Standards Shmandards!

[LP Design]

I came across this blog today: http://blink.hdrinc.com/10-things-architects-could-do-make-fewer-mistakes

Although the author has some good points, I'm specifically asking about #8 "Work in context". Here is a brief excerpt:

"No longer do ALL the details have to be in the same sequence of drawings (A-500s, for example). Place a detail, next a section detail, next to an elevation, and 3D perspective of a particular part of a building. Put all the information needed to convey the design intent on the same sheet."

That kind of took me by surprise. I know there have been a lot of discussions about documentation and some pretty out there viewpoints but does anyone here actually deviate so drastically from CAD/BIM standards? If so, what is the experience like during construction? Has anyone done/seen this for a commercial project? This is definitely an innovative think-outside-the-box type of concept, but I'm not convinced that throwing out decades worth of organization standards is all that practical in the real world.

I look forward to your responses.

P.S. Apologies if I posted this in the wrong forum. I thought it was relevant enough to how we organize drawings not to post it in "off topic".

[Steve_Stafford]

Not every situation supports it, nor is it even possible for everything but if I am reading a sheet and I don't have to flip pages incessantly to understand what is required it's a win. There are many standards that are just as valid today as they were decades ago but we don't need to assume that is true for everything.

[Mike L Sealander]

Look at any set from the 1960s or earlier. There is very little in terms of what we would call modern set organization. These sets can be difficult to follow, but they also tended to be a lot smaller than sets are today. Programs like Revit offer something akin to hyperlinking when it comes to detail references: you can't have an incorrect reference. So conceivably, you can place details anywhere the hell you want to, and they will all be findable. But more to the point, one could have the callout enlarged details for a wall section right next to the referencing wall section, and this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I think the more important attribute for every set of drawings is consistency. Are you consistently placing callout details next to referencing wall sections, or are you just being willy-nilly? Is someone going to look at your set and ask what drugs you are on?
This is a good question, and not a trivial one.

[damon.sidel]

I think it entirely depends on the set of drawings. I work at a firm that recently, at least, has done mostly design work only through the Design Development stage, then handed it off to an associate/local architect to do Construction Documentation. Most of the work is international. Especially during Concept Design and Schematic Design, our drawing sets are definitely not arranged like a typical CD set. Yes, we start with the building plans, sections, and elevations, but then after that... forget it! Most pages after that are arranged per "design element". On the last project I worked on, the SD set had each wall section with a partial elevation, plan, and sometimes a detail or two. Typical rooms (it is a hospital) were described on one sheet by a plan, elevations, a critical section or two, and one or more 3D views. Some elements, like roof-top garden trellises, were similar with a plan, detail sections, partial axons, and some 3D views.

Did similar things on two other projects that were mixed-use: commercial/residential.

If the goal is to convey design intent, then this type of organizational strategy is, IMHO, superior to a "traditional" set of drawings. However, that said, if you move into Construction Documentation, then I think a whole other set of constraints and requirements come into play, not least of which is industry standards and conventions. If you aren't drawing things the way most people are used to seeing them, there is a higher risk of misunderstanding. That's why standards and conventions exist, after all.

That's my 2 cents and what I've experienced on a few projects. That said, I haven't followed the projects through to construction, so I can't comment on how well it worked in the end. :)