Visual graphic principles in Architectural Communication
-
Guys,
It always has intrigues me how best to communicate information in the architectural / building industry. There are general formatting rules for documentation but I am interested in the graphic design side of it [typeface selection, size and weight / lineweight size, weight and hierarchy, alignment, balance, contrast and repetition...]
I'm interested in those of you who have an opinion of this if you've seen any literature on the subject.
Not a week goes by that I don't see drawings from consultants that resemble a dogs breakfast!!! Not saying that others would think the same of mine; I just know I always strive for the ideal visual output.
Look forward to hearing some thoughts.
-
Eight days on the forum without a comment, at first, I found that odd, but as I thought of a comment to post I realized the immense depth of your query.
There are no "this is the answer" that can't be challenged, scorned and poked at.
Architectural Communication, like a simple verbal statement, is a personal evaluation of your perspective.
I have been a practicing Architect for the past 55 years and have struggled all that time to find the "perfect" document format to convey my projects.
My documents, are my means of expressing "my" project expectations to a variety of individuals that have varied level of interest, understanding and interpretative ability.
A simple single line on a blank piece of paper could be a revaluation to some and a unanswered question to others.
So the question arises - what are you trying to say? who are you trying to say it to? and how important is the message? how important is it that it conveys your idea as you saw it, or an idea as they will see it.
Over time mankind has attempted to establish "standards" for graphic presentations.
They state that the title block goes in the lower right corner, or along the right edge, unless you put it all the way across the bottom instead of the top, but never diagonally, unless that is what you want.
I guess the point is, there is no point, other then your point, as to how it should be.
What is the way? your way or their way - any way, is the way of the day, so they say.
You can view others efforts and emulate or regurgitate. It is only your perception of the result that is the principle you adopt, and in time refine to your expectation.
-
Hi, utiler:
Architectural documentation to me, represents a project's constructability. It is a visual depiction, line by line, shape by shape, of an enormous stream of decisions, value judgments and ideas. This documentation has to be legible and decipherable to the ones who will construct it and those who will analyze it later. Clarity and conciseness therefore are important. That covers content. Now as for the formatting, bordering, chosen typography, composition, etc., these elements of the document should support and help convey the depth of thought bound up in the content. That is why the peripheral elements have developed as we see them today. These elements as I stated should support the content, not distract from it. All of it should convey a sense of orderly thought.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. -
Many of Francis Ching's books would be a place to start. Mostly based in hand drawing. That would go along with my second point. While I believe architects are discovering their digital artist within... it can't hurt to go back to hand drawing basics, and sketching for the feel of what it is to communicate graphically--move that into your computer work. Other CG artists continue in this tradition, why not architects? I have one guess why: AutoCAD.
-
Architects ultimately have to produce drawings that can be read and understood by a person in the field. I could spend days detailing a wall or building section but if the guy in the field can't understand it then its nothing but a monument to our egos. We adhere to basic industry standards regarding format and layout but it comes down to how much or how little info we need to convey in the drawings.
Plus any licensed architect in the US will tell you that the construction industry is an extremely litigious environment to work in, and our exposure to liability is enormous, so the drawings have to meet the intent of the design without taking on the responsibility of telling the contractor how to do his job, aka. means and methods.
-
Thanks guys and Chuck I thought the same..... I was starting to think that it was deleted!!
There is nothing said here that I would't subscribe to myself. Different projects deserve a unique formatting in their communication.
On the subject of 'going back to freehand', I believe this is sorely ignored in teaching of the trade nowadays. The quality of legible documentation that comes across my desk from day to day astounds me; maybe I'm just expect too much. Going back to freehand allows you to play with levels of depth in drawing and contrast which is paramount.
Anyhow, happy to keep the discussion going. Afterall, ideas are more commonly uncovered when said.
-
I will add this:
The ability to grab ready made details, paste them into documents, and presume you've done the job is the most dangerous aspect of digital drafting. Everything seems to look good, but does it work? You would do well to make sure those elements integrate properly with the design, even editing them as necessary, or redrawing from scratch.
Colorful, well composed visualizations for conveying the design are essential in helping establish the intent of the design program for both the architect and the client, and may even help the builder understand what he is striving to produce.I still do hand sketches while detailing because I can do these faster and looser than doing it in autoturd. Then, when my ideas make sense, I will draft them. Other times, I will go directly to the digital drafting.
-
Yeah, I saw this post too, and immediately didn't know where even to begin. One revelation I had recently was in reading an article about mapmaking - is that architectural drawings require the same kind of thinking as making a map. Not just the lines, but the text have to be legible and be able to convey different scales, not overlap, etc. Since then I've paid more attention to how my text interacts with my drawings.
@o2bwin - totally agree on the litigious nature of the industry. You have to be very specific about what does and doesn't go in a drawing, and a lot of times, the less info the better...
-
I'm glad to see this conversation gaining some momentum.
Alignment and contrast are my two most considered principles. Alignment to create an ordered format to my drawings; contrast to minimise the chaos...
I have for some time set all my pen output weights to 75-80% black for the majority of lines. Anything else such as hatching, solid fills, etc I will reduce it even further to around 50%. Try it, you'll be surprised how much softer your document will appear while reducing your ink bill!!
-
@unknownuser said:
Eight days on the forum without a comment, at first, I found that odd, but as I thought of a comment to post I realized the immense depth of your query.
There are no "this is the answer" that can't be challenged, scorned and poked at.
Architectural Communication, like a simple verbal statement, is a personal evaluation of your perspective.
I have been a practicing Architect for the past 55 years and have struggled all that time to find the "perfect" document format to convey my projects.
My documents, are my means of expressing "my" project expectations to a variety of individuals that have varied level of interest, understanding and interpretative ability.
A simple single line on a blank piece of paper could be a revaluation to some and a unanswered question to others.
So the question arises - what are you trying to say? who are you trying to say it to? and how important is the message? how important is it that it conveys your idea as you saw it, or an idea as they will see it.
Over time mankind has attempted to establish "standards" for graphic presentations.
They state that the title block goes in the lower right corner, or along the right edge, unless you put it all the way across the bottom instead of the top, but never diagonally, unless that is what you want.
I guess the point is, there is no point, other then your point, as to how it should be.
What is the way? your way or their way - any way, is the way of the day, so they say.
mind = blown
interesting thread. I've come across some shockingly illegible drawings from consultants down through the years. I get the feeling that they think fancy looking drawings are for the architects, while they get on with the 'real work'.
I think you just develop your own style as you progress. I use different programmes for different tasks, and sometimes combine them as well. And like the post above, I've started peeling back my lineweights, and putting a lot of stuff on different levels of grey (in autocad). Just try and be clear & crisp with your drawings, have lineweights and drawing detail levels associated with different plot scales.
-
Another aspect to this is that an Architect will communicate in a variety of styles and the casual styles reflect the conceptual nature of the presentation and seem to imply that they should not be taken to literally. Conversely as the design development continues everything becomes more precise and a more disaplined drawing technic is usually employed.
I think this is one of the reasons I love sketchup and layout because I can change the style effortlessly. I have seen clients become nervous when presented with a concept in a hard line format.
One more thing, good sheet composition and organization of information is always high on my list.
Advertisement