Working link to your Revit cloud model in Forma Data Management.
Working link to your Individual Forma Board
DF sheet set at D size, 30 by 42 inches, six sheets. Delete any blank sheets.
Screenshot of your Insight result alongside your Week 3 Forma result.
Design memo of 300 to 400 words: what survived the handoff, what you rebuilt, what assembly choices you made and why, and where Revit and Forma disagreed.
Moving my building design from Autodesk Forma to Revit helped me understand the difference between developing a building concept and turning it into a more detailed architectural model. The overall L-shaped massing, eight-story configuration, and courtyard layout were maintained during the transfer. These were important parts of my original design because the courtyard provides an open space between the building wings while allowing the building to accommodate both commercial and residential functions.
However, several elements needed to be developed further in Revit. I worked on organizing the floor plans, defining individual rooms, and adding architectural details such as windows, doors, and balconies. The ground floor was planned for commercial spaces, including a café, restaurant, and retail areas, while the upper floors were arranged into different residential unit types, including studios and one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments. This process made me think more carefully about how the spaces would actually function, rather than just how the building would look from the outside.
For the building envelope, I used two different exterior wall assemblies. The ground floor uses a CMU wall with brick cladding and insulation, while the residential floors use wood siding on wood studs. I chose these to distinguish the commercial base from the residential levels and explore different material systems. I also developed an extensive green roof assembly using growing medium, gravel, an EPDM waterproof membrane, insulation, and a concrete deck. The roof achieved an R-value above 30, meeting the assignment requirement.
One interesting difference appeared in the carbon analysis. My Week 4 total carbon decreased from approximately 933,680 to 722,442 kgCO₂e, while embodied carbon decreased by around 34.9%. Energy use intensity also dropped from 161.67 to 147.1 kWh/m². These changes may reflect differences in material assumptions, modeled components, and thermal performance between the two stages. However, the large embodied carbon reduction also needs further checking.
Overall, Revit pushed me to make more specific design decisions that were not necessary during the earlier Forma studies. The main concept stayed the same, but the detailed modeling revealed how much the choice of materials, assemblies, and building components can influence the final design and its estimated performance.