Too bad, why not more?
Reflect on yourself: until Yvonne gets cranky, the OP usually has not delivered repeatedly requested basics or has hidden them well.
We do or try to do it :)
Surely it’s also our fault, but just dealing with drafts makes us think and decide what we want
You should neither expect from an architect nor tolerate them to behave like an “architect” and adapt as a professional to the (un)methodical approach of the clients. The dramatically degenerated spatial imagination of the current generation of building owners is a real problem. However, reinterpreting service phase 3 as LP “3D” (
and canceling service phase 2 – THAT is where the discussion of intent belongs! –
and nowhere else), is a highly unsuitable solution. It is evident how
sig-ni-fi-cant the causal connection between clean code and meantime between failure is. This is NOT a peculiarity of software development but also applies to house building: confused planning apparently “forcefully” generates execution defects on the construction site. Therefore, one cannot emphasize enough that it
pays off to pursue the proven methodological paths. If this only served the satisfaction of conservative pedants like myself, one could smile about it and behave punky and rebellious. But unfortunately, in practice, it unmistakably spoils the professional enjoyment of expert construction supervisors. They much prefer to be able to record praise-worthy good executions rather than being called as fault-finding evidence guarantors. A construction engineer feels much more comfortable in the field than in the courtroom. And the building owners themselves, if they are honest, actually build because of the dream house, and not to win a damages lawsuit. Botched work does not start with the trowel, but with the drafting mouse!