"if we're going to wear uniforms, man, let's everybody wear something different." -- tommy chong

sounds like you're in the middle of this mess, so don't take offense, it's not directed at you. but:

i would advise that y'all start thinking about what you're drawing and stop thinking about how you are drawing it. best thing to do, probably, is to go with the more refined standards and everyone who isn't used to them -- get used to them. there should be no debate about it.

i have no idea -- no idea! -- why architects are so invested in the aesthetic quality of drawings but take so little time and care when it comes to what's in them. it is absurd and like most of this profession's little neuroses -- it starts in school.

i remember seeing a set of norman foster's CDs once. they looked like crap. but they were readable and lordy, the canary wharf station on the jubilee line sure is nice.

As ochona said, debate on this is a waste of time. The existing refined standards should be accepted and used by everyone. Within a month of working on the new standards they will be second nature, even to those who are reluctant to change. The firm got merged, change is inevitable.

We always used to joke about the the United States Postal Service, as there was always reference to their Standard. When this came up time and time again all the low lifes in the crowd me included would be thinking: "The Postal Standard is there is no Standard." Which was most of the time true when working with what they called their "Kit of Parts." So now that I have let the cat out of the bag, you will from here on out will fully understand why their buildings are so ugly and why you have to stand in line for a half and hour every time you go there.

I agree with ochana and liberty bell... The old guard needs to accept the new standards and deal with it.

In my own experience, I generally favor following AIA / NCS standards as closely as possible... The standards are already set up, most firms use them (or at least a close enough variation), and they work... No need for each firm to re-invent the wheel. Besides, the whole point of standards is to make it easy to share drawings between disciplines and for new hires to quickly get up to speed when starting new jobs. Firms insisting on their own "home brew" standards defeat the entire purpose of even having CAD standardization.

I love this website! Thank you all!

maybe see if there are a couple of good ideas in the other standards, like the way they name their files, or some nice symbols or blocks, that can be incorporated? It'll make the 'old guard' people feel better. I think it's not just a question of weaker players latching on, but the smaller firm members may be feeling like this is the big firm people telling them they were doing everything wrong. So using a couple of their ideas would show that you guys value their input and are really considering everything.

as part of the old guard (maybe) i DO think standards are impt, and that sometimes the old ones are worth continuing. sometimes different ideas are better. if everybody agrees, great. sometimes different ideas aren't better, just different.

of primary imptce, though, is that, WHATEVER the standard, everybody uses it. it can really screw things up when everybody invents their own ways to do things.

Problem with standards is that everyone have their own , these are usealy the same as everyone's else ,it's all the same informations but everyon's spreadsheet are a tiny bit different different set up bside ;

The danish building authorities been trying for some 20 years to make the architects use computers and had seven projects ,trying to figure out standards and logistics ------- just the last try been making jobs for round 80 mill d.Kr. and all in all I guess the effords been up round atleast 600 ;ill D.Kr. and guess the "results" ; they agreaed that "everyone" shuld start every project with a 3D model but the only use for this, is to calculate the area to be painted , and the volume of concrete to be used. --- that's it.
The arears to be painted, the walls sadly seem to great a challance to be calculated by the computer so, to do this eveyone must use the tradisional floor plans to find the X and the tradisional 3D sections to find the Y to calculate the arears by hand. ----- The rest are just the old methods put into a spreadsheet But, to do this right it have costed near 600 mill. just to discuss the way's to route the logistics and , everything ended back with the old floor plans.
I alway's wondered as I never thought calculating volumes and arears from a 3D drawing shuld be any challance to talk about ; I mean it's all there but to tell how bad things realy are, I can tell you that even we talk about CAD drawings, then drawings are still scaled , --- as you know no one would scale a 3D drawing as it ruin the oppotunity to make direct calculations directly from the 3D drawing, but just that fact tell how much the old architect generation been fighting the computer and, if they couldn't fight it, then they could make the programs as copy of how things was done before the computer, now that is not progress and BIM ruled like this is vorse than each studio or office having their own standards ; in this case BIM worked reversing the progress.
BTW. a Blob ,why use a BIM standard for that -- it's not square it's not bricks, the volumes and framework is calculated with the CAD program it's not just stored values , I say that exactly the Blob prove that it is not BIM the way it's been develobed that is the future. What would be the use of BIM with a Blob ?

OK...next question...do you call xref entities...

"backgrounds" or "bases"?

First let me say that I know that standards are important.

However: the best advice I can give you is: DO NOT be one of the people in your firm who spends a lot of time and/or becomes emotionally invested in CAD standards. Well, not unless your long-range plans involve being a CAD manager of a firm, or perhaps a 3D guru, this is not worth your time and energy.

I say this as someone who spent too much time as an intern worrying about and arguing over and refining CAD standards. In hindsight this is the worst possible thing I could have been doing. It's stressful, it isn't a long-lasting contribution because it's always in flux as the firm and software change and controlling personalities change. It's not billable time and rarely results in immediately-discernible increases in quality or productivity or - most importantly - profit. And it takes away time that you could be spending involved in projects at a more primary level.

After you have a year or two of experience nobody is going to care about, or want to see "developed and implemented firm's CAD standards" on your resume. This only pegs you as someone who spent a lot of time on unbillable, internal office tasks. And every office you ever go to will have their own standars - and as you're already seeing in your current firm, people tend to be ridiculously territorial about these things and don't like new people, in particular, coming in and messing with their standards - regardless of their experience and expertise in that area. So it won't get you a job (well, unless you're applying for CAD manager.)

Please, take my advice and spend as much of your time as possible on construction-related activities, field observation, design and production, and anything that is billable and/or DIRECTLY related to being profitable to the firm. Be involved in the design, production, and construction administration of as many projects as possible - and document that fully and get lots of good photos of completed projects whenever possible. These are the things that will help you develop a portfolio that will carry you beyond the point in your career where your biggest concerns are software-related.

Leave the contentious, often-futile, ever-changing matters of CAD standards (and font choices, and materials library organization systems, and detail libraries...) to others whenever possible. Let them waste the time hashing it out and writing the new standard. Then just follow the new standard, even if it is flawed. Or subvert it if you like. But do not care about it any more than is absolutely necessary. Trust me.

i usually call them "xrefs", but i haven't been putting the cover letter on my TPS forms either - i guess i misplaced the memo. i don't think you will ever come to a resolution in regards to CAD standards. i have worked for 3 firms and all have used the AIA as a guide. what i hate the most is when you have standards and then some fool decides to not draw with "By Layer" and don't use the same origin point - makes using xrefs difficult.

Wow... I wish somebody had been around to tell me all that seven years ago.

(in response to Bloopox)

well said, Bloopox. I agree with you, and I'm glad you made such an eloquent statement. (I don't have the energy right now to say what you said.)

In my experience, firms' layering standards are always in flux. "The new projects are to be based on the new layering standards. Oh - but what about those large projects that were started a year ago and won't be complete for another year and a half? They'll stay on the old layering standard." arggg!



re: nomenclature for x-refs. We call them "backgrounds," but it's a term I had never heard until I started working for this firm. I still feel like it might be a foreign term to some, but I use it in conversation because it's part of the firm's culture.

I hate that term "backgrounds". It is heard quite a bit down here in LA. I also hear "base plans", which seems more inter-office, where "backgrounds" are suitable for consultants.

I grew up on "pop". Now I say "soda".

When having to bail out a project team on their deadline and realizing that there is no consistent CAD standard, I think of this...

When CAD goes BAD