[agla]

I often hear people say that they don't use CAD because the drawings are too mechanical looking. I know that many are, but they do not have to be. Two major things that make some CAD drawings look that way are a lack of knowledge of plan drawing (hand drawing techniques) by the user and a lack of knowledge of how to apply those principles in CAD.

How do those of you who view yourselves as good CAD landscape plan drafters take the tech look out of your plans?

[Stonehenge]

I'm very interested in hearing some responses to this, as it's part of the reason I have yet to use CAD (though I did just purchase it a few days ago).

The other being a fear of inability to quickly sketch some ideas on vellum, a kind of free-association process, to allow me to home in on a nice design.


Jeff

[agla]

I noticed your comment about feeling less in touch with a cad plan. I think that as you use it you will find yourself felling the scale and space every bit as much as a paper drawing. I had a really hard time with that when I first started drawing on cad.

The trick to getting over that is to be very consistant in use of plant symbols, line weights, and other commom things that you use in most of your drawings. You will become very familiar with these things and easily recognize scale which is the thing that brings you into your drawing.

Everyone should have standards for their cad drawings for many other reasons as well, but I think this is the most important. You are then building onto your standards every time you draw. It is more of a continuation than a new start each time. I have a library of 141 plant symbols to choose from and consistantly use many of them for the same plant in each drawing. I know exactly what they look like in different line weights because I keep consistant. I can usually tell what plants are in my designs without looking at the plant key as well. ...very handy when going over an involved plan with clients or laying out a job.

[mdvaden]

Lately, I had read this post, and the other dealing with CAD.

In addition, I read comments on another site's forum, in which many successful designers testified to benefits of using design software.

Some ideas are:

Professionalism, Speed, Etc..

For fun, I went out this week and bought a CAD program. Not a fancy one. But enough to see what I think about designing on a computer screen.

It only took about 3 hours for me to decide against doing it. I don't care if a $2000 program is 3 times better.

What I realized is; there is no way that viewing a piece of property on a screen can remotely come close to looking at a nice size 24" x 36" sheet of paper. On the large sheet, all of the elements are visible at one time along with notes around the perimeter that indicate the environment around - what's next door, how many degrees to the south or north a view is. I mark all these on my large plans, and can see the whole shot in a decent size view at once.

Also, by reducing my symbol types to about 4, and modifying them slightly, I found that hand design can be done quite quickly, especially by adding vellum with a grid.

And the electric erasers make changes fairly speedy. Although I've only had about 70 minutes of changes for the last 8 designs all together.

This does not mean I will never do a design on my CAD program. I'll bet I use it for the small area renovations.

Also, I use CAD a lot for diagrams. Like a hedge that reduces in height at the ends while it also scrolls inward. CAD makes a nice drawing of something like that for an illustration that can be pasted on a hand drawn design.

My computer is used for the plant lists.

Some designers get wrapped up in what their plan looks like. Well, its an installation tool. If the dot is in the right place, that's what matters.

Designers should be getting hired by what the photographs look like and the testimonials, more so than the design artsiness.

A sample of my plans are at www.mdvaden.com in the page Landscape Design. That one was colored for show. I deliver them black and white. Although I am starting to pay my kids to color in one plan sheet when we do the install. It makes distinguishing placements easier by having contrast on the sheet.

[agla]

I agree that paper works fine and that the end result is what is on the ground rather than what is on paper. There is absolutely no reason to switch unless if it is doing everything you need it to do.

A plan is to communicate. As with any communication it is done best when it is at its most efficient. There is no reason to go to extremes learning programs, scaling off of hand drawn field notes, and getting all wrapped up, if all that is necessary is a diagram of the front wall of a house and the location of plants.

If and when you need a higher degree of accuracy, or to communicate to engineers or regulatory bodies, CAD is highly efficient once you are proficient in it.

If you can not draw nicely by hand, as is my case, cad is a great tool. Some hands simply can not put on paper the smooth lines and curves that the mind is telling them to do. I had to learn CAD to get me through my LA degree because my hand drawing would not make the cut. Having to use it got me past the learning curves and comfort curve.

The comfort curve is the hardest to get through. The comfort curve is my words for the ability to feel the drawing. Like Mario said, there is a huge separation between you and the drawing on screen rather than on paper. It takes a lot to overcome that, but you really do. I can honestly say that I can feel the space that I am designing on screen as easily as on paper now.

CAD is not the be all and end all. It does not inherently make for a better landscape or better plan. It is just another tool like a pencil and a pair of hands.

There are huge advantages in certain situations. Almost any plan that I do starts with a CAD file from an engineer or surveyor. I don't have to locate or draw lot lines, houses, contours, or guess about wetlands or other legal issues. In most cases, I hardly have to measure anything on the site and it is very accurate. These CAD files are given with no charge as a professional courtesy. That is hours of time saved on a big project.

Another advantage is that when a project has to go before a regulatory board for zoning compliance or Wetland Protections Act, the plan is accepted with the engineer's plan that it is derived from without the engineer having to get involved again.

There are a ton of other useful things that CAD does that paper can not, but if you don't need any of these than it has no advantage to you.

Bottom line is that it is certainly not necessary for everyone and hand drawn plans are just as professional (more professional in many cases).

I wish I could make beautiful hand drawings, but I can't. I adapted and do the best I can and for me CAD is the answer at this time.

[mdvaden]

Those CAD benefits you mentioned are what makes me happy that I do residential design.

Probably 80% of the time, I get a full size copy of the plot plan from the home owner, or the builder of their house. After I lay that 2' x 3' sheet under my vellum, it takes about 10 minutes to mark of the dimensions of the house exterior and other details.

What I forgot to include on my last post - I noticed that even if I got "used to" the computer, its one more step toward inactivity.

I spend much of my time working as a pruning specialist, and in the field doing improvements. The lack of inactivity in design is apparent to me when I come inside even for hand drawing. But at least I am moving my arms, and reaching for templates.

When I use my computer programs, I find that I am hunched over the computer screen and keyboard like a bird on a perch.

So it just "hit me" this week, that CAD design would take me one step further from what I enjoy doing - having activity in life.

Its apparent that society, municipalities and culture, put demands on people to continue in certain avenues of profession. A lot of the planning, designing field is following a route that architects must conform too, or else be excluded.

That's one great avenue of the residential realm.

Eventually, I will not be able to prune and work in the field at the pace I keep up. Even at 43 I am not quite as durable as 10 years ago. The main reason I can keep up with the same workload, is techniques. But by age 55 to 60, I need to have full time work that is 60% or better indoors. And to design my profession to include activity, I need to develop a design system that enables me to move my arms, neck torso, to twist, lean forward, lean back, etc..

I suppose the main activity that CAD users get, is the rare treat to reach for a book. And now, software programs strive to include the plant info on the computer.

[agla]

We are 100% residential, but mostly big waterfront jobs.

We are in a state that legislates a lot (Massachusetts). In most cities and towns you need a certified plot plan by a land surveyor when any alteration is done to the house. The plans and regulation get much more involved when dealing with the Wetlands Protection Act. We have the additional burden of coastal wetland resource areas that are sometimes very far away from the water (coastal flood zones and coastal banks).

Our plans have to show all the resource areas and setbacks from them to get approved. We often have to plant native plants to mitigate other activities that the architect or builder is doing.

The ability to turn on and off layers of a drawing becomes very important depending on which board you are presenting to. Then you still need to separate the stuff for the installation crew or they'll have to much confusion.

CAD really helps when there is so much going on because you only have to revise the drawing once and it happens on all the sheets. But, as I said, when you don't need all of that, there is no reason to switch to it.

[Paul]

I have to agree to a point....... I need to look to repeatability in designs.

All play ground equipment is on cad and I'm not about to make a mistake putting a concrete curb too close to a swing or slide.

Same goes with hardscapes, pavers hatch patterns are available from most manufactures. One time I had to show how we where going to install 1000 engraved pavers in a park try that by hand?

Simple things like notes are easy to put on screen and move them around. Same with plant lists and details that you use over and over.

Do we always want to use cad???? I don't always but it's nice at times to take a piece of trash and lay it over the drawing and make changes. This works well at meetings with park districts and board members.

[mdvaden]

Interesting difference in drawing styles.

So you say you drew out all 1000 paver locations on CAD?

If you used an auto-fill function, that's different.

We actually leave a blank field for pavers on drawings, with only an occassional spot filled with a pattern.

That's because it is never known until the master installer lays the material, where it will go. So we avoid placing too much detail for which the installer must get permission for deviation.

Likewise with a pond or waterfall. We show a few significant boulder locations, and the simple basic outline of the water course, or the boundary of the waterfall. Any more than that, is counter-productive to the installation expert, and is needless symbol on a plan.

For example, if a driveway is labeled "exposed aggregate", no lines or texture are needed. The customer, and the concrete contractor both can see where the material will go.

The CAD experience you folks list seems to indicate why public works projects require landscape architects. And at least in Oregon, most residential design is done by designers or landscapers.

In Oregon, the landscape architect test is fairly void of horticulture material, and the 7 years of experience most of those architects have is usually in-the-office experience. In other words, they have a lot of school, but know little about pruning, digging, and 20 other things that make for expert designs.

Its amazing how useless college can be without experience in-the-field. In 1985, while working at the University of Portland, we had a volunteer worker for a week - the head of a local college horticulture program, and this person had a masters degree in horticulture. He did not even know the right way to use a shovel, or transplant a shrub.

At Portland Community College, one of the instructors commented about the willingness of the landscape design students to push a pen, but not push a shovel.

In our state, probably one of the biggest obstacles is limited wages for horticulture. There is incentive for people to work in the field for experience, or, to go to college for a degree in architecture, but not enough financial incentive to go to college, work in the field, and possibly for an architect too.

[agla]

Are we being dissed?

[mdvaden]

"Dissed"? Is that a figure of speech for "evaluated"?

I know my post topic made specific mention of Oregon professionals, so "dissed" must not mean "insulted".

[Stonehenge]

The urban vernacular, 'dissed' means disrespected.

Other than the providing the definition, I'm staying out of this one....

[mdvaden]

Oh, that's what it means.

Good thing I don't disrespect any of the professions - landscaper, designer, architect.

They all have their good, bad and ugly.

Like that name "Stonehenge", is that your company name?

I see you are in cheese country. I've only been there once when I decided to travel north out of Chicago to get on the freeway into Montana. But Wisconson was quite scenic. You would like Oregon.

Actually, after seeing many states, I'd never take anything else over Oregon. Rogue River in Medford is famous for rafting. The Columbia River gorge is the wind surf capitol of the world. Portland has 3 large rivers next to in and through it, with boating and fishing. All year skiing is 80 minutes east on Mt. Hood. The ocean is 75 minutes west as close as Seaside. From Portland and south is the Willamette Valley, a major agriculture region for nursery stock, hops, bulbs, etc..

Also saw you are a gadget geek - so you know your dielectric grease, shrink tube and other trinkets.

Looking forward to good dialect in the future.

Take care,

M. D. Vaden

[agla]

I'll take that as a yes.

[Stonehenge]

Yup - 'Stonehenge Brick Paving & Landscaping, Inc.' And we are cheeseheads. Oregon sounds very scenic - moreso than Wisconsin, I'm sure. There are a few areas where there are some nice rock formations, or some rolling hills, but for the most part it's flat, flat, flat. Virtaully all residential areas developed in the last 15 years or more are converted farmland, which means not much in mature trees, and flat, flat, flat.

Glad you found your way here, and I look forward to some good discussions.

Jeff