Logs

I have now really gotten my hands into a lot of things at FCA. In the weeks before, I had only been working on the model (for a senior care facility) or doing odd errands for different people. I was getting some exposure to the office/the administration itself but was not really acquainted with how architectural and construction documents were organized and put together. I suppose that's all changed now as I have been working steadily on a new project at Stanford. I'm the primary drafter/designer for a small two room remodel (which had been added to a current job) in the CCSR lab facilities. I work directly under Chong Tan (and essentially, Chiu-Lin), who has been instructing me on all the FCA standards. Over the past few days working there, I have constructed about 10 interior elevations/2 plans/and have just now begun to work on the casework details. So I guess in regards to the second interview (with the junior professionals), a knowledge of AutoCAD has proven to be really helpful.

I suppose one of the most shocking things about working on this project is that it will actually be built, and that my name will be on the drawings and the minutes for the project. This experience is so unlike studio in that the responsibilities and stakes seem so much higher with a real client. A line is no longer just a trivial element on a page; it really has to mean something for it to be drawn.

If I were to answer the same questions I posed to the 3 junior professionals, I think my responses would be fairly similar. I find FCA to be very good at teaching you all levels of architecture. I have been told people take a project from the schematic phase all through the construction administration stage, essentially from beginning to end, and have learned something new each time about the design process. From working on the CCSR project alone, I have so far learned a ton about building construction and standards, and have discovered things I never knew were put into walls (rather than just two lines on a page). Unlike their responses about the value of school, however, I found school/work to have two very distinct purposes that are equally important. In school, you are allowed to broaden your mind with design ideas in the intent to encourage the formulation of your own design philosophy- your own goals for architecture. A beginning student is purposely taught to ignore the nitty-gritty details, which I feel could potentially bog down a great conceptual design in its early phases. Without this design base, you could just become a great CAD drafter or an expert model-maker (essentially one who could take orders in the workplace), without ever really experiencing the full range of architecture which most definitely includes design. The phrase, "everyone wants to be a designer" is for the most part, true. Many early professionals claim that work stifles their design progression (because they have, up until this point, only been accustomed to understanding the architectural profession as providing overall design)… and I disagree. If there is one thing I have learned from FCA, it's that the details and the building construction become just as important as the overall design itself. Work will teach you the nitty-gritty components, while school has hopefully laid the foundation for conceptual design and philosophy, so that in the future your own firm can offer a "full package"- great overall design as well as beautiful construction and detailing. I suppose it's important not to downplay the significance of either, since both contribute to a different, important component of architectural practice.