Multifamily Housing Project

[taylor.odell]

All,

I know this has been discussed before but I wanted to ask if anybody has figured out the "best" way to manage a multi-family project. We are working on a 20 story residential tower. There are 7 different unit types, that make up the 6 different building plans that span the 20 stories. In total there are about 550 units. Right now we have each unit as it's own model, and then have that linked into the different floor plan models for different configurations. Then those floor plan models are linked into the building model and copied up and down to get the appropriate number and location through out the building.

This works great from the standpoint of updating the units but makes the building model run a little slower. I know there are a bunch of tradeoff between the different ways to do it but if anybody has experience with different options, I'd be interested to know what they might be. Seems like something that AutoDesk would have worked out by now but maybe not.


Thanks in advance for any help and feedback.


TO

[Exar Kun]

So much linking!

We go groups all the way. We'll separate a complex facade into a different model but that's about it. Our developers are lot less nice than yours and we have a minimum of about 30 unit types in our projects (which run between 300 and 750 units in a model).

Group breakup is by unit type then pasted into each level in the appropriate position. Unit groups don't get nested. Slabs get their own group. Common walls get their own group.

Groups are deeply flawed but the lesser of two evils. If we need to update a wall type we do it in one model. Change a kitchen or bathroom fixture - do it in one model. Use Dynamo to write parameters into all of the units - pretty easy with groups. Very challenging with links.

Our models are built for construction docs and we document every level (we don't just show typicals).

[taylor.odell]

Michael,

Thanks for the reply. You're not wrong, that's a lot of linking. We thought about groups but I have never worked in a Revit model where groups don't break at some point or another. My concern there is that a group breaks during a final push towards a deadline, and in the rush it doesn't get solved properly and then there are two different groups of the same unit...you can see where this is going.

In your method it seems like you're only using one model. Let me make sure I'm understanding correctly. You have every unit type grouped and those groups copied around the model to the correct location. Then all the demising walls for each level are their own group, that is again copied up and down the building as necessary. Is that correct? Have you had a bunch of issues with groups breaking and then causing issues down the road? Seems like it would make the model way faster but concerned about so many groups and how frequently they break.

Right now we're in DD but as the project moves into CD, maybe this is a better solution that will help to speed up the model as we add more sheets to the set.


Thanks Again,
TO

[Twiceroadsfool]

Michael,

Thanks for the reply. You're not wrong, that's a lot of linking. We thought about groups but I have never worked in a Revit model where groups don't break at some point or another. My concern there is that a group breaks during a final push towards a deadline, and in the rush it doesn't get solved properly and then there are two different groups of the same unit...you can see where this is going.

In your method it seems like you're only using one model. Let me make sure I'm understanding correctly. You have every unit type grouped and those groups copied around the model to the correct location. Then all the demising walls for each level are their own group, that is again copied up and down the building as necessary. Is that correct? Have you had a bunch of issues with groups breaking and then causing issues down the road? Seems like it would make the model way faster but concerned about so many groups and how frequently they break.

Right now we're in DD but as the project moves into CD, maybe this is a better solution that will help to speed up the model as we add more sheets to the set.


Thanks Again,
TO

100% Groups, 100% of the time. We teach all of our clients to do this (we have a lot of Multi Family clients, and Healthcare clients). They only break if people dont know how to use them.

[taylor.odell]

So you're saying that we would only have one model, with anything that needs to be repeated as groups? I like this idea but just nervous about things breaking and being duplicated. Seems like it would be a lot faster and lighter than all the links though.


Thanks,
TO

[Twiceroadsfool]

Im saying thats how my Team (and all of our clients we mentor) do their projects, and its fantastic.

Other disciplines are still Linked, of course. And if folks want a site model, or one extra Link JUST for the envelope (on extremely big buildings) i dont begrudge them that (even though i dont do the Envelope Link, myself). But the units are all just Groups.

Sure, there is some learning that has to happen. Thats the same with Links though, too. People always discount learning the OLD method, because they already learned it.

[DavidLarson]

I've finally started making headway convincing the PMs to use groups. I still haven't had any luck getting them to try the unit cloud.

[Twiceroadsfool]

You are winning the more important battle, then. I could Take or Leave the Unit Cloud. Its built in our Template, and it DOES make setting up Unit Drawings way faster, so i use it, but i wouldnt die on that hill, personally. But Groups for Units, totally. THAT hill i fight on every day. LOL.

The UNit Cloud is sort of a Tail-Wagging-Dog preventer. If its NOT there, the annoyances of having to re-sheet, move-views, adjust-annotations, makes people want to knee jerk back to Links, because "a unit moved." Its stupid, but thats how their logic works.

[DavidLarson]

I wanted to use it due to a lot of projects are factory build modular items. What better way to model than as if it's in the factory?

[Twiceroadsfool]

Oh thats fun. Ive done a decent amount of prefab modular, and i do those a little bit different than standard MF work:

1. The "demise walls" end up as part of the units (for me) in those situations, but that also tends to be because each bay HAS its own wall, at the perimeter, and they are "side by side." Thats different from regular MF work where i dont put the demise walls in the units at all (since units typically SHARE a demise wall).

2. In prefab units ill put all the framing, and studs, etc, since we would typically put the mounts and supports for lifting in to place, as well.

But yeah, good times!