Perfect Scale (English)

Perfect Architectural Design and Construction

Scale

6

Zwischen den Linien

8

Grundsätzliches 10 Entwurfsmaßstäbe 1:2000 16 1:500 18 1:200 20 1:100 22 Konstruktionsmaßstäbe 1:50 24 1:20 26 1:5 28 1:1 30 Zeichnungen/ Drawings

33

Between the lines

116

The basics

118

Design scales 1:2000 124 1:500 126 1:200 128 1:100 130 Construction scales 1:50 132 1:20 134 1:5 136 1:1 138 CV 142

:

:

114

:

112

Drawings Drawings Zeichnungen

fig.1 – 39

fig.1 – 39

34

Punkt, Linie, Gerade und Strecke Point, line, straight line and line segment

:

fig. 1

38

Reale Länge einer 10 cm langen Strecke in unterschiedlichen Maßstäben Actual length of a 10-cm-long line segment in different scales

:

10 cm

200 m

1 :2 0 00

50 m

1 :50 0

20 m

1 :2 0 0

10 m

1 :1 0 0

5 m

1 :50

2 m

1 :20

50 cm

1 :5

10 cm

1 :1

fig. 3

56

Schwarzplan mit Vegetation Figure-ground plan with vegetation

1:2000

fig. 12

88

Ausschnitt Obergeschoss 端ber Werktagskapelle Part of upper floor plan above the weekday chapel

5.42

1:50

46

27

1.00

27

2.20 30

22 +3.74

+3.91

+4.08

1.33

56

33

A:

52.63 QM

U:

75.24 M

LH: 3.06 M

/29 2 STG. 17

72X18

2.23

BD S/L

OG-2.11 FLUR

B:

GD 05

D:

DE 03.02

3.10

+4.08

+7.67

+3.93

+7.14

LUFTRAUM KIRCHE

X30 WD S 15 RD UK 7.43 OK -25 24 UK + UZ 30X

23.70

3.10

1.08

1.12

T30 RS

T30

T.OG-2.12-1

T.OG-1.19-1

375

T.OG-1.16-2

3.10

16.98

30

49

3.06 30

R'W 32 DB

505

2.01

3.06

+4.08 +3.93

WD H 2X Ø8 RA -10 UKRD

7.43

505

67

1.90

24 UK +

1.12

1.33 UZ 30X

UZ 30X24 UK +7.43

3.95

30

T.OG-1.17-1

LUFTRAUM OBERLICHT KAPELLE

40

5

1.08

3.06

30

16.20

3.10 1.90

20 20 1.90

TI 01

76

ST 01

DD RWA-KUPPEL 150X120

945

30 5 1.37

INSTRUMENTENSCHRÄNKE SK 03: DT KIR AU 103 TISCH TI 03 U. ROLLCONTAINER: DT KIR AU 102/104

5 1.37

3.59

30

TREPPENHAUS 3: DT KIR TR 030-036

1.43

+2.04 +1.92

20 WD L Ø RD UK RA -25

ST 01

2.00

ST 10

27

2.50

27

715

6.05 2.04

49

2.04

49

80.95°

BRH 3.06

BRH 1.02

30

30

BRH 1.02

4.10

12 STG. 17/29

20 WD L Ø RD UK RA -25

2.50

2.04

1.50

TI 03

3.27

3.27

7 DB R'WR 5

3.30

1.41

SK 03

20 WD L Ø RD UK RA -25

20 WD L Ø RD UK RA -25

6.30

12 STG. 17/29

25

30

30

+4.08 +3.93

1.25 WD S Ø12.5 RA -21 UKRD

DÄMMPANEELE: DT KIR GFA 103-106, 114-115, 122

OG-2.12

OG-1.19

TRH 3

KIRCHENMUSIKDIR.

A:

19.56 QM

A:

32.31 QM

U:

19.07 M

U:

27.64 M

LH: 3.06 M

KASTENFENSTER: DT KIR GFA 103-106, 114-115, 122

LH: 3.06 M

B:

GD 01/02/03

B:

GD 05/05.B

D:

DE 03.02

D:

DE 04.01

+4.08

+7.67

+4.08

+7.67

+3.93

+7.14

+3.93

+7.14

fig. 28

114

1:2000

:

116

Between the lines

:

Picture a recent scene from a mathematics class of the 5th grade: The pupils sit in front of a motorway map, pondering over the rule of three. They have been given the task of measuring motorway lengths with a ruler, as well as calculating them using the stated map scale of 1:250 000, to ascertain dis­­tances between Leipzig and other cities. In doing so, the students make another interesting discovery: One of the students, who was quick to grasp the rule of three, measures the motorway widths as shown on the road map: 2 mm. He quickly converts the values and shouts to the class: “The motorway is 500 metres wide, that can’t be right!” There is, of course, no motorway in the world – not even in the USA or China – which is half a kilometre wide, i.e. as wide as four football field lengths. Why then do the authors of the map depict the motorways in this way?

The answer is obvious: The motorways are the most important element on a motorway map, representing the main contents of the drawing, and therefore must be properly legible. Nobody would recognise the motorways if their width on the map were depicted true to scale, much less while driving in a car. As such, the authors of the drawing deliberately bore in mind the people who would read and work with the drawing, in this case the map.

This phenomenon, namely the relationship between plan presentation and scale, and between plan information, level of detail and the legibility of a drawing, determines the contents of this book. Architectural design and engineering need to be communicated. We would like to explain how this can be meaningfully accomplished, and what level of design and engineering detail is required, and sensible, during the different stages in the development of architecture.

Today, architectural drawings are digitally prepared, with the help of “computer-aided design” (CAD). Digital drawings are created on a scale of 1:1, meaning that the actual dimensions of the design and engineering components are fed in. For computer-based preparation of drawings only, it is not strictly neces­sary to think about how the contents of drawings, including their scales, are reproduced in a printed plan. For the screen display, the line widths of the drawing are scaled in accordance with the changing depth of detail of a given part of a drawing

:

to ensure that the draughtsman always has a reasonably le­ gible screen view. However, simple processing of complex drawings by zooming in and out, and performing shifts on screen is rather disruptive for the clarity and comprehension of complex architectural tasks, since common computer-based drawing practice and the “deep immersion” into a drawing down to the last detail using a scroll wheel or zoom function, as well as scale-independent copying of identical components depicted in great detail, requires the generation of an unnecessary abundance of information within a drawing, complicating its actual objective: communication between stakeholders. The comprehension of space, function and engineering by means of the analogous final product, i.e. the printed architectural drawing, is made extremely difficult by excessive and superfluous digital information.

When drawing by hand, the idea of drawing countless ink lines next to each other so that they form a large black spot never occurs. Apart from the fact that the human hand’s motor skills are limited, it doesn’t make sense for the practice of design and engineering to, for instance, depict a 1:50 scale floor plan of a façade post with all its components such as seals, screws and similar elements. Hand drawings depict and solve precisely what can be depicted and hence solved in a selected scale. This thinking in terms of scale is not a prerequisite for filling a computer-generated drawing with information during the later stage of plan printing, which is decoupled from the preparation of a digital drawing. It can be augmented by an infinite number of elements. Thus, the printed plan of such an augmented digital drawing becomes imprecise, difficult to read and therefore unappealing. Without an appealing plan, a good design cannot be communicated.

This book is about the precision of architectural drawing as a means of clear communication and as an aesthetic experience. The objective is not to superficially discuss questions of presenting architectural drawings, but rather to underline the importance of scaled designing and engineering in architecture. In doing so, the space between lines becomes significant.

In architecture, lines not only define the living areas created by buildings. The same lines also delimit the space claimed for

engineering the architecture. This engineering space is incrementally filled during the creation of architecture, in a long, initially conceptual and subsequently technical process. Just as the living areas between lines in architectural design and engineering gradually take shape, the engineering space does so too, until it is filled with building materials on the construction site. As such, the engineering space becomes substantiated as building specifications increase. This densification process is accompanied by incremental solutions to architectural problems in consecutive scales. Therefore, there must be sufficient room between the lines of the engineering space for substantiating the structure in every phase of architectural work. The unfilled space between the lines provides room for the creative work of the architect.

This book is divided into three topics: The first part discusses fundamental aspects; the second part is dedicated to the design scales of 1:2000 to 1:100, while the third part takes up the engineering scales of 1:50 to 1:1. The objective of this book is to work out which key architectural statement and decision is made in the respective scale. It is meant to contribute towards thinking in terms of scales when designing and engineering archi­tecture, and leaving space between the lines in order to do the right thing at the right moment.

124

Design scale

1:2000

A figure-ground plan displays an urban development-related and urban morphological situation. Therefore, such a plan is sometimes also referred to as a general plan of site. The term figure-ground plan emanates from the clearly defined graphic rendition of the plan: The edges outlining a building are depicted with a black line, with the resulting figures filled in in black.

The structure and density of a building development is depicted by means of the sharp contrast arising from the use of black for the buildings and white for the free spaces between the buildings. Urban planners’ often wordy jargon also talks of the so-called grain of urban development, which the figure-ground plan so vividly shows.

A scale of 1:2000 is ideal for an architecturally oriented figure-ground plan. Figure-ground plans in smaller scales, i.e.

1:5000 or smaller, are an instrument of urban planning, such as for the depiction of settlement structures. In a scale of 1:2000, a house with an actual ground area of 10 × 10 m is easily presentable as a square with an edge length of 5 mm. A common actual separation of 6 m between two such free-standing houses is easily recognisable in the drawing as a 3-mm-wide area. Buildings and free Figure-ground spaces and their mutual relationships are clearly plan legible. A printed drawing of 25 × 20 cm (i.e. fitting on an A4-sized sheet) allows an urban space of 500 × 400 m in a scale of 1:2000 to be viewed. This is normally large enough to permit an assessment of a building’s incorporation into its urban-structural surroundings.

fig. 11

The contents of a figure-ground plan are limited to depicting built-up and free spaces. This extreme degree of abstraction makes such a drawing especially appealing. It displays the bare essentials, namely the mutual positioning of buildings in the urban space and the free spaces present between the buildings. The key architectural statement such a plan makes for the design of a new building consists of the building’s relationship to the existing urban morphology. In this regard, one also

talks of positing a building. In such a plan, the urban-structural effect of its edges, and hence the linked zoning of the urban space are readable and verifiable. Spatial proportions are only ascertainable to a limited extent since the figure-ground plan makes no statement on the height of the built-up space. The same applies to connecting footpaths that run through buildings, such as passages and thoroughfares, since these are normally not depicted in a figure-ground plan. With the positing of a building as depicted in a figure-ground plan, the first main architectural decision is taken. As such, the 1:2000 scale, being at the interface between urban development design and architectural design, is the smallest scale relevant to building construction planning.

The lines of building edges are drawn with a line width of 0.09 mm. A wider line would distort the size of the buildings that are being depicted by only a very small amount, since the outlining black lines and the black fill-out would turn into a black patch, which would be larger than the building. If one uses a line width of 0.35 mm, the extent of the building would be depicted larger by 0.26 mm, which would already cor­respond to an actual size increase of 52 cm.

According to the golden rule, lines in printouts should not be placed closer than 1 mm from each other. Therefore, in a 1:2000 scale, only objects with an actual size of at least 2 × 2 m can be depicted. A 3 × 6 m garage could thus be readily depicted, having a corresponding size of 1.5 × 3 mm in the drawing. Even so, small, minor building structures should only be displayed in a figure-ground plan if they have a special content-related meaning, as, for example, in the case of a memorial, a well in the middle of a square or a free-standing bell tower of a church. The depiction of a tram station roof or of a represen­ tative canopy attached to a public building could, on the contrary, not only be unimportant, but even be misleading when trying to comprehend the urban-structural effects. In case of doubt, one should refrain from depicting such small objects.

1:2000

The depiction of free-space elements must be carefully considered. Footpaths, grass strips and similar elements are often only 1.5 m wide, and are therefore anyway smaller than the actual dimension of 2 m presentable in a 1:2000 scale. The division of roads and footpaths is, as a rule, likewise of lesser import­ ance and should therefore not be drawn. Frequently, even the depiction of roads is not important. Green strips and groups of trees should preferably be depicted contiguously or not at all if they are of minor importance. Individual trees can be depicted provided they are Figure-ground important for the spatial formation, such as in plan with the case of avenues or the design of city squares. vegetation Railway lines should only be drawn if they are rele­vant for the urban structure, for example in the case of railway station entranceways, and by using a single line for the track axis, since tracks are narrower than 2 m. The situation is similar with expressways and motorways, which should be descriptively abstracted. If free space elements are to be depicted, they should be drawn as a clear line without filling in to avoid confusing them with built-up structures. Advisable line widths are 0.09 mm or 0.18 mm.

fig. 12

An inverse depiction is unfavourable for figure-ground plans.

Apart from the fact that vast amounts of black plotter ink are used up, an inverse depiction doesn’t correspond to usual human viewing habits, which tend to associate black with built-up areas and white with un-built free spaces.

Even though this book is not meant to cover colour representation in architectural drawings, an exception must be made for the section on the figure-ground plan. The disadvantage of a conventional figure-ground plan is that the designed building isn’t readily recognisable as such since it is depicted just as black as the existing built-up area. Therefore, in a figure-ground plan, a newly planned building is often juxtaposed with the building stock by depicting it in another colour.

This ensures that the new design is quickly found in the urban fabric by viewers of a drawing, and Figure-ground can easily be examined as to whether it fits into plan with its surroundings. If the building stock is depicted highlighted figures in black, and the new building is highlighted in another colour (commonly red) in a drawing, one speaks of a figure-ground plan with highlighted figures. If one chooses to stick to the black-and-white depiction, representing new planning in grey scale is also conceivable by way of exception. The clearest and most appealing option is to have the plan depict the new design in red, set in its surroundings which are displayed in black, while dispensing with any further, unimportant and obscuring drawing elements. The precision with which a new design is posited and can be read off from the drawing forms the starting point for the further development process that creates good architecture.

fig. 13

132

Construction scale

1:50

There are several terms for architectural drawings in a scale of 1:50. They may be called implementation drawings, implementation plans, working drawings or working plans. The sum total of drawings in the 1:50 scale is also called construction documentation, detailed design or implementation documents. All these terms serve to express that 1:50 scale drawings have the purpose of materialising the architectural work at hand, i.e. the building design, to turn it into a building structure.

At a significantly earlier stage, it is the architect who develops an imaginary work, already protected by copyright, by coming up with a design or even the first sketches of a building. When creating such an imagined work, the architect doesn’t require the help of assistants. The architect designs, substantiates and documents the spaces of his/her building conceptually, mostly on his/her own and in various scales. Now, however, the archi­ tect’s design is to be implemented. The imagined building is to fulfil its planned purpose. There will be no changes to the mutual relationships of the spaces or to the appearance, which the architect has envisaged. The only difference in the ongoing process of the architect’s design considerations is that his/her concepts are turning into an actual construction. This is something that the architect cannot tackle on his/her own. The archi­tect now requires assistants and experts, who are proficient in handling the materials that the architect has imagined for the transformation of his/her design concepts into built reality.

The drawings in a scale of 1:50 form the basis for turning the planning into a built edifice. The architect provides information to his/her assistants on the construction site on how he/ she envisages the things to develop in reality. Basically, the 1:50 scale is nothing more than instructions for action for those who construct a building, who assemble the components with their hands on the construction site to form a coherent whole, and who are therefore also called craftspeople or artisans. A working drawing in a 1:50 Part of ground scale should be structured just like instructions floor plan with staircase/weekday for action. When drawing the plan, the archi­tect chapel has to view it from the perspective of the person who will later hold it in his/her hands on the construction site. For a single spot in the building, the architect even has to think in terms of the multiple perspectives of the various artisans and technicians, who will implement various works in succession at that spot. This situation means that, in the 1:50 scale, several plans with different pieces of information for the same spot in the building may be prepared.

Formwork plans for constructing concrete walls and ceilings, for example, require very different instructions for artisans and technicians than those in installation plans for the lighting in suspended ceilings.

fig. 27

All pieces of information in 1:50 scale drawings should be easy to comprehend and convenient to handle. Instructions for action fail to follow the principle of direct and clear communication if, for example, the dimensions of a door opening to be created in the walling is indicated far outside the building on the drawing. Dimensions are preferably provided directly at the component that is to be built. It makes no sense to depict components so small Part of that the supervisor on the construction site would upper floor plan above the be obliged to carry a magnifying glass in his/her weekday chapel pocket (apart from the standard bricklayer’s hammer). In a 1:50 scale, the reference point for the display depth and the guarantor for a clearly legible and appealing working drawing is the golden rule, according to which, lines in the drawing should not be drawn closer than 1 mm to each other. 1 mm in a drawing corresponds to 5 cm in

fig. 28

1:50 reality. As such, all major fit-out elements, such as window profiles, door leafs or wall coverings, can be drawn. Smaller elem­ ents are correspondingly abstracted or not drawn at all. For example, a linoleum floor covering on a floating floor is thus not depicted as a separate layer, but is reduced to a single component, together with the screed.

Natural stone slabs with a thickness of 3 cm in a Cross-section of 3-cm-thick mortar bed and on a 4-cm-thick com­ the weekday chapel / confession posite screed, should be abstracted to a 5-cmroom thick layer for the natural stone floor covering, and a second, 5-cm-thick layer for the composite screed, in correspondence with the various artisan and technician assignments. Stairs can, as a rule, be drawn with all their components, such as railings and handrails, as these elements have easily presentable dimensions. Drywalls can be depicted with their stud framing, provided the conveyance of this information is relevant, while the panelling is, in turn, abstracted to a single line. The display depth is a matter of the selected abstraction, which needs to live up to the specific significance of the working drawing as an instruction for action, i.e. as a medium of communication. Working drawings in a scale of 1:50 are extremely complex due to their high information density.

Therefore, it is not the intended user of the drawing who should be obliged to perform the laborious mental abstraction, but the composer of the drawing during its preparation.

fig. 29

Without distinguishing lines according to line widths and line types, a working drawing remains illegible. Continuous lines with a “thick” line width mark the contours of cut, solid elem­ ents. Continuous lines with a “medium” line width are used when glass or thin fit-out elements are to be depicted in section.

Continuous lines with a “thin” line width are selected for visible edges; “thin” dashed lines depict edges concealed by cut or visible components, and which belong to objects lying below or behind; and “thin” dotted lines depict projected edges of elem­ ents lying above or in front of the drawing plane. Dimension lines, dimensional limit lines and auxiliary lines are likewise depicted as “thin” continuous lines. Axes and building grids are inserted as dot-dashed lines running through the entire drawing. The use of hatchings for the cut components is not absolutely necessary, though Cross-section of it does improve the legibility of a working drawthe stairwell ing. A conscious approach towards the normative specifications for hatchings in drawings is advisable. For example, by limiting hatchings to the more important layers of an overall construction, a more descriptive legibility of the drawing can be achieved. Moreover, when hatching, the line separation must be kept under control so that the lines don’t merge into graphic grey areas, especially when scaling a plan for printing. What is problematic for the drawing style is also the widespread practice of depicting sealing sheets with an oversized dashed line, similar to a railway line on a map. Due to the stark black-and-white contrast in such a drawing, sealing sheets drawn in this manner stand out so strongly that they destroy the graphic balance of the drawing.

fig. 30

Working drawings in the 1:50 scale contain a great many pieces of textual information. There are dimensions, component labels and room stamps with bundled information on the space such as the ground area, unfolding length, clear height, floor covering, ceiling and wall covering, references on the sep­ar­ation of the trades, installation sequences and much more. Great care is required to fit all these pieces of information with regard to the drawn lines into a clearly legible, graphically appealing overall picture. Since one may quickly lose track in the face of the abundance of elements in a drawing when applying the 1:50 scale, it is advisable to conceptualise the arrangement of dimensioning and texts by hand in a rough sketch on a print-out, thereby avoiding additive, disordered procedures.

Plan legibility also improves when one refrains from double information. If necessary, one may even expect the artisan or technician to add together one or another measurement, or to transfer analogies from one drawing area to another. Moreover, it is helpful to review the completed plan in a print-out once again with regard to its overall appearance, and carry out adjustments on the different information levels.

The working drawing not only constitutes an instruction for action for the artisans and technicians at the construction site.

It is also the most important means of communication for the various planning participants. As such, for example, the planning of slots and openings in the load-bearing structure requires close collaboration between the architect, the structural engineer and the building services engineer. The preparation of the working drawings should take place on the basis of the following questions: For whom is the plan being drawn? Which pieces of information do they require? Which pieces of information about the building, which only the architect is aware of in their entirety, must be removed for a printed drawing so that it remains legible Part of for the intended user? The development of CAD south elevation is a blessing for the draughtsmen here. With the help of the layer structure, all pieces of information for a specific location in a building can be entered, placed in different layers and, depending on the requirements and trades at hand, varied with respect to the layers’ visibility. In this way, a single digital drawing allows the preparation of different printouts for the various trades. This, however, requires a substantial overview of all drawing contents and its processing by the person responsible for the drawing since in the 1:50 scale, all pieces of information on the work to be implemented are still bundled.

fig. 31

142

CV

: Ansgar Schulz geboren 1966 in Witten/Ruhr, studierte von 1985 bis 1992 Architektur an der RWTH Aachen und der ETSA de Madrid. Seit 1990 ist er Mitglied bei Schalke 04. 1992 gründete er mit seinem Bruder Benedikt das Büro Schulz und Schulz mit Sitz in Leipzig.

Von 2002 bis 2004 lehrte Ansgar Schulz an der Universität Karlsruhe (KIT). Als Universitätsprofessor lehrt und forscht er am Lehrstuhl Baukonstruktion der Fakultät Architektur und Bauingenieurwesen an der Technischen Universität Dortmund, den er gemeinsam mit seinem Bruder seit 2010 leitet.

Benedikt Schulz geboren 1968 in Witten/Ruhr, studierte von 1988 bis 1994 Architektur an der RWTH Aachen und der UC de Asunción/Paraguay.

Seit 1990 ist er Mitglied bei Schalke 04. 1992 gründete er mit seinem Bruder Ansgar das Büro Schulz und Schulz mit Sitz in Leipzig.

Von 2002 bis 2004 lehrte Benedikt Schulz an der Universität Karlsruhe (KIT). Als Universitätsprofessor lehrt und forscht er am Lehrstuhl Baukonstruktion der Fakultät Architektur und Bauingenieurwesen an der Technischen Universität Dortmund, den er gemeinsam mit seinem Bruder seit 2010 leitet.

Born 1966 in Witten on the Ruhr, studied Architecture at RWTH Aachen University and the ETSA de Madrid (Superior Technical School of Architecture of Madrid) from 1985 to 1992. He has been a member of Schalke 04 since 1990. He founded the archi­ tecture studio Schulz und Schulz, headquartered in Leipzig, with his brother Benedikt in 1992.

Ansgar Schulz was an instructor at Karlsruhe University (KIT) from 2002 to 2004. As a university professor, he teaches and conducts research as the chair of Building Construction in the Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Dortmund Technical University, a position that he has held with his brother since 2010.

Born 1968 in Witten on the Ruhr, studied Architecture at RWTH Aachen University and the Universidad Católica ‘Nuestra Señora de la Asunción’ (‘Our Lady of the Ascension’ Catholic University) in Paraguay from 1988 to 1994. He has been a member of Schalke 04 since 1990. He founded the architecture studio Schulz und Schulz, headquartered in Leipzig, with his brother Ansgar in 1992.

Benedikt Schulz was an instructor at Karlsruhe University (KIT) from 2002 to 2004. As a university professor, he teaches and conducts research as the chair of Building Construction in the Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Dortmund Technical University, a position that he has held with his brother since 2010.

Concept and text: Ansgar and Benedikt Schulz Drawings: Ansgar Schulz, Benedikt Schulz, Matthias Hönig Design: Korbinian Kainz, Basics09 Editor: Nils Ballhausen Coordination: Thomas Gohr English translation: Julian Jain English copy-editing: Matthew Griffon Printer: DZA Druckerei zu Altenburg GmbH Paper: Munken Lynx, Blackboard Roemer Font: LL Brown © 2015, erste Auflage / first edition DETAIL – Institut für internationale ArchitekturDokumentation GmbH & Co. KG, München / Munich www.detail.de ISBN 978-3-95553-307-6 (Print) ISBN 978-3-95553-308-3 (E-Book) ISBN 978-3-95553-309-0 (Bundle)

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von Abbildungen und Zeichnungen, der Mikroverfilmung oder der Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung dieses Werks oder von Teilen dieses Werks ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des Urheberrechts.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, recitation, reuse of illustrations and tables, reproduction on microfilm or in other ways, and storage in data processing systems. Reproduction of any part of this work in individual cases, too, is only permitted within the limits of the provisions of the valid edition of the copyright law. A charge will be levied. Infringements will be subject to the penalty clauses of the copyright law.

Bibliographical information published by the German National Library: The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographical data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de

Das Denken und Arbeiten in unterschiedlichen Maßstäben gehört zum Kern der Architektur. Doch in welchem Maßstab muss welche Entwurfsentscheidung getroffen werden? Zu welchem Zeitpunkt ist es sinnvoll, den Maßstab zu wechseln? Was kann, was soll in einer maßstabsgerechten Architekturzeichnung dargestellt sein? Und wie gelingt es, dass diese Zeichnung übersichtlich, also schön wird?

Die Architekturzeichnung ist nicht zuletzt ein Mittel der Kommunikation. Sie enthält Informationen, die für unterschiedliche Adressaten relevant sind. Die Wahl des richtigen Maßstabs entscheidet darüber, ob der Bauherr oder der Handwerker versteht, was gemeint ist.

Angesichts der zahllosen Möglichkeiten des CAD gerät das Ziel, eigene Ideen klar und eindeutig zu transportieren, bisweilen aus den Augen. Ansgar und Benedikt Schulz geben Orientierung und führen die Architekturzeichnung exemplarisch auf ihren ursprünglichen Zweck zurück: ausgezeichnete Bauwerke zu schaffen.

Thinking and working in a variety of scales lies at the heart of architecture. What scale should be selected for which design decision? At what point is it sensible to change the scale? What can and ought to be depicted in a true-to-scale architectural drawing? And how can such a drawing remain clear and thus appealing?

An architectural drawing is not least a means of communication. It contains pieces of information which are relevant for various recipients. The choice of the appropriate scale determines whether the client or the construction worker understand what is being conveyed.

In view of the countless possibilities offered by CAD, the objective of clearly and unambiguously conveying one’s own ideas is occasionally lost sight of. The authors, Ansgar Schulz and Benedikt Schulz, provide orientation with their book, exemplarily guiding the architectural drawing back to its original purpose: the creation of exceptional structures.