Chief Vs Autocad

[perryh]

I learned a lot in Architecture school but learned very little about how to design a building in the real world.
After countless hours of design studios it seems the professors (mostly uppity black turttle neck wearing types) only prefferred the most outlandish and unbuildable solutions. It was an awakening when I started working in for an Architect who had to make a living at it and someone pointed out that you need to follow the building code or use materials that people can afford.....

All of today's overreaching rules and regulations from zoning to building to energy codes does takes alot of the creative energy out of it. (I guess I am just burnt out)

Unfortunatly In many parts of the country today not having an RA or PE limits your options regardless of your design skills
Ok rant over and by the way there is nothing Auto about Autocad

Exactly my experience also, well said, whoever you are.

[moak]

I learned a lot in Architecture school but learned very little about how to design a building in the real world.
After countless hours of design studios it seems the professors (mostly uppity black turttle neck wearing types) only prefferred the most outlandish and unbuildable solutions. It was an awakening when I started working in for an Architect who had to make a living at it and someone pointed out that you need to follow the building code or use materials that people can afford.....

All of today's overreaching rules and regulations from zoning to building to energy codes does takes alot of the creative energy out of it. (I guess I am just burnt out)

Unfortunatly In many parts of the country today not having an RA or PE limits your options regardless of your design skills
Ok rant over and by the way there is nothing Auto about Autocad

Not entirely unlike my studio experience only I feel that the impetus to go beyond the confines of budget and code in a studio project is what enables one to do good buildings when ultimately faced with those realities. The dreaming required to get something positive out of the studio experience is the training one gets to creatively deal with real world limitations.

[lbuttery]

dream the big dream

then scale back to reality

Lew

[Ron Ravenscroft]

Lew, Architecture school did not teach real life when I went. I had 6 year Architecture students working for me and I had to teach them very basic stuff. Life experience is king, there's nothing better, of course this argument goes on forever.

I wish we all could be as smart as you sir.

[Ron Ravenscroft]

I also had a lot of "real life" experience, working as a carpenter part time during the school year in college, and full time each summer. I got my general contractor's license 12 years before I got my architect's license and spent most of that time as a design-build contractor. So I have seen it from both sides and I can almost always tell the difference between a designer that never had any formal education, and one that has taken the time and made the kind of commitment becoming a licensed architect requires, just be seeing their work. And I can even see within myself how the "that's the way it has always been done" mentality you can pick up from "real life" can block you from coming up with something more creative and innovative. And I don't just mean pretty details and sexy design. It can mean something as simple as spatial and functional relationships within a plan.

I can't tell you the number of people that tell me they regret never having gone to college and gotten their degree, and more specifically ones who "wanted to be an architect" but "couldn't handle the math" or "couldn't handle the long hours of time in design lab", or any number of other reasons. Once you "put your education on hold", you often can never get back to it because "real life" gets in the way. I watched this happen to someone I worked for on and off for 6 years. He has a lot of regrets I think as he has seen me move on and do what he always wanted to.

Yes, both have their place but neither is "king", that is just silly.

Well said my friend!

[gawdzira]

Why on earth would someone go to Architecture school for practical design applications? Seriously. If the only education that you could find in design school was what had been done and built, how would we ever move forward? Do you think Bart Prince sought a class focused on the best way to limit your project to a 4x8 sheet good? Do you think Thomas Mayne asked to be limited to using a t-square and a 45 deg. triangle?

Although the transition from Architecture school to the working world might be the most disillusioning of all professions, so be it. There may come a time in the early part of your career where you get to explore something truly creative that brings back the passion of the design studio experience. If not, it is still better than working in fast food.

P.S. What was the topic again?

[RMorrison]

Many people don't understand that architecture school is not a "trade school." Even the architecture profession understands that and requires years of real world experience prior to licensure. As Alan (sort of) points out, recent graduates of architecture school are pretty useless until they receive real world experience. But design school vs. real world experience (school of hard knocks) is not an "either/or" proposition. Someone who has been to both schools generally will go further than someone with only one under their belt. Duh.

[carpenterguy]

Hi Guys
I have been using Autocad for Architectural drafting for around 4 years. I do mostly residential projects either a full build or renovation. We do a lot of Kitchens and bathrooms. I have had a look at Revit and Archicad but to be honest it looks like a steep learning curve.
Can you tell me if Chief would be a better option and easier to learn than Revit or Archicad for the type of stuff we do.
Like I said we do a lot of interior work mainly Kitchens, Bathrooms and small offices, and we need the perspectives etc to show clients.

Thanks All

Ah, yes, I think it would be beneficial for you to use Chief for what you do.

I use both Chief and AutoCad.

Andy.

[Sydney23]

Interesting thread. I wish I had qualified as an architect, I might find my work easier now. Maybe. Or more likely I'd be working on bigger, commercial and more innovative projects. But as an adult I can't take 7 years out on no/minimum wage, so it's a non starter. Combined with the fact that architects in the UK don't earn what I do as a 'designer' for a good few years post qualification... It's a painfully undervalued profession and the only ones that get any attention are those that create absurd, over-budget, unusable, barely liveable, ego-led flights of fantasy. Or so it seems.

Only about 1 in 20 customers even thinks to ask if I am qualified. Of the handful that have, only once has anyone expressed any concern or disappointment (he wanted to add a sloped roof to his existing garage!!). A couple of weeks ago a customer invited me round after a phone call because I 'knew more than all the other guys' - qualified architects. Granted I doubtless know less about Doric columns or if beige is the new black, but he didn't ask about those, strangely enough. Last week I chatted with a phone caller about planning law for ten minutes before she revealed she was a property lawyer and booked me in to quote for her design project. I have senior planning consultants I can turn to in extremes, but can they design a building? No. Or know building regs? No. Etc, etc.

Do I have a degree? Yes. Do I have a professional post-grad qualification? Yes. Just not in architecture. Do any of my customers ask for buildings that look like they melted (as opposed to melting things around them like the architect - or was he a 'designer'?! - in London did last month)? No. I wish they did, could be fun, but no.

So I have to be good (or at least competent) at design, costing, planning law, building regulations, photography, writing, software, joint venture business plans - it's a lot. There are professionals in each one of those areas, but on small residential (up to 30 flats) for the builders, private individuals and property developers who are my customers, the jelly mould is out and CA is in. I went for a drink with an architecture graduate friend recently. He said his three years was basically an art degree. I envy his future, but right now I couldn't afford to take him on even for free - he is so green when it comes to my world. And when he does, he won't be as good at some (relevant) things as my non-architectural education has made me. Ultimately, would I rather have his training to do my job? Probably, yes. But I stagger on with the tools I have and who I am... For smaller projects, without the budgets to pay for art, a generalist realist is very much not second best according to my customers. I'll never design the shard, or the dome, or the cucumber or whatever they call those teenage doodles in London, nor even a glass pyramid in Paris. I guess my prosaic career will just develop suited to the prosaic me that I am. That's OK.

Bottom line, if one of my children said tomorrow they wanted to design buildings - I'd tell them to train as an architect. And get a job on a building site.

(Takes cover...)

[Ron Ravenscroft]

Lew, Architecture school did not teach real life when I went. I had 6 year Architecture students working for me and I had to teach them very basic stuff. Life experience is king, there's nothing better, of course this argument goes on forever.

Perry,

I think that is true for any college program. Most graduates are of limited use in the real world until they gain experience.

[perryh]

I remember when they gave away an Architect lic to every registered building designer. I wasn't registered at the time, but a lot of my friends were and was that a big mistake, they were trying to do away with designers back then. Didn't work.

[Dan Cropper]

If you learn both programs you'll be light years ahead of the pack. Both programs have positives and negatives, you apply each program for a specific purpose. I do 2D working drawings to get the building permit on AutoCad and 3D perspectives and the video walk-through for sales and marketing - to the client for the "Wow" factor. Cheers, DAN

[johnnyprc]

The further and further I get into Chief, it seems for every positive there's a negative. However, the positive's seem to be more substantial than the negatives, yet Chief's negatives are really frustrating ones since they seem so easy to fix.

I've just got to the point where I know I have to use Vectorworks to do concept work, and model building objects not easily done in Chief. I've used AutoCAD and I personally can't see where that would be too helpful in a workflow unless you modeled in it. There is no question in my mind that its better to do the working drawings in Chief if you end up modeling the house there. I now see that as a Chief +, even though my office is still doing 90% with Vectorworks. I just have to get my other guys going in Chief.

Richard uses Archicad for construction documents - and that seems beneficial since its a true BIM and schedules are great.