Module 1 - Points to Ponder

What are the primary goals of creating a building model? Who are the key stakeholders?

The primary goals of creating a building model are:

• Figuring out the design. We can test ideas, compare options and see problems before anything gets built.
• Getting everyone on the same page. Architects, engineers, owners and contractors can all look at one shared version of the building instead of a stack of separate drawings.
• Catching conflicts early and while it's still cheap to fix on a screen instead of on site.
• Having a record of what was built.

The stakeholders are the owner(s), architects, engineers, contractors, the city and permitting officials, and people living, working, and existing in the surrounding areas.

What does each of them need from the model?

• Owner - a clear picture of what they're paying for, cost estimates, and a sense of whether the building will is what they want.
• Architects - a place to develop and test the design, so others such as the owner can review it and make changes they see necessary.
• Engineers - accurate dimensions to design structure and systems around, plus room to fit their work in without conflicts.
• Contractors - quantities of supplies for pricing, and enough detail to plan how and in what order things get built.
• The city - views that clearly show code compliance regarding height, setbacks, fire ratings, etc.
• Neighbors: they don't use the model directly, but they care about what it produces and if it will affect their day to day.

What do they care about most, and where do those priorities conflict?

• The owner, generally, cares most about cost and schedule while the architect cares about the quality and appearance of the design. These differing priorities can conflict. For example, taller ceilings may push the budget.
• Engineers want room for piping and electrical necessary to made the house livable. Architects generally want open spaces with limited square footage lost.
• Contractors want the design locked early so they can price it and plan, but designers want to keep options open as long as possible to ensure all parts are looking cohesive.
• The city cares about code and zoning, which can limit what the owner wants to build. For example, the number of stories or in Wisconsin if you’re too close to the lake.
• Neighbors care about shadows, views and street character, which can push against the owner's goal of maximizing space. On a site like the one I chose for this class, Golden Gate Park, there is tension between building bigger and respecting the park edge.

This course splits the work across Forma, Revit and Forma Data Management.

What is gained by using a different tool for concept, documentation and coordination?

• Something I’ve noticed is that each tool sort of matches how sure you are at a point. Some examples are:
• Forma is quick, so I can try a bunch of massing options without committing.
• Revit is precise, which I need for documentation but which would slow me down at the start.
• Forma Data Management handles versions, permissions and reviews once other people are involved.
• It’s also very nice that everyone can own their own model and still share a current version with the team and that I'm not forced to be extremely precise before I know what exactly I want to do, or sloppy once I am ready to be exact

What tends to get lost in the handoffs between them?

• The "why." The model shows the building, but doesn’t include an explanation for why I made a decision. For example, on a financial side, it might make sense to have my top story be offices or apartments, where I can charge rent and make money. But, I may decide to make a rooftop that overlooks a park.
• Coordinates, true north and units. I could see this becoming an issue, especially when deciding where to put windows, for the wind and sun, and if solar panels are chosen, the best configuration for them.
• I think keeping track of which file is actually the latest, most up to date one. Also, which one is meant for me to be editing, and which one I may want to reference.

Who on a real project team is responsible for making sure nothing is lost?

• Whoever the BIM Execution Plan names. Usually a BIM manager or coordinator. The project architect or PM is in charge of design intent. The contractor-led jobs are the general contractors responsibility. Overall, I think in practice, I think it has to be shared.

You will make hundreds of modeling decisions this quarter.

Which ones are worth being slow and careful about?

• Project location, coordinates and true north
• Units and the project template
• Levels, grids and floor-to-floor heights
• Site boundary and setbacks
• Naming conventions

Which are worth being fast about, accepting that you may redo them?

• Room layouts
• Materials & how things look
• View setup
• Landscape design

How would you tell the difference before you have made the mistake?

• I’d ask myself 3 questions:
• How easily can I change it?
• When I was choosing a site for the quarter, I took my time because I knew I'd be carrying that decision with me the whole way. Almost every other choice builds on it, so switching sites halfway through would be detrimental.
• Is there someone or something that will tell me I'm wrong?
• If a TA, or a tool like Forma's analysis will catch a mistake quickly, I go ahead, make the call, and ask for other opinions. Fast feedback makes it safe to move fast.
• How much will this decision affect my future decisions?
• Where I place the exterior walls matters a lot, because they set the shape, size and dimensions of every room inside. Something like a material or a view setting doesn't ripple out like that, so I can decide it quickly and fix it later if I need to.