I find this “workflow” to be rudimentary at best. It’s hard for me to accept this as a conceptual method for approaching architectural engagement using SketchUp for the following reasons:
- Your method makes no mention of using the Entity Info window. This must be at least as significant as using Outliner.
- Because the bulk of professional design work is presented as 2D orthographic media, the use of Layout is imperative for the development of condocs and related materials. Layout is not included in your workflow, nor is any other method for preparing documents to build from or with which to obtain construction permits.
- Your workflow offers limited suggestion concerning organizing the various phases of professional service.
- Because every building must be associated with a real parcel of land, typically a general SU architectural workflow will include a way to incorporate existing site information into a skp file. This may include importing graphic images such as site photos, adjacent structures, survey data, geotechnical data, manufacturer cut sheets, etc.
- Creation and/or importation of schedules, tables or spreadsheets also figure prominently in the daily tasks of many architectural firms. How is this dealt with in your example?
- Going back to using SU only, how does your approach address collaborations with engineers and other design consultants such as interior designers or transportation consultants, to name just a few examples?
- How does your approach address design revisions, which invariably happen on almost every project?
- Any specific ideas about how to present poche’, stippling, architectural symbols, dimensions, lettering fonts and styles, establishing line weights for specific purposes, when to use (or not to use) color, whether to use realistic material representations, etc?
- What about rendering the model? How does this figure into the workflow?
- How do you streamline model organization particularly as the size of the model becomes very large, say over 100 mb?
I hope you accept my apology for subjecting your post to this painful scrutiny. I was a practicing architect for several decades and taught architecture at both the graduate and undergraduate college levels for almost as many years. The practice of architecture is a serious profession as I’m sure you are already aware, so the practitioner must be thorough in his analysis and cannot afford to display errors or oversights. Admittedly, I reviewed your contribution as I might have done to the work of the many students who experienced my tutelage over the years. I have been told by many of them that despite the sometimes initial cringe worthy impact, the overall results were beneficial. I hope you find the same to be valid. Bear in mind that my students rarely received an apology for an evaluation.