sir, if things are as you say, worse now, why do you believe that is true? i think somehow blaming it on cad makes little sense. the more you look into this issue, i believe you will find it is as much about you as it is about the people you are hiring.
CAD will kill the profesion why pretend, why fight it. The battle lies elsewhere , the battle is about if this CAD thing, now shuld be used in a creative manner or, if it must stay as a rewrite of just the tradisional methods. Architecture can fight it, fight it in many way's ,and allready CAD is just serving ,pretending the old logistics offcaurse computers is perfect for that, but realy there are other way's to realise the build works, than thru the logistics ---- today the designer can deliver everything ,much better, with more relevant way's of putting things together, in fact the computer is at best, being ordered to calculate a structure assembly, where just asking for the memmory to store bills is something quite different, than allowing the computer generate the structural assembly .
what?
If you read my previous entries I am all for every possible tool available whether it be CAD or Legos...
but going back to the original post:
the "drafters" or technical people who taught Frit are still around to a "capacity"...however the "younger" staff does not seem to be interested in anything other than picking up red-lines...They don't want to understand how buildgings are put together...there seems to be an emphasis in the Current Tool (CAD/BIM) than the actual "Art" of the profession.
Ok?
J3 - so you are saying that as a part of the "younger" staff, I am less likely to want to understand how buildings are put together and likely to emphasize CAD/BIM? Who are these "younger" folks that just want to pick up red-lines? I understand you are generalizing but it seems totally absurd to me.
You know, this is a lot of crow (pardon the pun) about nothing. The contractor is still going to ignore the drawings and build it the way they think it should be done anyway. It doesn't matter if the drawings were drafted or printed.
J3...i see your point...i think universities are so focused on the "romantic" design approach to education (which i think they should be) that most recent graduate attack technical drafting and construction documentation as a technical requirement and don't look at it as craft.
I personally think it's part of the professional education (internship) to introduce the notion that design/technical/documentation are all linked and integral to each other; and that there is a craft to documentation, and how a construction set goes together (and that has to do with these new tools...when hand drafting was king, drafting was naturally viewed as a craft, w/ computer, it's almost viewed as technical procedure);I like to think, that any decent recent graduate is interested in understanding how a building goes together.
Your ratio 1:10 seems low, but that can be due to your region, or to the type of work your office does (don't mean to offend, but if your office does high end residential, a lot of talented young architects, will not be interested in applying);
Lastly, if you look at the younger crowd here on archinect, you will see that recent graduates are commited to architecture, and it's the duty of the professors, and professionals to guide this young commitment and ensure that it's carried through out all aspects of the profession///
Forget CAD for a moment. Until relatively recently, part of the learning process for young architects was working side by side with professional drafters who had acquired not only the technical skill but also the practical knowledge to detail a project. This was their job. Today, there are fewer and fewer people like this for a young architect lo learn from.
I think this is a bad thing. It's not because the computer is inhearantly better or worse than a pencil. I don't think it's a product of anyones laziness are a general lack of interest in any aspect of the job, it's just what has happened. And I wonder what the long term impact of not having those people around anymore is going to be.
A perfesser of mine used to say that computers were the new zip-a-tone (for those of you who remember that.) Another boss of mine though that every rendering we did was, in a sense, hand painted--i.e. painstakingly drawn.
These older guys completely misunderstood the potential power of programs like Revit. Sure, drafting and beautiful drawings have fallen by the wayside. But don't we now have a completely new and arguably beautiful set of graphic conventions to contend with?
I think it's bullshit for older architects to bemoan how younger architects "don't know anything." They know as much as you do, just different stuff. How many sixty year olds can use Maya or Rhino or even Revit for that matter?
Also, nice buildings are still being built--more than ever, one might argue. Isn't that proof that, as a profession, we haven't completely lost our head? That the old style of mentorship maybe wasn't as essential as we once thought?
Ok, yes I'm generalizing and venting a little.
Frit. Like you I worked with and learned most of what I know about putting a building together from a professional drafter or very experienced architect.
Having said that the group of us who have replaced this outgoing/dying group are finding that the new staff are not as receptive or interested in this "old" method...(maybe we need to adjust)
farwest1 yes, but those detailing these "nice" buildings are being detailed by the mid-30's to 40's group (maybe some older, but they are not the partners...etc.)
Sure it's not everyone, there are plenty of exceptions. I am sure that if you are posting on Archinect you are part the exception. This is an industry wide problem with all the large/top design firms. Sure there is less of this problem if you are working with one of the Starchitects because if you are working there you are driven and are open to the abuse/but high rewards with the exposure they can offer.
working side by side with the old technical master - now instead we get to follow the master to meetings with marketing people telling us what to draw, then over to the attorney's office to get our approved zoning package PD approval which happens through the magic of just being a fucking zoning attorney apperantly, then over to the contractor's office to get yelled at for being overbudget and at the end of the day be asked to reduce the fee by 15% or they have no choice but to go elsewhere, "Its already designed, what do you need more fee for", as they transfer that fee to the grasping hands of the real estate Broker. Honestly - If they could, they'd cut us out all together.
i always find broad, sweeping generalizations to be unhelpful and maybe
naive? especially the 'your generation just isn't interested...doesn't work
hard...blah blah blah..' kind of post.
is it possible that your firm doesn't do work that attracts top level
talent? and as you said is it just because you're in south florida?
also not a hotbed of architects..and that the sample size you're
taking survey from is some of the people that just aren't all that
interested in architecture? and just want to be near the beach?
i'd be interested in the cross section of 20 somethings here in nyc,
chicago or LA..i'd imagine it'd be a different view..as you said.
i personally was detailing buildings early through today...from 24-
34...and some of that was redlines..but i found redlines to be
educational...not just mind numbing work (at least not always.)
i just don't think you're giving enough/any credit to the younger
members of the profession.
It's not the firm.
+ I made it a point to be part of the interview process in order to influence who is eventually hired, which has helped.
Yes, it is regional...is it naive/generalizations? maybe...maybe not. Having come from the NE, it is a little disheartening not to have the energy you get in the big cities (see above)
Is it me? maybe...I just don't see the same interest and intrigue in "some" of my co-workers that I have. I'm trying to make it interesting...just going through a rough patch with the team that I have to work with (young and inexperienced) On one end I want them to solve the problem themselves (with guidance) on the other hand I want to give them the answer...and be done with it.
let me ask you this: in your early days of detailing, did you know all the answers? did you seek to answer most questions yourself, or were the solutions given + explained to you? who taught you how to arrange the details? did you give thought to how and where they look graphically (lineweights...hatching)?
if you did great....but some HERE are not interested...
I've only been out of school for a year and a half now. My first position right out of school was picking up redlines in CAD, I did that job for 8 months. I then got another job picking up redlines in Revit, which i've been at for 6 months or so now. I've learned 10x more by working in Revit, rotating around in the model and seeing how things fit together and being able to ask many more questions because with Revit I can see the little parts that don't fit together properly and which prompt questions.
I would find it excruciating to go back to doing projects in CAD and I suspect that when I go to find my next job that using Revit to its full capacity will be qualification #1 that I look for in a firm.
I think its relevant to note that my initial design experience was with Video Games, designing the environments that the player moves around in. Before I knew how to design in plan or in section I was designing in perspective, then stringing the perspectives together to create spaces.
I find drawing in section and plan to be extremely limited, but I understand the necessity given the tools and methods of construction that are prevalent today.
I am very young, I recognize that I still don't know jack about how buildings actually come together. That said, I don't think its my tools of design and drafting(modelling) that are keeping me from knowing about construction, its just lack of experience.
I agree with you brer, I went from a firm that worked in BIM, to one that works only in CAD though, it's like going back in time 10 years. And I don't share my current firm's 'tude about "that's not how architect's think" (like they think in plan and section?) and "it's not customizeable" (it is if you know what you are doing and don't give up after an hour).
Is Draughting wyth a Ruler killing our profeſſion?
ſometimes methinks that Them what uſeth a Ruler to Draught the diverſe Edifices which it iſ our ſacred duty to Deſign, are miſſing out on the ſoul or Eſſence of the Profeſſion. Theſe young Knaves know not what it means to ſtruggle to Draught one's lynes ſtraight and True wythout recourſe to the ſafety net of the Ruler or Hard Lyne.
Alot's been said that I agree with, and alot I disagree with. A few things:
-I'm sick of people blaming their own ignorance, or the ignorance of others, on computers. It makes you look stupid. I'm also sick of people calling the computer a tool. That's like calling all cylindrical marking utensils "a tool." It's absurdly reductivist.
-You've probably been refining you hand drawing skills ever since crazy uncle Larry put that giant Crayola in your hand way back when (not the first time, the time you finally didn't eat it). When did you first start drawing on a computer and working to refine those skills? For most of us, even the whippersnappers, that's high school at best. Perhaps part of all this is in how and when we learn these things?
on a side note, I had a review today, and in the review, my boss explained to me that clients came to him for the "big picture" and not for doing perfect drawings or getting the details right. I, with my 1 year of experience, am considered one of the technically (as in how buildings go together) proficient people in the firm. How's that for odd?
Some 15 years ago , the studio's in this contry, alway's complained that new just educated architects they felt a responsible to hire, didn't know a clue about how things worked. Their argument was that at the acadamy the students learned all the classic but none of that was what the Studio's wanted. In fact they had to re-educate to what architecture realy is about.
They also complained about the "romantic" attitude these students had.
From this discussion roles seem to have changed --- it seem like the Studio's is not ready for what the young architects can bring, not able to use this valuable knowleage and creativity , can this realy be true ?
I don't know either, but the Studio's alway's complained , now they complain that the young come with the skills and knowleage they been shouting for, and they are not ready for that but want to stay with the old , ------- now I remember harsh discussions about what was best, a pen or a computer after that we decided just to leave the old with their conservative attitude ,as nothing can change a concrete mind , then now it seem someone got bad some advise. Have things realy develobed so , that to keep up the Studio's has to "borrow" instead of develobing themself, realy I blame the studio's.
"Old guys don't care about Maya or Rhino or even Revit. They just care about how the building goes together because that's what really matters, not what tools are used."
One thing to remember is that while these tools, maya and rhino in particular, help visualize a project, programs like revit and more sophisticated bim programs like catia are showing us new, more efficient means of putting a building together. these programs are becoming integral to the construction process. i think many old timers would be challenged to detail a gehry or asymptote building just by rationalizing it out from tried-and-true techniques; new software is driving the design of these buildings.
CAD systems are always cost saving and highly profitable when one person sets up the CAD/office standards and everyone else is compliant. A policing operation is needed for the non-compliant. A quick public censure makes a quick compliant adjustment.
It also helps with compliance if everyone in the office is a Scientologist.
"new software is driving the design of these buildings."
I don't think so --- If you look behind the panels you would not think so either.
Every old method, every old technike can be translated so that it will display on a screen --- and in particular these buildings , is not a result of advanced computing , not at all they are skethes trown, so if what you say was just true but no, it is not.
Just look behind the panels and ask yourself what you see --- has the computer realy calculated that mess no, skilled craftsmen put it up, so what is it but a lookalike of what these architects think the computer would create.
per, i don't disagree that it's the same principles of physics that are driving how we build; software though is introducing new ways of sizing and assembling structural members to create more efficient building systems. in addition it is allowing for a new means of communication with the skilled craftsmen/construction teams that are putting these buildings together.
I guess the issue is choosing what tool to accommodate the task.
We received a hand drawing this morning from the dentist office designer and need to make it work with our CAD drawings. For small projects CAD is fine, BIM would be overkill. The main thing is having the training on which tool to use when.
the principals don't need to know the software. all they need to do is stand behind you and tell you to make the color darker or lighter. or move this dodad over here and that thing over there. the goal is to get into the over the shoulder position sooner rather than later.
First let me be the first to congratulate Per on getting his name back, this marks the end of Vindpust.
Does anyone think that software sofistication of a firm depends on their market share? Such as larger firms doing county, state and federal work may be all BIM because they can afford the transition while 2 guys in the garage are still using R-14?
Hell I know a guy still pencil drawing and ironicly hes the best for interior renovations of medical buildings and office buildings. His design good, but his negotiating with city halls and intuition about trouble spots - excellant. That only comes with years.
i feel that oldfogey has made one of the best points on this thread when he referenced the difficulty in transfering generational knowledge because the old members of the profession aren't familiar enough with the new computer tools to have actually mastered them and transfered that info. but i also feel that this touches on the larger problem of architecture's relationship to drafting technology.
the trouble, as i see it, is that computer programs change so quickly and have so many revisions (e.g., a new AutoCAD version every two years) that it's difficult for anybody in the working architecture industry to effectively "master" these tools. it can take years to design and complete construction of a building and the drafting software may very well have changed once or twice during that time (it's like the ground is literally moving under our feet). during my two years of grad school i personally hardly touched autocad and by the time i returned to the workforce i felt almost like i was starting from scratch again (actually, worse that starting from scratch becasue i had hazy memories of how i though things were.)
anyhow, on one hand i believe that digital/computer technology is great and has breathtaking potential within the profession and is certainly the reason why we are now able to see the extraordinary works of gehry and per corell. on the other hand, i'm not sure it's really needed for many (probably most) buildings. literally every project that i've personally been involved with could be completed with autocad release 14 technology...so that leaves me wondering if it's worth it for most firms to attempt to keep up with the pace of evolution in software. and i literally mean "worth it" in a financial sense because my suspicion is that most firms have managed to incurr thousands of dollars in software license expenses (hardware isn't cheap either, neither are tech guy consultants) in the past 15 years but have failed to pass that additional expense on to clients.
"per, i don't disagree that it's the same principles of physics that are driving how we build; software though is introducing new ways of sizing and assembling structural members to create more efficient building systems. in addition it is allowing for a new means of communication with the skilled craftsmen/construction teams that are putting these buildings together."
Exactly !!!
puddles ;
You know I would love working for you, but I think you are not quite right when you say ;
"the trouble, as i see it, is that computer programs change so quickly and have so many revisions (e.g., a new AutoCAD version every two years) that it's difficult for anybody in the working architecture industry to effectively "master" these tools."
You see from Ver 2.6 to Ver 9 there was a hush learning curve, from 9 over 12 to 14 it was only small things that changed in fact, and 2000 well where are the big difference from there to now, compared the huge steps at the begining --- no I don't think the upgrade reading is the big trouble, when first you can use the program.
I'm wary of BIM. I've just seen it fail spectacularly on a very large project, being documented in more than one office. It was too ambitious for the office to take on a new BIM package, and decide to design and document a very large, complex building with it when most of us had had little more than 2 days specific BIM training.
What followed:
1) The 3D intelligent objects, schedules etc, got reduced / exploded / dumbed down one by one, till there were only a handful left.
2) We reverted to drawing in 2D in AutoCAD, which is what everyone's "common denominator" experience was.
BIM requires a very high level of mastery in understanding construction methods and documentation, let alone the program itself. Being able to insert realistic components into a detail does not an architect make.
The best drafters I ever worked with, started out on the drawing board prior to moving into CAD. They were paid more than us architectural staff.....
In that case, I wouldn't consider BIM failing, but the manager failing to realize that BIM shouldn't be implemented with inexperienced staff on a very large project.
my first job was computer based, everyone had to get training - the fricking equivalent of a diploma to actually use the machines. They had three computers - massive things.
My second job was all manual, and as an intern still in high school I was the victim of the Diazo machine. I had to make copies for 2 weeks straight - that was my job. I stayed on, and was promoted to copy details. I was told I didn't know anything, which I agreed, and was made to copy details for the engineers to use - but they had to be on mylar in pencil and ink. I did it with pride, but when the principal say it he was appalled at my lettering, so I was demoted to doing just lettering in a little corner. When I emerged I was given the bible to read and recite if commanded.
bible = the graphics standards; weighing 11.5 lbs hardbound and costed about $500 used. A beautiful beautiful object. To this day I can cite details from that book and I'm thankful for everything I learnt
It depends on your viewpoint, but the staff weren't inexperienced in technical / architectural knowledge.
The BIM package (by an industry leader, who I won't name) was aggressively sold as being suitable for the purpose. I think software companies are very eager to sell their product, and will promise the earth, staff training and all the support to go with it, but then take many steps back when it all turns to custard, and bugs in the programming cause major problems in documentation.
Is CAD killing this profession?
sir, if things are as you say, worse now, why do you believe that is true? i think somehow blaming it on cad makes little sense. the more you look into this issue, i believe you will find it is as much about you as it is about the people you are hiring.
CAD will kill the profesion why pretend, why fight it. The battle lies elsewhere , the battle is about if this CAD thing, now shuld be used in a creative manner or, if it must stay as a rewrite of just the tradisional methods. Architecture can fight it, fight it in many way's ,and allready CAD is just serving ,pretending the old logistics offcaurse computers is perfect for that, but realy there are other way's to realise the build works, than thru the logistics ---- today the designer can deliver everything ,much better, with more relevant way's of putting things together, in fact the computer is at best, being ordered to calculate a structure assembly, where just asking for the memmory to store bills is something quite different, than allowing the computer generate the structural assembly .
Kill The Brick.
YES, and rightfully so!
why me PER?
i need some architecture love too?
what?
If you read my previous entries I am all for every possible tool available whether it be CAD or Legos...
but going back to the original post:
the "drafters" or technical people who taught Frit are still around to a "capacity"...however the "younger" staff does not seem to be interested in anything other than picking up red-lines...They don't want to understand how buildgings are put together...there seems to be an emphasis in the Current Tool (CAD/BIM) than the actual "Art" of the profession.
Ok?
J3 - so you are saying that as a part of the "younger" staff, I am less likely to want to understand how buildings are put together and likely to emphasize CAD/BIM? Who are these "younger" folks that just want to pick up red-lines? I understand you are generalizing but it seems totally absurd to me.
You know, this is a lot of crow (pardon the pun) about nothing. The contractor is still going to ignore the drawings and build it the way they think it should be done anyway. It doesn't matter if the drawings were drafted or printed.
Per Speaks!!!!
J3...i see your point...i think universities are so focused on the "romantic" design approach to education (which i think they should be) that most recent graduate attack technical drafting and construction documentation as a technical requirement and don't look at it as craft.
I personally think it's part of the professional education (internship) to introduce the notion that design/technical/documentation are all linked and integral to each other; and that there is a craft to documentation, and how a construction set goes together (and that has to do with these new tools...when hand drafting was king, drafting was naturally viewed as a craft, w/ computer, it's almost viewed as technical procedure);I like to think, that any decent recent graduate is interested in understanding how a building goes together.
Your ratio 1:10 seems low, but that can be due to your region, or to the type of work your office does (don't mean to offend, but if your office does high end residential, a lot of talented young architects, will not be interested in applying);
Lastly, if you look at the younger crowd here on archinect, you will see that recent graduates are commited to architecture, and it's the duty of the professors, and professionals to guide this young commitment and ensure that it's carried through out all aspects of the profession///
I must not be saying it right.
Forget CAD for a moment. Until relatively recently, part of the learning process for young architects was working side by side with professional drafters who had acquired not only the technical skill but also the practical knowledge to detail a project. This was their job. Today, there are fewer and fewer people like this for a young architect lo learn from.
I think this is a bad thing. It's not because the computer is inhearantly better or worse than a pencil. I don't think it's a product of anyones laziness are a general lack of interest in any aspect of the job, it's just what has happened. And I wonder what the long term impact of not having those people around anymore is going to be.
A perfesser of mine used to say that computers were the new zip-a-tone (for those of you who remember that.) Another boss of mine though that every rendering we did was, in a sense, hand painted--i.e. painstakingly drawn.
These older guys completely misunderstood the potential power of programs like Revit. Sure, drafting and beautiful drawings have fallen by the wayside. But don't we now have a completely new and arguably beautiful set of graphic conventions to contend with?
I think it's bullshit for older architects to bemoan how younger architects "don't know anything." They know as much as you do, just different stuff. How many sixty year olds can use Maya or Rhino or even Revit for that matter?
Also, nice buildings are still being built--more than ever, one might argue. Isn't that proof that, as a profession, we haven't completely lost our head? That the old style of mentorship maybe wasn't as essential as we once thought?
Ok, yes I'm generalizing and venting a little.
Frit. Like you I worked with and learned most of what I know about putting a building together from a professional drafter or very experienced architect.
Having said that the group of us who have replaced this outgoing/dying group are finding that the new staff are not as receptive or interested in this "old" method...(maybe we need to adjust)
farwest1 yes, but those detailing these "nice" buildings are being detailed by the mid-30's to 40's group (maybe some older, but they are not the partners...etc.)
Sure it's not everyone, there are plenty of exceptions. I am sure that if you are posting on Archinect you are part the exception. This is an industry wide problem with all the large/top design firms. Sure there is less of this problem if you are working with one of the Starchitects because if you are working there you are driven and are open to the abuse/but high rewards with the exposure they can offer.
working side by side with the old technical master - now instead we get to follow the master to meetings with marketing people telling us what to draw, then over to the attorney's office to get our approved zoning package PD approval which happens through the magic of just being a fucking zoning attorney apperantly, then over to the contractor's office to get yelled at for being overbudget and at the end of the day be asked to reduce the fee by 15% or they have no choice but to go elsewhere, "Its already designed, what do you need more fee for", as they transfer that fee to the grasping hands of the real estate Broker. Honestly - If they could, they'd cut us out all together.
cad or no cad, bim or no bim.
j3.
i always find broad, sweeping generalizations to be unhelpful and maybe
naive? especially the 'your generation just isn't interested...doesn't work
hard...blah blah blah..' kind of post.
is it possible that your firm doesn't do work that attracts top level
talent? and as you said is it just because you're in south florida?
also not a hotbed of architects..and that the sample size you're
taking survey from is some of the people that just aren't all that
interested in architecture? and just want to be near the beach?
i'd be interested in the cross section of 20 somethings here in nyc,
chicago or LA..i'd imagine it'd be a different view..as you said.
i personally was detailing buildings early through today...from 24-
34...and some of that was redlines..but i found redlines to be
educational...not just mind numbing work (at least not always.)
i just don't think you're giving enough/any credit to the younger
members of the profession.
It's not the firm.
+ I made it a point to be part of the interview process in order to influence who is eventually hired, which has helped.
Yes, it is regional...is it naive/generalizations? maybe...maybe not. Having come from the NE, it is a little disheartening not to have the energy you get in the big cities (see above)
Is it me? maybe...I just don't see the same interest and intrigue in "some" of my co-workers that I have. I'm trying to make it interesting...just going through a rough patch with the team that I have to work with (young and inexperienced) On one end I want them to solve the problem themselves (with guidance) on the other hand I want to give them the answer...and be done with it.
let me ask you this: in your early days of detailing, did you know all the answers? did you seek to answer most questions yourself, or were the solutions given + explained to you? who taught you how to arrange the details? did you give thought to how and where they look graphically (lineweights...hatching)?
if you did great....but some HERE are not interested...
then demote or fire them and promote those that do a good job and care.
not all the art could be computrized
I've only been out of school for a year and a half now. My first position right out of school was picking up redlines in CAD, I did that job for 8 months. I then got another job picking up redlines in Revit, which i've been at for 6 months or so now. I've learned 10x more by working in Revit, rotating around in the model and seeing how things fit together and being able to ask many more questions because with Revit I can see the little parts that don't fit together properly and which prompt questions.
I would find it excruciating to go back to doing projects in CAD and I suspect that when I go to find my next job that using Revit to its full capacity will be qualification #1 that I look for in a firm.
I think its relevant to note that my initial design experience was with Video Games, designing the environments that the player moves around in. Before I knew how to design in plan or in section I was designing in perspective, then stringing the perspectives together to create spaces.
I find drawing in section and plan to be extremely limited, but I understand the necessity given the tools and methods of construction that are prevalent today.
I am very young, I recognize that I still don't know jack about how buildings actually come together. That said, I don't think its my tools of design and drafting(modelling) that are keeping me from knowing about construction, its just lack of experience.
i love the section and find it extremely unlimited
I agree with you brer, I went from a firm that worked in BIM, to one that works only in CAD though, it's like going back in time 10 years. And I don't share my current firm's 'tude about "that's not how architect's think" (like they think in plan and section?) and "it's not customizeable" (it is if you know what you are doing and don't give up after an hour).
I work in rem....every night when I go to sleep.....everything comes together...then I revert to two dimensional drafting. bummer.
i concur with what evilplatypus said 8 & 9 ago.
Archyneſt - Pimping Archytecture ſince 1397 - Topicſ
Is Draughting wyth a Ruler killing our profeſſion?
ſometimes methinks that Them what uſeth a Ruler to Draught the diverſe Edifices which it iſ our ſacred duty to Deſign, are miſſing out on the ſoul or Eſſence of the Profeſſion. Theſe young Knaves know not what it means to ſtruggle to Draught one's lynes ſtraight and True wythout recourſe to the ſafety net of the Ruler or Hard Lyne.
Discuſſ
Alot's been said that I agree with, and alot I disagree with. A few things:
-I'm sick of people blaming their own ignorance, or the ignorance of others, on computers. It makes you look stupid. I'm also sick of people calling the computer a tool. That's like calling all cylindrical marking utensils "a tool." It's absurdly reductivist.
-You've probably been refining you hand drawing skills ever since crazy uncle Larry put that giant Crayola in your hand way back when (not the first time, the time you finally didn't eat it). When did you first start drawing on a computer and working to refine those skills? For most of us, even the whippersnappers, that's high school at best. Perhaps part of all this is in how and when we learn these things?
on a side note, I had a review today, and in the review, my boss explained to me that clients came to him for the "big picture" and not for doing perfect drawings or getting the details right. I, with my 1 year of experience, am considered one of the technically (as in how buildings go together) proficient people in the firm. How's that for odd?
so are we all implicitly agreeing that the profession is dying in the first place?
Some 15 years ago , the studio's in this contry, alway's complained that new just educated architects they felt a responsible to hire, didn't know a clue about how things worked. Their argument was that at the acadamy the students learned all the classic but none of that was what the Studio's wanted. In fact they had to re-educate to what architecture realy is about.
They also complained about the "romantic" attitude these students had.
From this discussion roles seem to have changed --- it seem like the Studio's is not ready for what the young architects can bring, not able to use this valuable knowleage and creativity , can this realy be true ?
i'm old and don't really know very much. how's that for f'd up.
OldFogey said:
"The two-way transfer of knowledge, and it is two-way, which always used to seem so clear isn't clear anymore"
That was what I was ultimately trying to say I guess.
Clearly I need an editor to review my ramblings.
I don't know either, but the Studio's alway's complained , now they complain that the young come with the skills and knowleage they been shouting for, and they are not ready for that but want to stay with the old , ------- now I remember harsh discussions about what was best, a pen or a computer after that we decided just to leave the old with their conservative attitude ,as nothing can change a concrete mind , then now it seem someone got bad some advise. Have things realy develobed so , that to keep up the Studio's has to "borrow" instead of develobing themself, realy I blame the studio's.
"Old guys don't care about Maya or Rhino or even Revit. They just care about how the building goes together because that's what really matters, not what tools are used."
One thing to remember is that while these tools, maya and rhino in particular, help visualize a project, programs like revit and more sophisticated bim programs like catia are showing us new, more efficient means of putting a building together. these programs are becoming integral to the construction process. i think many old timers would be challenged to detail a gehry or asymptote building just by rationalizing it out from tried-and-true techniques; new software is driving the design of these buildings.
CAD systems are always cost saving and highly profitable when one person sets up the CAD/office standards and everyone else is compliant. A policing operation is needed for the non-compliant. A quick public censure makes a quick compliant adjustment.
It also helps with compliance if everyone in the office is a Scientologist.
"new software is driving the design of these buildings."
I don't think so --- If you look behind the panels you would not think so either.
Every old method, every old technike can be translated so that it will display on a screen --- and in particular these buildings , is not a result of advanced computing , not at all they are skethes trown, so if what you say was just true but no, it is not.
Just look behind the panels and ask yourself what you see --- has the computer realy calculated that mess no, skilled craftsmen put it up, so what is it but a lookalike of what these architects think the computer would create.
per, i don't disagree that it's the same principles of physics that are driving how we build; software though is introducing new ways of sizing and assembling structural members to create more efficient building systems. in addition it is allowing for a new means of communication with the skilled craftsmen/construction teams that are putting these buildings together.
I guess the issue is choosing what tool to accommodate the task.
We received a hand drawing this morning from the dentist office designer and need to make it work with our CAD drawings. For small projects CAD is fine, BIM would be overkill. The main thing is having the training on which tool to use when.
My tool of choice is a black marker and trace.
the principals don't need to know the software. all they need to do is stand behind you and tell you to make the color darker or lighter. or move this dodad over here and that thing over there. the goal is to get into the over the shoulder position sooner rather than later.
"the goal is to get into the over the shoulder position sooner rather than later."
you know what you need to know, vado.
things were so much eaiser with the scroll.
Note: interns hate it when you stand behind them all afternoon.
First let me be the first to congratulate Per on getting his name back, this marks the end of Vindpust.
Does anyone think that software sofistication of a firm depends on their market share? Such as larger firms doing county, state and federal work may be all BIM because they can afford the transition while 2 guys in the garage are still using R-14?
Hell I know a guy still pencil drawing and ironicly hes the best for interior renovations of medical buildings and office buildings. His design good, but his negotiating with city halls and intuition about trouble spots - excellant. That only comes with years.
I'd like to believe that a small start up could actually use BIM to its competative advantage - smaller, faster less exspensive overhead
i feel that oldfogey has made one of the best points on this thread when he referenced the difficulty in transfering generational knowledge because the old members of the profession aren't familiar enough with the new computer tools to have actually mastered them and transfered that info. but i also feel that this touches on the larger problem of architecture's relationship to drafting technology.
the trouble, as i see it, is that computer programs change so quickly and have so many revisions (e.g., a new AutoCAD version every two years) that it's difficult for anybody in the working architecture industry to effectively "master" these tools. it can take years to design and complete construction of a building and the drafting software may very well have changed once or twice during that time (it's like the ground is literally moving under our feet). during my two years of grad school i personally hardly touched autocad and by the time i returned to the workforce i felt almost like i was starting from scratch again (actually, worse that starting from scratch becasue i had hazy memories of how i though things were.)
anyhow, on one hand i believe that digital/computer technology is great and has breathtaking potential within the profession and is certainly the reason why we are now able to see the extraordinary works of gehry and per corell. on the other hand, i'm not sure it's really needed for many (probably most) buildings. literally every project that i've personally been involved with could be completed with autocad release 14 technology...so that leaves me wondering if it's worth it for most firms to attempt to keep up with the pace of evolution in software. and i literally mean "worth it" in a financial sense because my suspicion is that most firms have managed to incurr thousands of dollars in software license expenses (hardware isn't cheap either, neither are tech guy consultants) in the past 15 years but have failed to pass that additional expense on to clients.
jafidler ;
"per, i don't disagree that it's the same principles of physics that are driving how we build; software though is introducing new ways of sizing and assembling structural members to create more efficient building systems. in addition it is allowing for a new means of communication with the skilled craftsmen/construction teams that are putting these buildings together."
Exactly !!!
puddles ;
You know I would love working for you, but I think you are not quite right when you say ;
"the trouble, as i see it, is that computer programs change so quickly and have so many revisions (e.g., a new AutoCAD version every two years) that it's difficult for anybody in the working architecture industry to effectively "master" these tools."
You see from Ver 2.6 to Ver 9 there was a hush learning curve, from 9 over 12 to 14 it was only small things that changed in fact, and 2000 well where are the big difference from there to now, compared the huge steps at the begining --- no I don't think the upgrade reading is the big trouble, when first you can use the program.
wow, per, that might have been the most "per-like" thing i've ever written. did i just pass 3dh 101?
I want to see new houses, 101 is not enough .
I'm wary of BIM. I've just seen it fail spectacularly on a very large project, being documented in more than one office. It was too ambitious for the office to take on a new BIM package, and decide to design and document a very large, complex building with it when most of us had had little more than 2 days specific BIM training.
What followed:
1) The 3D intelligent objects, schedules etc, got reduced / exploded / dumbed down one by one, till there were only a handful left.
2) We reverted to drawing in 2D in AutoCAD, which is what everyone's "common denominator" experience was.
BIM requires a very high level of mastery in understanding construction methods and documentation, let alone the program itself. Being able to insert realistic components into a detail does not an architect make.
The best drafters I ever worked with, started out on the drawing board prior to moving into CAD. They were paid more than us architectural staff.....
In that case, I wouldn't consider BIM failing, but the manager failing to realize that BIM shouldn't be implemented with inexperienced staff on a very large project.
my first job was computer based, everyone had to get training - the fricking equivalent of a diploma to actually use the machines. They had three computers - massive things.
My second job was all manual, and as an intern still in high school I was the victim of the Diazo machine. I had to make copies for 2 weeks straight - that was my job. I stayed on, and was promoted to copy details. I was told I didn't know anything, which I agreed, and was made to copy details for the engineers to use - but they had to be on mylar in pencil and ink. I did it with pride, but when the principal say it he was appalled at my lettering, so I was demoted to doing just lettering in a little corner. When I emerged I was given the bible to read and recite if commanded.
bible = the graphics standards; weighing 11.5 lbs hardbound and costed about $500 used. A beautiful beautiful object. To this day I can cite details from that book and I'm thankful for everything I learnt
It depends on your viewpoint, but the staff weren't inexperienced in technical / architectural knowledge.
The BIM package (by an industry leader, who I won't name) was aggressively sold as being suitable for the purpose. I think software companies are very eager to sell their product, and will promise the earth, staff training and all the support to go with it, but then take many steps back when it all turns to custard, and bugs in the programming cause major problems in documentation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.