Splitting Building Model Based on Repetitive Design

[MHA-Jeff]

We have a project that is somewhat garden style, with 6 building instances consisting of 4 different types: A, B, C, & D. Buildings A, B, & C are all exactly the same levels 2-4. Level 1 is different:

- Building A - half of level 1 is amenity space

- Building B - all units at level 1

- Building C - all units at level 1 AND there is a basement with a single loaded corridor (we have a very dynamic site)

We are a smaller firm and need to be as efficient as possible, does it make sense to break the buildings up into separate models? Could we have models for:

- levels 2-4 for buildings A, B, & C. This way we don't have to model the exterior 3 times

- separate models for levels 1 for buildings A, B, & C

Then we can just stack model for levels 2-4 over the separate level 1 models within our site model.

Some problems I have with this:

- We will get lines showing up in elevation where we have the 2 buildings meet. I know I can change those lines to invisible in whatever view I need but that seems tedious.

- We are going to do all documentation within the building links and we are linking those views into the site model. If we split the buildings up by upper and lower half, we have to do documentation on both halves and have those show up correctly in the site elevation where we will have all of our sheets to print. Sounds a bit difficult.

We are also having an issue where our basement levels will all have different floor to floor heights. Buildings C & D have basements and there are 2 instances of each. Does each basement model need to be separate to catch these differences in floor to floor height or is there some trick I can pull with design options? I am assuming they have to be separate models.

Has anyone had to deal with a similar predicament and how was it resolved?

[barthbradley]

---

@MHA-Jeff wrote:

We are a smaller firm and need to be as efficient as possible, does it make sense to break the buildings up into separate models?

---

Depends. Why do you want to break it up?  

[MHA-Jeff]

Right now we have building types A, B, C, & D modeled separately. Because buildings A, B, & C are going to have the same layout, except for amenity space in building A and basement in building C, we don't want to have to model the same thing 3 times. Breaking it up would mean just doing building design on one model that has levels 2-4, and then making smaller changes to the separate level 1 models.

Also building D happens twice on site, each instance has a different floor to floor height for the basement. So either I have 2 separate models that are exactly the same except for a small difference in floor to floor heights in the basement or somehow I can use design options, and have levels 1-4 outside of the options and then have two design option for the different basement scenarios. 

[curtisridenour]

Yes, i think that your concept for splitting up your models makes a lot of sense.

When i worked on a large airport project with multiple buildings on the site, we broke out the systems by building. When we did the documentation, we would do it from a Container Model so that all the work could be done from one source and print from one source. The drawback was that this container model was very slow.

I dont know how to deal with the lines between links.

I do believe that the effort your put in to cut up and replicate the areas that are the same will save you time in the long run. Rework will be much easier as the design changes throughout the project because you will not need to change it in 4 different models.

[curtisridenour]

Scope boxes will be your friend!!!

[MHA-Jeff]

Thanks for the reply! Yes we are basically using the site model as that container model, but we are doing all the documentation in the building and unit models and then linking those views to the site (container) model where we print everything out.

Side question: I assume when you say "all the work can be done from one source" you are saying you document links through the container model, like dims, wall tags, callouts, etc. How do you not get the dimensions to be lost? We have tried documenting a linked model in the container model before, but have run into issues when editing the link model and reloading in the container model causes elements associated to the link to become unassociated (ex. revit deletes dim strings in container model).

I think I may experiment with design options. Levels 2-4 will be in the main model, level 1 will have 3 design options for buildings types A, B, and C, and basement will have 2 design options for different FFE's. I'll just have to make sure "Visible in Option" is correct for all views in building model, and then correct views are linked from building model to site (container) model. I can do tabulations for the buildings through instance properties, I'm just not sure about functionality of the models, like if design options greatly hinder performance or elements in design options not playing well with other design options or whatever is in the main model. We won't have to accept any options, which has been biggest problems we've run into before with design options, so any insight into what to watch out for with this technique will be appreciated.

[barthbradley]

You have a lot of working pieces in this workflow that aren't going to interact well if the model is broken up and linked together. I understand your reasoning, but while you may save some work on one end, you are going to create some workarounds on another end.  Hard for us to weigh in without a much deeper dive.  But I haven't yet heard from you a really convincing argument for breaking up the Architectural.   

[barthbradley]

...are each of these buildings separately permitted?  

[saisriharireddy57]

To stay efficient, avoid splitting models by level (like separating Level 1 and Levels 2–4) as it causes elevation line issues and complicates documentation. Instead, model each building type (A, B, C, D) as a single Revit file and use design options or groups within the model to handle Level 1 differences. This keeps geometry reusable and documentation centralized. For basement floor-to-floor height differences in Buildings C and D, separate models are recommended, as Revit can’t handle varying floor heights within one model instance. This hybrid approach balances flexibility, clarity, and long-term manageability.