Toposufaces for arch site plans - does it make sense?

[crullier]

Hello everyone, I am in South FLa and in the past as a result of having relatively flat sites I have using floors for purpose of documenting my site plans and just let the civil drawings take care of showing grading etc (which is usually minimal).

However I am starting to do work in places where the sites are sloping and in this one particular project I we will be making a loading dock 30" from the parking lot on the back of the building.
Essentially my question is if it I am have been doing it wrong all this time and should have been using toposurfaces - modeling with toposurfaces is a large project time investment.
What do other architects in other parts of the US do? (like California where there is actual hills and grade changes, or GA / AL.). Do you guys model the site in revit with toposurfaces?

I am worried that changes will take a large chunk of time (think site plan approval and parking counts etc.).

I would love to learn what else is out there.
Thank you.

[Duncan Lithgow]

If you end up using Revits site features make sure to get their extension 'Site Designer' (acquired from Eaglepoint). It has a horrible interface, but makes some things easier.

As for which tool is best, I hope someone else can come with input. I've only used topography as a graphic representation. I know that one of Danmark's largest architectural offices has modelled the entire site and terrain, parking, roads, paths etc using floors. They say it's just easier to control.

[patricks]

We have always done almost all site plans in-house, including grading. Floors are typically used for parking lots and grass, since they can host slab edges for curbs and gutter. But then the actual grading is done with a toposurface. Not ideal for rendering, but other than that it usually works out okay.

[CAtDiva]

Lately I've been using a combination of topo, pads and floors depending on the control I need. I recently discovered that pads can slope (not sure why I didn't know that before), which is working well for the schematic level my current project is at, but will probably change to floors so I can shape edit them in more than one direction.

BTW, Site Designer is now an Autodesk add-in that is available to subscription customers. I haven't messed with it yet, partially 'cause the reviews are not good and partially 'cause I haven't had time.

[Norton_cad]

I always use Topo's. The Eaglepoint add-on is meant to help with road design. However, it's not hard to do it in OOTB Revit, if you have time to create model in place swept paths for roads, with pads (tilted sometimes) under. The real trick with Topo's is to keep them as a separate linked file, and have one Topo for existing, and a separate Topo for proposed. You will avoid all kinds of headaches with pads and surfaces that conflict with each other, and it is easier to work out the cut/fill. Also use sub-regions instead of split surfaces, unless you need to model a sudden change in level like a cliff.

[crullier]

thanks everyone.