Multi-family buildings (merged threads)

[rodneyf]

Hello,
We are getting closer to our office wide roll out of Revit and there is one person who shall remain nameless that does not believe me that Revit can do multi-family. Having said this and seeing examples from the fine people here in this forum, how would you create a 2 or 3-story 4 unit condo? Oh and one more thing these 4 units are different and can be used anywhere in the building and can have flexes (options) that will swap a bedroom for a media room or something else along those lines. Please see attached example.

Thanks,

[rodneyf]

Well I guess there is no one who wants to take a crack at this little problem I am having. Did I not explain it clearly? Do you need more information? Somebody, anybody please help me. I think I have a base to start with but I am not sure. Here goes my base, I have a 4-unit condo (A, B, C, D units) 2 or 3-stories high and the owner wants to be able to take the "A" unit and put it anywhere in the building and so I figured I would create the units in there own file the link them into the control building file. Am I heading in the right direction or am I totally off base here?

Thanks,

[Scott D Davis]

The way I understand it, linking of Revit files is to allow multiple building projects on one site, a campus of buildings. I have been told many times, file linking was not intended to allow for 'parts' of buildings to be linked together. Linked files don't clean up with each other, don't schedule, etc. so I don't think that is going to work in your case.

I think you need to explore Options, which will allow you to have a 'base' layout, which you could call Building Plan A, and then create Options for plans B, C, and D. You are going to have a tougher time with the concept of making "Unit A" which can be placed anywhere within the shell. You may want to explore Groups, although many have had a tough time with Groups.

I would contact the factory, and see if they can provide some support on this on.

[PeterJ]

I think you are probably causing yourself some real headaches with this approach as the multiple linked files will not schedule within the whole project so you would have to go out to the individual project files for the scheduled off information....

Take a look at this (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=2054&mode=threaded#post2054) which is an answer Chris Zoog gave when you asked a similar question previously.

[christopher.zoog51272]

I will add another voice to the “don’t do this with linked files” chant. We have done on a project and it didn’t work as well as I would have hoped. I would definitely advise against this in the project you posted as you have options within options and currently there is no way to control the display of design options via file linking. Only the primary will show.



I would tackle this job as a single master file with loads of design options. You and you team will have to be disciplined in the way you work, but it will be worth it in the long run. The end result should be a master file that you can easily pull any configuration to create cdocs for all of the buildings on the property. This is a huge timesaver!!!!



Quick side note: In my neck of the woods, building inspectors are no longer accepting “option sheets” for production housing projects. Each building in the development must have it’s own set of construction documents, showing only what is actually going to be built on that particular lot. We have capitalized on this trend using revit. Our contracts are such that we get paid to fully document each building, so on a huge campus efficiency is key to profitability. You can’t get much more efficient that having one master file that can be quickly copied and with the press of few buttons, spit out any configuration of options you need!!!!!



Anyway back to Rodney’s issue. I’ve attached a couple of files for you to look at, as they are similar to your situation. The word doc is an internal memo I put together for the project team outlining the Revit design options and what elements should be placed in each one. I’ve also attached a few sheets of the bid set so you can what the memo is talking about.



Looking at your drawings I would suggest the following.



4 design option sets



Option Set:

Position #1



Options:

A -Standard (primary)

A -Flex

B -Standard

B –Flex



Option Set:

Position #2



Options:

B -Standard (primary)

B -Flex

A -Standard

A –Flex



Etc, etc for Pos. 3 and Pos. 4



In your case, the exterior changes based on the selection option, so you will have to include the exterior walls, and any other exterior items in each options. Roofs or part of roofs may also have to be included (can’t tell without looking at it) I would also make the fire separation walls out of two “half” walls and include them in the option set, as they will change with the angle bays etc. This will give you more flexibility.



I apologize if this is confusing, it’s best if I could show you what a mean. In fact, I will be at AU this year, I am teaching an advanced design option class that focuses on multi-family production housing and retail/commercial design.



Hth,



Z

[Steve_Stafford]

And for that post...please make your checks payable to Chris Zoog at... you're the man Z!

[rodneyf]

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, this is why you ask these questions. This forum is the best anywhere hands down. I thought some of you were going to direct me away from linking but some people in my office think it should be done that way and kept telling that it is not a good idea, now this just reaffirms my position. Chris Zoog you are the man!

Thanks,

[Paul P.]

Is it the general consensus that linked files are just used for site purposes. Is that what other people are using them for.

Regard’s, Paul.

[Martin P]

I use linked files for structural stuff (of a decent quantity)..... it makes editing easier, and lets you produce structural drawings easily. It has not caused me any problems, but it is a completely different thing than linking room layouts I would say...

[BomberAIA]

Czoog:
Nice set of drawings. Rod: I do alot of multifamily and I do not link. I use one file w/ every building type in my model I copy the building plan level, crop it and blow it up to 1/4" to display my unit plans. I group interior walls, doors & fixtures to repeat each unit type. I have yet to have options in my projects. I found this way better to control the project for me. I would read this forum and extract what works for you. Rod, tell Ken hi.

[aggockel50321]

Is it the general consensus that linked files are just used for site purposes. Is that what other people are using them for.

Regard’s, Paul.
It would be great if linking could be used for more things. For instance, I'd like to be able to link all our dormatories, & produce a schedule showing room #'s & occupancy. Right now, it's export each schedule & combine them in excel.

[Mike.68517]

Hey pros-

I'm working on a project of two story townhouses... two available types, an end unit and an interior unit.
The buildings consist of fourplexes, sixplexes, & eightplexes.
I would like to create separate construction documents for each building type, with a blow-up of the units for added detail on one sheet.

What's the best way to begin this project? I have a basic shell drawn for a six plex, and I was wondering if I should have a separate file for each building type? or should I try to draw all buildings in one project and use a view crop box to isolate the view?

Also, is it safe to group each unit and insert the group several times for each project so I can keep all unit modifications to one project? What's the BEST way from experience?

Thanks for your comments... I'm sure you cover this often with new Reviteers...

[Steve_Stafford]

Timing is everything :) Check this THREAD. (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=4831) Pay particular notice to Chris Zoog's post and attachments, should be very helpful.

(These three posts, one above, one below this post, were a separate thread and are now merged into this existing thread)

[Mike.68517]

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for... I figured it had been covered before...