4th October 2011, 11:20 AM
Personally I'd avoid a prescriptive approach to building analysis, to bring another term into it. It all depends on the scale and scope of the exercise and why you're doing it. You can of course mix and match approaches - I've combined photogrammetry, rectified photography and hand survey on a project, with the results all being digitised consistently in CAD. It all depends which method can capture the data most cost-effectively. Standing and staring at walls and talking about them, even to yourself, is also essential.
As for who should do it, I've discussed this many times with architectural historians, and have come to the conclusion that both approaches have drawbacks and merits. The two disciplines look at buildings in different ways, and those differences can be interesting, entertaining and sometimes informative. On one big project on a freshly-burned castle I tried to hire archaeologists and architectural historians - it certainly wasn't dull. And to reinforce Dinosaur's point, no, I wouldn't dream of letting an architectural historian get hold of a trowel.
As for who should do it, I've discussed this many times with architectural historians, and have come to the conclusion that both approaches have drawbacks and merits. The two disciplines look at buildings in different ways, and those differences can be interesting, entertaining and sometimes informative. On one big project on a freshly-burned castle I tried to hire archaeologists and architectural historians - it certainly wasn't dull. And to reinforce Dinosaur's point, no, I wouldn't dream of letting an architectural historian get hold of a trowel.