Richard_Morrison

Usually the legal property description is in the Preliminary Title Report that the Title Co. prepares at a sale. (Real estate customs may be different in VA than they are here in CA, though.) You might ask your client if they have a copy of that report. Otherwise, it's usually no big deal to go to the Assessor's office, or wherever these records are kept, and check the actual original survey.

This parcel apparently has 10 legs, two of which are not dimensioned. (The two short ones near the road.) This was probably drafted by someone who took the information from somewhere and drew it, and it is not complete. I'd suggest trying to look at the original of the subdivision plat, or get a legal metes & bounds description from the owner. Other than that, you are just guessing. I don't know how important accuracy is on this project, though.

Look, there is no way that anyone not involved in the structural design of the project can make anything close to an informed opinion based on photographs and a conceptual floor plan. (And frankly, if they try, they are idiots.) If this is a serious concern for you, you will need to sit down (and better if done in conjunction with your own structural engineer for your own peace of mind), and let the structural engineer who designed the project walk you through the geotech report, and the structural loading assumptions and load-resisting schemas. It is unlikely they will do this for free, however, and may not do it at all. Another approach is that all permit documents, including the geotech report, should be available for viewing at the building department, although they probably won't allow copies to be made. You could hire an engineer to do a cursory evaluation of these filed documents to see if the analysis was reasonably done.

There is no way that anyone on this forum could make an informed opinion on the adequacy of the rebar. Even a licensed structural engineer could not, based on the information given, without knowing the structural loading, the overall system configuration, design parameters, etc. I CAN tell you that columns around the perimeter usually take far lighter vertical loads (sometimes 1/2 the load or less) than the interior columns, so you should not expect to see as much rebar in a column at an exterior wall (which this appears to be) as at the interior columns.

Guess what? Vitruvius and Andrea Palladio were not licensed architects, either. Stating that someone was not a licensed architect when they were already practicing as an architect before the advent of architectural licensing is not trivia -- it's just silly. EDIT: I did a little research on FLLW and high school graduation. The best information I could find stated that there is "no evidence" that he graduated. That would presumably mean that there is no evidence that he didn't, either. However, in 1885, there was maybe a 3 percent high school graduation rate. https://www.edweek.org/media/34gradrate-c1.pdf . Looking at history and finding things to be shocking when viewed through a lens of modern standards is not very productive. I certainly would not try to suggest based on current licensing laws that Frank Lloyd Wright was not qualified to be considered an architect worthy of that title.

A few interesting facts regarding your side note: 1) He did, in fact, graduate from high school in 1885. https://www.biography.com/people/frank-lloyd-wright-9537511 2) Besides two years of engineering college, he apprenticed for Joseph Silsbee and the prestigious firm of Adler and Sullivan from 1887-1893 (seven years total) before starting his own firm in 1893. So, nine years of combined education and experience before going out on his own. 3) He started his firm BEFORE there was architectural licensing in the U.S., which first started in Illinois in 1897. Wisconsin (where his home of Taliesen was) didn't start licensing architects until 1917. However, he had licensed architects on his staff. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to justify with "fake news" (maybe claiming that FLLW was actually just an unlicensed "draftsman" and therefore no better than you), but re-writing history is not helping your case.

Knowing how to build is NOT the same as knowing how to design. Ideally, the consummate professional will know how to do both. However, there are too many people who think that knowing how to build is an acceptable substitute for design training. Even worse, there are some who believe that knowing how to use Chief Architect can easily substitute for both. A good designer and a good builder can create magic, even when one needs to help overcome the shortcomings of the other. A good builder without design skills can only create square footage.

It's interesting that you think that architects have significant influence in these designs with the big builders. From knowing architects who have worked for them: 1) They are captive designers, without much clout. 2) They get told what to design and how to design it. 3) Most of the design decisions get made based on prior projects, market research, and real estate people. 4) The architect's job is mostly to facilitate approvals with the various jurisdictions and to make bad designs more palatable where they can. I've heard there is a lot of burnout.

Fraud.

While the intent to be helpful is admirable, showing every anchor bolt has significant liability attached to it. Some mudsills may require 48" o.c. Other shear walls require 32" o.c. In earthquake areas, I've seen it get down to 8" o.c. You get everything shown, then a window location gets changed slightly at the last minute and your "Type 44" shear wall goes to a "Type 33" and now the anchor bolts are shown in the wrong place. A mudsill gets notched because of a pipe, and your anchor bolts are in the wrong place. If the bolts were placed according to your plans, YOU are the one who may get to pay for the work to correct the wrong placement, assuming that the building inspector catches it. (And around here, the competent ones often do.) Usually, a detail (EXAMPLE ONLY) similar to the attached takes care of everything.

You will get better answers if you describe the type of project you are trying to do. Crank out builder's plans? Highly detailed modeling? Residential? Commercial? There are many different tools out there, and some fit a type of work better than another.

Or you can have an "existing" wall type, with a 3-1/2" air space, say, instead of studs, so that you can frame the entire house automatically at one go. No studs will be built in the air space, of course.

As suggested, post the plan. You might also see whether the room has a different floor height than the adjacent rooms.

Hi Tom! Hope David has a woman in his life now to help manage those kids! Anyway, to get the arc to stay, LOCK the chord first, after getting the end points in the right place. Then you can change the radius without moving the end points. Alternatively, you COULD cartwheel it, but you need to set the behavior to Rotate Around Current Point in CAD Edit Preferences, and it's not very exact if you're eyeballing it.

The delta refers to the angle subtended by that arc with that radius, using a 360 deg. circle. (So, for a right angle, you might see 90d 0' 0") However, since it looks like you can get the other points, you can just draw an arc between those points and change it to that radius (double check the calculated length), and you should be good to go. You can also check the Arc Angle in the Arc Specification DBX if you change the Number Style appropriately.

There is no universe in which mixing dimensions over a foot - displayed in inches - with feet and inches in the same dimension string would be considered a good idea.

Of course you can.

It normally does this automatically. What is it displaying now? (In the meantime, make sure that "leading zeroes" is UNchecked.)

I agree with Johnny. I think it depends on what you mean by "high end, and very detail oriented." Sketchup and Chief make a very good combination, but the number of faces in those "details" can have a big impact on the program speed. There are other BIM programs which can handle much larger models (i.e. more detail) without bogging down, but you may not need this.

Survey looks fine. Here's a DWG since I don't have X8 loaded. Plot.dwg

To make this easier for you, just draw a bunch of single lines and use point-to-point to move them into place. Should take about 5-10 min. max.

Well, there you go...

No, they are NOT the chord measurements. Your problem (I think) is that you are entering straight line distances (chords) when these are actually arc distances. For example, the 126.16' dimension is the arc length, NOT the chord length. You will need to know the radius of the arc, probably listed in a table.

One of the best ways to learn the program is try out things like this on your own, which would take less time than getting everyone to read and respond, and you'd have an answer immediately.

If you haven't already, check the SSA content. It's quite possible that the brands/colors you are using are already in the Library.