Seperate phase for Demo - Why?

[jwinkler8A6WX]

Can someone help me understand why so many firms insist on creating a separate phase called demolition?  I have always understood this to be a mistake/mis-use of Revit, but maybe there are good reasons that I just don't know about.  Does anyone do this - or understand why?

I know for a fact that rooms in past phases cannot be shown in the current phase - causing the need to make multiple copies of existing rooms.  Design options, temporary infills become a nightmare etc.

[ToanDN]

---

@RobDraw wrote:

You seem to be challenging me with questions that you should already know the answers to. 

I usually expect knowledgeable answers from you but when you address me you seem to lose that insight and even make it personal at times. Grow up.

---

I address others how they deserve to be addressed.  If you are dodging to answer a simple yes or no question then you are deserved to be addressed exactly how I did you.  

[robert2JCCH]

As an MEP person that inevitably follows the phasing structure (or lack) of the prime consultant, I'm actually curious as to what is the best approach to structuring a distinct demolition phase.

Is the idea that demolished items are assigned to this specific phase only? Would that mean that existing conditions views for design coordination would simply be set at Demolition Phase so that demolished items are properly captured? Kind of weird from an organizational standpoint.

Practically speaking, I've only had to utilize a distinct demolition phase for projects with a minimal number of consultants, ie myself and an architect. Once the scope expands to includes structural, fire alarm, fire protection, etc... every project reverts to the norm established by the OOTB settings. I think that does speak volumes (it works for the lion's share of invested parties).

I'm not currently a fan of Revit's attempts to address system data connectivity through phases, which I think would have been the prime motivation for MEP folks to want a Demolition phase. The issue of losing system data was solved by hamstringing connector usage in New Construction, whereas I think the actual answer that MEP folks would be looking for is a way to have connectors allowed to connect to different elements in different phases with distinct system data per phase (sounds like a nightmare to program). Correct me if you disagree.

[bmaldonado6X2W5]

I guess it would also depend where in the industry you are working and firm.... I have never in my career created an as existing model or have ever been asked to. Since the usage of Revit can vary greatly from firm to firm and just they type of work you are doing, I can see, if an as-existing model had to be created, how it would make sense.

I'll give an example, I have a current project that is 4 levels and 5 areas per level.... a total of 20. if I had existing view / new construction views for Demo / New constructions views for New thats a total of 60 views that I would have to coordinate with.

Or I could have only demo view and new views.. a total of 40 and I can stay and do all my work in the demo view instead of having to go back and forth between existing views and demo views. To me it is super simple to just select my elements and put them in existing. I 100% agree that what you stated is the correct process but this just makes it so much simpler for me and everyone at our firm.

Again, things can vary greatly depending on how you have to use Revit. Not saying one way is correct over the other, it is just what works best for our firm and everyone should do what works best for their firm.

[iainsavage]

---

@bmaldonado6X2W5 wrote:
I guess it would also depend where in the industry you are working and firm.... I have never in my career created an as existing model or have ever been asked to.

Or I could have only demo view and new views.. a total of 40 and I can stay and do all my work in the demo view instead of having to go back and forth between existing views and demo views. To me it is super simple to just select my elements and put them in existing. I 100% agree that what you stated is the correct process but this just makes it so much simpler for me and everyone at our firm.

Again, things can vary greatly depending on how you have to use Revit. Not saying one way is correct over the other, it is just what works best for our firm and everyone should do what works best for their firm.

---

I’m not suggesting that you create a separate existing model, but you have to have existing elements before you can demolish them, so create those existing elements first in an existing view. Its really simple and I’m not sure why you would make it more difficult by creating them in the wrong phase then moving them into a different phase.

If you don’t need the Existing views for your sheets then you can delete the views once you’ve created the existing elements.

You could also start off with your demo views set as Existing phase, create the existing elements, then change the view’s phase to demo, which would mean you aren’t creating additional views but you would be creating the elements in the correct phase.

I just think your workflow is not the best method and is prone to error if you don’t capture all of the elements which you need to move from phase to phase.

[bmaldonado6X2W5]

I understand the concern but its been 4 years of using this method and we never have any hiccups, but whenever we have to use only 2 phases (Existing / New construction) we always run into objects floating in other views. 

I agree with using views set to existing phase to do the existing work but I just find it too easy to just use the demo.. if not placed in the correct view its easy to visually tell. But I will think about this from project to project, to see if it would be better. But I would still have 3 phases, 

Existing views set to existing phase

Demo views set to a Demo Phase

Reno view set to New Phase

Phase filter set to show all for all phases. 

Anyways I posted on this topic specifically to hear the opposing thought knowing I am not in the majority on this. You gave me some very insightful tips that I will ponder on to improve on my workflow. Thanks!

[MichaelWarwick7522]

I've worked both ways, and my conclusion is that if there is a distinct demolition work which ends before the new construction starts then there should be a separate phase. This is when there are separate demolition contractors who will strip out and make safe the site, e.g. asbestos removal or post-earthquake. 

If the demolition will happen concurrently with the new works then it should be in the same phase.

In the first scenario if there is an AHU that will be reused but in a different location it will have been taken down and stored somewhere (potentially off-site), the new contractor will be installing it as if new and doesn't need to know the old location. In the second scenario the contractor will be taking it out of the old location and moving to the new, so they will want to see a plan showing old and new locations. The "show demo and new" display option.

But what is even more important than my opinion is the project BIM plan. We have to collaborate and the team each have distinct requirements, the are Revit workarounds that lock us out of the ideal and into the whatever works.

[jwinkler8A6WX]

Thank you for your input.  It's helping me understand valid reasons for doing it either way.  I am realizing however, that many people name their phases "Existing"  "Demo" and "New Construction."   The view filters (right below the view phase) say things like "Show Existing"  or "Show Previous and Demo"  or "Show Demo and New."  Same words, but talking about distinctly different things.

What I mean is, Intuitively I might set my phase filter to "Show Demo and New", and then expect to see the "demo" phase along with the "New construction" phase in my view.   But this is not the case.   The same words mean different things.   This is -in my opinion- the root of the confusion for new employees and new users.  We can't govern the 3 phase or 2 phase (it differs depending on the architect) So we will just use care to rename our phases with words not also used in the view filters.  Hopefully this will make View settings a little more understandable.

[iainsavage]

See my answer at part 11.

The phase names are irrelevant, you can call them anything. Its the order of the phases which matter. Calling a phase Demo means nothing in itself, its literally just a name.

The phase view filters are NOT referring to phase names, they are referring to the state of the object. If you put an object in your demo phase but don’t actually demolish it then its state is not demolished so it won’t adopt the appearance of the Show Demo phase view filter. Conversely if you put an object in your Existing or New phase and demolish it then it WILL adopt the appearance of a demolished object even although it is not in your demo phase.

The bottom line is that you CAN create a separate demo phase but you do not NEED to do so.
Its a matter of choice.

[HVAC-Novice]

I did not know this would be an issue to argue about..... Ultimately each user can do it the way they like. 

I always have demolition in the new construction phase the way Revit wants us to (but we can do it differently if we really want). My reasoning is that demolition also happens during new construction and is done by the same General contractor.  Like if you have 10 rooms and each demos a wall, and builds a new wall - the first rooms may already have the new walls while some rooms still aren't demo'd yet. So they happen in the same phase.

Maybe if you bid out demo separately and it all happens before the new construction contractor shows up it makes more sense to have demo in a separate phase. But in MY situation we usually have new construction and demo done under the same contract. 

If it makes my life easier and plans clearer, I'm happy to employ a different method. for ME just having an existing and new construction phase works. But I'm not trying to convince people that adding a demo phase is wrong. If it works for you, I'm all happy. 

[jwinkler8A6WX]

"I'm pretty sure I would have assigned it to a demolition phase. I thought that was clear."

This is not clear. Could you explain further? What do you mean by "assign it to demolition." An element must to have a phase created and a phase demolished. If the phase demolished = none it will display as existing for future phases right?

[RobDraw]

---

@jwinkler8A6WX wrote:
"I'm pretty sure I would have assigned it to a demolition phase. I thought that was clear."

This is not clear. Could you explain further? What do you mean by "assign it to demolition." 

---

Okay, last time. We had separate demolition phases and we didn't use Revit's demolition tool. It's not a recommended workflow and the demolition tool has been redesigned to make any further discussion in the thread pointless.

If you would like to discuss this further, I would be more than happy to but away from the prying eyes of the person who was hurt when I said I did the impossible (according to him).

[iainsavage · Accepted solution]

I disagree with your choice of “solution” for this post. 
It is one way of doing it but not THE way of doing it and I fundamentally disagree with the process of placing elements in the wrong phase then having to find them, select them and change their phase setting.

The answer is that you CAN if you wish include a separate Demo phase but you do not NEED to do so and the software works either way. Placing items on a demo phase does not mean that they are demolished and does not mean that they will appear as demolished unless you are using custom view filters to achieve that rather than the built-in phase graphics filters.

[ToanDN]

LOL the only person appears to be emotionally damaged here is you, mister. 

Here is how it went: you said something that you couldn't backup, then started the runaround dodging a simple yes/no question by asking the questioner to answer the question for you.  On top of that, you even have the audacity to play the 'I am so offended' game like a wokelord by requesting the Mod to remove one of my posts saying 'I will be here waiting for your bravely straight answer'. 

Yeah go ahead and request to remove this one too.

[RobDraw]

---

@ToanDN wrote:

Here is how it went: you said something that you couldn't backup,

---

That's according to you. There was nothing to back-up because I already answered your questions before you even asked them.

I said that I did it without using Revit's demolition tool. You responded that it couldn't be done. Then asked questions that were already answered and restated but you still couldn't see it and continued to challenge me.

This one for example:

"Does it's Phase Demolished say None?"

The ONLY way for it to say anything but None is to use Revit's demolition tool. Maybe you don't know that but I thought you did. If you truly didn't know that, I'm sorry for giving you more credit than was due.

[RobDraw]

---

@ToanDN wrote:

requesting the Mod to remove one of my posts saying 'I will be here waiting for your bravely straight answer'. 

---

I don't recall reporting your post. Maybe you offended someone else, too.

[jwinkler8A6WX]

The original question was "Why?" I was trying to understand why people chose to do it that way. It evolved into a discussion about which way was best, but I was trying to understand the pros and cons of each method. I happen to agree with you on which way is best, but I needed to find out reasons why so many people do it a different way. I like the way you summarized this thread so I am marking it as a solution also. Thank you for the input!