An overreliance on modern BIM software and lack of in situ knowledge on the part of architects may be spurring declines in the deliverability of new structures, says a new post to LinkedIn from designer Igor Goriatchev. The "Speed vs. Quality" debate, rise of remote work, and related declines in in-person mentorships are all factors leading to the conclusion that "[c]omprehensive, integrated drawings have given way to incomplete, conflicting, and fragmented sets" which are in turn affecting construction timelines on new projects, the post states.
This opinion relates to various topics within employment and professional practice that have been highlighted via our Forum threads for several years with the advent of new digital workflows and other realities for architects.
Has this matched your experience with technical drawings for AEC clients in daily professional practice? You can share your thoughts in the comments below.
78 Comments
It can be simultaneously true that the modern conception of a 'drawing set' has changed, and that - viewed from the traditional model, details and drawing techniques have been lost in the sense that they are nearly entirely digitized (and not taught or practiced in the same way, furthermore). I would argue they've 'morphed' and left much of representational normative drawing techniques in the dust. New tools also afford new capabilities. But not all 'digitization' is of equal accuracy either, which makes evaluating digital models* of primary concern to architects, the ones who make buildings anyway.
While I'm on the subject, I feel digital tools like Revit have failed to advance sufficiently, holding the industry back without its knowing. Architecture is hesitant to embrace new technologies until it sees what 'sticks'
*model is a complicated term, in reality
Accredited Arch schools need to drive home the notion that quality details are just as, if not more, important than glossy images. Firm owners need to stop listening to software reps who promise that revit will solve all their problems out of the box. Young professionals need to understand that construction needs far more than a few lines in CAD.
I'm not saying it is impossible to produce a cohesive and coordinated set of drawings within the current paradaigm of contemporary practice, but nearly everything is working against it.
I like to think I produced some fucking excellent sets of drawings in my time, but I also often worked 80+ hours a week and went way above and beyond in order to get there, and even then sometimes it wasn't what I hoped because of other aspects outside of my control - contractor meddling, abbreviated timelines, early packages, shitty consulatants, you name it.
... All of which is to say, I don't think this is a problem of remote work and lack of in-person mentorship, nor BIM technology, but rather the "Find Out" phase of the architecture and construction industry's past 35+ years of "Fucking Around" with fees, wages, team sizes, schedules, and office structure.
Excellent answer, archanonymous. I agree with all of it. The enshittification of everything related to *good quality* has been underway for decades.
Lack of budget and increase in complexity without increase in fees makes it difficult to keep up. BIM is amazing. We are using revit more lately in office and the efficiency boost is undeniable. It is not enough though, especially since it is expensive.
I'm not certain if this is a real thing or not (might be a mirage based on the few examples in front of me), but I tend to see the boost happening with those who are already pretty excellent at making drawings, and with a good bit of experience all round.
BIM models can be very messy and it is easy to cut corners without knowing it if there is no one pointing out the intent of the drawings in the first place. It is something I see in the work of students often enough. The culprit seems to be a focus too much on the drawings as a product, whether drawn by hand or made in rhino, autocad, or revit. Which is a mistake. The product is the building or the landscape, or the neighborhood. That misapprehension feels like more of a problem than which instruments we are using. Maybe it even partially explains why we aren't paid enough for our work. Clients don't see us as the ones responsible for making buildings, just drawings.
I think all of this is ridiculous. I’ve looked at project documents from 50 and 60 years ago, for 20-30,000 sf schools, can someone tell me what the average, complete set of pages were in those document sets? Just ballpark it for me.
I'm not joking here, but like 10-15 A-sheets (if it is a really important and complex building) maybe 5 S sheets, and maybe 2-3 sheets for the major trades, but I wouldn't be surprised if the set didn't include plumbing, for example. Figure that shit out in shop drawings/ on site/ it's the contractors and trade's job.
The (perhaps apocryphal) example for people who worked in Chicago is the Sears Tower set which only contained 35 sheets total, including consultants. 10,000+ sheets of shop drawings though.
About a decade ago we did the plans to convert a historic (1920s) warehouse/office building into apartments. Four storeys, maybe a 5000sf footprint. Our renovation set was 35 pages (with just 1 structural). If it had been a new build, likely about 60 pages. The original drawings? 7 pages total for all consultants.
A complete set if you did the A, S, and MEP stuff, they would be maybe 30-50 or so sheets. Sometimes, it might be upwards of 75 sheets. Today, you'll need 3 to 10 times that. Part of the reason is, back in the day, you had more experienced and better quality construction contractors. Back another 50 years more to the 1920s and earlier, you would typically needed half the number of sheets than 50 years ago. Part of this comes down to one, building technology was generally simpler and two, you have craftsmen.
The average builder of the day would be equivalent to today's specialty craftsmen that work on historic preservation projects. This was the baseline and the best of them were more experienced and be those with 30+ years in the crafts. Every construction contractor has finish carpentry level woodworkers and milling workshop. Going back 50 more years, they would also work on shipbuilding (building wood ships) and had all this capability and they produced. There were also those that worked and specialize in trades like masonry. They were equipped and had the resources to build with high skill.
Another thing, back in the day, architects were also functionally the equivalent of the general contractor as well. They brought the trades and organized the operation and did the work and were on the construction site a lot more than architects do today. You can see, the schism and degree of departure/separation from construction only expanded since after WW II and we perpetuate that.
Some of the techniques of representing information on a sheet changed. They can pack a lot onto a single sheet and the builders could understand what they are looking at. Today, you don't have the quality. Many in the trade have absolutely zero training or schooling to teach them how to read technical submissions. We also pack a lot of information on drawings pointing to and referencing building codes which we didn't have back at the time. We didn't have plan review process and building departments. There were standards for a long time and such that guided architects on conditions like live loads and such that would need to be met in certain use applications and they built accordingly and designed accordingly. They knew for plaster ceilings, deflection needs to be minimized and they also knew they need to design to a maximum deflection not exceeding a maximum amount so they designed so the joists & beams were sufficiently sized and planed the spans accordingly. There were load/span tables and methods to sizing joists & beams and columns long before code. This the architect would do and then call out the size, spacing, and spans of joists, beams, and columns and such.
Bad design results in bad reputation. This can be a career ender. Remember, in those days, moving from place to place at great distances was a significant thing. You started and lived out your career in the city or towns. Moving across nation was expensive and not something done as much as it does now. It was like compared to today, would cost you 3-5 times as much in today's dollars if you did a proportional adjustment. Your reputation really means something.
From personal experiece, Level and quality of drawings is directly correlated to the project budget, project quality and the quality of the client and general contractor involved.
Quality project / owner / GC = quality drawings
Crappy project / owner / GC = crappy drawings.
quality staff that cares about their work = quality drawings regardless of project budget.
If you are a cad monkey yes, in the real world and I can tell you dont work for yourself or have any idea of how a business works, quality staff and time spent on drawings is directly corelated to project budget.
They are not. Come back when you have real world experience on real projects. Until then, keep faking it.
I run my own business, while you run your mouth on this forum. come back when I have revit questions, as for anything else your opinion is worthless. Thank god for ignore button, filters out the weak.
Keep trying.
Non, you said this: quality staff that cares about their work = quality drawings regardless of project budget and I agree, BUT the high quality from people who care *always* comes at their personal expense aka work-life balance.
I did a killer set of drawings (in CAD in 2019) for a project I cared about but I also spent 8 weekends in a row in the office. One week ago a co-worker and I pulled an all-nighter because we truly care about our work. But I don't like living this way, and I don't want to any more, and the only way that happens is if fees go up *significantly*.
in other words eat the rich
Donna, not always at personal expense. I stress with my staff not to work OT. That's my job and I'll do the overnights when required because I'm paid to do that (and I can often do their jobs 3x faster without breaking the bank). Just need to reinforce the old-timey notion of care and craft. We have room in our fees for good drawing set but what we lack is effective architects who can design & draft at the same time. This is something I struggle to teach and so far, have a under 50% record.
Non - I guess if the in-office dynamics are good, everyone is adequately supported and you still aren't getting good drawings, that is down to education and individual aptitude. Which is so highly variable. That said, over time you should be able to accumulate more staff like that by paying above-average wages and recruiting carefully, no?
Acrh, in an ideal world, yes, but we've been struggling with aptitude (say it's 50/50 at the moment). We're in a small market that is mostly all gov employees so very few people stick around long enough. It seems most work just as long as it takes for them to get into a cushy gov seat. This is common across a few of my colleagues offices in my market.
Non, I hear you, and I agree, and kudos to you for emphasizing work life balance! This stood out to me, going back to the original question of this post: "architects who can design and draft at the same time." I could *totally* do this in AutoCAD (well, Draftsight), but I could NOT do it in Revit. CAD was drawing, for me, and through drawing I could design better. But Revit is modeling. It's a whole different approach.
Donna, would love to have you on my team. Revit does require that the PA is a master of the software, but I was always able to have the more senior and experienced people (though they may not be strong Revit users) work on detail views, which are always drafted anyways, to create some great drawings.
For me, great drawings are ones that have good information and are considerate of construction techniques and realities, well coordinated, etc... Having everything accurately modeled or done "correctly" in Revit never enters into it. I've included hand drawn details on "revit sets" I've included stuff drafted in AutoCAD, I've included photographs of 1:1 mockups and maquettes we made on the 3d printer, I give no fucks about doing things "correctly" but rather that the end building is correct.
I think a lot of the issues pop up when the PA is the only one drawing, coordinating, designing, and managing the project which is hard for any size and complexity project beyond like SFR renovations.
^this is key. Just because you could do something in revit does not mean you need to. This is why you need someone who knows what an LOD scale is and where to apply what level. Junior staff get caught up filling every option on shit they don't understand then they forget that the drawings need to convey construction and design intent. I use whatever tool or combination of tools to convey design and construction instructions but I will use revit as a design tool on occasion. It depends on the project.
I have to agree with Non on this one. godindetails is so very incorrect on this.
You know wha they say, opinion is like dominick the donkey's a$$, everyone has one.
I'd like to see some of your finished work and construction documents GID. You could show us how you do things in your business.
Why would I care to show you my work or my business? a revit cad monkey on internet? Stop responding to every post I make on here, If you have a crush, I dont go that way.
Ain't no one here a CAD/BIM monkey. You're just salty that no one bought your fake jive.
Whatever you say brother, keep on reviting.
Sometimes I revit, sometimes I cad, sometimes I PA, or PM, or make coffee. sometimes I'm the accountant, sometimes I CA, sometimes I SD... All typically once per day. You're just jealous that some of us can do all our own stunts so you childishly box up your own incompetence with empty monkey labels.
Oh GID - you're so very wrong. FYI: I have over 20 years experience and am a partner in a firm. Just because you don't know Revit don't get salty and disparage those that do.
You made it brother, good job. Star for you.
godindetails
Weren't you asking last month about getting into Revit?
https://archinect.com/forum/th...
"Downloaded Revit LT trial, right off the bat, feel like a guy who got off a horse and now trying to drive a tesla self driven car. I'm really hoping this is for the better."
It sounds like you're just frustrated because you don't know Revit or any type of BIM. That's OK. Just don't be an ass.
FYI: you're identify isn't as 'secrete' as you think. Keep than in mind when you decided to act out.
Ok now I know who the Karen of the forum is.
So your default is to call everyone a Karen when they don't match with your silly opinions? Enjoy your bad clients, best you deserve with that shitty POV.
godindetails - not at all. Say what you want. Just be aware that you're being an ass and that your identity isn't a secrete.
what does that even mean? enough or ill ignore you
That means you need to conduct yourself as if you're speaking with someone face to face. Your identity here isn't a secrete. I worry you think it is and will wind up saying something here that will damage your reputation and your firm.
I need to conduct myself? You worry that I think a certian way? Dude do you live in the real world or are you a bubble boy?
Benny - I don't care how you think. I do care how you act and treat people. I'm sure you'll say that you speak to people IRL the same as you do here. We both know you don't. Pretend you have some semblance of credibility and integrity and accordingly.
My two cents - BIM programs provide "canned" or pre-drawn CAD details from libraries - this is "generic detailing" which obviously has its place in a CD set - this mimics what often happens in the field - we don't have craftsmen so most contractors have just become installers - think built-ins, cabinets, countertops, shower assemblies, etc. - however, high-end custom homes may require very explicit detailing - most builder-grade projects require only code-compliant details that are complete - if you are an architect you really don't want bare bone CD sets as the client will complain about the fee vs. the sheet count (value in their eyes) - if you've been around for a while you know what is designed and detailed is not what is built - sometimes they ignore the most important details - "those bastards, they killed Kenny" sort of thing ...
BIM does not provide 'canned' or pre- drawn details. Where are you getting this from?
^Some BIM and BIM lite software do some details automatically... but it has to be very simple (like wood stud framing). Still needs to be verified by a competent human but the simple out of the box graphics is enough to make those who don't know any better believe that BIM is a magic black box. I remember teaching studio 16y ago and one 1st year design student was so proud to use his dad's GC software to "design" his studio project because it outputted all these technical drawings. I pulled out a pencil and told them to draw it over. That student was shit.
I've been using BIM (Revit) for 16 years. I've never seen or used any type of 'automatic' details. Nor have I worked with, or known an architectural firm that has done so.
Odd, it's the kind of "BIM" you used to find in the misc software bin at the local stationary store.
Ah - so crap an architect wouldn't use. Got it.
archanonymous, you nailed it. "I give no fucks about doing things "correctly" but rather that the end building is correct."
I think you're confusing having things modeled 'correctly' and having quality construction documents that produce a great building. One is not needed to have the other. Nor will having one guarantee the other.
There's lots of idiots out there who think anything not made in Revit is somehow inferior work. I wasted too much of my younger days in corporate and pseudo-corporate firms dealing with that stupidity.
There are a lot of idiots out there that say _____ program can't be used to help create architecture. Revit, or any program is just a tool. It's all up to the individual to use it to create good architecture with it.
My current pet peeve are those that say AI rendering “blank” can do X. Well, if it can, show me. Don’t just claim it does, get to work, figure out what to do and show me what you can output. Going over this right now with some of our life-long interns (ie m.arch folks unable to complete IDP/exams).
Lifetime interns are always the people that latch on to whatever the current software silliness is.
Right now, AI generated design tools should not be used for technical submissions / CDs for legal reasons and its prone to errors. Earlier stages of the design process, maybe. Ultimately, the stuff you produce for technical submissions needs to be reasonably accurate and code compliant. Depending on the AI to magically do it all correctly to code and all only makes you a fool. You are the professional legally responsible so you need to make sure to review and correct things. AI tools are more like a freshly graduated from architecture school intern who has no experience producing technical drawings or common sense about coordinating structural and MEP/etc. stuff. An AI tool might think its okay to pass plumbing through a reinforced concrete structural beam. A competent professional would spot these errors and address it before sending these out to the building department for plan review to obtain permits.
I'm speaking to where AI tools are generally at. So don't assume it will be error-proof. Even a professional isn't error proof but they would have a greater understanding why you don't run plumbing through a concrete beam and stuff like that. AI tools don't quite think like architects.
Ricky, I'm not saying AI for CD or even DD level stuff. I'm referring to junior and intern arch staff who want to just press the AI button and let it do the easy stuff yet don't know a thing about the process. They want to make boxes in sketchup and pray/pledge to the AI god to turn it into a clever design. Maybe it's possible but the onus is on them to show us (the leads) and the clients that they can do it.
Also, I don't think you understand what the permitting process is. They would never flag a pipe through a beam as a deficiency. Not only are they not competent enough to spot it, that's not their job.
I didn't say it was the building department's job. Maybe that is a misunderstanding on your part in what I was saying. My point is the AI tools have potential for flaws that the professional needs to review the work. It can generate some bonehead stupid things. I do agree with your sentiment, in general. I was generally cautioning the notion of using AI tools expecting it to produce proper CDs. It might be able to produce something decent in early design phase that can be a starting point. However, I wouldn't overly rely on it to produce the stuff you need to submit for permits and construction.
Again AI is fine as a tool to iterate various ideas and then go from there and refine it through proper design development and CD process. I agree with you about the onus on proving that.
AI in itself is not an issue. The expression: "Garbage in, garbage out"; holds and if one uses a garbage can as an information source it is unlikely even a highly experienced garbage picker can exhume a proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear. Unless, of course, the garbage can belongs to Bergdorf Goodman and the garbage picker is a butler for Prince (King) Charles. A reminder: Not every building is going to be a work of (A)rchitecture. The vast majority of constructed works are simple buildings that do not pretend to elevated purpose. Even the Vitruvian dictims: "Utilitatis, Firmitatis and Venustatis are subject to the equally pervasive: "On time and at the right price." There have been instances where even Meier has gone over budget in buildings where no budget was supposed to exist. These issues, and limitations, applied equally to McKim, Meade and White projects. The expression: "Neurotics build castles in the air. Psychotics move into them." Please, learn the difference.
Mies detail drawing for villa tugendhat, done by staedtler pencil probably, version 1.0. By drawing it manually by hand, the information is processed way differently then your Revit libray of wall types, and he didnt have to place views or whatever else is the new norm now. Mies the legend.
thanks for reinforcing our already well informed assumptions about your experience.
I do all my design work by hand with marker on trace. I'll even do physical study models. I'm moving into using a digital tablet to do my sketching though. Once the design is established it's modeled and refined in Revit.
GID - you don't seem to understand that any assembly (walls, floors, roofs, ect) in Revit is created by the user. There are some that are preloaded in the program however I've never used those.
I think you just don't understand the program(s) you lamenting against. I totally understand. It's difficult to modify your process.
Does the users political affiliation matter in revit?
^only in the lt version.
I tried to download the LT version, but it says I have to be in Canada, bummer. Hopefully in 25 the man with the plan goes forward and incorporates you guys so that I can finally download it.
what man, the fat orange child with the bad hair-piece foaming at the mouth idiots hold pictures of while chanting their silly anthem? That man? Sorry, I never installed that plug-in.
With that comment, I think you should step down.
Adolf Loos drawing, no levels, no families, no view templates.
Looks like my sketches.
I really hope that's a cigarette burn in the top. Adds character.
Clearly it's coffee, or metric water (tea).
Oddy and Non, you guys are like two Karens that love to tell each other how nice your fanny pack is. Keep on Revitting fellas.
Actually, my fanny pack is rather nice for cc skiing. Do you even know how to Revit bro?
Yea man, know how to add levels now, add walls in, make roofs, made dormers, railings, stairs. This is nice, just click and build. I can see the potential now, I am drinking the coolaid.
What is the point about the hand drawings exactly? I think even the Mies drawing is a sketch, no?
My first office was all hand drawing with very expensive and beautiful drafting machines with amazing drafting arms. I was very poor at that stuff, but the old timers made beautiful concise drawings that blew me away. We switched to computers within a month as we had a cohort of young staff (incl me) who were absolutely shit at the hand drafting part of the task.
That office was 60 years old at the time and we went through projects from before WW II just to see how they worked back then and it is true they had fewer pages. But also very little mechanical and other services to deal with. Regulations were also sooooo much simpler, needing fewer proofs of compliance. The buildings themselves also were built poorly because building science was bad/wrong at the time. To fix that problem we have created an industry based on catalogue production, with warranties and proofs of performance attached to all the pieces we gather. That adds a lot to a standard drawing set without any design even happening, which is not good probably for quality of design.
The proportions and thoughtfulness from those old projects were better in many cases. but not always. What all that says to me is that BIM and the quality of drawings might be the wrong thing to focus on. The layers of regulations and production/construction solutions we have added to our profession are maybe more important to think about. Not that it should all be wiped away, but to do good work it requires a lot of serious thinking about how to use the systems in front of us. They are more complex and difficult to organize than they used to be, and getting more difficult every day.
If you're good at it, hand drawings are a quick and effective way to communicate a design to people. Clients typically like to see you sketch out ideas in front of them. Like BIM or CAD it's just a tool The tool is only as good as the person operating it.
Don't think anyone would disagree with that. Same with BIM. Clients absolutely LOVE it when we do an enscape walkthrough in a rhino or revit model. They also like physical models (if they want to keep it you know they are really feeling it). The drawing and sketching in front of them is also fun. Not as big a reaction as the other stuff, but definitely nice when something clicks in front of a client with a live drawing.
Software and drawing quality are just symptoms. The underlying problem in the USA is the failure of architectural education and the poor economics of architectural practice. There's a lot of individual employees and whole firms out there floundering because both the workforce is massively unprepared by their schooling and the overall business model is broken.
I've been producing contract documents for over 35 years. I started my career doing hand drawings for five years; worked in Autocad for another 25, and then learned Revit, so I have seen the process from all sides.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding out there as to why we produce working drawings. Sure we have to generate bid documents, but the drawing process used to be what forced us to visualize every nook and cranny of a building in our heads. You did not sit there for hours drawing (often repetitive) lines without thinking deeply about how everything fit together, both as geometry and as building systems.
Now it is way too easy to spit out--and publish--a drawing without a single person ever having even looked at it. Having done quality control for ten years, I can't tell you how much garbage ends up on the street. This is the crux of the problem.
A second factor is that the process of picking up redmarks was how we once learned how to put buildings together--and how to put drawing sets together. From the first time it was presented to me I could see that REVIT could be a great all-in-one tool for an architect with 20 years' experience who knew what he was doing and didn't want to hire draftsmen--but how would somebody ever develop that knowledge again?
As a personal aside, I will note that REVIT has robbed us of the joy in the contemplative process of mechanical drawing. Autocad was still drawing (but with razor sharp accuracy); REVIT is like doing spreadsheets. Anybody who has generated a stair railing in REVIT knows what I'm talking about.
And don't get me started on lineweights!
Even with Revit, redlines, QC, and mentorship is still needed. Revit isn't a 'push button to create _____' Anyone that thinks that is not only a fool but an idiot.
In my experience, Revit actually requires a person to have a better understanding of the assemblies and building components they are modeling. This is because you're not just drawing lines.
All of that said, Revit is just a tool. Just like with a pencil, or CAD, it's about the knowledge of user that creates a good design and set of CD's.
Paul Naprstek you hit the nail in the head and drove it beyond the stud on the other side.
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.