Fine Homebuilding editors seek information about architects:
We’re giving a presentation at the AIA convention and we’re curious about your opinion of architects. Would you hire an architect? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance,
FHB.
Fine Homebuilding editors seek information about architects:
We’re giving a presentation at the AIA convention and we’re curious about your opinion of architects. Would you hire an architect? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance,
FHB.
In older homes like these, the main remodeling goal is often a more welcoming, more social, and more functional kitchen.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial NowDig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now© 2025 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.
Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.
Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox
Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.
Start Your Free TrialStart your subscription today and save up to 70%
SubscribeGet complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.
Already a member? Log in
We use cookies, pixels, script and other tracking technologies to analyze and improve our service, to improve and personalize content, and for advertising to you. We also share information about your use of our site with third-party social media, advertising and analytics partners. You can view our Privacy Policy here and our Terms of Use here.
Replies
How long do I have to compose my thoughts? I hope the presentation is not tonight. I need to run along right now.
Excellence is its own reward!
This oughta be fun..........
I'm with Piffin - Need time to compose my thoughts. Is there a limit on how long a post can be ???
I just wish once someone would call me "Sir" without adding, "You're making a scene."
I do not do projects of any larger scale without the owner hiring an architect. I have a short list of architects that I recommend. I am fortunate in the fact that I have access to 2 architects that are lic in 7 states and for a fee can be lic in any state. I feel that I have enough to offer the customer and enough on my plate building the project, that I don't want to bother with the details that an architect is in the business to handle. This is not saying that all architects are easy to deal with, there are a few in my home town that I will not work with, but then I am not the easiest person to work with either. Find a good architect and have your customers use them and your work load will decrease.
I think that the appropriate term is "Find". Just like any contractor or subcontractor, ther are flakes, ones who sould not every received their licenses(paper holders) and just plain crooks who want a kickback for recommending you. Beyond that, a good architect brings alot of great things to the design board and when done professionaly, are worth their weight in gold. My biggest beef is that many architects design the homes beyond the owners' financial ability and the charge the homeowner to make cost cutting changes to the plans. And yes, I realize alot of the cost over runs are because the H.O. wants the $1000 dishwasher, the $4000 refer and $3000 stove when they can really only afford $1500-$2000 for all appliances. Just to name one example.
As an owner-builder, absolutely no way. Why would I pay someone else to do the fun part?
-- J.S.
I've lived the Design/Build life too long, I almost feel too biased to comment. The person willing to let their wife's sister's cousin's nephew's neighbor boy who took drafting in school design their homes are as poorly served by a professional builder as by a professional architect (whaddya mean $85 a foot, I'kin do that for no more'n $30!)
If there is a "problem" generic to Architecture as practiced in residential construction, it is in practical education. Architectural education tends to focus on commercial projects, and "big office" practices. Trim & millwork (even basic cabinet construction) tend to get glossed over. Carrying through the 'greater' design "statement" through to the conclusions the details will require seems to be one of the least 'taught' skills.
Computer-Aided-Drafting (CAD) has may some things worse. Now it is even easier to draw (and precisely dimension) things that cannot be built. (Hard to find those 7 3/8" joists that span--in cantilever--12' at a maximum deflection of l/360; the whirlpool tub with glassblock windows was just a nice touch . . . )
Builders and architects want the same thing--a good building they can be proud of. Combining a builder's knowledge/skill with architectural vision is the hard part--not having a 'common' language can often be the hard part (or the insurmountable part).
What should Builders tell Architects? My personal number one is that Architects have to be more leery of the "desktop" or whole structure CAD programs. To many of the important "bits" have been 'averaged out' by a computer programmer somewhere. Important details sometimes get 'lost" in the big (3D) picture. Even worse, some of these programs allege they can create a 'complete' Bill of Materials (BOM). Except, there's no trim at the soffits, no cripples over headers, felt paper has been left out of various areas, that sort of "complete." It does no good to have a computer program that a college graduate can drive to select the "perfect" stone entryway, if no one checks that the brick ledge needs to be increased to match the width of the cut stone selected.
IMHO, and like Dennis Miller, "I could be wrong."
Edited 4/23/2003 5:52:44 PM ET by CapnMac
Most architects have a tendency to be too design oriented and at times forget that things also have to work. The other difficultly is finding an architect that can work well with in a budget. Anyone can use lots of expensive materials and make a building look good to a layman, but to get good solid design using common inexpensive materials easily available materials without compromising the basic quality is difficult. A good example of some one who did this is Bruce Goff in the 50's.
Aside from lightening your work load hiring an architect can give you better space layouts, better detailing, and dwellings that don't look like cookie cutter houses.If you want to hire an architect my advice would be : Avoid any architect who thinks he is an artist. Find one who is willing to listen, usually a builder has his systems and methods for building if the architect is willing to listen to these and adapt to them it becomes eaiser and more economical for both parties.
The last good thing about hiring an architect is the it will usually keep your customers happier with the final product and if they have complaints you have a scapegoat to blame.
Philip H. Allen , Registered Architect, Milan Italy
P.S. The AIA tend to be a a snobby self rightous lot, two of my college professors were kick out in the 70's for unethical practice. They did the sin of devoloping. Then low and behold in the 80's devoloping became ethical.(they didn't rejoin)
Has anyone thought of using a Residential Designers for the planning of their homes? I feel being a builder and a designer I can relate to the builders structural issues and can provide a good layout and well planned home for the owner.
I have worked with architects and professional engineers on projects before and I feel that architects seem to care more about the look and style than the structural asspects and the engineer likes to oversize structural elements of the home to cover their a$$, without care to cost or how it will work with the building system being used. I like to think with my 19 yrs. of residential design experience and my 13 yrs. building experience, that I am a good compromise in helping the homeowner and builder in a residential design project. Bay Shore Building & Design. Inc.
Residential Building & Computer Aided Design Services
http://bsbad.tripod.com
We are a small company with some design experience but that usually builds from an architect generated design. We never directly hire the architect. This is done by the owner, sometimes before we are involved in the project. There are a few architects in our area that we are happy to recommend.
I would not hire an architect for my own project. As said by others, who wants to give up the fun part? I also feel capable of making my own design, though this might be disputed by a true professional.
I would recommend that a homeowner hire an architect if they 1) are going to spend enough money to build a substantial and complicated house, 2) are unsure of what they want and need the guidance and handholding of a designer, or 3) they are putting the project up for a competitive bid.
My last comment is that we have had the most success with architects when they have provided the initial design and we have been left to fill in many of the details. This limits the cost of the design and most importantly for us insures quick decisions once the project is underway. The delays caused by an architect's inability to understand a problem over the phone and come up with a quick solution have been our biggest complaint about working with architects. Because of this problem we add 5% to our bid on architect supervised projects to cover these delays. We have been involved in two projects where the architect was fired in the middle of the project for gumming up the works. I would work with both these people again but not with them directly supervising the project.
Great topic!
Too often builder want to flame on archies because archies tend to dump on builders at times. Both need to work together. Anyway I guess Ihave collected my thoughts now....
An Architects position
In the past, it has been the position of an architect to design and supervise a building project. He or she was skilled and knowledgeable in all aspects of building construction. It was impossible to erect a large structure without the assistance or direction of an architect. For a large or commercial building, this is probably still true.
For most residential structures and remodels of the same, however, it is often true that the practical knowledge of a builder will supercede the aesthetic knowledge of an architect. Art is a wonderful enhancement to our lives but cost is a concern for all but the most wealthy citizens and clients. There are few architects who, in my opinion, design with a clients budget in mind – preferring to make a statement on behalf of their own ego at the expense of the builder and the owners pocketbooks.
The growth of the design/build portion of this industry, coupled with the advance of the use of quality CAD programs, means that many architects find themselves feeling like fish in a meat market instead of professionals with a reputation for thoroughness, quality, and authority, not to mention respect. Some architects have contributed to the loss of stature for the profession by careless design and oversight. Others earn high rewards, regards, and recommendations from builders and remodelors – drawing future commissions to their respective practices.
Where there used to be a standard practice of architects overseeing builders, it is becoming more and more common for builders who run design/build firms to hire architects on salary or as commissioned participants in specific designs with the builder retaining authority over the architect.
Is this good for the industry? Many designers would say no. But if we consider the origin of the title, architect, we discover that the person who rose to assume that title was a “chief builder”, a “master builder”, the builder who by virtue of his training, experience and native ability, was awarded by the clients with oversight of bringing dreams into manifestation. The current trend seems to me to be a return to the origins of true architectural practice.
I believe there must be in fact, several ways to rise to the status of a master builder, otherwise known as an architect. One is through university schooling and apprenticeship under another. But it is a well-recognized fact that many builders with a more practical background and less formal schooling have gained the respect of clients, designers, fellow builders, and bankers alike. They function in fact and in purpose, as architects.
So when the question is posed, will I as a builder, hire an architect? I must question what definition is used for the terms. Will I hire a licensed professional to perform design work under my direction in a limited or extended position?
Sure! But it depends on his abilities, and not on his degree from a school or a license from a body of persons who may or may not have the same ideas of quality and performance in home design that I have.
In fact, most architects I have worked with (note that I say ‘with’ and not over or under) have been chosen by the property owner and paid by them. I have worked with both good and bad (defined by their performance and client satisfaction and not by my personal opinion of their taste) architects and because they are all human, I have found that they all have failings and shortcomings. In the course of time, I have found that I have had much to add to the design process as an experienced builder and have developed my own design skills in working together with the good ones.
So I feel that once egos and authority structures are removed from the equation – big miracle there, eh? – if a practical builder and a client oriented designer (title him how you will….) can work together, they can outperform many ego driven ‘architects’ when it comes to fine home building and client satisfaction – which is the object of our activity.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin,
Thank you for a well thought out and presented post. I think I would really enjoy working for you in a design capacity. I've certainly learned a lot from you reading your posts on this forum.
One of the things that struck me in your post
In the past, it has been the position of an architect to design and supervise a building project. He or she was skilled and knowledgeable in all aspects of building construction. It was impossible to erect a large structure without the assistance or direction of an architect. For a large or commercial building, this is probably still true.
Architects do tend to be geared toward the more lucrative and larger commercial projects. It has been my experience, being the youngest in the office and getting stuck with all the small stuff, that small projects can take almost as much design work as the big ones. As a result, a lot of architects end up treating home designs as step children they use to fill in between the big jobs. That is never conducive to quality design.
Where did everybody go anyway? I figured this thread would break a thousand posts before it played out.Kevin Halliburton
"I believe that architecture is a pragmatic art. To become art it must be built on a foundation of necessity." - I.M. Pei -
maybe after me, there's nothing left for anyone else to say.
;8</
or maybe they're still composing rebuttals
;<(
I've enjoyed your comments all too.
.
Excellence is its own reward!
being the youngest in the office and getting stuck with all the small stuff, that small projects can take almost as much design work as the big ones
A wise professor of mine once said to never "knock" the CD phase of a project as "just drafting". His calculus was that the last 40% of the design of anything occurs in the CD phase. I'll admit I've always liked the nuts & bolts of drawing the contract (or construction) documents. But what do we teach in school? It's all design charettes, big concepts, and the like. Trim & mill work & the like are things interns learned OTJ cranking out CDs for starvation pay. CAD has been replacing that work. The changes in the industry have been to more smaller offices. The economy has also meant that interns get hired for only the present big project--they may have to change jobs (offices) just about the time that they are starting to learn something.
This thread is starting to fill--it was slow enough that a thread was started on "where's everybody." I imagine that this topic is "hot button" enough for much more comment.
a licensed professional
Now, there is a well turned phrase with a very big idea behind it. One of the "problems" we have is in the legal definitions. There are a great many "designers" out there. Finding a way to give them some sort of legal authority (and legal responsibility) is the "rub" of this argument. (This is also probably not something AIA wants to hear, either--has anyone else noted the AIA "please use an architect" radio ads, lately?.)
There's a "feel" that another, newer solution is needed. Sarah Susanka has been thinking "out of the box," proposing architecturally drawn plans available as a plan service. The rise of design/builders is another side of this.
The technology available can help--it can also hurt. Giving someone with little or no spatial perception (the doors & windows aren't just x & y, there's heads & sills, and trim and details and the like) a CAD program will not make a better designed structure. (See the "Architectural Monstrosities" thread). I hate seeing people living in badly designed spaces--especially when just that little bit extra would have made a difference.
Maybe we need an "in between" spot for licensing. The legal precedents would seem to indicate this. If I am a lichened architect, my liability and malpractice policies and the state licensing rules define my responsibility to a project. (The rule of thumb is to be better than the worst two locally licensed pros.) If I am "Joe HO," designing a building, his responsibility falls under the "common man" doctrine. If, on the other hand, I have training, or experience, or training and experience, then your building design liability, unless otherwise legally defined, is the life of the building. (Not your life, or your estate, but the building's life span.) There's a bet to wager.
The construction industry has changed. A 30 story office is not the same as a warehouse is not the same as a strip mall is not the same as a well built house. We have recognized the differences in the construction of each of these. But we still cling, if you will, to the one, only, description of architect. The combination of a designer and a builder (in one firm) has some real efficiencies as a business, too.
The "way" architects are created may have to do with some of the gripes they get. Spending 6-7 years in school, then 3-5 in "internship" (drawing stair details, and reflected ceilings, oh boy) can keep a young architect out of the field--missing out on the very important step where the drawn intent becomes executed trade or craft. You slave away in this office on picayune and finicky details, then later you drive by the site, and lo and behold, there's a building. That can put an "ego" on a person. (Hanging a valley between two 14/12 hip rafters 8-9' above the second floor joists, in the rain & wind a time or two, can put an "ego" on as well.)
Like I said, Piffen writes one sentance, and I go off for paragraphs (sorry, great passion can be long winded).
Brian,
I really appreciate this question and the opportunity to learn from the answers. You have had some good feedback so far but I would like to encourage everyone to go a little deeper with their answers.
This thread has the potential of developing into something really useful for all of us.
When the relationship is right, architects and builders are a part of the same team. I for one would like to hear from my team mates in this thread on how I can earn their respect by making their job easier, more enjoyable and more profitable.
What do you really need to see on a set of plans and what gets in your way? (example: I add corner to corner square dimensions on my foundation plans- good idea or useless drawing clutter?) How can we improve the way we design and handle the inevitable problems our designs will present on occasion?
Several have mentioned that they have architects they recommend- why? What impresses you about them? I'm betting the answers to these type of questions are what the AIA convention architects you will be speaking to are after as well.
Bashing architects is a fun sport and frankly we ask for it sometimes but I hope this thread keeps headed in the direction of useful info. I plan to do my best to learn a thing or two from it and I hope the posters will continue to respond in kind.
I mean, how often do you get an architect asking for your honest opinion anyway?
:-)> Make the best of it, not the worst.
Carry on...
"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -Elbert Hubbard-
Edited 4/23/2003 8:04:16 PM ET by wrecked angle
I guess you might have guessed the response posting the question here on Breaktime where carps lay out . I wonder what the response would be if you asked the question where archies hang out. Oh well. I say biased .
The next paragraphs will probably be a waste of your time reading , but you asked for our thoughts.
I spent several years trying to train bird dogs and coon hounds . It gave me a lot of time in solitude for study of character and habits . To describe what I heard and what I read best answers your post ;
Some would say ;" I wont hunt any thing but a setter or a bluetick". John Wick wrote in , Walk With Wick , " There are just as many differences within a single breed as there are different breeds, for traits do not lie alone with any one breed . " The Walker hound has the most acclaimed attention of all hound owners for the most money has been spent in their breeding. So what does all this mean to me and to give to you?
I think it depends on the individual not exactly the profession. One thing from the business school is to surround your self with good people that have different individual talents . No one is "all that" . I have worked with one architect that would blow a design builder away and leave him in a cloud of dust. I have only met one though and I wont set an overall. Good design builders are good , but good architects are better. Their trade does not carry enough respect for the ones who have tarnished it. Could the same thing be said about builders? I think so . I think the general public attitude has worse feelings for builders because of plentiful contacts. That is generalizing though and does not credit or discredit individuals.
Of course where I question first is cost of the project and the pockets of the owner. A mansion deserves an architect and a not so big a house cant afford one .
Tim Mooney
and a not so big a house cant afford one
I hate the "reality" that is expressed there. I think everyone "deserves" the benefits of good design (yes there is an egalitarian soul in this old, strict, military right winger <g>). Further, our country has a great deal of vertical (class) mobility--if you have never lived in a well designed house when you were "poor," how likely will be that you will pay for a well designed one when you can afford it?
To be clear, I include high density housing along with not-so-big houses. Just because you live in an apartment does not mean that it should, or has to be a "crummy" apartment. Good design is its own reward.
Architects have to be reminded everyonce in a while that they are only part of the equation and nothing more.
They bring a concept to the table and builders build it. The quality of the architect is equal to the quality of the concept and is proportional to the ease of construction.
A poorly designed building can be a nightmare to build and conversely, a well designed building can be a dream to build. Both are designed by architects that are fully qualified and members in good standing to the profession.
Being an architect does not make anyone a genius. Until such time as that pompous group admits to that fact, we will have incompetence in construction.
Gabe
A poorly designed building can be a nightmare to build and conversely, a well designed building can be a dream to build.
Some of the posts here indicate the opposite is true, too.
FLW had strong design ideas, the reach-out-and-grab-you-skill of a great artist. (The word "ego" was used in a previous post.) But, many of his projects were a huge pain to build. Every one has proved to be nightmare to maintain.
I, personally, have tried to learn from that experience of FLW's. If we are going to the bleeding edge of technology, I want to involve a builder sooner, as a partner, rather than later. This, I have found, also bridges the gap between plans as information to owner and plans as contract scope to builder (said gap being wider than CAG's F150 at times . . . )
FLW had strong design ideas, the reach-out-and-grab-you-skill of a great artist. (The word "ego" was used in a previous post.) But, many of his projects were a huge pain to build. Every one has proved to be nightmare to maintain.
He may have been a great artist but he wasn't a great architect, only a mediocre one, at best.
The worst architects that I have to deal with are the ones who live by the "damn the cost" it's my design and "I don't care what you think, I'm the architect" code of building.
A truly great architect, knows construction, knows construction people and respects both. He or she can take a simple design and give it an illusion of grandeur while lesser architects have to complicate design to achieve a meer shadow of grandeur.
I've worked with some of the best and unfortunately, some of the not so good. It shouldn't be up to the field team to have to modify, adapt, re-design and scheme to build a good structure in spite of the architects drawings. We have a right to expect quality. People expect it from us.
Gabe
Gabe,
I think you're correct in your point that artistry and architecture are not necessarily the same. A good archictect will design a structure that is pleasing to look at while also being good at what it's intended for. If the design does not have the latter, then it's just an expensive sculpture.
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe built a glass house in Plano IL, which is near where I grew up. Not only is the house ugly (just my opinion) ,but it's also very impractical to live in (fact, not opinion).
I wish there were more great archicects out there. Maybe then we wouldn't have to look at so many McMansions.
Jon Blakemore
VERY concisely stated!
I liken the architect to the composer of a fine piece of music.
But guess who takes the bow after the performance...
The conductor and the composer both have a part. But they must both share the same vision..
Excellence is its own reward!
Seems to be good and bad in all fields.Lately watched as HO ordered windows based on architects plans.7 units could not be made to work.Luckily they bought them from HD and returned 'em.Around here that's why people shop there.
CLARK DOOR & WINDOW
Architects have there place and many are truly artists in their own right. When a job is multimillion dollars then an architect is often justified. Having to answer to one is what often sticks in the craw of many builders. Recently an architect insisted he didn't want any nails showing on a board and batt siding. As the sub I protested that the boards would split but he got his way. We screwed the 1x12 cedar 1" from the edges and nailed the batts with stainless painted nails. Now two years later almost every board is split. There were many problems with the interior trim too. The doors and windows were 1x6 pine and cherry with MITERED corners. Even with biscuits and glue they are cracks waiting to happen and I thought the detail lacked aesthetic appeal worthy of the material we were using. I guess I am saying that often architects are detached from the practical methods of building. Details are often whimsical with no continuity of style. Whimsey is often overly complicated and often not builder friendly. Sometimes they dictate a lot of extra work for a very minimal effect. Sorry for all the bashing. Mostly I get along fine with architects but many lack style to my liking.
As a builder I have developed my own details that are sometimes not easy but always appealing. From my father and brothers a unique style has developed over the years. I guess you could call our homes gothic/craftsmen style if you need a name. None of us use architects anymore for the homes we design and build. We save a lot of money that way too.
Brian, some thoughts of mine, in general broad brush, it would be nice if they would listen to the home owner, really listen. I would like to see them on the job/ in the field. I would like to give some a 4'x8' sheet good to take home to study. Too many thoughts swirling thru my head, this last one, if an architect, would listen, really listen to the Builder, maybe take a few notes, talk with the trades on their jobs, and ask them, the Subs, pointblank " No heartburn either way, is there anything I could do next time, to make a better product for ALL. Give me nail in the tree, or a scratch on the rock, for the finished floor elevation. Whoops, I , personnaly, would not hire an architect for any of mine own stuff. I would be talking to my structrual enginneer though, if needed. Jim J.
My most recent dealings with an archy is with a woman that has been drawing all of my plans on several of my jobs. Just did the plans for this 1680 house.
I have to admit that I called and met with several archy's before I hired "mine again".
What I like about her is that she will give me about four ideas on paper and then she and I start editing it....adding, subtracting. No attitudes....no extra expenses that worry me in her time. When we have the idea the way we like it she draws the job in more detail. When thats edited if need be and then we have the final plan she draws it up in detail.
Shes fast, pretty detailed and pretty acurate.
I've had archys here that were goning to charge me three times her price. They were going to do more such as water color paintings, holding my hand etc etc....even if I didnt want that. Just came with their package....even if I didnt want that....did I say, even if I didnt want that?
As a builder of almost 30 years I don't need my hand held or all the frills that add to the archys price tremendously. There should be a line drawn by them when they deal with a h/o and a builder and thats not always the case...at all from all the archy's I've met with.
My archy had the plans in my hands in a few weeks and always followed through with my requests. Amazes me what some of these people charge for what they provide....too many bells and whistles when its not necessary or requested....I'm talking for a builder not for a h/o
a
In his first interview since the stroke, Ram Dass, 66, spoke with great difficulty about how his brush with death has changed his ideas about aging, and how the recent loss of two old friends, Timothy Leary and Allen Ginsberg, has convinced him that now, more than ever, is the time to ``Be Here Now.''
http://CLIFFORDRENOVATIONS.COM
I really like the thread. Thank you for the oportunity.
We're giving a presentation at the AIA convention and we're curious about your opinion of architects.
Too many architects draw un-build able details. I.e. a detail, as drawn, requires two pieces to be installed first at the same time redundantly. Engineers overcame this when they switched to using Cads CONSTRAINTS.
As a builder who has worked with architects and engineers, I have long thought that both fields practitioners should be required to spend a year as an apprentice carpenter.
This thread brought to my attention that the three functions of Architects (with a capital "A", a Designer-Engineer-Builder) were split into architect-designer, engineer, and contractor/builder. This was because of the breadth of the construction industry today. Speaking only from the builders POV, our specialty task is the effecient fabrication and assembly of components. We need you other two to think of that process while you draw.
In common with the architect-designers, we like good looks and smooth human interaction with the finished product. With the engineers, we appreciate tight fits and mechanical elegance. I'm just trying to make a point here. I understand the fault of such generalities. The function of our leg of this tripod is to actually build the thing as designed and engineered. It would be interesting to see how the other two fields view this tripod ans its' relationships.
I think Architects need to have an architects and an engineers license, and have 3000 hours paid wages in a construction union. I also would require three years experience as a GC, trades journeyman, designer, or engineer. I know that there are many profesionals who, by exactly those criteria, are Architects already.
What do you really need to see on a set of plans and what gets in your way? (example: I add corner to corner square dimensions on my foundation plans- good idea or useless drawing clutter?)
Yes, please. In fact, while you've got your Cad on, give all the hypotenuses(sp). Just let me adjust it to conditions. When you give a hypotenuse, it removes a couple of steps for me.
I'm sorry about the appearance of this post. I spent more time trying to understand how this forums html worked than I did composing the text itself. Also, I am not trying to offend anybody. In the interest of understanding this post, think "from a few words, much can be inferred."