AGG -- I take it you would as soon wait for the construction documents, to provide detail dimensions -- assuming that in the meantime any number of revisions, if not wholesale redesign, might have taken place ?
S
Frank Lloyd Wright's struggles with officialdom
modules
Yes, Stephen....Dimensioning to death starts at perhaps 50% DD and beyond. Prior to that I try to keep things fairly loose such as hand sketches with general diminsions for reference...or even a basic Revit model..(I do pretty much everything after the hand sketch phase in Revit). Frequent meetings with the users up through Design Development to ensure no wholesale changes once things get "hard lined".
KevinW
All municipalities that I have ever sought a building permit in have a list of what they require the drawing set to include, and all clearly specify "fully dimensioned plans"....especially where accessibilty is required. But beyond that....I really do not want binders full of RFI's....My rule of thumb...if I want the information to be clear and built as designed....dimension the hell out of it....yeah, so my CD's wont fetch thousands on ebay because of their artistic beauty...but sure reduces the chances of error, litigation, and frustration...
KevinW
That last would have been my thought. There is a difference in definition between the architectural drawing as poetry -- a work of art -- and the document meant to get the building built as intended -- isn't there ? In an ideal world the same drawing -- a principal floor plan, let us say -- could satisfy both definitions -- but I would guess that this would typically involve unfortunate compromises. Perhaps Laurie and others feel differently. . .
I have seen several of Laurie's presentation drawings, hand drawn, and other drawings done with software, and all are superior examples of their kind, in my estimation. Perhaps. with sufficient will, compromises are unnecessary -- as I guess Mr Wright was able to demonstrate ?
SDR
I have seen several of Laurie's presentation drawings, hand drawn, and other drawings done with software, and all are superior examples of their kind, in my estimation. Perhaps. with sufficient will, compromises are unnecessary -- as I guess Mr Wright was able to demonstrate ?
SDR
-
Education Professor
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:10 pm
Presentation drawings are a different matter....not intended to be detailed like CD's....there the pretty pictures are appropriate.
We are in a time where litigation and hand holding is perhaps more an issue than back in Wrights day. Also, it would be literally impossible to get any drawings approved without dimensions etc...by the Department of the State Architect here in California. They have pretty tough demands in regard to what they want detailed, especially when it comes to anchoring and ADA.
The tighter the set of drawings the better.
We are in a time where litigation and hand holding is perhaps more an issue than back in Wrights day. Also, it would be literally impossible to get any drawings approved without dimensions etc...by the Department of the State Architect here in California. They have pretty tough demands in regard to what they want detailed, especially when it comes to anchoring and ADA.
The tighter the set of drawings the better.
KevinW
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Peterm:
I have cooperated with some excellent builders, and without exception they have worked from the floor plan[s] and the cross sections. Bureaucrats, being what they are, stipulate that elevations are required for building approval to be granted, and I furnish those, but without dimensions.
I put all the relevant information on the cross sections: footing sizes, footing insulation, crushed stone base, damp proof course, concrete slab thickness, concrete cover, reinforcement, sill and lighting deck heights, roof pitch and springing height, rafter sizes, wall, ceiling and roofing materials.
Full size details of French doors and casement windows occupy a separate drawing, together with a window schedule. Door details and a door schedule occupy another. All these are dimensioned, including the height and backset of locks and latches.
I furnish an electrical layout, and stipulate the exact location, height and type of switch plate and switch socket plate required.
The cabinetry is detailed and heavily dimensioned.
All the necessary information is on the drawings or in the specifications: it is just in a different format, and that disturbs some bureaucrats. Whenever I have had recourse to appeal to higher authority I have always been successful. Strangely, I find officials in bush locations less conservative than their city based counterparts. One would surmise, perhaps, that it would be the reverse of the actual situation.
I find it impossible to detail a house on fewer than 25 ISO A0 sheets, and for one job I produced 104.
MyLiebermeisterAGG:
I refuse to compromise on general principles of document submission. You appear to have less difficulty in so doing, and hence probably live a quieter life.
These planning and building officials are public servants, and as I have written previously on this thread, I am helping to pay their salaries. As such I expect cooperation and facilitation from them, not chronic displays of incompetence and bureaucratic pettyfogging. I have no doubt that somewhere in the planning offices in Canberra there is a personal file containing a note that says ‘Laurie Virr bites’. If such types seek to make it more difficult for me to practice my profession, then I shall retaliate in kind. One can almost read what goes thru their minds when confronted by a set of drawings that detail something other than a dull box - ‘If I accede to this application, how will it affect my prospects of promotion, and/or my retirement pension’?
Very early in my career I designed and detailed a house on 60/30 triangles. I submitted the construction drawings, and they were reviewed by a building official who was a licensed architect. He refused to grant permission to build on the grounds that my design ‘did not look like a house’. I asked him what a house looked like, but he did not reply. That incident set my future course. I appealed to a higher authority, ironically a man who had previously worked for Le Corbusier, and I was successful. I have never looked back.
I have cooperated with some excellent builders, and without exception they have worked from the floor plan[s] and the cross sections. Bureaucrats, being what they are, stipulate that elevations are required for building approval to be granted, and I furnish those, but without dimensions.
I put all the relevant information on the cross sections: footing sizes, footing insulation, crushed stone base, damp proof course, concrete slab thickness, concrete cover, reinforcement, sill and lighting deck heights, roof pitch and springing height, rafter sizes, wall, ceiling and roofing materials.
Full size details of French doors and casement windows occupy a separate drawing, together with a window schedule. Door details and a door schedule occupy another. All these are dimensioned, including the height and backset of locks and latches.
I furnish an electrical layout, and stipulate the exact location, height and type of switch plate and switch socket plate required.
The cabinetry is detailed and heavily dimensioned.
All the necessary information is on the drawings or in the specifications: it is just in a different format, and that disturbs some bureaucrats. Whenever I have had recourse to appeal to higher authority I have always been successful. Strangely, I find officials in bush locations less conservative than their city based counterparts. One would surmise, perhaps, that it would be the reverse of the actual situation.
I find it impossible to detail a house on fewer than 25 ISO A0 sheets, and for one job I produced 104.
MyLiebermeisterAGG:
I refuse to compromise on general principles of document submission. You appear to have less difficulty in so doing, and hence probably live a quieter life.
These planning and building officials are public servants, and as I have written previously on this thread, I am helping to pay their salaries. As such I expect cooperation and facilitation from them, not chronic displays of incompetence and bureaucratic pettyfogging. I have no doubt that somewhere in the planning offices in Canberra there is a personal file containing a note that says ‘Laurie Virr bites’. If such types seek to make it more difficult for me to practice my profession, then I shall retaliate in kind. One can almost read what goes thru their minds when confronted by a set of drawings that detail something other than a dull box - ‘If I accede to this application, how will it affect my prospects of promotion, and/or my retirement pension’?
Very early in my career I designed and detailed a house on 60/30 triangles. I submitted the construction drawings, and they were reviewed by a building official who was a licensed architect. He refused to grant permission to build on the grounds that my design ‘did not look like a house’. I asked him what a house looked like, but he did not reply. That incident set my future course. I appealed to a higher authority, ironically a man who had previously worked for Le Corbusier, and I was successful. I have never looked back.
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Stephen:
I apologize for not answering your queries in my earlier post.
With hemicyclical designs I find a radial module is essential. Perhaps I lack imagination in this regard?
I surmise that all the 'civilized parts of the world' suffer the same bureaucracy. Certainly the Chinese hierarchy claim that the public service is the greatest impediment to 'progress' in their country.
I apologize for not answering your queries in my earlier post.
With hemicyclical designs I find a radial module is essential. Perhaps I lack imagination in this regard?
I surmise that all the 'civilized parts of the world' suffer the same bureaucracy. Certainly the Chinese hierarchy claim that the public service is the greatest impediment to 'progress' in their country.
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
MyLiebermeisterAGG:
I would have thought that I had made it manifest that I place all the information necessary to construct the building on the drawings, or in the specifications.
Surely the job of the bureaucrats is to ensure that is the case, not to determine the form in which it is presented? The primary object of the documents is to have the building erected, whereas, here at least, officialdom wishes to determine every aspect of the process, and behaves as tho the ultimate aim is to have all the information fit neatly into an ISO A4 size folder.
If you were employing somebody would you not want to have the major influence on how your work was presented? As citizens we are employing public servants.
The hard facts are that the task of assessing applications for planning and building approval ideally requires highly intelligent people. With notable exceptions, such talented people are not attracted to the job. In their place we have ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’, many of whom would be unemployable in private enterprise. For how long are we expected to suffer fools gladly?
I would have thought that I had made it manifest that I place all the information necessary to construct the building on the drawings, or in the specifications.
Surely the job of the bureaucrats is to ensure that is the case, not to determine the form in which it is presented? The primary object of the documents is to have the building erected, whereas, here at least, officialdom wishes to determine every aspect of the process, and behaves as tho the ultimate aim is to have all the information fit neatly into an ISO A4 size folder.
If you were employing somebody would you not want to have the major influence on how your work was presented? As citizens we are employing public servants.
The hard facts are that the task of assessing applications for planning and building approval ideally requires highly intelligent people. With notable exceptions, such talented people are not attracted to the job. In their place we have ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’, many of whom would be unemployable in private enterprise. For how long are we expected to suffer fools gladly?
What other method would one use, when designing an arc-shaped structure, than a radial grid ? I intended no criticism. . .
I wonder what other method than the present one could society devise, to assure that appropriate building standards (whatever they are determined to be) would be adhered to ? We detest and protest higher taxes; better pay in the offices would perhaps attracts a better class of public servant ? Can we think together of ways to improve the sorry situation that Laurie and others have encountered ?
S
I wonder what other method than the present one could society devise, to assure that appropriate building standards (whatever they are determined to be) would be adhered to ? We detest and protest higher taxes; better pay in the offices would perhaps attracts a better class of public servant ? Can we think together of ways to improve the sorry situation that Laurie and others have encountered ?
S
-
Laurie Virr
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:32 pm
Stephen:
There was a time here when the salaries of public servants were less than those attainable in private enterprise, but the permanency of their positions was guaranteed.
In the 1970's, partially as a consequence of the threat of strike action that would have brought the entire Federal administration to a standstill, substantial salary increases were forthcoming. Now it has reached the stage where public service pay rates for lower and middle ranking public servants are far in excess of anything that private enterprise can provide. Moreover, working conditions are often superior. Some government offices are equipped with gymnasiums, built at public expense, to which employees have free access. The rest of the population has to pay for their attendance at commercial gymnasiums.
Given these circumstances do you advocate increasing the salaries of public servants to even greater degree, in order to attract more gifted people?
There was a time here when the salaries of public servants were less than those attainable in private enterprise, but the permanency of their positions was guaranteed.
In the 1970's, partially as a consequence of the threat of strike action that would have brought the entire Federal administration to a standstill, substantial salary increases were forthcoming. Now it has reached the stage where public service pay rates for lower and middle ranking public servants are far in excess of anything that private enterprise can provide. Moreover, working conditions are often superior. Some government offices are equipped with gymnasiums, built at public expense, to which employees have free access. The rest of the population has to pay for their attendance at commercial gymnasiums.
Given these circumstances do you advocate increasing the salaries of public servants to even greater degree, in order to attract more gifted people?