Raise the entire structure as one unit ...

[Anonymous]

I am trying to raise my entire structure up 2'-6" in
relation to the topo site. Can anyone help me do
this in Revit 2008?

[Anonymous]

Doing a simple Move on the entire model is probably not advised. You might
try grabbing all of the levels and moving them up 2'-6" and see what
happens. Model geometry which is tied to the levels will move with them. I'd
save the file first and check it VERY carefully aftwerwards.

If that fails or becomse problematic, try using the Relocate Project tool -
Tools->Project Position->Relocate Project. Do it in an elevation view - move
the entire project up 2'-6". Then use the regular Move tool to move the topo
back down 2'-6". The level tags will still show the original elevations,
however, because you've moved the entire project, including its elevation
base. You can edit the level tag type properties however and set the
Elevation Base property to "Shared".

--

wrote in message
news:6326493@discussion.autodesk.com...
I am trying to raise my entire structure up 2'-6" in
relation to the topo site. Can anyone help me do
this in Revit 2008?

[Anonymous]

I just tried the move levels trick on my own model, BTW, as an experiment
and it worked fine. I got ONE warning about a wall and a floor that couldn't
stay joined and I just clicked "Unjoin elements", then rejoined them and all
was well. Why Revit couldn't keep them joined I dunno, but it wasn't a big
deal.

--

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6326545@discussion.autodesk.com...
Doing a simple Move on the entire model is probably not advised. You might
try grabbing all of the levels and moving them up 2'-6" and see what
happens. Model geometry which is tied to the levels will move with them. I'd
save the file first and check it VERY carefully aftwerwards.

If that fails or becomse problematic, try using the Relocate Project tool -
Tools->Project Position->Relocate Project. Do it in an elevation view - move
the entire project up 2'-6". Then use the regular Move tool to move the topo
back down 2'-6". The level tags will still show the original elevations,
however, because you've moved the entire project, including its elevation
base. You can edit the level tag type properties however and set the
Elevation Base property to "Shared".

--

wrote in message
news:6326493@discussion.autodesk.com...
I am trying to raise my entire structure up 2'-6" in
relation to the topo site. Can anyone help me do
this in Revit 2008?

[Anonymous]

HI Matt,

I did not know a movie star could know this much about Revit issues!!!!



Thanks for the advice. I did move all my levels up 2'-6" with no problem

but now my level 100' is 102'-6". How can I adjust the 102'-6" elevation level

back to 100' without the level moving.

[Anonymous]

Use the "Relocate Project" tool to move the entire
project down 2'-6", then modify the level tag type to reference the "Shared"
elevation base.

Weird, I know - but it should work.

--
 

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

<
href="mailto:grdg@telluridearchitect.com">grdg@telluridearchitect.com>
wrote in message
href="news:6327092@discussion.autodesk.com">news:6327092@discussion.autodesk.com...

HI
Matt,
I did not know a movie star could know this much about Revit
issues!!!!

Thanks for the advice. I did move all my levels up 2'-6"
with no problem
but now my level 100' is 102'-6". How can I adjust the
102'-6" elevation level
back to 100' without the level
moving.

[Anonymous]

honestly you can't move buildings around..

Matt- let me ask you this:
do you know of any specific reason why i
cannot call myself an architect not registered
with any organization?

[Anonymous]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:02:43 -0800, Vector2 <> wrote:

>honestly you can't move buildings around..

Sure you can, I've seen it done plenty of times. As long as it isn't
too large.

>Matt- let me ask you this:
>do you know of any specific reason why i
>cannot call myself an architect not registered
>with any organization?

I'm not Matt, but I'll answer that if you don't mind.
Because it is illegal. Architects are registered by the State in
which they work. Some States will bring legal proceedings against
individuals who claim to be Architects, but are not.

Regards,
Ken

Novell....it does a server good!

[Anonymous]

Thanks Matt,
It worked. I changed the instance to a "Shared" peramiter,
moved it down 2'-6" and the data elevation went back to 100'.

Thanks.
Can you email your phone # to me at my email site? This is
my first use of the discussion site and I would like to ask you
some ground questions.

grdg

[Anonymous]

Why don't you try it, and let us know how it works out for you?

--

"Vector2" wrote in message news:6327117@discussion.autodesk.com...
honestly you can't move buildings around..

Matt- let me ask you this:
do you know of any specific reason why i
cannot call myself an architect not registered
with any organization?

[Anonymous]

thanks KeN-

you said:

"As long as it isn't too large."

i agree with that- but nobody said anything about
it not being too large.. they are talking about
"entire structure" and "entire project"- that's a
building..

thanks for answering my question to Matt Dillon
seeing that he is not able to answer it..

also if you don't mind i have one other question for you-
can i call myself an engineer but not a professional
engineer?

[Anonymous]

no.

"Vector2" wrote in message news:6327333@discussion.autodesk.com...
> thanks KeN-
>
> you said:
>
> "As long as it isn't too large."
>
> i agree with that- but nobody said anything about
> it not being too large.. they are talking about
> "entire structure" and "entire project"- that's a
> building..
>
> thanks for answering my question to Matt Dillon
> seeing that he is not able to answer it..
>
> also if you don't mind i have one other question for you-
> can i call myself an engineer but not a professional
> engineer?

--
_______________
This unit is not labeled for retail sale

[Anonymous]

You can call yourself what like. No license required--

"Vector2" wrote in message news:6327333@discussion.autodesk.com...
thanks KeN-

you said:

"As long as it isn't too large."

i agree with that- but nobody said anything about
it not being too large.. they are talking about
"entire structure" and "entire project"- that's a
building..

thanks for answering my question to Matt Dillon
seeing that he is not able to answer it..

also if you don't mind i have one other question for you-
can i call myself an engineer but not a professional
engineer? Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Jan 31, 2010 3:20 PM

[Anonymous]

Matt Dillon-

thanks for you valuable input..

check this out:

websters dictionary: architect- A person skilled in
the art of building; one who understands architecture.

dictionary.com: architect- the deviser, maker, or creator
of anything.

"I am an architect (not registered) and have been
unemployed since September 20, 2008. Dallas is
weathering the storm but is still taking major hits."
(everything must be "major" in texas) lol


maybe the kind of architect that must be registered by the
state is the kind that is responsible for the construction
of a building?

oh i can't wait to be registered so then i can be sued..
that's the kind of excitement i need..

[Anonymous]

For good reason, obviously.

--

"Vector2" wrote in message news:6327338@discussion.autodesk.com...

I am an architect (not registered) and have been
unemployed since September 20, 2008.

[Anonymous]

Matt Dillon-

yes i agree- i think it is a good reason..
(good reason to be an unregistered architect)

then the question for some registered architects
might be- how can they get "unregistered" if they
decide they just want to be an architect and not be
responsible for the construction..

although i realize a client would pay an architect more
money to also take on that responsibility- no wait- maybe
they would just rather pay the one actually building it- the
building contractor- buh byeee registered architect..

but for me- no amount of extra money would be worth
taking on that responsibility.. in fact- taking on that
responsibility would only sour some of my creative
architectural juices..

[Anonymous]

here is a project that was just recently
completed in california and still has not
yet been leased- and i know every detail
about this building and the people involved
and the person who designed it and submitted
the drawings for permit with an engineer's stamp-
and they are not a registered architect.

the project was then sold to a registered
architect who became responsible for the
construction and sold it to one of their clients..

this building also won a nationally recognized
aware for architectural excellence.. (they
really ate it up down there in tennessee and
texas)

i also know the two registered architect
clowns in town who whistled in the wind
about it. lol

also i'm not sure about this because this
didn't happen that i know of- but maybe the
project could have been sold to an engineer
or building contractor who would take on the
responsibility for construction and find a buyer..
this also might be a clue that the registered
architect is going the way of the stockbroker
in the new BIM world.. but of course many of
those registered architects will fight for their
status and say anything..

anyway- what do you have to say about this
anyone Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Jan 31, 2010 3:16 PM

[sgoodmansen]

Vector2, What you don't understand is law trumps Webster's every time. Instead of going to the dictionary you have searched out your state's statutes. I'll even make it easy for you: http://www.tbae.state.tx.us/LawsEnforcement/StatutesRules.shtml

If you continue to refer to yourself as an architect there will be plenty of grounds to file a formal complaint to the Texas Board. The only hard part would be discovering your real name, however if Autodesk ever tires of your tirades here, I'm sure they could discover it with minimal effort. If that happens the Texas attorney General will be required to investigate and the board will likely send you a Cease & Desist letter. If you cooperate they will likely let you off with a warning and a note in your file, however if you don't then they will certainly fine you and it could prove difficult to ever get licensed in the future.

But don't just take my word for it:

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=22&pt=1&ch=1&rl=173

If you don't see the ramifications of your words after reading this, than you truly are unfit to be responsible for the safety of any building or the welfare of its occupants. Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Jan 31, 2010 3:17 PM

[Anonymous]

sgoodmansen-

thanks for your response..

seriously no disrespect to you but i'm always
amazed to see someone thinking and not
making any sense or not ever trying to make
any sense..

first of all i live in california and not texas- but
that's okay because i like both states and both
states are equally reasonable when it comes to
the law on this matter..

i think when people respond to what i post they
would probably make a lot more sense if they
actually read what i posted..

the easiest part to understand about what i'm
saying is that if you are not responsible for the
construction and safety of the building you design-
then you do not have to be a "registered" architect..

and you said it YOURSELF: " then you truly are
unfit to be responsible for the safety of any building
or the welfare of its occupants." thank you..

i don't have to be responsible for the safety
if i'm not a registered architect or a professional
engineer or a building contractor.. i'm just the
architect of the design idea for a building- no
guaranty that it's safe- it's just an idea for a
building.. it's just a sketch of a building idea that
i think would make a nice building- and i'm just the
architect of that idea.. and no group of "good-ol-boys"
can "trump Websters".. the word architect means
what it means and always has and always will- legally..
same with the word engineer.. "a person trained and
skilled in the design, construction, and use of engines
or machines." anyone can be an engineer as long
as they don't say they are a "professional" engineer-
same as "registered" architect..

i know it works like that and i have seen it
work like that.. i have even seen registered
architects make a fuss over nothing and waste
their time doing it because they are trying to
maintain the myth that only they can be the
architect of an idea for a building- but they are wrong..
and i also think they are running themselves out
of business and it will soon be the building contractor
and engineers responsible for the construction and
safety of a building..

by any state law- architects must be "registered" if
they choose to be "responsible for the safety
of any building".. (thank you)..

please don't just rant mindlessly because you don't
like my character or something.. i know this is right and
i'm waiting for anyone who thinks they can reasonably
show it to be wrong.. otherwise it stands..

[sgoodmansen]

Words have meaning beyond Websters. When you use the title architect in conjunction with the construction of buildings there can only be one meaning. That's the law. Feel free to call yourself a designer or anything else, but even "architect of an idea" is misrepresenting yourself if referring to your portion in the design of a building.

[Anonymous]

sgoodmansen-

thanks for being a little more rational and
for understanding the matter much better..

you said:

"in conjunction with the construction of buildings"

only a building contractor or a professional engineer
or a registered architect can combine anybody's
idea with actual construction..

a child can be the architect of a gingerbread house
and their PE father can build it for them..

i can be the architect of a beach house and give
my drawings to a registered architect and hope
they can make it constructible..

i can be the architect of a time machine and give my
drawings to a PE for construction- and if they deem it
safe to build- then great- they will be responsible for it
being properly built..

anyone can be the architect of anything.. just like what
the word means..

the words architect and registered architect are as
different as night and day.. same with engineer and
professional engineer..

registered architects have tried to hijack the meaning
of the words architect and designer- and that is one of
several reasons why their role in the BIM world may
not be- (another topic for discussion)..