topic Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site in Revit Architecture Forum

Using design options to show different building locations on a site

jzellerAJCMJ — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 16:18:47 GMT

I have a client i'm working with who has not settled on where he'd like to build on his site, and I'm trying to determine if there is a way to use design options (or another work around) to show different potential building locations on the site.

It'd be great if I could get the whole process to work in the DO (pads, split surfaces, cut and fill, ect.), but at minimum I need to be able to have a sheet and view showing the building at one location, and a second sheet and view showing the other. I'm trying to avoid having sheets and views exist in a separate model from the main set, but I acknowledge that one workaround to achieve this would be to have a separate site model showing the different locations and merge the sheets later.

Does anyone have a good workflow to achieve this?

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

ToanDN — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 16:51:13 GMT

You can create the Site as a link and have different site locations, each one shall be the location of the building at each option.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 16:46:20 GMT

So, what you saying that you intend to do pads, split surfaces, cut and fill, etc. for each building orientation possible on the Site? Why is all that work necessary?

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

jzellerAJCMJ — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:29:08 GMT

I appreciate the question, but couldn't the same be said with any design-option? In both cases you're modeling something multiple times.

Really what i'd like to be able to do is show how each location might sit on the site in relation to the topography... In my mind that extra work would be valuable design exploration. It'd also be nice to integrate that into my archvis workflow (hence the interest in topo splitting and subregions) but I think that's an indulgence.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

jzellerAJCMJ — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:30:01 GMT

Thank you! this is exactly what I'm looking for.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 18:00:34 GMT

@jzellerAJCMJ wrote:
I appreciate the question, but couldn't the same be said with any design-option?

No. First of all, I wouldn't do the work you described in Design Options, and second of all; No: the same couldn't be said of Design Options. You're talking about extraordinary amount of additional and, in my view, unnecessary work.

So, my question to you stands: why is all that work necessary? I get that you want to give the Client different options for building orientation on the site - possibly do some sun and shadow studies (and maybe even Energy Analysis) for each orientation - but why include Pads and the Cut/Fill and what not for each orientation? Serious question.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

jzellerAJCMJ — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 19:28:12 GMT

So, my question to you stands: why is all that work necessary? I get that you want to give the Client different options for building orientation on the site - possibly do some sun and shadow studies (and maybe even Energy Analysis) for each orientation - but why include Pads and the Cut/Fill and what not for each orientation? Serious question.

No worries, I can elaborate. I see two questions: what is there to gain (?) and is "all that" work necessary (?)

Sure, sun and shadow studies are useful tools in understanding the ramifications of building position on a site, but certainly not the only considerations. In my case, the several building position options have cost and design ramifications, mostly due to how much cut/fill there is, the increased depth in foundation walls and footings, and the increased exterior wall area. How can you understand if the added cost of extra site work is worth it without showing the design benefits in a way the client understands? Maybe not something a value engineer would be interested in studying, but it is a question worth asking as a designer.

Whether the work is necessary or worth it is really dependent on how much work it takes, and that's a question of Revit's limitations. I was hoping there was a "quick" way to do what I needed in Revit since all of the precise elevation data is already there, but what i'm hearing is it's not really designed for that type study (which I think is probably the more charitable response to my original question).

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 19:38:58 GMT

Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I would link the building into several Site Plans then.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:17:45 GMT

FWIW: you can Link all the Sites into the Building Model afterwards (via Shared Coordinates, of course) and create Schedules showing Cut/Fill for all the Site Options.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:14:11 GMT

...and, put them into Design Options in the Building Model.

Re: Using design options to show different building locations on a site

barthbradley — Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:24:24 GMT

...and then, set up dedicated views - which I'm sure you know, is critical to a design option workflow.

Dedicate Views to a Design Option | Revit 2019 | Autodesk Knowledge Network