It is called a midnight break-in! Just be sure you don't wear black because they will figure out your an architect.

Bright orange is my favorite ninja color.

When I visited the Weisman Museum in Minneapolis a few years ago, there was a room dedicated to the display of the construction documents from Gehry's office (I believe it was also a meeting room). The drawings were fantastic.

There was also an exhibit at the National Building Museum a few years ago on drawing that featured some construction documents, among the other types of design drawings.

As far as your search goes, you might want to consider who issued the final set of drawings: the design architect or the architect of record...

Take the best from each set you like that you have access to. Ask people in the firm to bring in reference sets from old firms if there are things about it's organization they like. If you steal from everybody it will look like your set because it's what you think works.

Drawings are meant to communicate the design to contractors clearly so that it can be built without problems. It is a contract.

If you want them to be "pretty," then you will be spending time and blowing your fee's(until it's second nature) for something that nobody cares about except you and a few other architects that appreciate an attractive set. A "good" set does not necessarily mean a pretty one. I've seen crappy drawings with thorough notes that required little admin because they were very clear. At the same time, if you accomplish the goal of efficiently and effectively communicating the design, chances are that it will be reflected in the aesthetics. Let the design and the communication therein guide you in determining the organization.

Also, most firms consider their sets(and design) proprietary, so you might find it difficult to get a copy you can hold on to. I understand you want reference, but you need to find your own style, just like writing prose, or painting, and that comes with practice....

writing, painting and architectural drafting usually start with emulation.

there are several books that show good practices in CD sets... you can also visit a city's building department and request to see a permit set of a recent building designed by a famous firm (which is usually not a full CD set, but should give you enough info and inspiration).

really - you should be looking at a good set of specs. specs are the most important part of the CD set.

It's common for someone in an office (like myself) to not understand how to fully put a drawing set together without proper guidance from more experienced people but I cannot imagine an entire architecture practice (small or large) that is incapable of such a task.

Before jumping straight into the kinds of drawing sets put together by firms like Foster, HdeM, and such, you may just want to figure out how to simply put a set together period. I'm sure the firms you refer to use the same general formula as your average corporate firm.

I hate to be the one to say it, but the National Cad Standards do most of this work for you and honestly would be a good base to start with, in terms of sheet layout, numbering, detail callouts, etc. Then you can add whatever designy flourishes to it, saving you the trouble of having to start from scratch.

And since the majority of the work in the next few years is probably going to be state and government work, it might be good to at least implement some of the NCS into your work as they (the feds) usually require it.

I do have to reiterate the point above that there is a difference between pretty client presentation drawings and a CD set, which is not to say the CD set can not be attractive but rather communicates different information than a presentation set.

I think you misunderstood me, med. We put together perfectly adequate sets (in fact, I think they're well organized, concise, and complete—the contractors we work with have generally liked their organization.)

What I'm looking for are ideas about how to improve our sets, using examples from other firms that are practicing at a high level. I'm not by any means trying to create a "pretty" set—only one that is as well-organized as possible.

For instance, I've seen some of SHoP's drawings that use exploded axonometrics and unique systems to explain complex assemblies. We're hoping to integrate some of that kind of thinking into our sets.

And, yes, we use the National Cad Standards generally for organization. Our sets are fine currently. I'd just like to turn them up a notch—and I'm looking for ideas.

hmmm... well in that case, I am not sure how many "architectural" sets you might find that convention in. SHoP is a special case, as they seem equally interested in both the design and construction of their work, therefore putting the additional effort into the drawings. A far portion of the starchitects don't even do CD's but farm that work out to Gensler, etc. so the sets are going to be pretty pedestrian.

I think you might actually have more success contacting furniture designers and other industrial design practices and looking at assembly diagrams as that seems to be more in line with what you are looking for.

i don't have a visual example to share (sorry) but a local architect here puts together one hell of a beautiful set. not conventional in any way but instead almost narrative/descriptive. each detail made clear not only HOW the detail should go together but WHY, in a way that a contractor would appreciate both the goal of the detail and the intended result.

of course the set was huge, but the drawings were exquisite. just the set for a small vacation house that he did was a work of art. since the house didn't get built (after economy tanked post-9/11), it's nice that the drawing set is such a complete work in itself. of course the architect would love to have seen it built...

probably wasn't what you were looking for anyway, but exploring this set was, for me, a revelation. he probably should have tried to get the drawing set published.

Thanks, Steven and others.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of set I'm looking for. I think a lot of beauty can be found in working drawings, and I always love to see shows of architects' working drawings at museums.

Every set is different, and I've seen a lot of sloppy sets that probably convey the information that a contractor needs, though not elegantly. When I see a set that's both elegant and organized, I'm impressed. That's where we want our sets to be—we're working on it, but examples always help.

I wished I worked at an office that took the approach the office you are working does, instead of the one the uses the NCS as the definitive Bible and slaps together sets as quickly as possible and deals with the consequences with endless addendum's and RFI's.

your not looking for staff are you? ha!

Thanks for the clarification farwest.

But just so you know I've seen drawing sets from other reputable "starchitects" that have been atrocious as well -- not that I'm one to judge or anything.

el jeffe

writing, painting and architectural drafting usually start with emulation.

I disagree.

You can communicate without style, or grace and elegance, but communicate nevertheless. Architectural drafting does not require style, only clarity of communication. Sometimes style is contained within clarity, but clarity is not dependent on style. What is required for a set of drawings should be taught, not emulated. If you want stylish drawings, yes, emulation can be helpful.

with drawing sets, i always felt that clarity comes first, then style. kind of obvious.

but then there are tiny things that make a clear informative drawing set become beautiful. one thing is line weights. if your office follows its own standards for all its drawing sets for line weights, then that's what should be tweaked. then comes compositional style. for example, where a detail appears on the page makes a difference too.
if a clear informative drawing is enough for a contractor, i think a beautiful clear informative drawing would be even more enjoyable to read.

d_mutt: What is required for a set of drawings should be taught, not emulated.

isn't teaching emulating what the teacher teaches?

i was thinking bout this thread today. documents are stories, and the keying of details are almost like footnotes; providing additional detail. clarity is the important part of any document set. i am partial to key notes rather than lengthy notes - utilizing the master-spec format.

farwest where are you located? I'll feel really stupid if you say the farwest.... anyway. I remember seeing set of cds at the building museum in DC, actually I spent a good number of hours really taking them in. Some were actually quite funny, EMBT's had text in Spanish and English, but it wasn't always a translation, some were in Spanish, others in English and they were in different directions. Others reduced their text to almost nothing, leaving as much to the interpretation of the contractor as possible

Along a similar line, Glenn Murcutt has some of his drawings from sets in the back portion of the Singular Practice book. There is absolutely no contractor interpretation available on those drawings- the amount of notation is equal parts amazing and maniacal. The work is beautiful though and is no doubt a result of attention to detail. I don't know if I would say the drawings are a joy to look at, but they get the job done.

And the thing about Murcutt is that it's distilled down to the essence. There's nothing left out and he knows exactly how it all fits together.

teaching:emulating, push:pull

Simply copying something and learning why something is are two entirely different things. Know why the rules exist instead of just memorizing them. This way, you can apply those rules to different circumstances, as well as break them.

what are the rules? if there are rules, why does every single office i have ever been in, do it a different way?

FRaC is right. copying/appropriation is the sincerest form of flattery. start somewhere and work towards your own logical circumstance, and be open to new ideas.

How do you know these really good offices that you state have really awesome drawing sets? And if they do have you just tried picking up the phone and asking if they could oblige you. You'd be surprised.

I agree Vado, as long as it's not DOS or any SBU work most firms would be happy to share their work with other practices.

how about this design_mutt,

"first you harmonize, then you customize."
- wilson pickett

el jeffe, nice quote, and right too.

this was stated above, but the thing about ShOP is that they need the axons because of the way the need the design to get built, it is part of the design process, and they find that those axons help both their designs and their construction. You just have to know what the project needs first, what drawings will communicate it best and work towards that goal, it will build itself up to become a good drawings set. Simultaneously, a drawing set can be both, pretty and clear, i see no problems there, sometimes cynical architects think pretty is always not clear, stupid.

vado,

I don't necessarily know that the offices I mention have exquisite drawing sets.

I assume they do because their buildings are typically executed in an elegant and clean way.

How about this el jeffe-

You don't learn grammar, vocabulary, or etymology of words in a language by repetition and copying. Emulation has it's uses but not in learning a language except pronunciation.

But then again, you can advocate this arcane method of teaching someone how to do something by rote and emulation, when the reality is that you should be teaching them the how and why instead of just "shut up and do as I say" or "copy this and you'll figure it out."

actually, when i first learned to speak i wasn't really concerned with etymology or grammar. language in and of itself IS a process of emulating/copying, the formal treatment get's sorted out through our lives. shit, i'm still trying to get punctuation down correctly.

b3-we're not talking about a child with no developed cognitive brain skills. Besides, I never said that emulation does not have it's place, just not in developing your own style when it comes to generating a "pretty" set of CD's.

Wait, are you kidding? This is EXACTLY how we learn language at the earliest stages.

Life is emulation. Creative people emulate each other until they find a place to branch off with their own ideas and creations. The Beatles or Radiohead's first albums sounded like much of the other work going on at the time. Picasso's first works were similar to that of other painters. Le Corbusier's first works were similar to the Bauhaus.

Emulation is where we all start, with everything. Including with drawing sets. Try putting together a set in a vacuum. You wouldn't get very far.

Exactly. Creative people. Draftsmen don't have to be creative. You learn the language, period. You get taught how to set up a sheet, organize the set, etc.. You don't learn by copying because then you don't know why it is set up the way it is, otherwise, there would be no standards at all. I don't know why I'm trying to explain something so fundamental.

this thread is hilarious. it seems very howard roark to ask this question in the first place.