How much detail should you include about wall, floor and roof composition at different stages?
◦ Conceptual design
◦ Preliminary design
◦ Design development
◦ Construction documentation
During conceptual design, I would focus on the overall form and layout of the building without worrying too much about the exact wall, floor, and roof details. During preliminary design, I would start choosing general assemblies and considering factors like insulation, structural systems, and fire ratings. In design development, I would refine the assemblies by specifying more details about the materials, thicknesses, and how the different layers fit together. By construction documentation, the wall, floor, and roof compositions should be clearly defined with specific materials, dimensions, connections, and details so the building can be accurately constructed.
You moved a design from Forma into Revit this week.
◦ What survived intact, and what did you rebuild?
◦ What does that tell you about what each tool is for?
◦ Knowing where the handoff lands, what would you do differently in Forma next time?
Many manufacturers provide Revit families for their products.
◦ What is the advantage to the manufacturer of giving them away?
◦ What is the benefit to you of using them over the generic library families?
◦ At what point does it become appropriate to switch from generic to manufacturer specific?
Manufacturers provide Revit families for free because it encourages architects and engineers to use their products in building designs, which can lead to more sales. It also helps designers design more accurately by having a reference. The benefit of using manufacturer-specific families is that it provides more accurate dimensions, materials, and product details compared to generic families, making the model more realistic and closer to what would actually be built. I think it makes sense to start with generic families during the early design stages when the layout is still changing, then switch to manufacturer-specific families once the design is more finalized and specific products are being selected.
The core is located early and moved rarely.
◦ Why does it get fixed before most of the building?
◦ What are the consequences of a core that does not stack vertically?
◦ What did locating the core force you to change about your Week 3 layout?
Locating the core early was important because it affects the circulation, structural layout, and overall organization of the building. Keeping the core in the same location on each floor makes it easier to align elevators, stairs, and mechanical shafts. A core that does not stack vertically can make the building more complicated structurally (needing transfer elements) hence adding to construction costs. For my Week 3 layout, fixing the core meant I had to adjust the surrounding floor plan and corridor layout to work around it, which limited some of my flexibility for the room layouts but helped make the design more consistent and functional. I distributed the circulation in a layout I thought was fair, which was having a set of elevator/stairs/shaft on both ends of the buidling.
Your Insight result did not match your Forma result.
◦ What accounts for the difference?
◦ Which number would you show a client, and how would you explain the gap?
◦ Does a more detailed model automatically produce a more trustworthy prediction?