Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Details in the working make it interesting

  • Comment
letters

Richard Shepley's letter (AJ 10.2.05) highlights a dilemma at the heart of the Working Details programme. On one hand, Working Details are intended to show the 'cutting edge' of construction and design; on the other, they should accord with sound construction principles.

We endeavour to publish details which demonstrate good, sound practice, but if the details only followed the standard textbook approach I suspect our readers would not find them very interesting. Detailing is an integral part of design. As part of the design process some architects may go beyond the tradition of Mitchell's Building Construction; they approach the boundary of what is feasible and sometimes, I agree, they may go a little beyond it.

In my view, the Working Details are aimed at an informed readership - qualified architects who are familiar with the technology of building construction and who want to see a creative use of that technology. From the outset, Working Details were published with the intention that they would be a basis for discussion, so that the whole of the profession would benefit from individual experience. We welcome readers' views, both positive and negative ones.

Susan Dawson, AJ Working Details editor

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.