I just started studying for the construction documents and services portion of the ARE and it’s an interesting read so far (I’m only a few pages in). I do, however, need to hear some so called “real world” examples of how these ideas are applied.
For example, the book clearly defines 17 criterions for evaluating a detail / details. My question is: Do you follow a formalized way of evaluating the detail though these criterions? (a checklist of some sort)…or do you address them as you see them? (freestyle)
The heart of the question is how the evaluation process is organized.
In the office I currently work in, it is more of an improvised & informal conversation. We’d look at a detail and begin throwing things at it as quickly as we can think of them. There is no clear and organized process of evaluation. Some things are overlooked. But the worst part is not having a record of what you’ve overlooked.
It seems obvious to me that the “checklist” method is the only way to go. What are the exceptions?
Once a detail has been evaluated, how do you present all the gathered information to the client or to anyone else? Similar to the evaluation process, what I’ve observed in the past have been more of a casual talk and there is no clear “checklist” method.
I’ve worked only in single family residential projects so my observations and experiences are limited to that. I’m curious to hear how the process goes with a mega-clients also.
architects work in hundreds if not thousands of different "types" of details from exterior wall systems to access doors to wood moldings. how could one ever apply a checklist to all details when the requirements of each, both functional and aesthetic, are so different?
dml's list is great for general questions. the one regarding multiple subs and trades is particularly good and is both very helpful for a gc and ensures that the detail will be built as you desire it. if it involves too many trades, chances are you are going to have a frankenstein upon execution.
The other point I would add is that we typically try and evaluate details as part of the whole. The checklist idea seems to take an individual detail out of context.
dml's list is a good one though. Typically if it is easy to build, it will look the best in the end. Fussy or complicated details typically fail when executed. And just because it is easy to build doesn't mean it is some standard dumbed down detail.
May 7, 09 5:03 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.
Evaluation of Details
I just started studying for the construction documents and services portion of the ARE and it’s an interesting read so far (I’m only a few pages in). I do, however, need to hear some so called “real world” examples of how these ideas are applied.
For example, the book clearly defines 17 criterions for evaluating a detail / details. My question is: Do you follow a formalized way of evaluating the detail though these criterions? (a checklist of some sort)…or do you address them as you see them? (freestyle)
The heart of the question is how the evaluation process is organized.
In the office I currently work in, it is more of an improvised & informal conversation. We’d look at a detail and begin throwing things at it as quickly as we can think of them. There is no clear and organized process of evaluation. Some things are overlooked. But the worst part is not having a record of what you’ve overlooked.
It seems obvious to me that the “checklist” method is the only way to go. What are the exceptions?
Once a detail has been evaluated, how do you present all the gathered information to the client or to anyone else? Similar to the evaluation process, what I’ve observed in the past have been more of a casual talk and there is no clear “checklist” method.
I’ve worked only in single family residential projects so my observations and experiences are limited to that. I’m curious to hear how the process goes with a mega-clients also.
architects work in hundreds if not thousands of different "types" of details from exterior wall systems to access doors to wood moldings. how could one ever apply a checklist to all details when the requirements of each, both functional and aesthetic, are so different?
i think jaf is right, but having QA/QC is a good thing.
presently we don't, really, and it can cause some pain at times.
We generally start with the initial question: Does it look cool?
Quickly followed by: Is it too fussy? (involve too many trades/subs)
Sequencing issues: Does a particular trade have to come back more than once to complete the detail?
Constructability/tolerances: Is there enough room for hands & tools to put it together?
But I agree w/ jafidler - depending on the type of detail, there's lots to consider.
#1 concern: does it keep the water out?
dml's list is great for general questions. the one regarding multiple subs and trades is particularly good and is both very helpful for a gc and ensures that the detail will be built as you desire it. if it involves too many trades, chances are you are going to have a frankenstein upon execution.
The other point I would add is that we typically try and evaluate details as part of the whole. The checklist idea seems to take an individual detail out of context.
dml's list is a good one though. Typically if it is easy to build, it will look the best in the end. Fussy or complicated details typically fail when executed. And just because it is easy to build doesn't mean it is some standard dumbed down detail.
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.