What are the principal advantages of using a single building information model of the existing conditions as the foundation for modeling proposed additions or renovations?
- Why not create a separate model for the new proposed design?
By using a single building information model of the existing conditions for the foundation for additions, you are condensing all the information needed into one cohesive workspace. All the information can be relayed and worked on in one form. This allows for easy informational relays. For example, in additions/renovations, it is extremely common to have to demolish parts of the existing building, replacing with new walls or rooms. If this was in two different models it would be difficult to easily analyze which walls remain and which are replaced with something new. One revit files allows for easy demonstrations of this with phases and line weight/colorations. Further, by using the same file, the schedules of the current building can be added, thus while working on the new renovations, the schedules are constantly updated. This allows for an accurate cost representation and analysis of what is needed for the project. Lastly, one model allows for quick analysis of different construction phases. What was demolish when, what was created when, was remains the whole time, etc. This is helpful for the contractors and engineers.
- Creating a separate model for the proposed design can lead to miscommunications. It is much harder to link two different model ideations rather than understand one that is continuous over time.
What sort of complexities are introduced when you construct a building complex in phases?
- What happens at the interfaces between the buildings as the phases advance?
- How can you plan and prepare for these complexities as your create your initial building model?
What are the principal advantages of using a single building information model of the existing conditions as the foundation for modeling several proposed design alternatives for a portion of the building?
- Why not create a separate model for each of the design alternatives?
Using a single building information model of the existing conditions as the foundation for design alternatives is incredible because it allows quick comparisons of options for the client, placed in the context of the proposed design. It is also an incredible time saver. By using a single model, one can duplicate the views multiple times to efficiently replicate the building. Then by editing the separate views to include varying options, the designer only had to consider what they want to change in each view. In order to create separate models for each design alternative, the designer would have to re model every feature of the building, not just the design alternatives. This would take a lot of time, and open up the possibilities of mistakes in the the replication process.
In your project, which features of the proposed design did you choose to model as design alternatives?
- Why did you choose these building features? And what were the biggest challenges in modeling them as the design alternatives?