Before the advent of computer aided presentations, manual drafting was the norm in architecture. Massive drawing boards and specially trained technicians handled and produced drawings for architects.
Nevertheless, the story is different today.
Simplified the architects’ work with just a single software, we can do the job of a lot of drawing boards.
As a result, the roles of the draftsmen in architectural practice have become endangered.
Furthermore, architectural software such as CAD & BIM are so advanced that their operation in the hands of an expert, produces outputs (in terms of time spent and quality) that no draftsman working manually can rival.
Today, a good number of draftsmen just like architects, are very versatile in the use of software.
It is therefore evident that despite the numerous merits of these technological revolution, the draftsmen who were also stakeholders at that time, became victims.
They were schemed out, and with no visible option in sight, a few opted to keep practicing architecture, though illegally.
Perhaps because they believed they were the most suitable alternatives to architects, having relevant knowledge and experience..
Also they demand cheaper fees. Sadly, these actions of quacks, pose a great danger to the environment, people, buildings and the integrity of architecture as a profession.
|Sir Norman Foster’s modern office – Renowned British architect.|
Making them technical and drafting personnel of the architects.
Today’s architects can conveniently carry out many functions (design, draft, etc) with the help of technology and therefore don’t need draftsmen.
In summary, due to technological advancement, systems have become automated leading to redundancy of previously useful workforce.
Computers and software have made it possible for single individuals to do the work of many, more effectively and efficiently.
Unfortunately, this is the situation of the draftsmen. His job has been replaced and simplified by technology and his relevance in the profession is now in doubt.
What options does Draftsmen have?
Thus, why will he still need a draftsman?
We should ask ourselves the following questions:
- “What becomes of draftsmen and how can they be reintegrated into architecture, if possible?”
- “If the system is producing too many architecture technicians and technologist than its need, what can we do to reduce this?”
- “Do we scrap architecture from polytechnics?”