How important is the aesthetic quality of a document set?

[LP Design]

How important to you is the aesthetic quality of a set of construction documents?

The more experience I have with Revit (specifically Revit implementation) the more it seems that the old "not the way it was in CAD" issue is based on the aesthetics of the drawings themselves. Some of us never worked in the days of hand drafting, but even so most of us have at least seen a really good set of hand drafted (or even great CAD drafted) plans. It is hard to dispute that the drawings themselves are a work of art in their own right. This can hold true even if they depict a cheap warehouse, or unimpressive housing development, etc.

Much has been made about the poor "quality" of Revit drawings, but how do you define quality? Are the documents just an unfortunate but necessary step towards creating a work of art that is a building? Can an "ugly" set of drawings be "better" than a "beautiful" set of drawings if it does a better job conveying the intent of the design?

For the purposes of this discussion I would like to side-step the argument about printed drawings vs. BIM-only deliverables. That being said, how important is aesthetic drawing quality to you?

I eagerly anticipate the community's thoughts. :)
Best Regards,
-LP

[twiceroadsfool]

It depends on what you consider "aesthetic drawing quality." Ill also assume this conversation is considering all other things ARE constant, as in, EVERYTHING is well coordinated, EVERYTHING is correct, etc.

Notes neatly on the drawing? Important.
Drawings neatly on the sheets and well organized? Important
Details well dimensioned, and well annotated (artwork in and of itself)? Important.
Item tags not overlapping or blocking other parts of the documentation? Important.
Building sections and Wall Sections reading ligibly and clearly? Important.
Sections cut in enough and appropriate locations to define the architecture? Important.
Hatch pattern consistancy and legibility? Important.
Lineweights of objects? Important.
Other trades represented in my drawings correctly? Important.

Things that are NOT important to me?

"A Profile line" around the edge of a detail. Not important.
A view marker looking a certain way. Not important.
Structure looking any way other than it really is, just to be pretty. Not important.
Earth hatch "only filling a little area." Not important.
Soffits and cabinets being "masked out" when a view cuts through them: Not important.
Note boxes and Schedules having "Shadows" on them. Not Important. (i mean, really...)
Stylistic text. Not important. (in fact... stupid, in my opinion).
Over Detailed beyond trade scope. Not important. (and not impressive)
Over-running actual extents of drawn lines like a "hand sketch." Not important.
Exaggerating dimensions on drawings to enhance details. Not important.

Thats my list. Opinions will vary.

[Andy.88917]

I think it's VERY important. That's one of the main reasons I am not using Revit. I have a specific way that I want my drawings to "look" and my builders expect them to look. I have got business based on my drawings being easier to read, easier to follow, and look better than the competition. I am absolutly no expert on Revit but I know how much control I have in AutoCAD Architecture and until I can produce the same thing in Revit I will be sticking with ACA!

[STHRevit]

Interesting topic.
I agree with Aaron on his points.
I think a lot of the "poor quality" comments come form people who might not be ready to move on from how things "used to be done" or are having difficulty persuading senior people in their firm that things have changed.

Really, as long as the information is clear, concise and accurate, does it really matter if your elevation marker doesn't look like the Autocad one you used in 1990?

I think there is a balance between old and new and you can get nice looking documents from Revit. As an outsource partner to a number of different firms, we work with them to get as close as we can to their office standards and protocol from times gone by and they are all really happy with the outcome. It's not exact, but they understand that it never will be.

It does take some time and effort but understand they won't look exactly like anything else.

[iru69]

Aside from "presentation" drawings, I only care how clearly the drawings convey the "design" to the builder. If I have to use a different elevation tag than what we used in AutoCAD, well then... big frickin deal, it doesn't matter, the building still gets built exactly the same.

My attitude has been similar to twiceroadfool's list. It's been a bit of an office battle, but it's slowing changing... and not because Revit's "forced" us to accept "poor quality". I've got to call B.S. on that - much has been made by who? By a few grumpy old farts who couldn't have their precious elevation tag the way they wanted? Since we switched to Revit six years ago, we've been getting nothing but compliments from contractors and city plan checkers. Yes, you can only make a true work of "art" by hand, but who gives a frick besides the one drawing it? Certainly not the owner who hired you. They want a building, not a coffee table book of your drawings.

Quite frankly, our office isn't as sensitive to the purely aesthetic notions of a drawing set as we used to be. The grumbling older folks are slowing coming around to this way of thinking as they see the results project after project: I'd rather sink the time into design and providing the client with additional services that there otherwise might not be a budget for. And when the building gets built, that counts for a lot more than a set of drawings that end up at the bottom of a flat file in our storage room.

p.s. I'll add that I greatly appreciate a beautiful architectural drawing... but that doesn't make it any more important.

[jhs.222310]

That's one of the main reasons I am not using Revit.

Andy - do you have examples of what you can't do in revit?

I think that legible (and I think anything that it legible has a quality) is extremely important and have found that I can control everything in Revit - in fact I can control them easier than I could in AutoCAD. I also find that I can control them easier across the practice than I would before - meaning that other people produce better organised and coordinated (which for me is part of the 'beauty')

So I am keen to understand which elements in Revit are holding any of this back.

James

[Scott Womack]

Well, I'm a "grumpy old fart" who started his career drawing by hand, spent 18+ years working my way through AutoCAD, Architectural Desktop, and now 6 years with Revit. I care about how clear my drawings are, but much less about the shape of a section, etc.

Architects who do strictly residential work, tend to still be more worried about the appearance of their drawings. Also, BIM may not be nearly as critical an issue in that segment as well. They also be more inclined to either work with the same building, or group of builders more often. (possible the deadlines are more proportional to the number of drawings required as well, but I doubt it).

Architects working on commerical projects tend to be a little less so, but vastly more concerned about the "clarity" of the information on those drawings. Their deadlines are tighter, since two hundread sheet or larger drawing sets are very common. BIM is rapidly becoming a requirement of even interviewing to get a project. All of these issues point to the use of Revit, or some other BIM product.

When I've followed projects I've drawn into the field, the guys laying out the foundations, floor slabs, exterior walls, etc. care much less how artistic the drawing looks, and much more how the drawing reads (after it has laid in direct sunlight, be rained on, spilled coffee on, etc.) Thus clearly legible, higher contrast drawings are a must in the segments of the profession I practice in.

[jeffh]

In my old office the look of the drawings was not super critical. The drawings needed to be Clear, Consise, and Correct. Beyond that not much else mattered. Maybe that is one of the reasons my office switched over to Revit fairly early (sometime around Revit 3 was our first CD set issued from Revit)

I always joke with my Revit students about hoow the guy spilling coffe on the drawings in the job shack does not care all that much about the way the elevation symbols look as long as he can find the sheet they are referring to.

As time moves forward I think the importance/role of the "drawings", actuall sheets of paper, is becomming less and less. The model and the information within is the critical part folks should spend time on. That does not mean the drawings should not or can't look good still, it is just not as critical as it once was.

[cliff collins]

I too began over 20 yrs ago, drawing by hand, then Acad, ADT, ACA, Microstation and then Revit version 1 and have been using it ever since.

The difference with BIM/Revit is that we are not wholly concerned with ONLY 2D printed
output for the final deliverable. The Model is a representation of the building--that drawings
get "sliced out of"--we are not DRAWING just for drawing's sake. Architects used to spend
countless hours developing a beautiful. aesthetically pleasing set of drawings--and were even sometimes judged by the quality ( or lack of ).

With Revit, it is very possible--but challenging at first, to create very nice looking, easy to read, concise construction documents. It does take time and effort to get from Out of the Box to "Company Standard Graphics" quality. Object Styles are a key thing here. Project Templates, View Templates are also very important.

Just remember how long it would take to buy a brand new seat of AutoCad, and then
starting from scratch, develop lineweights, dim. styles, Layer Settings, pcp files,
etc. to "get the drawings looking good" and up to company standards.

I believe that in the near future, paper 2D drawings will become a thing of the past.
The 3D models will be used by the Contractor to build the building. Smart devices
like heavy duty I-Pads will replace rolls of paper drawings. Smart Boards are already becoming common in job trailers. Talk to Mc Carthy or Turner about BIM and IPD.
The words "paper drawings" hardly ever comes up. What comes up more often is BIM and
Navisworks models for clash detection, etc.

So--do not spend too much time fussing about super-detailed graphic conventions
and the way drawings read. Spend MORE time learning how to create a good BIM
and using it for IPD, energy analysis, Green Building Studio, E-Specs for Revit,
clash detection with combined Revit models in Navisworks, etc.

Scott Womack posted a nice image of a sheet of wall sections done in Revit--
that looked really good. And I'll bet the overall model looked even better.

just my 2 c worth

cheers

[mthurnauer]

I had a very interesting project I was working on for a while. I was making a model of a historic building designed in 1930. The original drawings are amazing. The hand drafting is artwork, but just as impressive is how accuracy of the drawings. There will be elevations to the third decimal on a plan and then shown in a string of dimensions in a section, and again as masonry coursing on the elevation and it always adds up. I recreated some of the sheets from the original drawing set in Revit and I have to say that they look pretty good. One of the things that has been lost in proper drafting convention with people who never drafted by hand is an understanding of line weights. This I think is largely due to people being so used to looking at lines by color to indicate layer and not thinking about pen thickness. Since Revit is WYSIWYG, I think that the drafting has improved over CAD. The attached file is an example of one of these sheets in revit. I had not spent any time yet cleaning it up.

[cliff collins]

Matt,

Yes--old drawings like that are truly works of art. Drawing by hand is SO different than using digital programs like cad or revit.

Another difference that should be pointed out is that in the days of old, times were much slower, and projects took a lot longer. Owners new it took a long time to create hand drawings, and hesitated to make changes because it took so long and cost a lot of fee.

When cad came along, owners began expecting very fast schedules for drawings, reduced fees, "because they are using cad !" and found out that changes could be made very quickly.

With Revit, the paradigm shift is even larger than changing from hand-drawing to cad.
Going from Cad to Revit has revolutionized they way we work. Most owners really don't understand all of this, so we need to educate them.

We spend MORE time and fee at the beginning stages in conceptual design/SD
than we used to because we are now modeling the building and going thru design iterations. Owners don't understand why we need more time/fee up front--they think
everything "should be faster now because they are using Revit! " And they are correct when it comes to DD/CD phases--the drafting work does indeed happen faster.

And back on subject--if a good Template and Object Styles are in place, then it's possible
to create aesthetically pleasing and clear/concise accurate documents very rapidly with Revit.

cheers

[LP Design]

Fantastic points, all. Thank you for participating.

I would like to address a few specific comments, hopefully without starting up a flamewar! ;)


... and my builders expect them to look. I have got business based on my drawings being easier to read, easier to follow, and look better than the competition.
This is an arguement that has been posed in my firm as well, but I don't quite see how drawings that look better actually gets more business. When you submit a proposal or reply to an RFQ, the potential client's decision is based on your previous *finished* work, not the documents, right?

...I've got to call B.S. on that - much has been made by who? By a few grumpy old farts who couldn't have their precious elevation tag the way they wanted?
Do I detect a bit of personal bitterness over this issue? ;) I think the elevation tag example is over simplifying a larger debate about document quality. Personally I think there are a lot more issues with lineweights and display of depth contributing to the "uglyness" of a Revit plan set. A few comments here argue that with careful management and planning these issues can be fixed. In my experience it's a bit more difficult than that.

I believe that in the near future, paper 2D drawings will become a thing of the past.
Tisk tisk! That's not the topic here! :lol: Assume that for the time being (which I believe may be a decade or more imho) that printed drawings ARE a necessary part of the process so we can't ignore document quality simply because it will not be an issue "soon".

Thanks again for the replies. Keep them coming! :mrgreen:
-LP

[cliff collins]

OK--I'll speak directly to the "subject":

Object Styles in Revit are the key to getting drawings looking "crisp" and having the
"line hierarchy" that we old-school hand drafters were taught long ago. Take a long hard look at Object Styles and View Templates.

That said, the reason you believe paper 2D drawings will be around for at least 10 more years speaks directly to the reason why most old-timer architects ( myself included )
spend so much time fussing over extremely detailed graphic conventions. i.e. the more of us who keep thinking this way and focusing time and fee on graphics, the LESS time will be spent on developing the same high-quality MODELs - vs - DRAWINGS.

BIM changes the way we work, period. You should not force an antiquated method
( 2D drafting mentality ) onto a Modeling program. You should embrace the new tool,
insist on high quality MODELING like we used to insist on high quality DRAWING.

The only reason 2D drawings exist is because in the past, it was the ONLY WAY to communicate design intent (other than lugging around a detailed 3D physical model which would take forever to build, and not survive being on a jobsite very long).

So now that we have a new and better 3D tool, the model will begin to take over where 2D
Plans, Sections and Elevations were the norm, for thousands of years. Old habits die hard.
But they must die. The next generation of Architects is already charging ahead with BIM.
They are now teaching Revit in JUNIOR HIGH. 10 years from now--who knows what digital formats will be used to communicate design intent to a Contractor?

Food for thought--and valid comments on this subject.

cheers

[twiceroadsfool]

Do I detect a bit of personal bitterness over this issue? ;) I think the elevation tag example is over simplifying a larger debate about document quality. Personally I think there are a lot more issues with lineweights and display of depth contributing to the "uglyness" of a Revit plan set. A few comments here argue that with careful management and planning these issues can be fixed. In my experience it's a bit more difficult than that.


Dont take this the wrong way, but its probably also that your experience is very limited. Let me sequel that with saying thats NOT an insult on you. Most people, when starting to set up revit, get as far as Object Styles, and View Templates, and they cant figure out why the drawings look flat, and uninspiring. They have figured out that the lineweights are 1-16, but then they never did much more than that. A tattle-tell way to tell, is if the entire sliding scale of Lineweights is still set exactly as it was OOTB. The OOTB lineweights S*CK.

Then you have Content. Ever Modeled Family, and every Created Detail Component. Theyre all relevant. So after you monkey with the office lineweights, theres just no way around it: Youve got to open every piece of content and make sure its aligned the way you want it aligned, with your "new" subcategories for Object styles, which youve coordinated with your "new" lineweights.

Its no different then in CAD, when we were spending our entire first years setting up Layer standards and lineweights and colors, and "ZOMG the layers in the block are wrong, oh noes!". Same song, different instrument.

Drawings can "pop" in Revit. Maybe not with a make-believe "Profile line" encompassing the building, which doesnt even happen in real life, but thats another debate, but they CAN pop. I make everyone in management do the squint test on my drawings when i work on lineweight tables, and if they cant tell me whats important or in "foreground" with their eyes half closed, im not done.



Tisk tisk! That's not the topic here! :lol: Assume that for the time being (which I believe may be a decade or more imho) that printed drawings ARE a necessary part of the process so we can't ignore document quality simply because it will not be an issue "soon".


I agree with you that its not relevant to THIS conversation, but thinking its going to be a decade off, youre going to be left in the dust. Its already the reality for many people.Our Architectural designers build their models, every Design Consultant works in revit (or Civil 3D, or Bentley, or whatever), and they all get Coordinated in 3D. Our estimators use those models throughout the design process, and our Construction teams mandate that their Subs present their Shops in a 3D model as well. Its all incorporated in to the Construction model, the MODEL gets reviewed and signed off on, and it gets built in the field... From that model.

Maybe "your drawings" will be on paper for the next ten years, but remember... Those old farts- as IRU called them- thought their "profile lines" would be around forever too.

The "future" isnt coming, its already here.

[cliff collins]

Hey-- I didn't call them that!

I was being much more polite--and said "old-school architects" and included myself!

just to set the record straight................

Irusun69 said,
"got to call B.S. on that - much has been made by who? By a few grumpy old farts who couldn't have their precious elevation tag the way they wanted?"

and watch out for mysterious dots and kool-aid , 'cuz I feel 'em brewin'.

cheers

[ron.sanpedro]

I don't know who the quote in from, but I think this is a great example of it.
To wit "Beauty is not the object of making. Beauty is the result of right making."

So, I think the object of a set of CDs is to communicate design intent effectively. Also, time to execute should be a consideration. Time/Cost issues are either on a par with Efficacy, or a close second, depending on the office. If the drawings don't communicate well at a cost of production that is sustainable, they fail. If they suceed on both counts, AND are beautiful, job well done. If they do the other stuff well and aren't beautiful, hopefully improvements over time, to the way they communicate or how they are produced, will result in a more elegant solution and thus beauty. But at no time should aesthetic considerations be the goal.
Case in point. Little slashes for glass communicate. And in hand drafting they where fast. In fact, they where adopted specifically because poche of glass took too long, thus failing the cost test. Well, now the little slashes actually take LONGER than just making the glass material gray. So a change that is about communicating well (where is the glass) while taking as little time as possible (representation inherent in the material, not drafted as an additional task) results in a more beautiful drawing. Yes, you could have that slash in the glass material, and then both approaches are on equal footing as far as time. But I would argue the poche communicates better, AND is more beautiful.

Gordon

[ron.sanpedro]

This is an arguement that has been posed in my firm as well, but I don't quite see how drawings that look better actually gets more business. When you submit a proposal or reply to an RFQ, the potential client's decision is based on your previous *finished* work, not the documents, right?
-LP

Yes, but not the whole story. Was that finished work finished on time, on budget, without frustrating changes? The documents have a lot to do with that part of "successful" work. And most clients value that as much, and often more, than the beauty, appropriateness and quality of the actual building.
Frank G doesn't need to concern himself with trivialities like on time, or on budget, or a process lacking in frustration. The rest of us kinda do. ;)

That said, drawings that don't communicate LOSE you some business. Drawings that Communicate and aren't beautiful probably maintain your business. Drawings that communicate and are beautiful might win you a little business, but the quality of the work will win you more. All comes back to beautiful drawings are a sign you are doing things right. But setting out to do beautiful drawings isn't the way to get there. Setting out to do good drawings is.

Oh, and with Revit, a good model should produce good drawings. A lousy model CAN produce good drawings, but you will have to **** away a lot of time to get there. Time that is better spent making a better building.

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Hey-- I didn't call them that!

I was being much more polite--and said "old-school architects" and included myself!

just to set the record straight................


LOL, no harm meant. I forget this is one of the forums where you CAN see all of the replies while youre replying. One of the forums i frequent you cant, so i find myself guessing who said what, LOL.

Ive got many repeat clients that keep coming back because of Good Service, excellent work, a good end product, and an ability to adapt and make changes on the fly... All things i do better now, than i did in my AutoCAD youth.

Ive never once had a client come back because of a cute elevation marker, or a nice font, or a nice Profile Line.

[MikeJarosz]

I love dogma arguments on topics like this. A certain "starchitect" I once worked for rejected Acad because it couldn't make line joins as crisp as he wanted them to be.

In my opinion, anyone who argues that the drawing appearance is important to the architecture probably also has strong opinions on architectural photography too. Neither are architecture. When you want to experience architecture, to paraphrase Christopher Wren, "look around you".

Anything else is just shorthand to achive the goal. Are the plays of Shakespeare dependant on the paper and typeface of the script? The operas of Puccini have some of the most sublime melody ever written. But do you know how bad his handwriting was? Musicologists still argue about the content of his manuscripts because they are so #$@%* hard to decipher!

There are many, many masterpieces of architecture that I bet started from terrible drawings. Every architect knows the story about the famous building concept that started out on a cocktail napkin. I worked for another starchitect who actually forged a cocktail napkin sketch post facto to use in an exhibition of his work!

[SkiSouth]

I have been in the "business" since 1976. Worked in architect's offices from 1973 on, so been at it a while. I seem to remember that the aesthetics of the drawings (line weights) largely due to the reproduction process required of Bluelines. Initially, you were handed a sketch and told "draw it"... You develop techniques that define "your detail" from the next guys. Not much comprehension required of construction methods etc, just draw, submit, redo red lines, repeat. Eventually, you got to where you knew what sketches were coming, and you graduated to making the sketches, to little designs etc.

The reproduction process now allows lighter lines, no fade in sunlight, etc. so the line weight of a drawing in reality is not that important, if it communicates properly. Does it help legibility? Certainly.

The big difference now I find myself doing, (and having stopped doing it), is just cutting a section, placing it on a sheet, and go on. There needs to be annotation, dimensions, etc still placed, and one of the traps of Revit is the ease at which sections are cut. There are still details to be drawn, explainations or definitions of intent and Revit does these nicely.

The drafting side of Revit seems to be somewhat taboo, since its a "BIM" software, but in reality, it really does draft well. Again, there has to an understanding of building systems to use Revit, but that same knowledge is required to properly detail that system. A family will not accomplish that normally.

I went back and looked at a few details I drew probably around 1979, and compared them to the drawings from Revit I did 5 years ago. Honestly the 1979 stuff was very mundane. The Revit (underlay ability) really enables a complete examination of issues that need to be addressed. And I don't necessarily mean by a new section or detail. The 3D aspect allows a better visualization of the issues enabling a more clear architectural statement. I used Autocad from 1983 until Revit 4.5. I can honestly say that while Autocad greatly helped production, (not adding dimension strings etc), Revit really changed "CAD" by making it a tool to examine and provide a better end product for the client.

Kind of got lost there...Sorry - I think the line weight issue is almost mute now that PDF's are available and the printing process has changed, but I still like a well "drafted" set of documents.

[bt1138]

Aaron:

I do agree with you that the out-of-box lineweights aren't too great.

What exactly does you firm do to reset them? (We have not meddled with it because everything that is out there is more or less matched to ootb.)

But nonetheless, we've made some very pretty plan sets with revit. You just need to know what the program can do well and just go with it. You've gotta look forward.

bt

[twiceroadsfool]

We do what i imagine every firm does, that wants the drawings to look good: We meddle with them until were happy. My process is probably similar to everyone elses, but what i do is:

Start with Object Styles. Decide what should be darker or lighter RELATIVE to one another. (And i get rid of at least half of the 16. 16 is just nuts. 8 is plenty, IMHO. Then i use the other 8 for super huge stuff like Titleblock lines). So lets say i have 8 numbers. I assign the OS cuts and projections to 2-8 (keeping 1 for hatch).

Then when im done with Object Styles (pass 1), i go and do a plan detail. With modeled objects, detail components, stuff in projection, stuff thats cut. And i duplicate it, 10 times. I change it to ten different scales. I plot it. i look at it. Theyre not all going to look good. So i check the CONTRAST between the items. If i dont like the CONTRAST, i readjust the OS (pass 2), and go back to print.

Once im happy with the CONTRAST, i print my OS settings, and go scale to scale, with that pesky lineweight chart. This line is too light. What is it? A cut wall. Thats a 7. How thick is a 7 at this scale? Make it thicker. Rinse and reprint. And do it again, and do it again. For all of the scales (pass 1). Its not necessarily true that just because the scale gets bigger the lone should too, but sometimes, it is. So you have to monkey with it, for every single scale.

When i get that one pesky sheet of details to look decent, i revisit OS (pass 3). Anything there i want to revisit? If im happy with them, i do a wall section. Print it at a bunch of scales. Check it, it shouldnt need as much as the plan details did, but it may need some adjustments (LW pass 2). Make some.

Decide which adjustments need to be project wide in the OS/LW, and which ones you want View Templates to override (i dont like using VT's this way, so i try to avoid it).

I also find you have to do it after your content is done, which is a double edged sword, in case you have to go back and adjust your content. But until you know how everything will be built, how do you know how it will plot?

Having moved offices not too long ago, im getting ready to go down this journey with our newly built Revit Template. Im not exicted, its a tedius exercise. Last time i did it, it took the better part of a week. But its a fallacy that all Revit drawings HAVE to look flat. Does Revit suck at Elevations? Yes. Does revit make EVERY drawing look lousy? No.

[LP Design]

Dont take this the wrong way, but its probably also that your experience is very limited.
No offense taken. It is somewhat true, although I will say that after making 80-some-odd door and window families replete with customizable parameters I have conquered my fear of the family editor :).

Drawings that communicate and are beautiful might win you a little business, but the quality of the work will win you more. All comes back to beautiful drawings are a sign you are doing things right.
I think you have absolutely NAILED the issue with this statement. If a set of drawings really looks great, then the chances are that a lot of effort was put into making it that way. If a lot of effort went in to the documents then the chances are that the end result will be great as well. Maybe this thought process has become completely subconscious and ingrained in the minds of designers over the last few hundred (or thousand) years.

Im not exicted, its a tedius exercise. Last time i did it, it took the better part of a week.
I was afraid you would say that... However, I want to nominate your last post as tip of the year. Not because it suddenly makes things easier, but because it so clearly illustrates a painstaking but incredibly important process. I think I might just implement your exact process sometime soon for my own firm.

Great stuff, :)
-LP