Detailed drawings and Building Regulations

We are getting more and more requests to take on projects that have already been started by other design companies (including architects, architectural technologists and amateurs). The problem for us is we almost always have to start again, and so our fees are the same as they would be had no design work been undertaken previously. Of course, this is very annoying for clients who have already paid someone else (sometimes, far more than is warranted) for this abortive work. From our point of view, we feel very uncomfortable having to explain and justify our fees under these circumstances, but the reason is generally two-fold.

Firstly, we need an accurate model of the existing building before any design work can continue, and so we have to undertake a measured survey and draw this using our CAD software. Few companies take as much trouble with measuring as carefully as we do, so although there is an accurate survey and computer model we still have to check it. If it’s wrong, it can and often does become very problematic during the building/construction phase because, for instance, steelwork may have been incorrectly designed, and space the clients think they are getting could be smaller. We always expect builders to check the dimensions before ordering or manufacturing components, but our plans can usually be relied upon to project manage and design individual components; such as steelwork and fittings. For us, the only way to check if a survey by another company is accurate is to undertake it ourselves and compare; this then means that the earlier survey is now redundant.

The second reason we have to charge as if no previous architectural work was undertaken is because quite often, the previous design is flawed. It’s alarming to say that we’re seeing this more and more often for some of the most appalling design work that people have paid far too much for in some cases. I have concluded that there are some “designers” (so-called) out there who commence a project with no intentions of dealing with the later stages of the design process, consequently, they just don’t seem to care whether or not the design works. With this in mind, my plea to those of you commissioning design work is to ask the designer whether they would take the design work through to a detailed design stage; if they say no, you really should wonder why. The architectural design process must consider the practicalities and cannot just be a set of pretty pictures; just because it can be drawn doesn’t mean it can be built. In our field, when we design, we always consider how it will be constructed and we always appraise the proposed design for compliance with building regulations, for instance.

There are many competent design companies and architects to choose from other than Building Tectonics, but if you are commissioning then please, please check your designers competence. Even though we have a long and very successful track record (most of our work goes on to be built, which isn’t true of many companies in our experience), I am surprised how seldom clients ask us for references. In our case, we have a lot of completed projects which can be viewed here on the website, we also have many appreciative comments from previous clients, most of whom’s projects were completed without any significant problems on site. I wouldn’t mind being asked to verify that. I doubt if some of the individual companies who produce these very poor and unworkable designs could exhibit such a vast catalogue of work.

 

One of the first and most important steps

At Building Tectonics we pride ourselves on producing detailed plans for the builder to use on site. The first and most crucial stage of any of our projects is getting an accurate set of plans depicting the existing building to take back to our office and work from. It’s impossible to get it 100% exact but we believe it’s so important to get it as correct as possible and so we can take between 2-3 hours on average measuring up a house, making sure we are as accurate as possible. Many other architectural companies employ an external surveyor to do this for them, but we believe that by doing it ourselves, it gives us more of an understanding of the building.

We’re always looking for ways to improve the way in which we work; to be more efficient and try to keep up with the latest trends. However, the way in which we survey has remained the same with good old pen and paper proving to be the most reliable option. Recently, we’ve been putting in the research looking into different CAD apps which could be used on a mobile device such as an iPad or Android tablet, some of these might help us to significantly reduce the time taken to measure up a property.

This research has resulted in considering apps such as Roomscan Pro which gives you a variety of choices of how to draw out your floor plans. The first of which would be using the device as if it were a piece of paper, and your finger/stylus as if it were a pencil and drawing directly on the device. The second choice is using the camera, placing markers where each point of the room is and allowing the app to create the floor plans automatically from those. The final option is using GPS built into the device by holding it against a wall, taking that point and then moving it to another wall and letting it measure the distance between them. Of course, there are some cons to these methods of surveying; when using the camera method, if you move the camera the markers move out of place, making the plan inaccurate. Using the GPS based method relies on the mobile devices system being accurate to within a couple of centimetres, and I don’t quite think we’re at that point in the technology yet.

The second app we shortlisted was called Orthograph, this uses your freehand drawings to create tidied up plans which can then be edited for accuracy. You draw a rough version of the room, and the app will recognise this and change your rough sketch into a CAD drawing. You can then change individual wall thicknesses and lengths using measurements you’ve taken with a laser measuring tool; or you can use a bluetooth laser measuring tool and link it directly into the app to get each measurement as you go. This could save us both time whilst measuring, and some human error in putting the wrong numbers on the survey. The cons with this app occur when trying to link rooms and staircases. It allows you to create one room at a time, which can then make it difficult to relate them to others when drawing up the plans.

If we could find ways around these cons, the likes of these apps could be incredibly useful to us in saving time, and making us more environmentally friendly by drawing digitally, and then emailing the drawings to the team in office, therefore, saving paper. Until then, we’ll stick to pen and paper.