Question for the 'Why ADT?' folks

[Anonymous]

One aspect that wasn't mentioned--and why I am DYING to get my boss to implement ADT--is the connectivity between the model and the sections/elevations and the schedules. As it is, I run into so many discrepancies between these entites when worked out in 'vanilla' AutoCAD, and see how agonizing long it takes us to generate (multiply revised) sections and elevations and to fill out measurement data for doors and window in the schedules.
It seems to me that if all ADT was used for was to build walls, windows and doors, their sections and elevations and their schedules that an enormous efficiency and accuracy would be possible.
Am I getting this amiss?
Thanks for your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

It actually takes less time to do it with plain old
vanilla AutoCAD. By the time you set up your templates, and get the required
training you would have done three projects already. Then you find out that the
linework obtained from the sections was lousy and sloppy. The schedules are not
flexible and too time consuming. Most projects will not fit into the "standard"
so this idea of the template does not work. Too many changes have to be made,
and too many decisions early in the design process. 3D is not a means to an end,
it does not make you a better architect, or designer. 3D only allows you to
visualize spaces that you can not see mentally. Most people doing bread and
butter work have no need for such complex visualization. 3D makes for nice
presentation drawings, but that is it. No profitable and serious designer draws
everything 3D, they do it with tracing paper. Besides, there are more problems
in architecture than massing, and aesthetics, like dealing with accessibility
and the building codes. Any serious architect will have his/her hands full with
these problems, and how the project will be built. Visual notes and sketches are
a lot more powerful tools for idea generation than 3D. Come on people,
let's stop playing with these toys already, and let's solve the
problems inherent to ARCHITECTURE. 

[Anonymous]

Based on that logic, one would assume that vellum and lead were more
efficient than AutoCAD.

--
***************************************************************
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
***************************************************************
Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
........ <.............> wrote in message ...
It actually takes less time to do it with plain old vanilla AutoCAD. By
the time you set up your templates, and get the required training you would
have done three projects already. Then you find out that the linework
obtained from the sections was lousy and sloppy. The schedules are not
flexible and too time consuming. Most projects will not fit into the
"standard" so this idea of the template does not work. Too many changes have
to be made, and too many decisions early in the design process. 3D is not a
means to an end, it does not make you a better architect, or designer. 3D
only allows you to visualize spaces that you can not see mentally. Most
people doing bread and butter work have no need for such complex
visualization. 3D makes for nice presentation drawings, but that is it. No
profitable and serious designer draws everything 3D, they do it with tracing
paper. Besides, there are more problems in architecture than massing, and
aesthetics, like dealing with accessibility and the building codes. Any
serious architect will have his/her hands full with these problems, and how
the project will be built. Visual notes and sketches are a lot more powerful
tools for idea generation than 3D. Come on people, let's stop playing with
these toys already, and let's solve the problems inherent to ARCHITECTURE.

[Anonymous]

They were more efficient. The only thing that CAD has made easier has been
copying information and editing. This leads to a lower quality of drawings
because people put less effort into drawings, because they "could be changed
easily." Except people run into a little problem. The new technology makes
it easier to change drawings, and it is supposed to take less time now. So
firms are caught making last minute changes, and then send out incomplete
drawings because they ran out of time. Copying details was not that
difficult. We had something called "sticky back." It worked really well, and
it got the information across, with no problem. Architects worried about
making the drawing read, not about display representations, layer states,
xrefs, blocks, etc..... This is all so silly.

If you think that I am biased because I am an "old timer" who cannot model
in 3D, or use ADT, you are mistaken. I can use most cad programs on the
market today productively, but I can still keep a critical eye on what is
important.

However, your opinion is not biased right, Matt?.... I mean, you are not
tied into AutoDesk, are you? .......Oh wait, you are.........

[Anonymous]

I'm as much a dedicated die hard computer user as there ever was. I've been
using AutoCAD since version 2.6. I do structural work. I got ADT in the hope
I could improve my productivity and make use of just dropping objects into
place. From my experience, I've got to agree with 'nameless.'

On the point of vellum and lead, I have one architectural client who uses
computers for email (sometimes) and mostly for specifications and proposals.
Other than that he draws with lead and vellum. Funny thing I noticed lately.
He lives in a nicely renovated historic farm on thirteen acres in New
Hampshire. He works by himself but has an office in the barn bigger than my
house. He has the time and money to travel to Europe several times a year.
He does design for about three to five million dollars worth of construction
a year getting an architectural fee of ten percent. He probably keeps about
half the fee for himself. Not bad on lead and vellum.

Arthur
__________________________________________________________________
"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> Based on that logic, one would assume that vellum and lead were more
> efficient than AutoCAD.

[Anonymous]

Nameless,

My association is plainly visible and I make no bones about it, nor do I try
to hide it, unlike yourself. I don't recall making any comments about "old
timers", and since you chose to sign on with no name and no other
information about yourself, it seems to me you took things a little too
personally.

Regardless, I hold to my original statement. If vellum and lead are more
productive for you, I suggest you stick with them. But I think the numbers
are against you, unless you are suggesting that the majority of architects,
who DO find CADD more productive, when used PROPERLY, are nuts.

It's a tool. Just like a chain saw. Whack a chain saw against a tree a few
times and you'll get a broken chain saw. Until somebody shows you how to
pull the cord.

Or a better illustration is perhaps the one I heard about the motorcycle.
Let's say you ride a bike to work every day for years. Someone gives you a
motorcycle, which you've never seen before. You don't find any pedals, so
you push it to work, thinking "Dang, this is SO in-efficient". Then, you
figure out how to start it, but you can't shift gears, and you can't find
the brakes. Now you're dangerous.

--
***************************************************************
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
***************************************************************
Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
........ <.............> wrote in message
<7E5827D9F560FA905F96B1C9897968F4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb>...
>They were more efficient. The only thing that CAD has made easier has been
>copying information and editing. This leads to a lower quality of drawings
>because people put less effort into drawings, because they "could be
changed
>easily." Except people run into a little problem. The new technology makes
>it easier to change drawings, and it is supposed to take less time now. So
>firms are caught making last minute changes, and then send out incomplete
>drawings because they ran out of time. Copying details was not that
>difficult. We had something called "sticky back." It worked really well,
and
>it got the information across, with no problem. Architects worried about
>making the drawing read, not about display representations, layer states,
>xrefs, blocks, etc..... This is all so silly.
>
>If you think that I am biased because I am an "old timer" who cannot model
>in 3D, or use ADT, you are mistaken. I can use most cad programs on the
>market today productively, but I can still keep a critical eye on what is
>important.
>
>However, your opinion is not biased right, Matt?.... I mean, you are not
>tied into AutoDesk, are you? .......Oh wait, you are.........
>
>

[Anonymous]

Obviously he's a success, but is that due to vellum and lead or being a good
businessman?

--
***************************************************************
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
***************************************************************
Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
Arthur MacLeod wrote in message ...
>I'm as much a dedicated die hard computer user as there ever was. I've been
>using AutoCAD since version 2.6. I do structural work. I got ADT in the
hope
>I could improve my productivity and make use of just dropping objects into
>place. From my experience, I've got to agree with 'nameless.'
>
>On the point of vellum and lead, I have one architectural client who uses
>computers for email (sometimes) and mostly for specifications and
proposals.
>Other than that he draws with lead and vellum. Funny thing I noticed
lately.
>He lives in a nicely renovated historic farm on thirteen acres in New
>Hampshire. He works by himself but has an office in the barn bigger than my
>house. He has the time and money to travel to Europe several times a year.
>He does design for about three to five million dollars worth of
construction
>a year getting an architectural fee of ten percent. He probably keeps about
>half the fee for himself. Not bad on lead and vellum.
>
>Arthur
>__________________________________________________________________
>"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
>> Based on that logic, one would assume that vellum and lead were more
>> efficient than AutoCAD.
>
>
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

It is ironic that the firm that I worked at prior to Autodesk, was able to
take on more projects, produce construction drawings that always received
compliments from contractors for their quality, and integrated 3d into the
design and construction process than when we were using vellum and lead,
mylar and pen, stickybacks and Kroy.

That said, it is probably a falacy to think that computers will make one so
efficient that one can enjoy more leisure time while machines do all the
work. Instead, we (architects and designers) find ourselves looking at
things in a new way and find that there are only more and more variables and
conditions to consider in the design/construction process.

Some architects work almost exclusively with the medium of computers, giving
them the ability to abstract problems and look at space and inhabitation in
new ways. Computers are not necessarily a replacement for old methods to
merely duplicate electronically, but should be about seeking new ways to
expand the tools of the design process. For me, this is what is exciting for
the development of the profession.

--
chris yanchar
building industry division
autodesk, inc.


"........" <.............> wrote in message
news:7E5827D9F560FA905F96B1C9897968F4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> They were more efficient. The only thing that CAD has made easier has been
> copying information and editing. This leads to a lower quality of drawings
> because people put less effort into drawings, because they "could be
changed
> easily." Except people run into a little problem. The new technology makes
> it easier to change drawings, and it is supposed to take less time now. So
> firms are caught making last minute changes, and then send out incomplete
> drawings because they ran out of time. Copying details was not that
> difficult. We had something called "sticky back." It worked really well,
and
> it got the information across, with no problem. Architects worried about
> making the drawing read, not about display representations, layer states,
> xrefs, blocks, etc..... This is all so silly.
>
> If you think that I am biased because I am an "old timer" who cannot model
> in 3D, or use ADT, you are mistaken. I can use most cad programs on the
> market today productively, but I can still keep a critical eye on what is
> important.

[Anonymous]

thing is you don't "need" adt / acad to be a good architect
but why is the marketing division doing their best to let us believe we
can't live without

I am still using ADT as 2d drawingboard and doing the elevations and
sections with line and offset command
it is for me the only way to be productive

Nic


"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:AE796E2D24728E587C99FF5CF547BD9D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Obviously he's a success, but is that due to vellum and lead or being a
good
> businessman?
>
> --
> ***************************************************************
> Please do not email me privately with technical issues
> ***************************************************************
> Matt Dillon
> Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums
>
> The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
> http://www.dccadd.com
> Arthur MacLeod wrote in message ...
> >I'm as much a dedicated die hard computer user as there ever was. I've
been
> >using AutoCAD since version 2.6. I do structural work. I got ADT in the
> hope
> >I could improve my productivity and make use of just dropping objects
into
> >place. From my experience, I've got to agree with 'nameless.'
> >
> >On the point of vellum and lead, I have one architectural client who uses
> >computers for email (sometimes) and mostly for specifications and
> proposals.
> >Other than that he draws with lead and vellum. Funny thing I noticed
> lately.
> >He lives in a nicely renovated historic farm on thirteen acres in New
> >Hampshire. He works by himself but has an office in the barn bigger than
my
> >house. He has the time and money to travel to Europe several times a
year.
> >He does design for about three to five million dollars worth of
> construction
> >a year getting an architectural fee of ten percent. He probably keeps
about
> >half the fee for himself. Not bad on lead and vellum.
> >
> >Arthur
> >__________________________________________________________________
> >"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> >> Based on that logic, one would assume that vellum and lead were more
> >> efficient than AutoCAD.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Efficient to a point, until design changes occur and you burn a hole in the
vellum with your power eraser and then have a worthless drawing at the end.

--
John Herridge, AIA
AEC CADCON, Inc.
www.aeccadcon.com

[Anonymous]

A 'Computer' or a 'Software' is never a replacement for an Architect.
Aslo the 'Decision' making is always in the architects hand & not left to
the computers.A 'Mouse' cannot trigger my thhoughts as a 'pencil' does...
Still......ask all Architects using 'CAD',putiing their hands on their
'heart' to say that 'CAD' is not 'Helping' me in 'Speeding' up my
process!!!!
I have met an 'OOOOOld' architect following the traditional 'Heads Down
Designing' and refused Autodesk's 'Heads up Design'.i had a chance to
implement ADT 3.3 in his office.beleive me or not!!!he implemeted ADT and
still does heads down design with ADT 3.3 by tilting all monitors
horizontally!!!!

Mr.Noname(Or other way 'all cad software specialist')....why dont you give a
try to Architectural studio!!!!

Thanks folks,
Best Regards,
Tharakesh.A

nic maes wrote in message
news:A9206554FA97807F6B99C5CB04DFFD78@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> thing is you don't "need" adt / acad to be a good architect
> but why is the marketing division doing their best to let us believe we
> can't live without
>
> I am still using ADT as 2d drawingboard and doing the elevations and
> sections with line and offset command
> it is for me the only way to be productive
>
> Nic
>
>
> "Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> news:AE796E2D24728E587C99FF5CF547BD9D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Obviously he's a success, but is that due to vellum and lead or being a
> good
> > businessman?
> >
> > --
> > ***************************************************************
> > Please do not email me privately with technical issues
> > ***************************************************************
> > Matt Dillon
> > Assistant Moderator - Autodesk Discussion Forums
> >
> > The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
> > http://www.dccadd.com
> > Arthur MacLeod wrote in message ...
> > >I'm as much a dedicated die hard computer user as there ever was. I've
> been
> > >using AutoCAD since version 2.6. I do structural work. I got ADT in the
> > hope
> > >I could improve my productivity and make use of just dropping objects
> into
> > >place. From my experience, I've got to agree with 'nameless.'
> > >
> > >On the point of vellum and lead, I have one architectural client who
uses
> > >computers for email (sometimes) and mostly for specifications and
> > proposals.
> > >Other than that he draws with lead and vellum. Funny thing I noticed
> > lately.
> > >He lives in a nicely renovated historic farm on thirteen acres in New
> > >Hampshire. He works by himself but has an office in the barn bigger
than
> my
> > >house. He has the time and money to travel to Europe several times a
> year.
> > >He does design for about three to five million dollars worth of
> > construction
> > >a year getting an architectural fee of ten percent. He probably keeps
> about
> > >half the fee for himself. Not bad on lead and vellum.
> > >
> > >Arthur
> > >__________________________________________________________________
> > >"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> > >> Based on that logic, one would assume that vellum and lead were more
> > >> efficient than AutoCAD.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

"nic maes" wrote in message
news:A9206554FA97807F6B99C5CB04DFFD78@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> thing is you don't "need" adt / acad to be a good architect
> but why is the marketing division doing their best to let us believe we
> can't live without

That's their job. It's called "marketing". It's basic sales 101.

> I am still using ADT as 2d drawingboard and doing the elevations and
> sections with line and offset command
> it is for me the only way to be productive

I was a very productive manual drafter once upon a time. I had a boss once
who demanded that I learn to use a single lead and adjust my pressure and
"angle of attack" to control lineweights so I wouldn't waste time reaching
for that other lead or pen. I didn't touch a computer until I had been an
intern architect for a few years. When I first started using AutoCAD (and
AEC Architectural, back then), my productivity immediately went to zero. At
first. You want to talk frustration? It took me 4 days to figure out how to
draw a line accurately! But I learned it, and after awhile I was more
productive with AutoCAD than with manual tools. Was I faster getting that
floorplan/elevation/detail drawn? No. But when the inevitable changes came
in, we had the edge. And if we needed to explore more than one or two
schemes, it shone. And one day... *gasp* ... a customer actually wanted to
see their office plan in 3D - and (zounds) they were actually willing to pay
for it. And then... they were so pleased with the results and the ability
that it gave them to communicate the concept to their management that they
paid for my first AutoFLIX animation (a solid 3 days of rendering - 72 hours
of constant hits to the hard disk on a 386/20 - fried it).

So now here we are with ADT - and the same old and tired arguments still
abound - "I'm more productive with lines, arcs and circles." "I don't need
3D." It's tunnel vision. Yes, you may be very productive with lines, arcs
and circles, and staying in a 2D world. That's because you've been doing it
that way forever. It's your comfort zone. You do something long enough and
you're bound to get productive. But if you push the envelope and get a bit
uncomfortable from time to time, you just MIGHT find other possibilities,
and other avenues of exploration.

It's not just about cranking out construction docs. It's about
communication. And that's just one small part of being an architect. There's
a lot more to it than ADT, CADD, drafting, etc. There's code research, life
safety issues, accounting, contracts, construction administration, space
management, programming and politics. The guy in New Hampshire with the big
ol' honkin spread? I would wager, admittedly without knowing him, that he is
one HECK of a politician and businessman, in addition to being a good
architect. That has nothing to do with using a CADD program.

However if you look at the list above, and take a few elements from it -
life safety, construction administration, space management and programming -
add to it the newer concepts of building data management
(post-construction), and see how far those lines, arcs and circles, whether
digital or on vellum, are going to get you. Will you still be productive?
Sure. But you will also be missing out on huge opportunities. Is ADT up to
handling all of that yet? No. But it's getting there, and that is where it
is going.

I wasn't gonna preach. I was gonna keep it short and simple, but dang it,
y'all got me going again...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator: Autodesk Discussion Forums

http://www.dccadd.com

[Anonymous]

That, right there, was where you made your mistake.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator: Autodesk Discussion Forums

http://www.dccadd.com


"Arthur MacLeod" wrote in message
news:FD2A3EEE29F5B678DDD68A9CBE51B0B1@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

>I got ADT in the hope
> I could improve my productivity and make use of just dropping objects into
> place.

[Anonymous]

Sir -

Your arguments would have more credence if you identified
yourself rather than post anonymously.

--
Anne Brown
Manager, Moderator
Autodesk Product Support Discussion Groups
Discussion Q&A: http://www.autodesk.com/discussion

"........" wrote:
>
> They were more efficient. The only thing that CAD has made easier has been copying information and editing. (snip)

[Anonymous]

One of the beautiful things about a pencil is its versatility. It's also a
very intuitive tool; and its limitations (lineweights, color, etc.) enforces
an economy in drafting technique that distills a drawing to the essential
information. This is elegance.

I'm not saying that CADD drafting can't produce elegant, highly effective
drawings - it can. I myself have no intention of using lead for anything
other than predesign, markups, and my grocery list. The fly in the ointment
is that the software encourages producing exhaustive detail, but the tools
to control the appropriate and meaningful display of those details are not
yet fully realized.

[Anonymous]

You have it exactly right.

In fact I tell people the same thing when explaining why they should jump to
ADT 3.3 instead of vanilla 2002.

The learning curve to do what you suggest is about 2 days at most.

Jack Talsky


"mindybeede" wrote in message
news:f0b125b.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> One aspect that wasn't mentioned--and why I am DYING to get my boss to
implement ADT--is the connectivity between the model and the
sections/elevations and the schedules. As it is, I run into so many
discrepancies between these entites when worked out in 'vanilla' AutoCAD,
and see how agonizing long it takes us to generate (multiply revised)
sections and elevations and to fill out measurement data for doors and
window in the schedules.
> It seems to me that if all ADT was used for was to build walls, windows
and doors, their sections and elevations and their schedules that an
enormous efficiency and accuracy would be possible.
> Am I getting this amiss?
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>

[Anonymous]

And one day... *gasp* ... a customer actually wanted to see their office
plan in 3D - and (zounds) they were actually willing to pay for it.


I think you've touched on one of the architectural Luddite's biggest fears,
that we're going to put all this extra work into our designs and then give
it away for free.

[Anonymous]

At that same design firm I worked for, one of our clients actually
reimbursed us for our copy of 3D Studio DOS R1. (obviously the exception
though)

--
chris yanchar
building industry division
autodesk, inc.


"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:2A6FF778A598BF2632871F2C403FD445@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

(snip)
> And one day... *gasp* ... a customer actually wanted to
> see their office plan in 3D - and (zounds) they were actually willing to
pay
> for it. And then... they were so pleased with the results and the ability
> that it gave them to communicate the concept to their management that they
> paid for my first AutoFLIX animation (a solid 3 days of rendering - 72
hours
> of constant hits to the hard disk on a 386/20 - fried it).

[Anonymous]

You don't give it away. You have to get your client to see the value of the
additional services and data you can provide. Once they see the value, then
you can charge for it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Please do not email me privately with technical issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Matt Dillon
Assistant Moderator: Autodesk Discussion Forums

http://www.dccadd.com


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
news:2083E21B95FDB9AA685B31A35BD8A2FA@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> And one day... *gasp* ... a customer actually wanted to see their office
> plan in 3D - and (zounds) they were actually willing to pay for it.
>
>
> I think you've touched on one of the architectural Luddite's biggest
fears,
> that we're going to put all this extra work into our designs and then give
> it away for free.
>

[Anonymous]

That is NOT a mistake. Why else would you use CAD if not for greater
productivity. Architects are in a business, and as such they must make MONEY
to survive. You use the tools that help you attain greater productivity.
This is one of the most basic notions of capitalism. AutoDesk will never
admit to this because they are trying to sell software in order to make
MONEY. Come on Matt, don't insult our intelligence.

The project that you mentioned about coming up with three schemes would
have definitely been done faster with a hand sketch. Would the quality of
the drawing have been the same? The quality of a hand sketch depends on your
artistic skill, which is very personal, and takes effort to learn. CAD
opened up drafting to people with no real drafting talent, and it
circumvents the traditional roles of learning by drawing. Draftsmen are now
too focused on learning the software, and glance over the most important
part of what they are doing..... the CONTENT OF THE DRAWING. Instead of
spending time fiddling around with walls that do not clean up, and cleaning
up the exploded section/elevation objects, they should be concentrating on
learning how a building is put together, the building codes, and on coming
up with IDEAS. Ideas are what architects are paid for, not pretty drawings.

On the issue of "changes being easier in CAD", I would say that this is
a symptom of another problem. You should not have to make so many changes,
because you do not hard-line everything until you have approval. This is the
reason why we have Schematic Design, Design Development, and THEN
Construction documents. Architects need to learn how to manage the design
process. When you did everything manually you would just hold off on
finalizing the things that were still up in the air. All it takes is being
critical about the design process, and good professional habits which come
with experience.
By the way, "3D" or perspective drawing was not invented by the computer. As
an intellectual construct, perspective drawing was born of the humanistic
revival in the Renaissance. There is even some evidence that perspective
drawing was used by the ancient Greeks. Therefore, this notion that constant
perspective views of a project will open up "other possibilities, and other
avenues of exploration" is ridiculous. These possibilities have been around
for centuries. The skill of the architect is in what he knows, and how much
he can visualize in his/her head on the spot.

Let's look at the "computer architecture" that you all seem to admire so
much for it's "avant-garde" nature. Frank Gehry immediately comes to mind,
with his "blob architecture." These forms are devoid of any human scale, or
construction sense whatsoever. I have seen construction documents for his
buildings, from a buddy of mine that works for a roofing company that bid
one of his projects. They were laughing at how many bad details that firm
had drawn, and how many leaks they were going to have in the end. In the
interest of making interesting "computer forms", Mr. Gehry forgot to do his
job. The architects job is first and foremost to provide shelter against the
elements. You can check Vitruvious on that one. However, you may not think
his ideas are valid because he was not using CAD.

On posting unanimously, I believe I have the right to do so. You see, if
I give you my information you will just deny me access to the server, in
order to silence me, because my beliefs are not in your best interest. Just
remember that most great philosophers and writers, had to publish their
works under an alias to escape prosecution. I am no great philosopher or
writer, but I am an architect that has had enough of the brainwashing you
folks are performing on the new generation of drafters and architectural
interns. Let's get our facts straight please. Good day. 🙂