Ok, Spell check always pulls me up when I use the word 'joinings', but it is the most succinct and appropriate word for how materials, and planes meet...OK it's a clumsy and ugly word, but then...Are you ahead of me here? So many of the inelegant bodges you can get if you leave it to chance.
I would have to say that if you involve an architect on your project, you should end up with no visual nasty detailing, junctions and the "how the hell do we get round this" type of phone call.
Many people know my views on CAD (this discussion started 10 years ago and I trust things have improved!)...it stands for computer aided drawing, not computer aided design. It is also a fine example of 'rubbish in, rubbish out' sad to say. I recall as a 'brain, eye, pencil and paper' designer asking a few years ago, 'why doesn't the computer flag-up that the plan doesn't match the elevation?' after spending a Sunday with a ream of print-outs and a bottle of Tippex..'nah, can't be done' and that was Microstation, used for space probes Well, I trust the systems do now.
I encourage all to do as many drawings as possible, just to explore ideas, ideally in 3D, but I would appeal for drawings of internal elevations and ceiling layout. Apart from being very useful for the illustration of precise heights of sills and lintels, position of vents, power points and switches, television slots, brackets and cables, wall lights, hooks etc, it highlights any potential clashes of planes, beam ends and heights, column to beam junctions, internal corners etc.
If you are giving £500 to a plan drawer, tell him/her you want lots of sections through the tricky bits and all the internal elevations and ceilings. Leave nothing to chance or serendipity.
7 Comments
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now