Facade automations generate a pattern across a whole building in seconds.
◦ What does the automation know, and what does it not know?
The automation knows the size of the wall and how much total area it has. But it does not know if there are balconies or balcony doors there. It doesn’t know where walls are either.
◦ Where did the generated pattern need overriding, and why?
The pattern needed overriding for walls that had balcony doors because it kept deleting the doors. I placed every one of those windows manually for those instances. It also needed a little bit of overriding if the wall overlapped with another building’s wall. I shifted the windows in those cases.
◦ If the automation produces something that analyses well but looks wrong, which wins?
If looking wrong means looking physically impossible, then that governs the design. Even if the analysis results look great, if it seems like the windows aren’t buildable where they are placed or get in the way of other essential components/elements such as walls, doors, or equipment then the analysis results don’t matter.
What drives a project team's decision about floor to floor height?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
The developer wants the most money per unit area of land. Therefore they would want the floor to floor height to be as small as possible to have as many floors as possible within the same building height and material usage.
◦ From a designer's perspective?
The designer wants more floor to floor height for aesthetics and space to work with.
◦ From an engineer's perspective?
The engineer does not immediately know what floor to floor height they want. This changes the stiffness of the structure and can be beneficial or harmful in calculating the applied structure loads based on the location and building shape. They definitely want enough space to fit beams, girders, and MEP though.
◦ From a builder's perspective?
The builder wants shorter structures because those are easier and faster to construct. There should also be less sway as they construct.
Last week we chose a massing option based on site evidence. This week you had to fit a program inside it.
◦ Where did the program and the massing disagree, and which one gave way?
◦ What would have had to be true for you to change the massing instead of the program?
◦ Which of this week's program decisions will the structural engineer and the mechanical engineer assume you got right?
Total carbon can now be estimated before materials are specified.
◦ How much confidence should a team place in that number at this stage?
The material could easily change from concrete to steel which will drastically affect the embodied carbon. This plays a much higher role than the operational carbon. Therefore, a team should not place much confidence in that number unless the architect’s vision depends on the structural materials.
◦ Which decision made this week has the largest effect on it?
Adding more windows decreased the embodied carbon much more than the operational carbon increased. This is assumed to be due to less concrete being used to construct walls. Concrete has a very high embodied carbon.
◦ How would you present it to a client without overstating its precision?
I would provide the number but warn them that it could change depending on the direction the building goes with in terms of material type.
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?
◦ What is the cost of moving too early? Of moving too late?
◦ Which parts of your Forma model do you expect to survive the handoff?