why don't architects / designers / engineers use the same designs for similar projects.
For example you are architecting a school, why doesn't the architect use the same design for 10 schools ?
why don't architects / designers / engineers use the same designs for similar projects.
For example you are architecting a school, why doesn't the architect use the same design for 10 schools ?
do you have direct experience where consultants don't want to use similar documentation whereas possible?
there might be some proprietary value that cannot be used elsewhere too, it depends.
Where I work, for instance, typical drawings are the backbone of our deliverables, we adapt them to specific use and a large percentage is done already at the typical level, but we are mostly dealing with one big client.
Different requirements, from different clients, for different end purposes.
Different topography, terrain area, plot shape.
Different urban setting, landscape or varying local legislation.
Aesthetic or artistic reasons, adapting to local resources or regional styles.
We do strive to standardize and reuse some stuff, like construction details or other more generic documentation where possible, but most of the time it is not even desirable to just have the same project "copy-pasted" everywhere, for aesthetic or even ethical reasons (it might be seen as "lazy").
Of course there are also situations where this is desirable, like establishing some solid or memorable "brand image", reducing design costs, cutting manufacturing costs, client requests.
For engineering, different technologies require different design paradigms. E.g. VRF versus traditional chilled water cooled AHU's. In addition, some clients (like myself at a large University) get experience with different systems and develop preferences. We end up documenting horror stories with specific manufacturers and vendors, and keep their equipment away from our campus with a long pole. Other times, we want to try out different systems on new buildings to see if the mfg claims on extended product life are actually true. I would say (in my experience), that the kind of mechanical/plumbing systems that get installed on buildings varies a good deal depending on who the client is and their relationship to owning and maintaining the building. If you have more stake in the entire lifecycle of the building, you are more likely to be cautious about the newest fad and stick to tried and true systems.
Just to tag onto to duarteframos, I also have a typical library that includes completely custom stuff, details snagged from old drawings and very standard details that I see (in one form or another) on most drawings. There are about 1,000 ways to skin a cat, for example when it comes to supporting ductwork from a structure - and for the most part they all work fairly well. If I am trying out a new pump/AHU/chiller type that I haven't designed before, I'll dig more into the nitty gritty and provide more extensively detailed drawings and spec's that ensure we get a quality product and install.
Comments
@jim00110
do you have direct experience where consultants don't want to use similar documentation whereas possible?
there might be some proprietary value that cannot be used elsewhere too, it depends.
Where I work, for instance, typical drawings are the backbone of our deliverables, we adapt them to specific use and a large percentage is done already at the typical level, but we are mostly dealing with one big client.
Is this what you are referring to?
cheers
Different requirements, from different clients, for different end purposes.
Different topography, terrain area, plot shape.
Different urban setting, landscape or varying local legislation.
Aesthetic or artistic reasons, adapting to local resources or regional styles.
We do strive to standardize and reuse some stuff, like construction details or other more generic documentation where possible, but most of the time it is not even desirable to just have the same project "copy-pasted" everywhere, for aesthetic or even ethical reasons (it might be seen as "lazy").
Of course there are also situations where this is desirable, like establishing some solid or memorable "brand image", reducing design costs, cutting manufacturing costs, client requests.
I am not at liberty to divulge...
For engineering, different technologies require different design paradigms. E.g. VRF versus traditional chilled water cooled AHU's. In addition, some clients (like myself at a large University) get experience with different systems and develop preferences. We end up documenting horror stories with specific manufacturers and vendors, and keep their equipment away from our campus with a long pole. Other times, we want to try out different systems on new buildings to see if the mfg claims on extended product life are actually true. I would say (in my experience), that the kind of mechanical/plumbing systems that get installed on buildings varies a good deal depending on who the client is and their relationship to owning and maintaining the building. If you have more stake in the entire lifecycle of the building, you are more likely to be cautious about the newest fad and stick to tried and true systems.
Just to tag onto to duarteframos, I also have a typical library that includes completely custom stuff, details snagged from old drawings and very standard details that I see (in one form or another) on most drawings. There are about 1,000 ways to skin a cat, for example when it comes to supporting ductwork from a structure - and for the most part they all work fairly well. If I am trying out a new pump/AHU/chiller type that I haven't designed before, I'll dig more into the nitty gritty and provide more extensively detailed drawings and spec's that ensure we get a quality product and install.