BIM:
I've been working with BIM models since 1997. I've modeled hundreds of buildings from a 21sf chicken coop, 120,000sf schools, and everything in between. No matter what the project size, the number one problem is trusting in the process and educating everyone, including the principles, about the limitations and advantages. All too often a principle promises a client a front elevation a week after the project begins and immediately we have interns drawing stuff in 2D. Once you divert from the process of 3D modeling the important elements (everything clearly visible at 1/4=1'-0"), the process becomes very cumbersome. By constructing the building in the virtual world, the geometrical forms are valid. If they aren't, it becomes painfully obvious. You can't fake a roof or a stair like in the FlatCAD days. I crank out lots of low brow single family residential work and my builders rarely have problems with designs working in the field. Even in renovation work, where things become more fuzzy, I find the BIM model invaluable. Sometimes these guys think I'm a magician when an interior wall meets a ceiling vault on a new second level renovation within less than an inch of my section dimensions. If they build it like the drawings, it turns out like the drawings. Like any other tool, you get out of it what you put into it. The green interns that should be on job sites learning about why construction works, can be dangerous if not managed properly. A good template file that has all your CAD standards, favorite construction elements, and other pre-sets is a must for keeping office consistency and teaching them basics like the stud lines up with the concrete. You need the right tool for the job. Scissors can cut paper better than a Skil saw.
Masterbuilder:
I think many of us have developed quite different ideas about who this fantasy MasterBuilder was from antiquity and some are drifting quite far from what we really know about ancient cultures. Most of you know the word 'Architect' is a Greek word. Any of you that understands a little about the Greek language knows that each word has many meanings and most words are made of more than one word (compound). In Greek the word looks more like 'Apxitektonas' and sounds sort of like Ar-hee-
tek-to-nas. Archi - means: ancient, beginning, origin, first, and can be considered "master" in the sense of a person who is first. Tektonas - means: mason, not builder. The word Builder is Oikodomos or Ktistis. At best we're talking about a Master Mason. Granted, masonry was the most important component of the most important buildings, so the mason "drew" the most important "drawings", even if they were "sketched" at full scale on site. If we look at the society who coined the word we might look at Athens in the height of the 4-5th c BC. They were building many masonry buildings at a massive scale. Archeologists have discovered an extremely complex system of trades at that time. They didn't just have shoe makers, they had sole makers, shoe lace makers. I have a real hard time believing any one person was the Master Builder. The roof systems on buildings like the Parthenon were wood. If they had shoe lace makers, I'll bet they had a master carpenter heading up the setting of the rafters. The Spartans at the same time period (i.e. post Mycenaean era) did not build masonry buildings. What's left of their masonry buildings were mostly built before the Trojan War and Dorian invasions. Did they have no Master Builder? Certainly they didn't call the carpenter a Master Mason, he was a Xylourgos, not an Architektonas. I have a feeling the building industry at the time of our title's invention was more complex like it is today than some simplified design-build entity with one omnipotent Master. The big difference is that we were the masons that had to design and implement our work and there was no specific job for a person to only draw theories with no practical involvement. It's more realistic to think that building was a complex venture and it's likely each trade did their own "shop drawings", sometimes on site with a stick in the sand. Coordination happened on site. For complex masonry monuments, I'm sure the Architektonas had a comprehensive design in mind that included more than their work, but each building was different and made of different materials requiring different types of builders who may be the master designer due to the fact that their trade constructs the majority of that particular building like the Spartan Xylourgos. Now that few of us design structural masonry or wood buildings, I suppose most of us are closer to the Spartan Sidirourgos or iron maker. Doesn't that just roll off the tongue?
At the end of the day, I think our retreat to the office and limited time on site puts us in a position of not being able to prevent problems and keep the GC in check. I'm sure I'm not the only one who suspects that a GC or two has let a simple problem get out of hand rather than solve it quickly & cheaply, just for the change order. We're doing infinitely more work than our counterparts did just a few generations ago for less fee in part because we're "saving time" not being on site. What happened to the days when an Architect from the office was on site most of the time and drawing much less? How else are the interns supposed to learn to "build"? We can't trust the GC to be in charge of the BIM model if the theory of BIM is to truly integrate design and construction. It's happening around the world already, but I believe we Americans need an on site Architect for larger buildings just for managing the BIM model for the obvious reason of not giving 100% control to the guys who take college classes and have text books based on creating expensive change orders while blaming the Architect. Perhaps the future of BIM will get us back on site to keep a better eye on things?
-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-23-2011 01:15
From: Stephen Angelo
Subject: A Tale of two Eras: Master Builder vs. Virtual Building
the master builder is a interesting concept. i think there are two issues: 1. many architects are technically incompetent. the emphasis is placed on design with very little emphasis placed on execution, integration, etc. 2. many of the owner-architect contracts limit the architect's responsibility...hence the emergence of construction managers, inspectors, etc. until architects are willing to accept more responsibility, there will not be a master builder...which is a separate discussion (liability, e & o, etc.)
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Angelo AIA
Architect
Offices of Stephen Michael Angelo, Architect AIA
Livermore CA
-------------------------------------------