Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Sectional Question: Do you do many in fine detail or few and rough?
In architecture, a section is a drawing that cuts through the building vertically.
Resolve then Represent or Represent so you CAN Resolve?
A bit of a tongue twister:
As a designing/documenting architect regardless of the media you use to assist you conceptualise, interpret, resolve and document – do you clearly buy into one method or the other?
Here are descriptions for both:
Group One (first resolve then represent) does 1-2 sections through a typical building – maybe a few more in a complex building. Draws them in 1:10 (metric) or 1:25 and beautifully notate with lots of long winded descriptions. All the studs (in timber walls) are shown, tiles on roofs, insulation squiggles.
Group Two (represent to resolve) creates dozens of sections, everywhere a different condition is likely to be present; A change in level, a cut through beam, wall fittings, dropped ceilings, bulkheads.
The sections are ‘empty’ looking (if from a model, they are unadorned and straight cuts) – intelligent labels are linked to elements if anything is notated at all.
There is really no right or wrong answer, both groups can be achieving their goals just fine.
I have observed though a clear tendency of those from Group 2 (even when working in a purely drawing based environment) to lean more towards model-based approach given the chance.
Could be a self-test for BIM readiness. Try it!