Facade automations generate a pattern across a whole building in seconds.
◦ What does the automation know, and what does it not know?
The automation works very well for and understand geometry, window-to-wall rations, grid spacing and lines, surface area, and simple structural patterns. It works evenly and automatically, which can be exceptionally useful for creating initial facade schemes.
However, the tool doesn’t work with/understand environmental conditions, such as microclimate, sun hours, daylight, solar angles, or additional site constraints. It also doesn’t factor in neighboring buildings or other functional requirements, as it just works with given geometries and patterns rather than “thinking” or “holistically” understanding the site and project purpose.
◦ Where did the generated pattern need overriding, and why?
The initial automated facade created severe sun hour and shading issues. Some units received under 4 hours of summer sunlight, while others experienced excessive heat gain. Overriding the automated pattern was required in multiple areas:
- Building Reorientation (N-to-S to E-to-W). Rotating the orientation of my building and open space design on the lot improves sun coverage by 25% and boosted 3+ hour plaza direct sunlight coverage from 73% to 98%.
- The uniform automated pattern was replaced at the corners with dual-aspect windows and balconies on both North/South and East/West sides, offering residents access to both shade and direct light.
- Balconies on floors 1 to 3 were removed and replaced with larger windows on lower levels to maximize daylight intake without creating self-shading on the bottom floors near adjacent 2–3 story buildings.
- The standard 8x8 automated window grid was overridden in favor of a full curtain wall facade to boost natural lighting for retail spaces, while the north-facing ground facade was completely removed due to severe shadow coverage.
◦ If the automation produces something that analyses well but looks wrong, which wins?
Building performance, sustainability, energy efficiency and environmental analyses are extremely important for building projects, but design intent and usability override automated patterns. Failing visually or functionally ignores the purpose of the project in the first place even if analyses are scoring well. Forma’s analysis tools measure raw data and do not understand/account for human experience, streetscape integration, and several other human/social factors. The ideal approach uses environmental data to inform the design, but relies on human oversight to refine the facade into a cohesive, aesthetically sound, and comfortable living environment.
What drives a project team's decision about floor to floor height?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
◦ From a designer's perspective?
◦ From an engineer's perspective?
◦ From a builder's perspective?
You used an AI assisted layout for a first pass at a typical floor.
◦ What did it get right that would have taken you a long time by hand?
◦ What did it get wrong, and what would it have needed to know?
◦ Who is responsible for errors in a layout a machine generated?
Total carbon can now be estimated before materials are specified.
◦ How much confidence should a team place in that number at this stage?
These numbers should not be submitted on a final product basis. This type of carbon analysis is useful for comparing basic massing concepts, but there should be low confidence in total carbon estimations before real specifications are made.
◦ Which decision made this week has the largest effect on it?
I changed the orientation of my building to run east-to-west. This significantly reduces the heating, cooling, and total energy demand in the building. Choosing to have more windows on commercial, concrete-based buildings also reduces total carbon significantly. Using a stepped residential building also reduces GFA, which reduces total carbon.
◦ How would you present it to a client without overstating its precision?
I would frame it as a baseline target or goal range rather than a single fixed metric that is guaranteed to be exactly the given number (above or below). I would also highlight the carbon savings over time due to increased energy efficiency and higher potential for zero-net energy due to solar usage and energy efficient building practices. I would also explain that this number established a carbon budget as the project moves into more detailed design. Furthermore, material choice and assemblies will be chosen to meet or lower the total carbon target.
At some point a conceptual model has to stop being conceptual.
◦ How do you know when a proposal is resolved enough to move into Revit?
Area, site, and GFA requirements are met. Positioning and orientation are agreed upon and confirmed. All spacing and offsets are locked in. All of these things make sense in environmental and project context, and the next step is increased detail.
◦ What is the cost of moving too early? Of moving too late?
Moving to early can result in heavy reworks that are much more difficult to do in revit compared to forma due to increased detail and rigidity. You also lose the ability to easily do environmental analysis. This means more money will be spent and teams will be spending more time doing massing and other things that should be done in forma in revit when they may be downselected or discarded.
Spending too long trying to optimize environmental conditions can lead to diminishing returns where not much is changing or improving even though a lot of effort is being spent. Moving too late can also compress and stress the predetermined schedule. Also, trying to do granular details in conceptual programs like forma can be a mistake as the true granular detailing must be done in Revit, and granular forma work can result in a false sense of precision or completion.
◦ Which parts of your Forma model do you expect to survive the handoff?
The site context will likely survive as this was there before my changes. I expect my building shells and masses to survive as they are simple three dimensional figures. I also expect my floors and levels to survive as they are simple and not granular. Basically, the basic overlying things, while the smaller details will have served their conceptual purpose in forma by informing these overlying decisions through environmental analysis.