Facade automations generate a pattern across a whole building in seconds.
◦ What does the automation know, and what does it not know?
Automation knows the pattern of the module the user is repeating, the distance between each module, and the length of the facade. It does not know what constitutes a good design and what aspects of the automation line up with the interior of the building.
◦ Where did the generated pattern need overriding, and why?
The pattern needed to be overridden when the length of the interior rooms was inconsistent. This was because the automation resulted in the windows/buildings being placed in between units and over walls, which is impractical and difficult to fabricate.
◦ If the automation produces something that analyses well but looks wrong, which wins?
It depends on the situation. Sometimes, something that looks unusual may still be effective (unusual facade patterning, etc.) but, at the same time, we are designing buildings for humans and so if it looks wrong to a human, then a different design should probably be chosen.
What drives a project team's decision about floor to floor height?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
The developers are focused on balancing cost-effectiveness and aesthetics. They want to maximize the use of space while also maximizing the human comfort of the space.
◦ From a designer's perspective?
Similar to the developer, the designers are focused on aesthetics and human comfort of a space. Spaces that have too low of a floor to floor height become uncomfortable to inhabit, but spaces that are too high may also be unnecessary for this kind of building.
◦ From an engineer's perspective?
The engineers focus on the structural properties of the system, focusing on what height will make the building strong/stable.
◦ From a builder's perspective?
Similar to the engineer, the builder is focused on making sure that the structure is sound and will want to choose heights that ensure the building stands.
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?
◦ Which decision made this week has the largest effect on it?
◦ How would you present it to a client without overstating its precision?
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?
This can be different for everyone depending on their preferences, but, roughly, the proposal is resolved enough when the modeler has a rough outline of the massing, facades, and floor plans.
◦ What is the cost of moving too early? Of moving too late?
The cost of moving too early is that it takes longer to produce something on Revit, so the modeler may waste time. The cost of moving too late is that forma is imprecise and less accurate building materials (walls, floors, etc.) so many aspects of the Forma model will have to be significantly revised in Revit and the work done in Forma will become redundant/not useful.
◦ Which parts of your Forma model do you expect to survive the handoff?
I expect massing, floor plans, facade design, geolocation, and categorization of units to survive the handoff.