley.

Or golf putting. :-P

Could work, but would be a boring course unless you can fit a small draw-bridge or a windmill. I guess it could be worse, if this house was in the USA, that would be a shooting range.

I'm not an architect obviously, just drawing for fun.

What do you think the response is going to be?

That you hate it, or that you think it's ok.

When you make a statement like "what would you change with it, or is it a hopeless case", what do you think the response is going to be by the snarky bunch that you should have by now, are familiar with. The snarky folks will say something like "it is a hopeless case".

I'm not going to judge this because it would be unfair to compare you with professionals. Generally, I don't really spend time judging non-architects (in every sense of the word as it is understood in Sweden... where there isn't an architectural licensing law) designs because that's like comparing the quality of different turds as that is what you would expect non-architects to produce. They don't have the education and training to hone the skills. 

Besides, others have already given their opinion of your work. I just am not interested in putting the time and energy to judge it.

luv u so much, luvu.... lol. Pretty much anything coming from anyone not an architect (in Sweden, architect title is not regulated by licensing laws) or even architecture school students is generally going to look like crap because they haven't the education and training to execute designs well enough for them and how to make good compelling designs.

Hobby Architect, you may want to take a course or two in some intro to architecture where they would teach you stuff like pattern language, the use of dichotomy / use of diametric opposites (highs & lows, light and dark, large and small spaces) the make the spaces more compelling and dynamic. You need to think the design in 3d as a structure and then execute the design accordingly. I have thrown out there some sources of good study material in the past.

You would need to use pattern language together with the use of diametric opposites. It's like making 'visual music'. 

load-bearing aquarium, triple glazed tank, and a security guard on site 24/7 to prevent cocking of the fish.

Keep your towel on in the sauna to avoid cocking the fish.

I had the same thought; it does look way more thoughtful than past efforts

Thank you.

This looks quite similar to a house I designed for myself in 7th grade. I'm not famous though.

What is the building location and orientation? On the original design, I mean. That's important information when talking about things like light.

Something like this. (I don't know if you can see the picture?) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/d9/b2/58d9b286b86410f93b2e4db165ab2cb6.png

I mean North/South/East/West and roughly what latitude and longitude.

I don't think the house is going to fit where those chairs are.

Right is south.

Are you in the northern hemisphere? How far from the equator? If you want constructive feedback, you need to provide relevant details.

Could country like Sweden for example.

...

sharpen that pencil.

Rotate your pencil while drawing your lines to maintain a point at all times

Good old-school 2mm drawing tip Ahip... but it won't work if you start with a blunt HB pencil.

No one.

I don't believe you.

Why?

Fool me once, shame on you

fool me twice, same on me

Hobby - you've lied several times before and attempted to pass other people's work off as your own.

You've lost most of your credibility here because of it.  That's why many of us don't believe you came up with this design on your own. 

That was a prank.

Can't you see this house is bad enough to have been made by a real architect?

You've used other people's designs here other than your 'prank' though. Also - a couple of users here let me know that you only admitted to your 'prank' because they privately called out your plagiarism and threatened to expose you. You then made the post into a 'prank'. Nice work troll.

I wonder if you can see the sun go down from the terrace then though.... But of course the house can be at a completely different place, a more suitable place. I am just dreaming like I always do. :-)

I realized this plot is not good enough because you can't see the sun go down because of the mountain.

Houses are designed to suit location, not the otherway around. We tried very hard to hammer this very fundamental point to you during your last round of comments a few months back. This is why plans and graph paper are poor design tools by themselves.

I know. But since this is only a hobby for me I don't think about the location. This time I just saw a nice plot and thought maybe the house I'm working on could be there, but now I have changes the house so I don't think it suits so very well there anymore, but who knows. 

All I know it's meant to be in a cold country.

It being a hobby does not mean you can't actually do it properly. Cold country? It's -36c outside my office window today. That house would not work here.

I don't think you guys realize how cold it is in Scandinavia for example. This is a viking fantasy.

One way to quantify "how cold it is" is by heating degree days (HDD). Using Farenheit, Norrnas has about 7400 HDD, almost identical to what I design to here in Maine, USA, and Ottawa, near Non Sequitur. So I'd say we realize exactly how cold it is there.

In case anyone is interested: find a weather station near your location, download the Excel file, sum a year's worth of heating degree days. https://www.degreedays.net/#

looking at the mystical -40 tonight WG.... it's that perfect singularity when the rational and silly temperature scales meet in perfect frozen harmony.

That's cold. We're getting it tomorrow night, but only -11°F (-24°C).

Hobby Architect, actually we can comprehend how cold it can be in Scandinavia. There are places in the U.S. that gets cold like ALASKA. Then we have our Canadian friends and they know parts of Canada that gets cold. Sweden as with all parts of Scandinavia isn't all cold, all year round. Yes, it's colder overall and often have more know than where I live but still, any of us can engineer our way through any climate anywhere habitable on this planet. It's called science. In your locality, I would probably have walls thicker (and insulated) than where I am but that's the idea.... but you still have to properly ventilate, design for snow loads, etc. Additionally, where you are in Sweden will be something that is important to consider for literally everything. I can design houses for any climate but however, that doesn't mean every house design is appropriate for a location. 

This is why it's all site-specific. If you were a client, I would advise you to pick a site location before I design but before picking a particular site, I would want to need geological studies even at preliminary level. This would be a feasibility study because it would be stupid if I am designing a house on a bog with the wrong foundation design. The soil needs to support the structure. A bog would rule out most conventional foundations. If we are talking hillside locations, I would need to know what the soil and below surface soil conditions are like such as bedrock. If there isn't competent consolidated bedrock, then the design may be radically different then if I had competent consolidated bedrock or even unconsolidated bedrock could be suitable. Site location and where I can make best use of the site. 

For example, you don't necessarily want to put the home on the nice ground area where the sun is always shining on it. Why? You might want to have that nice yard. However, I can design to the site so that with appropriate site work, I can capitalize on the sun. Even in northern parts of Alaska or Greenland, I can still employ passive solar design. I may have to have large aperture areas to get as much solar energy through the glazing to store in thermal mass storage. When you are near and north of the arctic circle, things get tricky because of the long periods of little to no sunlight even in the middle of day during the winter months. In which case, you have secondary design solutions to employ such as ground-source heat pump technology (geothermal heating & cooling). This means I may possibly need a field area where geothermal heating and cooling system can be laid in the ground below frost depth sufficiently so it would be useful at keeping at heating the home to reasonable warmth like 65-75 degrees fahrenheit, all year round. In my opinion, site location is important for multiple purposes. In most cases where there is a lot of rain and also where there is a lot of snow, you want to have a pitch roof. You will want to avoid having issues such as ice-damming. Therefore, the roof design and structural systems are possibly going to call for something more stout than say a 2x4 or 2x6 rafter system. In which case, having rafter beams (say....8x12 or rough equivalent in built-up beams) every 3-4 feet and possibly purlin rafters in between of 2x8 @ 12" o.c. Then on top, using possibly 2x6 to 2x8 Tongue & Groove sub-floor decking the roof with sheets of 5/8" structural to marine grade plywood on-top of that for roof shear resistance. Then you have all the moisture penetration barriers on top of that. At the very top layer, you may have roofing of a variety of types. If I am going to support a sizable snow load, you must not be thinking of puny rafters that are suitable for 1-2 ft of snow when you might have something on the order of 10+ feet of accumulated snow. 

Wrong design decisions that are inadequate can be outright disastrous. As you can imagine, with the type of roof system presented, I would likely need to have a stout structural system that takes that load down to ground and soil and ideally, to adequate bedrock. Once a site is chosen, before any serious designing is done, thorough geological studies on a more intense level with bore samples and pit tests are made by geotechnical engineers at each proposed build area. Not doing so on a hillside can be quite disastrous. 

So many ways you can f--- it up and cause a disaster such as landslides. While you are doing these sketches for personal enjoyment and not for any real client, it doesn't matter but that is a whole different story if you are going to use those designs to actually build a house from. At which, I advise you to seek a professional architect and engineer for their respected services to design and engineer the house, and a qualified competent builder/construction contractor to build it.

I know real architects have so much to think about that I know nothing about, I have never tried to become an architect and I know I'm not one, therefor I call myself hobby architect. This is just for fun, something I've done since a kid. Don't think I don't respect architects or anything. I'm just curious if you think this house is worthless or not. Thank's for the info though, that's very sweet of you.

https://hallbartbyggande.com/wp-content/public_html/2016/04/Kiruna_square_winter_White.jpg 

This is a city they are moving in north Sweden, not all houses have saddle roof. And I think my house would fit anywhere in Sweden when it comes to climate.

​(I guess it's always hard to find a plot for a L-shaped house.)

It isn't necessarily hard to find land to plot an L shape house. The size of the plot of land and factors likt how to best use the site. Then you have to have to apply appropriate foundations for the design of the house and the kind of soil it is on. If the soil has suitable yet relatively uniformed soil structure with a uniform bearing capacity adequate to support the building, you could use a lot of conventional foundations otherwise, you have to shift to more sophisticated foundation systems usually in the category called "deep foundation" systems because they usually go deeper than ordinary foundations. Of course, your design is actually a T-shape (rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees). This type of design requires a plot that is large enough and a driveway that curves around the house to get to the garage on the backside. This doesn't mean the lot needs to be super huge but it would be a lot larger than the kinds of lots of land you would find in a residential neighborhood inside a town. When you are not located inside a town or city itself and in the rural lands outside the cities/towns, you are almost certainly going to be on a septic system because are less likely to have public utilities to the plot of land. In those locations, it is not just about designing the building but the site (plot plan or site plan and how you are going to setup the required infrastructure to support the house. This includes septic systems. Definitely not my favorite subject but it is a reality that needs to be considered. Before we can confidently judge your sketches as having worth. What gives a design its worth to any project is if it addresses the needs and the desires, and performs efficiently. Your design is without a context. A design with a clear project program... without defined needs, desires, and challenges/obstacles it needs to adress. As a building designer, I tend to approach projects with some element where "form" addresses the "function and purpose". This means, it is my responsibility to look at all the issues and devise a complete design solution. Sometimes, that involves consultants. Your sketches would require work on those details before it is suitable to a particular project site. It is the kinds of problem you face with taking schematic/conceptual level plans of stock house plans and try to use it for any particular project or project location. You have about the same level of information as a stock plan advertisement you might find in a newspaper or magazine.

technically, a little less information than what is on a stock house plan advertisement as this is not even a very well-executed drawing or sketch rendering.

That's why you find the plot first, design the house second.

In Swedish it's called typhus, but I don't know what it's called in English.

In English that's a disease.

Hobby Architect, are you sure it's typhus in Swedish. I believe it means exactly what it means in English... "Typhoid Fever"... Typhus Disease.

Yes. https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhus

typ = type/sort or typical, hus = house, so a typical house, perhaps from a catalog or prefabricated of some sort.

ok, thank you for clarifying (both HobbyArchitect and randomised). In English (mainly speaking from United States perspective) - What this is called is "pre-drawn house plans" or "stock house plans" or catalog house plans or a variety of terms. There is a variety of terms. When we talk about the plan books like the Sear Roebruck catalogs of house plans, then yes. Today, we really don't have books like that anymore but there are websites for that stuff.

Kind of ironic that they use a term that also means a particular disease in Swedish language. 

There's not enough information to really tackle that question with any sort of seriousness. But, maybe more importantly, since you're just doing this for funsies, it doesn't matter. Work on your lineweights.

Draw a section?

Without knowing the project site, the buildings orientation, and a few sections through the living room this cannot be answered.

This is why architecture is site dependent.  

^THIS IS WHY ARCHITECTURE IS MORE THAN BASIC PLANS

fixed it

She did provide elevations of sort . . . .kind of . . . .

What do you want me to do, make up plots or look for plots on Google maps or plots for sale...?

This house would have been perfect on the plot I grew up on.

If you were serious about your hobby then you'd find a real site. Since it's a theoretical project the site doesn't have to be vacant or for sale - it dose have to exist though. All of this information could be found through your local municipality. Not that you care - you're just a troll.

Well, place it where I grew up then.

Where is it located? How is the structure oriented? Are there any adjacent structures or landscape? How about trees? Are there skylights? What's your ceiling height? What material is the floor? The walls? The ceiling? Where are your windows? What's the sill / head height? What's the SHGC on the glass? What interior lighting is there? etc. etc.

You can get as detailed or as vague as you want. People make entire careers doing daylighting studies for a reason. It's not a hobby. 

Look, it's obvious that you find some joy in this, which is cool and I'm trying not to be overly cynical about it. But just FYI I think the aim in most of these replies is to not give you answers but gently steer you towards asking the right questions. Like I said above, this doesn't really matter for what you're doing. I'd encourage you to focus more on space adjacencies and flow. Learn to draw sections. Look at three-dimensional massing. Humans don't live in floorplans. We live in the vertical. The lineweights comment above wasn't flippant, you ought to work on clearly communicating your ideas. Look at drawings done by architects and mimic their style until you develop your own. Now go have fun.

It's just a simple sketch before I draw it in detail in 3D on my computer, just so you know.

Great idea, didn't think about it. :-)

No idea who that is. Must be a severe noob.

Hard to criticise when there is so little effort in the design or representation of the space qualities. We've all repeated this to you ad nauseum on more than one occasion.

Wow way to gender assume.

Weird you critisized the first sketches then.

The first sketches were not any better. 

Walls have thickness 

Doors have panels and swing directions and long dead end corridors are only good for books like The Shinning

I see you sharpened your pencil.

If you model it accurately then it should be enough. In fact - it will probably answer your own questions. Then again you really don't care. You're just a troll.

Ah sketchup (make). Making lay people think they can architecture since 2004.

i love the lack of ambition for a blank slate project.

I don't diss SketchUp. It's an okay tool for quick and dirty rendering a 3d model. It has its intended purposes but in professional hands, it can actually be decently used with decent results.

but you can afford pens and paper. Use them for drawing spaces instead of boxes on plans.

That's because you are not a professional and even then, if you had professional skills, you can make 3d rendering with paper & pencil and also do the drafting. Architects done that for quite some time before the invention of AutoCAD. You might consider downloading Nanocad.

It's generally compatible with AutoCAD. I have seen weird quirks issues from time to time when taking a CAD drawing produced in Nanocad to AutoCAD and vice versa. 

I do it in SketchUp, do you think I should draw detailed on paper instead?

SketchUp is not the best tool for drafting. For conceptual 3d models, it's fine. For drafting, it is best to use Autocad or a clone of that program like Nanocad (which you can download for free by the way).

Drafting by paper & pencil is okay but you might actually want to buy some Architectural scale rulers that are in metric scale for what you would be using in Sweden.

For 2d drafting, free, Nanocad ( https://nanocad.com/products/nanocad-free/ ) can be used.

For plans and orthgraphic elevation views, you can draft it in Nanocad or pretty much any traditional drafting can be done in Nanocad. 3d modeling, you would need to pay for a subscription. SketchUp free could be useful and that its free without some of the features of the Pro edition. For a hobbyist like yourself, you should be able to use both and you can import CAD line drawings from Nanocad and use it in SketchUp so you can take your 2d floor plan and work on modeling the elevation for a 3d model view. It takes time learning these programs to get pretty good with it.

Thanx, but that only seem to work for Windows. I know SketchUp is not made for making 2D plans though wich is a bit of a hell for me. What I like with drawing in the computer is that you get the exact measurements.

My advice to you is to try to worry less about 2d plans or exact measurements. SketchUp is a good tool for beginning to understand three dimensions. Lean into it.

Didn't I say I draw in 3D?

You can use 2d information to model a 3d object in say SketchUp but what is important is to develop your skills in THINKING in 3D and communicate in 2d and 3d.

There are significant differences between that example and the double-loaded apartment building-like corridor in your original plan above.

Like what...?

the differences are excessively obvious.

For the same reason z1111 mentioned?

Of course, what do you mean.

These corridors go to interesting places.

Yeah, tha t's what I asked.

No they are afraid they will be negative to a real, good architect.

These people humble. Yeah, that was the joke of the day. 

Those corridors go somewhere (a space
). Yours don't go anywhere.

*doesn't*

My guess is people just don’t see the fun in starring in your Game of Trolls…

​No one should have replied then.

Proto has a point. There is only so much people are willing to spend time critiquing your work. Why? Most people have other things they are interested in. Additionally, unless they are paid, there is only so much any one person is going to want to spend. We aren't paid to teach you an entire curriculum in architecture. Proto is suggesting you might want to take some courses in architecture from somewhere. You might not need to go through an entire curriculum to attain a degree but the training will further your skills development even if you don't end up making this your career. 

HobbyArchitect, there may be some online programs that might be useful. Even taking that curriculum from SFIA (or whatever they want to call themselves) without an official degree from a non-accredited institution might be useful (it could cost some money) and it would be helpful to develop your skills even if the program is worthless for architectural licensing or anything like that but in Sweden, you don't need a license anyway but the quality of education would be more useful for professional training but even that program like the old "correspondence schools" of architectural studies can be useful in helping you develop those skills of drafting, modeling, designing. There are many options other than SFIA and I would probably suggest them and others can. Bottom line: There are actual skills you need to develop in a lot of areas. 

You can do that and you will gain some skills and will over time show in your ability to draw but you have to take the step to develop those skills further than reiterating the same old drawing method you been doing which is very limited.

Keep it up! Ever considered making 3D models by hand?

This is still 2d.

SSTduds... I have work to give you if you have that much free time. Hint, it's a house... and it involves plans... and a real site.

Don't mistake ADHD for idleness!

I'd love to design a house though. It's been years!

Have fun doing it tduds.

Will make it in 3D too soon.

I know the SU is 2D, that’s why I suggested physical models

A different approach you might find helpful is to post pictures or links to built architecture you admire (you seem to have a very clear interest in minimalist / rationalist modernism) and ask us to comment on them. You'll learn a lot about evaluating the design of a building when you ask architects to do it.

Don't feed the trolls mid. 

I highly suspect that the 'design' posted here was plagiarized by Hobby. 

 She's done this several times in the past. 

The most notable was her 'prank' design. Hobby said she posted a design from a famous architect just to show that we'd have issue with anything she posted. The thing is it wasn't a prank or a troll post. A couple of users here let me know that Hobby only admitted to her 'prank' because they privately called out her plagiarism and threatened to expose her if she didn't come clean. Hobby then made the post into a 'prank'.

I believe she has tried to pass off other's work as her own here at least twice before. She gets defensive about constructive criticism and doesn't seem to learn anything. In other words, a troll.

"It's like if I posted one-sentence summaries of my ideas for novels to a writers' forum and asked if they will be good books." Perfect analogy, thank you.

Her website has half a dozen almost identical house plans so it's pretty safe to assume she's recycling the same 2 or 3 "inspiration" houses for her own explorations. Everyone needs a hobby I guess.

I was willing to give her advice until I learned how dishonest she is. I don't deal with liars.

I am not aware of Hobby Architect's gender. Is there a post somewhere that indicates that which I may have overlooked or not noticed.

^Ricky, I recall it from previous posts where she linked to her site. I may be mistaken tho.

I went to the website on wixsite and so far... at the moment haven't found anything to indicate gender specificially. It could be a vibe based on word choices that might indicate such but even then it is a difficult one to tell. You might be right or mistaken and I might have missed some of the previous posts or not recall it... which we can understand.

...

“ I believe she has tried to pass off other's work as her own here at least twice before. She gets defensive about constructive criticism and doesn't seem to learn anything. In other words, a troll.”

But it’s fun when people here try to rip someone a new one and burn a plan to the ground that is in fact a copy of proper architecture with a capital A…

I'm always up for dethroning Architecture but I can't stand dishonesty so I'm happy to cut the OP down a couple of notches as well.

I find it dishonest (a little) when people receive different critiques/criticism based on the assumption of them being a hobby architect, when they in fact might post some solid work done by a proper professional. That's not really trolling it is putting up a mirror for some...People apparently can't look beyond their own importance or something. I don't know, I enjoyed reading how people fall for a hobbyist trickster.

I mostly agree, rando, and actually liked this floor plan--which based on past experience made me even more sure that Hobby did not come up with it herself. If she did, good job to her. The devil is in the details but it could be a great house. Maybe she really did design it, maybe not, who knows. All I know is that she can't be trusted.

Part of why I agree with you is the fact that I'm not an architect, though I'm not a hobbyist either, and I hate it when people assume that I don't have skills or talent just because I have to call myself a designer. I also have many serious hobbies, so the word hobby doesn't bother me either. I'm going strictly on past performance of this poster. 

Rando wrote: But it’s fun when people here try to rip someone a new one and burn a plan to the ground that is in fact a copy of proper architecture with a capital A…

You can still criticize the works of an Architects though. To think that an architect can't disagree with the layout of a floor plan done by an Architect is obtuse.

WG, people were treating what was posted by OP as something unworthy to be called architecture, as something done by a hack, a boorish amateur when in fact it wasn't...and they were found out for not being able to see architecture when it is staring them right in the face...and now their egos are hurt, they simply can't handle it, it's hilarious.

Chad, people were criticising what they saw based on assumptions of the person responsible for posting the drawings and you know it.

Rando, there are multiple storylines going on here. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you're focusing on one while I'm focusing on another. Both can be true. Also, presentation matters, regardless of source.

The thing with Bowie is he was clever when he made the ruse. You just bastardize someone else's designs with terrible drawings. You've literally missed every single constructive comment here and you keep repeating the same bland plans over and over.

I don't believe you Hobby. You plagiarized other's work - passed it off as yours - and got caught. You only said it was a prank when you were threatened to be exposed. 

 Don't let the door hit you on the way out you dishonest hack.

HobbyArchitect, the way you drew it, lost most if not all of the character defining elements of the original Architect's work. In a sense, it's like looking at a cheap Chinese builders' knockoff of work by Cliff May. The knockoff might be derived or inspired from but was poorly executed that the knock off actually looks like crap but the original looks brilliant. It is about the execution. When looking at your execution of the floor plan, its hard to tell because your proportions are off, the use of single lines with nothing to indicate the wall thickness, very poorly drawn elevation view. The execution was that poorly done that recognizing it to that of the original is difficult as best. After all, even that Swedish Architect is not the first to use an L or T-shape floor plan.

Is the floor plan crap made in SketchUp too?https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.c...

(It's not done yet, I just upload it now and then when I have changed something. 3D will come and so on.)

You see, I have seen similar floor plan typology and building shapes before for quite some time. What makes the design is the finer details of the execution which was clearly lost in you sketching. I wasn't really getting into critiquing such a crude sketch. Sure, if you think out the design and work on the execution of the finer details of the designing of the hope, it might work alright.

I haven't really looked too much at the SketchUp model. I was referring to the original post, for example.

I’m not trying to be unique, just make a decent idea for my dream house.

I agree. Floor plans is often a part of the architectural design process, it is not architecture because architecture is a whole of many different parts of the whole process. As tduds said here and previously, I agree with him in his points made so it is unnecessary to repeat what was finely stated. Architects aren't designing floor plans. They design buildings and elevation is as important and the designing of spaces THREE DIMENSIONALLY. Spatial volume like higher ceiling heights for larger rooms being common treatment among architects to accentuate the experience of the space. I referred to these aspects already so no need to really rehash it.

"I agree with him in his points made so it is unnecessary to repeat what was finely stated." and yet.

As fine as you wrote, I suspect it goes right over "HobbyArchitect's" head so I had to convey that the role of architects is not just about drawing floor plans. It's about the whole process of designing buildings and spatial experience.

Given the number of goodbyes you've made in this thread I am now convinced you're x-jla.

and butchered by Hobby Architect

Who?

An imaginary artist. OP is going meta.

A fictional character by William Boyd.

I thought you were leaving? Bye.

My dude...

That looks like the same site as one of my projects... although mine has a helipad.

Hobby - your gender doesn't matter. Your dishonesty and lack of credibility do matter. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Bye little troll. Next time try harder.

Don't make me do it.

.

Architecture does not exist in two dimensions.

well technically that "architecture" is existing in 3-dimensions.. but it's certainly not fulfilling its potential of the 3rd dimension.

tduds: You have already said that, and I have already said that I will make it in 3D soon. I have already tried a little bit on a similar house, but what to start over with this one.

square: How come?

HobbyArchitect: In the time since you first said you were going to put this in 3d, a student in their first architecture course could have already done it... even if crudely. Have you ever heard of rotate and draw lines in the Z-axis (vertical axis) in Sketchup. It is not that hard. You already drew something in 3d in CAD and imported it. You can use those elevation drawings to compare you're 3d model faces. Lets stop procrastinating.

Ha! I have been doing other stuff too. But thanks for your concern.

tduds, Do what?

Do you mean my website out my architecture or my personal blog.
https://anythingtobelong.tumbl...

Or any of the names on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_architects --- note: two of the architects you mentioned are not "swedish" but were of Finnish and Norwegian origins, respectively. However, it they may have done projects in Sweden but I haven't checked to confirm it so forgive me if I don't mentally recall exactly where all their projects are located.

Heard of this US project where the architect didn't even mention Barragán or Safdie, WTF!

Please see proto's comment above.

What's brilliant about it, to you?

Small yet a good floor plan and very good looking.

it has a nice kok

*kök

Where you can have a good kock.

HobbyArchitect, what are the aspects or attributes of the house in the photo above that you like. This is actually stuff to get you to see and communicate about the architectural design and its character those features that defines the character and it's brilliance or charm that you like. Lets not look at the floor plan. Lets look at the elevation and how the composition of the elements of facade, it's pattern or rhythm, and so forth. Just as rooms and spaces defines spatial composition on the floor plane, lets look at the spatial composition of the elements on the vertical plane. Then look at how the composition of the horizontal plane and vertical planes come together to define the space. It's about composing and visualizing in 3d.... in my mind as well as in the medium. In YOUR words, can you describe what you like about the composition of the elevation view in the photo and how the composition defines its character and the brilliance. In your words, how does the elevation view define the spatial experience and brilliance of the space within in connection with the floor plan.

No I can't because I don't know what all of that means, sorry.

Go take some art courses on the basics and principles of basic design. An introductory course or two in architecture as well. Certain terms I used are described here: ( https://www.cadcrowd.com/blog/what-are-the-principles-of-architectural-design/ ) and https://horacemannptsa.ourschoolpages.com/Doc/Art/12.%20Elements%20of%20Art%20and%20Principles%20of%20Design.pdf

Architectural elements (elements for short) definition: "Architectural elements are the unique details and component parts that, together, form the architectural style of houses, buildings and structures." (Wikipedia).

This concept related to definition of "elements" of any design whether it be fine art, sculpture, industrial art, etc. You can broadly relate them to any elements of the design of visual design (like fine art paintings, sculptures, industrial art, etc. even to the art used in desktop publishing, magazine artwork, books, etc.) They are like visual counterpart to the elements of music.

There are plenty of resources out there on architectural and visual art terminology.

What I am asking is for you to critique the work you are looking at from these architects and designers and to also "see" how the architect/designer defines the character of the buildings they design. Every single architect and most building design professionals on this forum has in some form undergone education in this and studied this either formally (through college/universities) or through self-directed studying with mentors as guides. Some of what I am talking about, I learned aspects of when I was took classes in Art Basic Design with Royal Nebeker as Professor. Some of these concept, I then further connected to architecture when I was studying architecture (through self-directed studying which I looked at numerous course syllabuses and curriculum of architecture degree programs as a model for my own self-study. In addition to those materials, I studied other related subject. I later on had courses in these areas that covered these subject matters and the various concepts, principles, and theories. Some people are more elegant at writing than I am so they can be more elegant in their explanation of the terms, principles, and theories.

When I was referring to elements of the house in the photo above, I was talking about the windows, doors, the balance or pattern of the fenestrations (ps: that's referring to the transparent elements like the windows and doors in this case). When I am referring to composition, I am referring to it in the same sense as in 2d but in the facade plane. Composition refers to how the arrangement of elements within the 'form' of the facade of the elevation going to this outdoor patio. The shape of the 'form' is a rectangular form. Right? There is particular terms for 2d and 3d elements. Rooms are spatial volumes and in architecture serving a function of some kind. Function is more than its mere utility. There are functions of expression. Functions of experiences. How these functions are orchestrated defines the experience of a place. What I am asking you is to challenge you to see the design and brilliance and identify those 'elements' and how the architect (the artist) orchestrated the composition of shapes, composition of volumes, the use of textures, color, etc. and to express why it is brilliant to you. This last part, I can't write for you. Only you can write how it is brilliant to you. I am in no way dissing the design. If you can even answer half of what I am asking, you would have gain more understanding and insight in what Architecture is....... yes, with a capital 'A' as in the art of Architecture.

Another site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_design_elements_and_principles (although it's Wikipedia, there is some other sites and referenced sources which you might want to go through and look at).

The term "Form" - in art (architecture being a field within art) can have multiple meanings like mentioned here: https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-form-in-art-182437

Here's a definition of form in architecture: https://www.firstinarchitecture.co.uk/architecture-design-basics-form/ but here is another reference of some credibility: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/form#:~:text=Form%20refers%20to%20the%20shape%20or%20configuration%20of%20a%20building.&text=A%20number%20of%20aspects%20must,texture%2C%20color%2C%20and%20light. Here is a definition of form and other associated terms, as expressed by an Architect: https://www.yourownarchitect.com/properties-of-form-in-architecture/

Here's another one from Andrew Hawkings at Life of an Architect website: https://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/architecture-form-function-object/

Here's a book on this subject: "Architecture form, space, and order" by Francis D.K. Ching https://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Francis-D-K-Ching/dp/1118745086

An Architect not only is thinking about design in 2d, and 3d but also in 4d (when thinking about design in space-time as we talk about the movement in space and time). Like the experience of space as you move from one point to another like the experience you may have as you move from exhibit to exhibit in a museum that gives you an experience of the narrative. As you go through a work of ARCHITECTURE, every step, turn, through the space is experiential. In addition, the experience of a place at different times of day, or different times of a year. Landscape architecture is an experience that is dynamic like when the landscape is dynamic and living. The time when the flowers bloom, and the time when the leafy trees transition colors throughout the year. Like during the spring and summer, the leaves are green, then when autumn comes, it changes through colors, and then when winter comes, the trees are bare because the trees shed their leaves. The snow comes, and you see, the landscape is a different experience different times of the year. Movement through landscape (space) over time. Architecture experience during the morning, noon, afternoon, evening, and night. You're not just thinking in one present moment in time.

We don’t have courses like that in my town. That would be online then maybe. We used to have one about architecture but I have only gone to one about urban planning. 

I have one book in Swedish, but I con’t say I’ve read it. :) https://www.smakprov.se/bok/pocket/arkitektens-handbok-2020-9789144137964

Thanx for all your advice, you didn’t have to do that. But I prefer to use my eyes, I’m not a word person, especially not in English. But I understand it’s a good exercise when studying architecture.

The book you mentioned is fine for more of the technical side of architecture. There is basically two broad sides to architecture (aside from the practice/business side of things), there is the artistic side of the architectural designing and the technical side (science and regulations that impacts the design like building standards regulation that regulates how the building is to be built, width of egress, egress door widths, minimum ceiling height, etc.). This book is more on the technical side. Note: Architecture is a profession where the architect would be thinking both artistically and technically... sometimes simultaenously.

You know what would really help? A fucking site section.

Site section:

I thought you were leaving?

Don’t click on the thread, baby.

Nope. 

You're the one that got upset when people questioned your sincerity and credibility then threatened to leave. You haven't left. I'll continue to post here if I want. 

Deal with it troll.

HobbyArchitect, In Sweden, there is not an architectural licensing program. There is a professional association and a sort of certification based on completing certain degrees (hence those letters like MSA and SAR, respectively). The SAR designation is kind of like getting the CPBD certification and MSA is like the AIBD designation by those who join the AIBD as professional members. 

NOTE: This is probably the closest analogy in the U.S. as there isn't quite exactly as close of an analogy with architectural licensing in the U.S. 

This is because, in the U.S., you have to be licensed. In Sweden, the title architect is much like the title building designers in the U.S. The main difference between the title architect in Sweden and the title building designer in the U.S. is that in Sweden, an architect can design any type of building and size as the title and practice is not regulated by licensure. A building designer in U.S., is unregulated and is usuallty used by those not licensed as Architects, and without the architect license is limited in scope of practice for projects in the U.S. as defined by each state's laws. 

In Sweden, the title that defines what I do is "Architect". "Building Designer" would merely be an somewhat awkward synonym. A certification of CPBD through the AIBD would be somewhat comparable to the minimum credentials of SAR certification. I wouldn't necessarily require the SAR certification. Local officials may not be familiar with the AIBD's CPBD certification so I could face issues of local officials hesitation for accepting a set of plans prepared by someone not an SAR. 

However, the type of projects you are drawing/sketching would not require an architect license in the U.S. and are the kinds of projects I work on. Therefore, in Sweden, you have to assess the architect more by their portfolio of work and types of projects they have worked on. You probably don't need a complete formal architectural education and training and get the SAR certification to design house. Really, you don't.

 If you design commercial, institutional, governmental, etc. type buildings, you probably need it to be competitive and have the experience and portfolio of work to qualify you for such work because someone or some committee of the client's organization that is making the decisions, is probably not going to select you to do something they can't do. 

You don't necessarily need to get a degree from an educational institution to learn how to become an architect and work on projects. There are different ways to obtain knowledge and study the resources from many avenues. 

However, to get good at any of it and be competent, you need to put the effort to learn. You can't just over a weekend learn what it takes to be a competent architect at any scale of building for human occupancy. It's literally impossible.

You got upset and threatened to leave several times. Yet you're still here.

Frank Lloyd Wright did that. Others have done it. Houses are usually simpler and less complicated and if you comply with prescriptive code requirements, you will usually be fine even if the first designs are not as good. Education (Learning) doesn't stop the moment you go into practice.

Regarding Linus Fernstrom, he probably has some more experienced people than him employed such as an engineer and others. He may conceptually sketch out the designs and the rest of the work of putting into a professional set of plans for construction is probably done by people who work for him. There was an architect in Astoria, Oregon who learned a 3 year curriculum in architecture in a single year. That meant, he spent something like 15-18 hours a day, 5-6 days a week or so learning and studying and doing the curriculum work. The reason he was able to do that is he put more than 8-10 hours a day that a student averagely spends during a day studying and doing the homework, as well as not taking downtime for vacation like you find when going to college. Therefore, 2-3 years can be crammed in a year. Another factor is, when you are under such mentoring and study regement, you are going through the curriculum at your rate which for some students is significantly faster than the average pace of teaching a curriculum in a classroom where the pace is set by the slowest and dumbest idiot student in the room. Realistically, a 5 year architecture curriculum can be done in 1.5 years by a highly gifted student good at learning and grasping the subject matter and learning the skills and doing the work at that student's pace. What slows things down is repetition and the slowest & dumbest student in the class asking so many questions in trying to grasp what was taught to them. A 3 year curriculum is going to consist of about 2 years of architecture and 1 year of general education. A student can learn what they need to learn to designing and drafting houses in a 2 year associates degree curriculum which can easily be done in 1 year for students who are committed and diligent in putting 12-14 hours a day. I looked at Linus's work, most of it is pretty simple and straightforward. If he has or works with an engineer or consults one then his designs should be able to be adequately spec'ed for the structural matters. His designs are rather simplistic facade. Much like the works of Mies van der Rohe, Richard Neutra, Le Corbusier. So, if he's patterning off their style, it's not really hard to design such buildings with concrete, wood stud framing (wrapped in drywall and smooth finish cement panels) and painted white, then frame for good spans and large openings. A little bit of detailed structural engineering might be needed but then to make the design work, the structural engineer does his or her engineering magic like using a pre-tensioned or post-tensioned high compressive strength concrete capable of supporting such roof load over a large span. I can do projects like that. The need is clients that are seeking such types of projects. Locally, it's unlikely. Linus Fernstrom's work appears to be limited but his designs aren't entirely complicated and supplement his limited extent of education with a fully trained structural engineer, it is not really a big problem. In time, his knowledge and skills will develop further and he'll be able to do more advance designs.

There was a building designer name John Yeon who designed a rather nice house in the Portland, Oregon area called the Watzek House. A little google searches and you'll see the house designed by him. He designed it when he was 26 years old.What was interesting with him, he only had one semester at Stanford. He did have mentors and a little bit of time when he was 16 years old learning from an Architect. Then he went to Stanford for a semester and then left that and continued through non-formal mode of learning. He had some mentorship with Pietro Belluschi. Not sure if he was officially employed or simply doing his own work at the office of A.E. Doyle (ran by Pietro Belluschi at the time). In the osmosis of the atmosphere of the architectural studio, I suspect he picked up some things along the way.

Maybe I should start a firm then, haha!

At the moment, I wouldn't recommend it. If you are very wealthy then perhaps. However, I wouldn't recommend you starting one if you are going to be doing all the designing and engineering. Sure, you can offset your deficiencies with engineers and others who may be architecturally trained and have as employees but you should shore up your own knowledge and skills in designing buildings and not just drawing floor plans. You should extend your knowledge and skillset. I understand that with the "haha" part, you were stating in jest. 

However, lets not forget that some of these individuals that I mentioned, had probably informally studying architecture like John Yeon, before he went to Stanford like a period of having an architect as a mentor when he was 16 and continued learning about the subject matter, then a semester at Stanford where they probably instilled some of the most important fundamental principles in the introductory architecture courses. Then he went on and was working on his designs in the office of A.E. Doyle where there was Pietro Belluschi and numerous other architects and architectural apprentices/interns whom were all in some form mentors to John Yeon. All these individuals may have provided various inputs to the young John Yeon and that knowledge is valuable. Not much different than how architects you went through an experienced based path to licensure and obtained their license. The key is, they kept learning while working. This is true even with projects for clients. 

Frank Lloyd Wright's own story isn't much different, either. What you should know is most of Frank Lloyd Wright's work is residences. In fact, Frank rarely venture into doing non-residential buildings on his own until after some years designing residences aside from work he did while he was apprenticing under Silsbee and Sullivan and a boathouse. He did study a little engineering but not long in the formal setting. Since he was probably already adept to some degree in mathematics, he could have continued his understanding of engineering principles for structures through the available books on the subject matter at the time. He did also have some architectural mentoring and for a short time, 6 years of apprenticeship with Joseph Silsbee and Louis Sullivan, collectively. He opened his own practice in 1893 and then established a studio in Oak Park, Ill. In 1897, Illinois adopted the first architectural licensing laws in the U.S. This may have somewhat impacted what kind of projects Frank Lloyd Wright (FLW) was allowed to work on... depending on the exact language of the Illinois architect act of 1897 as well as how things were enforced at the time. FLW primarily focused on residential buildings and some churches and other low-rise buildings. 

These low-rise structures are actually much simpler to design properly and safely as taller buildings (high-rises and skyscrapers). Even medium rise buildings are going to have an increase in sophistication of design. Although, in those days, they are simpler to design and deal with than what we are designing today. 

Today, things are more complicated than they were. Therefore, when I recommend developing your knowledge and skills like finding an experienced architect as a mentor and develop your skills and knowledge areas which we can point to.... then every developing such work with them guiding and critiquing... even informally, redlining things for you to point out issues (with mock project... as in not real projects but assessed for compliance with real work). 

Do that for a few years, then you might want to venture in doing the work for real but stick with residential projects at first. Don't do things too much that you would fail the client. You'll need to be able to execute not only floor plans but also elevation views, section views, ceiling views, details, foundation plans, framing plan, etc. You'll also need to develop skills for rendering. Sketchup can also help in that front. You need to develop in those areas. 

You'll need to learn about how to properly prepare plans not only for conceptual floor plans like what you are doing but full technical construction documents which you'll need to do before you should open your own firm. It would be a rough road if you don't. Especially in a more litigious environment than it used to be.

I stated this info so even if you are serious that you have been told you need to develop those skills.

I just like leading the sad little trolls on by giving them attention that doesn't feed their vanity or narcissism.  Like any narcissist this type of non validating attention infuriates them and I get to live in their heads rent free. 

That would technically make both you and Hobby Architect, a couple of trolls. Just saying what you probably already know is as obvious. Some on here is probably annoyed by that. I'm kind of ignoring it.