The future of residential design/drafting?

[chief58]

School of hard knocks, started out in the field building and know designing for younger builders clients, and busy busy busy

[CARMELHILL]

17 hours ago, johnny said:

We need greater restriction with mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing even for "designers".  I'm not saying people need to become architects - but there should be some level of competency required before designing buildings. 

Europe does it the right way. They alternate sending the kids to school and then internship field work, then school, then back to field for internships, etc...I also think our country should adopt the European model of compulsory volunteer work after school. Austria and Germany require either military service or volunteer hospital/ambulance/auxilary police. There shouldn't be anymore rich kids with "bone spurs" in their feet getting them out of serving their country just like everyone else. And it they are opposed to guns, then they join the volunteer ambulance service or peace corp.s for an extra year.

 

There is a need for more code education. For architects there needs to be broader education in college. I wasted soooo much time on 5 credit design classes so I could learn how to "define the space" with the fake wall that was "held in the air by an invisible crane". Stupid and a waste. Now I have my own business and the lack of ANY required business or accounting classes has completely screwed me. That's a big part of why architects get paid so poorly for our time. We were never trained how to run a business, successfully manage it, or how to charge for our services. Which leads me to......

 

Chief has lots of great tools, but it needs more productivity tools. Some simple things found in other software, are no where to be found in our program. Or they take 2 to 3 versions to arrive after we beg for them in the Suggestions forum. Or the tool is there in a different absurd form, but you have to be a genius to figure out the required work around (macros). But they keep coming out with more eye candy stuff like the 360 panoramics, VR, apps for phones, etc... It takes me a few hours at the very least to get a good looking kitchen interior rendering. I show it to a client and get a "wow". Do you think I can really recoup my time investment of 3 hours x $135 for that rendering? Most of my clients would balk at paying for the TRUE time involved to get panoramics and VR done for their projects. What about the extra meeting time to consult in the field and pull out the VR tablet/goggles? They won't antie up for that extra meeting time. Every client wants to meet after 6pm. Dam. I've got kids. I'd like to be home once in a while for dinner. Then they ask for a Saturday meeting. One client asked me to cancel my family Christmas vacation for their project (this is New York, so not surprising). Yes, almost every client is impressed by the color renderings when I go for the first consultation, but the client that values the time involved with a high price tag as opposed to the CHEAPER firm, is few and far between.

 

I don't know, maybe I need to re-evaluate how I sell my services. Maybe I just get the cheapest sonsabitches out there. Maybe I'm just stuck in a crappy market (middle of Long Island NY where there isn't a vacant building lot for 20 miles). Aghhhhhh. 

 

Technology has changed our business immensely. For good and bad. Referrals don't come from quality service "word of mouth" anymore. Instead they arrive from Craigslist, Yelp, HomeAdvisor, or Houzz. Meetings can be moved to GoToMeeting so people don't leave their house. Designs arrive instantly when posted to our website with PDF files that can be downloaded. Project updates are constant via Facebook postings and Instagram. Questions receive responses instantly because of Text Messages.

 

BTW - Formal training sometimes is a good thing. Today I saw an asbuilt floor plan a client received from a "Drafting Firm" that they used to submit to the local town for a Rental Registration Permit. The dimensions were to the nearest 1/32". How absurd is it to see a floor plan that says 32'-3 1/32". Oh that just kills me. The lineweights were so light, you could barely read the plans. What about the engineer that rubberstamps drawings that were NOT done under his DIRECT SUPERVISION. But even with all our regulation and laws, nobody follows up on this stuff. Yet, my drawings need to have HALF the building code reprinted in them. Soon I might buy a copy of the code and submit it with my drawings as a referenced "spec book". But this regulations is what keeps a lot of us in business. Everything needs a permit now. Sheds, pools, retaining walls, decks, driveway paver coverage of your front yard, sign permits, etc.....Fly by night companies with no real training can't do this stuff. Anyone can draw. But how many kids can do the complete structure of a house, LVL, flitch beams, steel beams, column design, footing pad design, etc...

[lbuttery]

Edward:

 

well said

 

rubberstamps drawings that were NOT done under his DIRECT SUPERVISION

 

this is allowed in NY (maybe other states ?) - but the architect or engineer is really supposed to do a review first

and they become liable for the work

 

the architect I used for my addition missed that I had cross-ties and required an LVL King beam

 

naturally got the "whoops I missed them" reply

 

Lew

 

 

[johnny]

10 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

Any ideas involving 'greater restrictions' have to IMO be taken with a grain of salt. I had absolutely zero training before I became a home designer and that freedom allowed me to develop a thriving business without the restrictions that some claim are needed to create a more professional environment.

 

Professionalism does not come with restrictions or regulations or whatever term you choose. Professionalism comes from an internal ethic that drives the entrepreneur to excellence in his/her business relationships. I remember a genuine red flag when dealing with other businesses when I was a general contractor and that was a BBB rating that the company would boast about. We had the worst luck with those companies pretending to be good business people because of a BBB 'A' badge or label or whatever you choose. We had much better relationships with simple, honest people who didn't pretend to be anything but simple and honest people.

 

And then there were the 'architects' that we dealt with constantly. What a struggle that was. Details that couldn't b built; designs that didn't work, but they had all of the "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing..." but...they had no sense of what the client really wanted, did not listen to those needs and designed homes that fit their training and the latest trends instead of what the client wanted, if it could be built at all.

 

My point - all the "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" will have zero effect on the performance of a person within their business. The skills that are needed really can't be taught or regulated but are inherent with a person's personality and their ethical view of the world so in my opinion more " mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing"  does nothing more than create more "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" without addressing what makes a business (any business) good, professional or whatever term you choose.

 

It may have worked for you Larry - but the fact you were a general contractor means you had some idea of how a building goes together.  If you guys read my comment again it wasn't a "Architect vs Designer" post at all - it was a comment about wannabe designers out there.  I see there posts in this thread all the time trying to ask for help in Chief but the REAL problem is they don't know how something actually goes together.  The scary part is they are selling their service as a "designer" to whatever poor soul decided to hire them.

 

But since you brought it up.... architects are humans like anyone else and prone to mistakes.  Lawyers make mistakes, doctor's make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.  However, if someone wanted to have the best chance of getting a building designed well, and a nice set of Condocs - i obviously believe picking an architect would, in of itself, give someone a much better chance for success than trying their luck with random designers.  I'd hope that statement isn't even up for debate.

 

 

 

[johnny]

5 hours ago, CARMELHILL said:

I don't know, maybe I need to re-evaluate how I sell my services. Maybe I just get the cheapest sonsabitches out there. Maybe I'm just stuck in a crappy market (middle of Long Island NY where there isn't a vacant building lot for 20 miles). Aghhhhhh.

 

If you are specializing in remodels, and inexpensive remodels, that is a hard gig.  I've done a few of those a lot time ago only to know that is no way to work.

 

Fip side i've done remodels where the client was spending $200k just on the kitchen cabinet package (Snaidero), and over $1m+ on the overall remodel and that did pay nicely and was very fun.  Id think that sort of high end remodel work would be around your location?

 

Personally, I found a niche in development/community design/planning and love it. I design all over in multiple states and work/live where i want (island in San Juans).

[HumbleChief]

Just wondering what real problem "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" actually solves?

[Richard_Morrison]

15 minutes ago, HumbleChief said:

Just wondering what real problem "mandatory schooling/internships/continuing education and licensing" actually solves?

Fraud.

[lbuttery]

but the REAL problem is they don't know how something actually goes together

 

Johnny:

 

I agree

 

without my partner I do not have the requisite knowledge to properly design a house or create a permit set

 

he could be a chiefer without me - but not I without him

 

together we made a good team

I was full time - he was part-time

 

I was running the business and getting the jobs

I learned how to do about 70% of a model and would send the plan to him when I hit a brick wall

 

I did the code research and attended every class on building and architecture that I could

 

I read EVERY post on Chieftalk and would tell him the steps needed to accomplish a task that stymied me

and sometimes within minutes he had the task done

 

we had a 100% success rate on getting our permits approved on the first submittal

but our permits were discussed/reviewed/signed/submitted by the builder per his standards/requirements

 

you are right the knowledge has to be there - somewhere - to be successful

 

Lew

 

 

[SNestor]

I'm in the camp of less regulation is better for everyone.  Yes..there will be bad designers...but, with all the regulations Architects face I still see some bad architecture.  

 

Let's face it.  The large publicly traded home builders such as Pulte, David Weekley, D R Horton, CalAtlantic...etc have the cash to hire the best architects to design their homes.  Have you seen some of their subdivisions?  The homes are mostly out of scale behemoths.  Floor plans that don't work for the owner...but, the plans are big boxes that are easy to construct.  And...they fit nicely on their tiny little square plots of land.  In Indy...we have some of these builders throwing up houses by the hundreds.  All I see is "cookie cutter" when driving through these subdivisions.  

 

Who am I to comment...these builders sell these homes everyday - all day.  Is the architecture any good...well, not to me but obviously I'm in the minority.  The public has voted...they want their house to look a lot like their neighbors house.  Unique is defined by the exterior paint color.  

 

As far as regulating designers...I think if the AIBD did a better job of selling their certification to the general public it might help.  If potential clients knew the value of having an AIBD certification this could be a reason for designers to join AIBD and get certified.  As it is right now...the only people that know about AIBD are designers that join in order to get certified.  The general public has no clue what AIBD is.  

[Richard_Morrison]

1 hour ago, SNestor said:

I'm in the camp of less regulation is better for everyone.  Yes..there will be bad designers...but, with all the regulations Architects face I still see some bad architecture.  

 

Let's face it.  The large publicly traded home builders such as Pulte, David Weekley, D R Horton, CalAtlantic...etc have the cash to hire the best architects to design their homes.  Have you seen some of their subdivisions?  The homes are mostly out of scale behemoths.  Floor plans that don't work for the owner...but, the plans are big boxes that are easy to construct.  And...they fit nicely on their tiny little square plots of land.  In Indy...we have some of these builders throwing up houses by the hundreds.  All I see is "cookie cutter" when driving through these subdivisions. 

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.

[DRAWZILLA]

2 hours ago, SNestor said:

I'm in the camp of less regulation is better for everyone.  Yes..there will be bad designers...but, with all the regulations Architects face I still see some bad architecture.  

 

Let's face it.  The large publicly traded home builders such as Pulte, David Weekley, D R Horton, CalAtlantic...etc have the cash to hire the best architects to design their homes.  Have you seen some of their subdivisions?  The homes are mostly out of scale behemoths.  Floor plans that don't work for the owner...but, the plans are big boxes that are easy to construct.  And...they fit nicely on their tiny little square plots of land.  In Indy...we have some of these builders throwing up houses by the hundreds.  All I see is "cookie cutter" when driving through these subdivisions.  

 

Who am I to comment...these builders sell these homes everyday - all day.  Is the architecture any good...well, not to me but obviously I'm in the minority.  The public has voted...they want their house to look a lot like their neighbors house.  Unique is defined by the exterior paint color.  

 

As far as regulating designers...I think if the AIBD did a better job of selling their certification to the general public it might help.  If potential clients knew the value of having an AIBD certification this could be a reason for designers to join AIBD and get certified.  As it is right now...the only people that know about AIBD are designers that join in order to get certified.  The general public has no clue what AIBD is.  

Around here people buy those large tract homes ,1.5 mill+, and call me out to add to them before they even move in. I've done 4 of those this year. One job we gutted most of the house and replaced with better.

[HumbleChief]

1 hour ago, DRAWZILLA said:

Around here people buy those large tract homes ,1.5 mill+, and call me out to add to them before they even move in. I've done 4 of those this year. One job we gutted most of the house and replaced with better.

It amazes me how 'unlivable' a lot of those new homes truly are. Of course I've see a lot of gutted new homes that are worse than the original because you know - homeowners - but am mostly surprised by modern design decisions. On the other hand we walked through some models a couple months ago that were awesome (personal opinion of course) and very livable right out of the box.

[RL-inc]

As i have mentioned on this forum many times before I spent most of my career in the field hands on building custom homes. One of the biggest factors in my moving into the design field was all of the projects that I had to explain to the architect why something would not work and then how to fix it.

 

I am by no means trying to disrespect their formal education but I believe that as the provider of a projects design and the subsequent construction documents it is our ultimate responsibility to know that the design can be built as drawn.

If you cannot do that you should not offer the service regardless of how you got into the profession.

[Richard_Morrison]

4 hours ago, RL-inc said:

As i have mentioned on this forum many times before I spent most of my career in the field hands on building custom homes. One of the biggest factors in my moving into the design field was all of the projects that I had to explain to the architect why something would not work and then how to fix it.

 

I am by no means trying to disrespect their formal education but I believe that as the provider of a projects design and the subsequent construction documents it is our ultimate responsibility to know that the design can be built as drawn.

If you cannot do that you should not offer the service regardless of how you got into the profession.

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. 

[RL-inc]

Agreed Richard.

I was not implying that one is an acceptable substitute for the other.

 

Moreso i was trying to share that i have run into cases in the past where the designer drew pretty pictures that either could not be built or were incredibly inefficient with materials and money. Building experience on some level tends to bring a more realistic perspective to a project.

 

 

[TheKitchenAbode]

8 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

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. 

 

Agree 100%. Competent Architects and Designers fulfill the creative aspect of a project, they define the vision. Competent Engineers and Contractors figure out how to accomplish this, they make it happen. When the two come together the result is amazing, what once could not be done is now done and a new benchmark has been set. This is exemplified throughout time from the great pyramids, Angkor Wat, the Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam just to name a few.

[lbuttery]

a new benchmark has been set. This is exemplified throughout time from the great pyramids, Angkor Wat, the Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam just to name a few.

 

I agree 100%

 

and then there is residential architecture/building

 

while some clients need a Frank Lloyd Wright design and can afford it

 

the average client just needs a home

 

they probably don't need a "vision"

nor do they want to pay for one

 

but they do deserve a building that isn't crappy either

 

I have advised clients that they would be better served with an architect

 

I attended a regular seminar by the AIA - "Meet and architect"

he made it very clear he would NOT look at homeowner suggestions

they obviously weren't interested in creating a "vision"

 

it is up to the designer/architect to determine the clients needs and offer services accordingly

 

Lew

 

Lew

[TheKitchenAbode]

Lew, I fully understand, that's why is said "Competent". This is applicable regardless of the magnitude of a project. The problem is that there are unfortunately many out there with an attitude and that includes all involved. No amount of training or schooling will overcome this, listening to client needs, respecting budgetary limitations and just being a nice individual to work with is not part of the curriculum.

 

Regardless of budget or project scale, there is just no excuse for anyone to ignore such simple things as proportions of scale, style adherence, basic ergonomics or quality of workmanship.

[raltd9245]

On 11/19/2017 at 7:25 PM, chief58 said:

you don't show where you are which means a lot of what your state, county, of town might require

At one time, in my younger years, I was registered in 19 states. I was from Nh, now Arizona. I can safely say that, with a few exceptions, the situation is country wide. My comments are targeting the Nation Builders that seem to have the pull skirt som regulations.

[javatom]

An interesting side note - Frank Lloyd Wright was not an architect.  In fact, he did not graduate from college or even high school.  Pretty good work for a "draftsman".

[TheKitchenAbode]

9 minutes ago, javatom said:

An interesting side note - Frank Lloyd Wright was not an architect.  In fact, he did not graduate from college or even high school.  Pretty good work for a "draftsman".

 

True, but he represents the few not the many. Creativity is not something that can be taught, it comes from within the individual. Fortunately he had that and the opportunity to work and learn from other very prominent Architectural firms at the time.

[Richard_Morrison]

7 hours ago, javatom said:

An interesting side note - Frank Lloyd Wright was not an architect.  In fact, he did not graduate from college or even high school.  Pretty good work for a "draftsman".

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. 

 

[javatom]

I did not say he never received any education.  You did in fact support exactly what I said.  HE HAD NO COLLEGE DEGREE AND NEVER OFFICIALLY BECAME A LICENSED ARCHITECT.  It is just a bit of trivia.  You seem to be trying to read a lot into this.

[Richard_Morrison]

2 hours ago, javatom said:

I did not say he never received any education.  You did in fact support exactly what I said.  HE HAD NO COLLEGE DEGREE AND NEVER OFFICIALLY BECAME A LICENSED ARCHITECT.  It is just a bit of trivia.  You seem to be trying to read a lot into this

 

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. 

[johnny]

Not sure if anyone knows but in many states today you still don’t need a college degree to become a licieced architect - or an attorney.  You can intern under the direction of an architect for a period of time and then request to take the state examination after showing competence.  In fact, I believe the NCARB has a program for this as well.