Facade automations generate a pattern across a whole building in seconds.
◦ What does the automation know, and what does it not know?
The automation does not know where the interior walls are placed or where each unit starts and ends. It only knows what you give it, for example, the modules you design, the bay spacing you provide and how many to place across the facade.
◦ Where did the generated pattern need overriding, and why?
The generated pattern requires overriding when windows and doors intersect with walls. It is generally not preferred to have windows that would show an interior wall and doors are not functional if they are blocked by a wall.
◦ If the automation produces something that analyses well but looks wrong, which wins?
The looks should win. The designer knows better than the automation
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?
The original massing was square, which would have left a large amount of unused, unrentable space when trying to fit the program inside. This made the use of space inefficient and ultimately led to the decision to redesign the massing.
◦ What would have had to be true for you to change the massing instead of the program?
Leaving such a high percentage of space unusable was what led to the decision to change the massing. The initial design also would have resulted in different floorplans for each level, making development more difficult. Changing the massing to a consistent, L-shape for the upper floors was necessary to maximize the space and allow for consistent development on each floor.
◦ Which of this week's program decisions will the structural engineer and the mechanical engineer assume you got right?
The structural engineer would assume the floorplan layout allows for appropriate column spacing so as not to interfere with the occupants.
The mechanical engineer would assume I left enough space in the room by the elevator to include the proper mechanical equipment. They would also assume each unit has enough space and the floor to ceiling height is enough to fit mechanical elements without interfering with the occupants.
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?
I know my model is ready for Revit because the building metrics are adequate, the basic floorplan matches the desired outline and I am happy with the facade appearance and metrics.
◦ What is the cost of moving too early? Of moving too late?
Moving the design forward too early can lead to confusion in terms of site design, floorplan layout and optimized facades. Forma allows for quick facade analysis metrics that take much longer in Revit. By optimizing these parameters now, a lot of time is saved when designing in Revit. Forma has many limitations, so it is used as the first set in basic site and building design. It the project is moved to Revit too late, a lot of time was wasted making the Forma model “perfect” while some of those time-consuming features do not transfer to Revit.
◦ Which parts of your Forma model do you expect to survive the handoff?
I would expect the general mass of the building and the basics of the facade (windows, doors, balconies) to transfer to Revit. I would also expect the floorplan layout and the wall locations to transfer to Revit.