how do you know when you are an 8 1/2x11 architect?
the more experience i have and the more CA i do, the less i draw it seems. i hear the term "8 1/2x11 architect" more and more and i am wondering what that is...it seems to be reserved for the management side but i wonder if there is a crossover...
is it just the people who do schedules, proposals, specs, cost analysis, etc.? if most of my drawings are 8 1/2x11 AR's, does that count?
i figure if i stop drawing you can stop calling me an architect. there is definitely a point when i would rather draw the wall section, but there is a lot to do, and maybe it's better use of time/team if i have someone with less experience do it
maybe this leads into the question about "where do all the cotton top architects go?" if the most experienced people have to do more of the project management side of things and are too expensive to draft do they get let go or stuck in the specs corner?....or do they go off to some island where they get to draw again?
it appears to me that you're fighting this aspect of architecture. . . proposals, schedules, cost analysis, specs. i see these things as control documents that i use to achieve the architecture that i want. drawings are only a small portion of the completed project.
this is how i look at these documents. . .
proposals: the big idea and approach that lands the job (which by the way usually includes lots of drawings and graphics to describe your methodology- archiporn perhaps?).
schedules: used to ensure the project can remain on schedule (translation- profitable. this is a good thing, right?).
cost analysis: used to inform the client, give them information that is accurate so they become repeat clients (translation- less marketing, more profit).
specs: how i describe what i want and the level of quality in the drawings.
drawings: shows how i want things to look.
all of these documents are primarily done by others whom i feed and give information/ direction. since i control these documents, then the building comes out looking (mostly) how i want.
i would suggest you embrace these documents to become the architect you want to be. my opinion is that your notion of architecture is very narrow but if you want to continue to draw details and wall sections that somebody else directs on D+ sheets, then that is your choice.
funkitecture: I'm in a similar situation, however I'm optimistic that I will again become a 24x36 (or 36x48) architect once construction on my current project is complete.
My head nearly exploded today when I needed to x-ref a brand new drawing into an ASK. It's been a year and a half since I needed to set up a new sheet - I had to actually think to remember how to reference the new drawing.
Devil Dog makes some good points that we can use "paperwork" to increase the quality of our designs. During CA, I actually enjoy answering questions that allow me to interpret / translate the design intent into the detail at hand.
I agree with the A4 comment above.
Until the United States gets with the program and goes metric, I'll strive to be an 8 1/2x14 architect.
In my firm, it does seem that the older and more experienced you get, the more you get stuck with the mundane shit and less with design. I think it some cruel cosmic career joke that makes architecture less fulfilling the more you get experienced enough to practice it properly. Or maybe the Unite States is just a ass backwards anomaly.
If Paris Hilton wants to be an architect (ie Brad Pitt) I'll be happy to teach her Revit.
i don't see any reason that the size of paper you use should change the quality of the architecture you get to do. you use the paper you got.
i've done a whole project on 8 1/2 x 11 at least once that i can think of. really makes you think about the use of scaled drawings differently because EVERYTHING gets detailed, practically. every drawing has to be keyed back to a little cartoon plan that you use as a map. makes for a different kind of challenge and can be fun!
I'm an A4 architect...and before that it was all 11"x17" - I was thinking of writing a paper on how you could fit any project on that size paper without much tweeking.
what about the digital architect? that is...no paper size necessary.
side note - it sems like an 8.5x11 arch. is that who depends on it's contractor to smooth out the "scope" of the overall project.
just a thought...
Jan 8, 08 12:08 pm ·
·
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.
8 1/2x11 architect
how do you know when you are an 8 1/2x11 architect?
the more experience i have and the more CA i do, the less i draw it seems. i hear the term "8 1/2x11 architect" more and more and i am wondering what that is...it seems to be reserved for the management side but i wonder if there is a crossover...
is it just the people who do schedules, proposals, specs, cost analysis, etc.? if most of my drawings are 8 1/2x11 AR's, does that count?
i figure if i stop drawing you can stop calling me an architect. there is definitely a point when i would rather draw the wall section, but there is a lot to do, and maybe it's better use of time/team if i have someone with less experience do it
maybe this leads into the question about "where do all the cotton top architects go?" if the most experienced people have to do more of the project management side of things and are too expensive to draft do they get let go or stuck in the specs corner?....or do they go off to some island where they get to draw again?
all of the best bosses that I have known have been 8½ x 11 architects, and hardly ever drew a thing...
A4 looks way hotter than 8.5x11
"That's Hot."
funkitecture,
it appears to me that you're fighting this aspect of architecture. . . proposals, schedules, cost analysis, specs. i see these things as control documents that i use to achieve the architecture that i want. drawings are only a small portion of the completed project.
this is how i look at these documents. . .
proposals: the big idea and approach that lands the job (which by the way usually includes lots of drawings and graphics to describe your methodology- archiporn perhaps?).
schedules: used to ensure the project can remain on schedule (translation- profitable. this is a good thing, right?).
cost analysis: used to inform the client, give them information that is accurate so they become repeat clients (translation- less marketing, more profit).
specs: how i describe what i want and the level of quality in the drawings.
drawings: shows how i want things to look.
all of these documents are primarily done by others whom i feed and give information/ direction. since i control these documents, then the building comes out looking (mostly) how i want.
i would suggest you embrace these documents to become the architect you want to be. my opinion is that your notion of architecture is very narrow but if you want to continue to draw details and wall sections that somebody else directs on D+ sheets, then that is your choice.
rs4
funkitecture: I'm in a similar situation, however I'm optimistic that I will again become a 24x36 (or 36x48) architect once construction on my current project is complete.
My head nearly exploded today when I needed to x-ref a brand new drawing into an ASK. It's been a year and a half since I needed to set up a new sheet - I had to actually think to remember how to reference the new drawing.
Devil Dog makes some good points that we can use "paperwork" to increase the quality of our designs. During CA, I actually enjoy answering questions that allow me to interpret / translate the design intent into the detail at hand.
I agree with the A4 comment above.
Until the United States gets with the program and goes metric, I'll strive to be an 8 1/2x14 architect.
In my firm, it does seem that the older and more experienced you get, the more you get stuck with the mundane shit and less with design. I think it some cruel cosmic career joke that makes architecture less fulfilling the more you get experienced enough to practice it properly. Or maybe the Unite States is just a ass backwards anomaly.
If Paris Hilton wants to be an architect (ie Brad Pitt) I'll be happy to teach her Revit.
i don't see any reason that the size of paper you use should change the quality of the architecture you get to do. you use the paper you got.
i've done a whole project on 8 1/2 x 11 at least once that i can think of. really makes you think about the use of scaled drawings differently because EVERYTHING gets detailed, practically. every drawing has to be keyed back to a little cartoon plan that you use as a map. makes for a different kind of challenge and can be fun!
I'm an A4 architect...and before that it was all 11"x17" - I was thinking of writing a paper on how you could fit any project on that size paper without much tweeking.
what about the digital architect? that is...no paper size necessary.
side note - it sems like an 8.5x11 arch. is that who depends on it's contractor to smooth out the "scope" of the overall project.
just a thought...
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.