Add Alternate - design Option or Not?

[mthurnauer]

I am working on a project that it has been decided to make a large handicap ramp as an Add Alternate to the project. The base bid will have a retaining wall and slab on grade with benches in lieu of the ramp. Is the best way to show both the base bid and the alternate in the construction documents to make the ramp a Design Option? How have people dealt with alternates like this?

[jeffh]

If it was me, I think this is a perfect use for a design option. It has been some time since I have done and "real" projects. So perhaps someelse could answer with more practical experience.

[cliff collins]

I'd make the ramp a Group--then "link it out" as a new Revit .rvt file.

Then Link it back into the Project---this way you can turn it on/off

in each view---annotate/detail in the Ramp.rvt file---and work on it independently.

You can even link your main project .rvt file into the Ramp.rvt for context only.

This gives you more freedom and flexibility than the Design Options route--
which IMO is NOT good to use for Construction Documents phase.

cheers......

[twiceroadsfool]

Design Options, one hundred percent. I use it for add/alt's all the time, and its flawless.

[cliff collins]

Design Options, one hundred percent. I use it for add/alt's all the time, and its flawless.

Until the changes are very large/complex--and involve all your consultants,
20 or 30 sheets of CDs, Schedules, etc.

My point is Design Options are good for EARLY concept/SD level schemes---
but not for full-blown CD's .

Been down each road several times on large/complex jobs--with Revisions/Alternates

The Group/link Revit file gives more independence and freedom.

cheers....

[twiceroadsfool]

Group/Link also disassociates dimensions and references when you replace them... for 20 and 30 sheets. Unless you keep them both linked or grouped and in place, and use worksets or some other Visibility solution.

The last full blown shopping mall i did carried Large Area Design Options all the way through CD's... They were full on variations of Loading dock configs, complete with the structural models, architectural columns, doors, walls, hosted elements, lights, and all annotations.

Yeah, there was a ton to manage, but we kept the options til after Permitting. But, different strokes for different folks. :)

[dgreen.49364]

What about using Phases for this? I have used phases for Additive Alternates before and thought it worked pretty well.

[twiceroadsfool]

Phases can work in this situation, but id advise against it. Youll have to have one group of stuff ebing demolished, depending on how the add/alt is configured, and that can be irritating. Then, depending on how youre using Phasing Graphic Overrides elsewhere in the project, you may run in to other graphical issues.

Thats not to say it doesnt work, im just saying (as a personal preference) that i wouldnt.

Design Options CAN be clunky, no doubt about it. Especially when end users take entire areas of walls, and forget to include the ROOMS inside the walls... Then its a mess quickly, but once everyone is on the same page, they work pretty seamlessly...

[saeborne]

Until the changes are very large/complex--and involve all your consultants,
20 or 30 sheets of CDs, Schedules, etc.

My point is Design Options are good for EARLY concept/SD level schemes---
but not for full-blown CD's .

Been down each road several times on large/complex jobs--with Revisions/Alternates

The Group/link Revit file gives more independence and freedom.

cheers....

But the original poster is not looking for a large / complex change. It's merely a handicap ramp that might affect a small portion of the building. If it were me, I would do this particular scenario as a design option.

Edit... You can also control the visibility of the ramp, by creating an empty option called, "Ramp Off." I don't see any added flexibility in creating an external link for this ramp.

On the contrary, I see potential problems... For example, the ramp might have a knee wall, which will not properly join with adjacent walls as an external link. The ramp will have a handrail that also will not properly join with an adjacent guard rail. Seems problematic.