Do I use ArchiCAD to its fullest? Not even close. Is my work a combination of 2D & 3D? of course. Each project is more 3D and less 2D. However, it’s not about 100% 3D vs. 100% 2D or 100% parametric vs. 100% dumb lines and objects. It’s about utility. With my current workflow, and that of the people I work with, there’s a balance of usefulness. New construction walls, cabinets, and details are three good examples of why I work the way I do.

Details – 2D, overlay on model w/ trace reference. This method allows me to coordinate the details with the model and develop the design easily from either end. First the model informs the details, then the details inform the modeling. This system isn’t an excuse to model less. Having the slight disconnect between model and detail offers me another option for checking work. For a while I used the detail tool to create snapshots of the model. But I found this limiting. Often the details need a certain level of flexibility that the automated detail tool doesn’t facilitate in the way I want. I found myself redrawing most things and my latent-OCD self spent a lot of time cleaning up unnecessary fills.

Cabinets – slabs with 2D swing lines, door panels on interior elevations. I’m now transitioning to walls for doors, niche tool for inset panels. I haven’t found the cabinet objects are quick enough for the way I need to work. Often I know more about millwork massing than door placement, etc. Maybe I’m wrong about that and am just using my ‘system’ as a crutch. I’m open to that possibility. But I’m also not going to waste my time complaining about the lack of a tool or object that reads my mind. I have a solution, it does what I need. It continues to improve and get closer to my ideal. Right now I don’t need the additional information of a consolidated parametric object. I can still extract all the pertinent information that I need. In an upcoming post I’ll elaborate on some recent kitchens I did in this manner.

New construction walls – composites or complex profiles. Both composites and complex profiles allow for skin priorities so I can get my plans and sections to read well. However with the scale of projects I typically do (residential), it’s more important for skins to merge properly than express their minor differences. I want all gyp board, regardless of thickness, to merge. The ease of differentiation from a parametric quantity take off level isn’t currently important. My models could still handle that, but don’t need it. Likewise in 1/4 scale sections, I want interior and exterior sheathing to read the same. At this point traditional looking, beautiful drawings are the end game. Is it a perversion of BIM to force it to produce old-timey drawings? Maybe. But it needs to bridge the gap between now and the future.