Our industry has been permanently changed to esteem sustainability, and find ways for buildings to
do more with less. It just makes good business sense. Creating buildings that use less energy and water will be more and more valuable in the future. We do this by finding ways to use the unique aspects of each site.
There are some very practical reasons driving the need for sustainable building design in California.
One reason is the escalation in energy costs. According to the California Energy Commission, commercial sector retail electricity costs across the investor owned utilities (these are Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric) increased 1.6 percent annually on average from 1982-1998. Then, in 1998 the electricity markets in California were deregulated and since, electricity costs have increased by 5.2 percent annually on average from 1998-2008. This means that electricity costs have more than tripled based on these averages. In California, natural gas is the predominant fuel used for power generation and also provision of building heat. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, commercial sector retail natural gas costs have increased by 7.4 percent annually on average from 1998-2008.
Water, another critical resource to development in California is currently a political hot button issue, short in supply and escalating in price. Sustainable building design addresses some of the critical issues surrounding water use by focusing on efficient use of water inside the building, via efficient fixtures, outside the building, using drought tolerant landscape and surrounding the building, by seeking to reduce storm water runoff, using strategies such as permeable pavement and bioswales.
There are also numerous legal requirements in California that will direct the industry towards compliance with sustainable design practices. Taken historically, sustainable design is the next step that Californian's will take toward their commitment to energy efficiency, a process set in motion after the first oil shock of 1973.
A measure of success is that back in 1970, Californian's used roughly the same amount of electricity per capita as the rest of the nation, but currently use almost 50 percent less, and for a state that is the 12th largest energy consumer in the world, this makes a big difference.
As mentioned in a previous post, Three for Three: Cities and Stimulus Money, LPA is currently working on a Police Facility for the City of Hesperia which thanks to funding by the Federal stimulus package, will achieve grid neutrality. The sustainable quotient of this endeavor begins with the design of very efficient buildings. The federally funded solar energy project (renderings above) encompasses all factors needed to complete a turn-key solar electric system, approved by the California Solar Initiative. Photovoltaic panels will now reside on the police facility's roof and parking lot canopies in effect, providing for 87.5 percent of the building's energy requirements based upon Title 24 calculations (experience has shown systems perform better than design calculations).
With so many green features like lighting controls, use of products with recycled content, local material use, construction waste diversion, use of nontoxic, low VOC paint and water efficient fixtures now considered best practices, grid and carbon neutral buildings are going to be the measure of sustainability in the future.
I read an intriguing article in
Architectural Record last month about a prototypical concept for the classroom learning environment called
School of One. This idea calls for an instructional setting featuring a variety of differently sized classrooms, flexibly tailored toward a variety of teaching and learning styles to help the variety of students who learn in various ways. It's a drastic change from the traditional approach of having one teacher in front of a grid of students, issuing forth the lesson of the day.
In
School of One, students have a personalized daily lesson plan developed off their interests and preferred style of learning, and they spend their day in their desired study setting. Those who enjoy the traditional lecture style can sit in a larger classroom and take notes from the teacher, but others who enjoy group interaction can depart to and acquire knowledge in more intimate settings. More technologically savvy users might make use of online information and more computer-based courses, while those who enjoy studying alone or in one-on-one settings can take study carrels or smaller learning offices. It's a system that relies upon flexibility--flexible furniture layouts, moveable partitions, wireless technology, and mobile workstations--which goes hand-in-hand with the belief that different students learn in different styles and at different paces.
For veterans of the typical classroom environment, this might seem like a revolutionary and jarring change to the educational system, but according to a test run last year, students averaged a nearly 30 percent increase in the number of test questions correctly answered. So, it seems like an idea worth pursuing. At the very least, this offers an interesting and potentially incendiary discussion on how the future of
schools and classrooms should be formulated. Is the traditional classroom outdated, or are current instructional tools sufficient? Understandably, educators feel more comfortable when they can be in command of a class, at the head, with every student in view and accounted for. A flexible "modular" environment features many students studying on their own, and who can guarantee that they're actually learning, as opposed to taking advantage of their independence and wasting time? This could also apply to the concept of having students tailor their own lessons--can educators trust students to opt for what's best for them? Why fix what's unbroken?
Well, one can argue the current system
is broken. The U.S. primary and secondary school system ranks in the middle of the pack when ranked among other developed countries, and for those who take pride in the United States being "number one," it may be hard to accept that other countries' students routinely score higher in math, science, and comprehension exams versus Americans. Maybe our system is too rigid to accommodate such a vast range of students and learning patterns. Everyone remembers sometimes being bored in high school because certain classes just didn't seem fun. Had those classes been presented in a more engaging way, perhaps more lessons would have been retained. Conversely, other classes were a joy to attend, because the teacher was enthusiastic, the information was taught in an appealing and understandable manner, or there was something extra that just made things better.
Is there one right new answer? Probably not, but I propose that the School of One isn't as rebellious as it might first appear. It's accepted that lower student-to-teacher ratios encourage more personalized instruction that is more efficient and effective. This idea takes that mantra to a higher level. Perhaps its biggest hurdle is trusting students to be invested in their own learning. But outside of completely revamping how schools function, we could also tweak existing systems to encourage interaction and collaborative learning. Crafting spaces that encourage students to come together and teach each other may help. In addition to traditional classrooms, schools could provide more informal "break out" learning spaces (one of my projects, a new high school to be built in Long Beach, aims to incorporate this format). Independent study pods and outdoor learning labs can provide fresh takes on the traditional learning environment.
Embracing new technology can also energize the classroom. Interactive whiteboards merge physical and digital information delivery, while interactive classroom response "clicker" systems encourage students to participate in the lesson rather than just mindlessly listen. These are things that most of us never had as children, but the 21st century is changing everything, including how people learn.
Regardless of whether it's via the traditional classroom or a flexible space with individualized lessons, the future of schools is sure to generate animated discussion. Traditional or conservative educators may cling to what they've been familiar with all these years, but I would urge an open eye toward new technologies and methodologies. At the very least, I think it's well worth talking about.
LINKS
'School of One' Pilot Program Under Way in Chinatown Middle School ..., New York Times
Arthur E. Levine: The School of One: The School of Tomorrow, Huffington Post
The School of One - The 50 Best Inventions of 2009, TIME Magazine
And when I say real, I mean it's finally getting built. Seeing the countless hours of design, development, coordination and sometimes frustration finally come to fruition is one of the most unbelievable and rewarding feelings. Words can't really explain it.
Sound crazy? Not if you've burnt the midnight oil drawing and designing away.
In fact, just the other day, our Construction Administration Guru, Mike Henning, was away on vacation. Which I love ... only for the simple fact that it gives me the opportunity to fill in for him at construction meetings and step into the "real world," away from my computer screen, trace paper and niji pens. For once I didn't mind getting up at 4:30 a.m. to catch a plane headed for Oakland, Calif., eager to get a visual update on the Instructional Office Building (IOB) at Chabot College.
The Chabot IOB is a two-story, cast-in-place concrete structure with glass, tile and composite lumber as exterior infill materials. The building represents a living commitment, made by the College, to environmental responsibility and green building. Four division suites, faculty offices and instructional conference rooms are housed in the 36,950- square-foot facility, along with a new courtyard between two existing buildings. The repetitive nature of the programmatic elements allowed for an efficient floor plate while also minimizing building height.
The IOB takes advantage of the mild climate in the bay area and features a naturally ventilated lobby, designed as an extension and culmination of a new campus courtyard. Passive and active mechanical and electrical features maximize energy efficiency and allow the building to exceed California's stringent Title 24 requirements by more than 20 percent.
As I walked the building --up and down, end to end-- experiencing each space, I looked for details and ideas conceived by our team. And saw them now, as concrete moments not just lines on a screen. One learns so much by actually observing how things are put together, and how the contractor works and thinks. It ultimately makes you a better designer. As you can see below, the IOB puts to practice many sustainable concepts which will help it achieve a LEED certification. Which level you wonder? We'll keep that under wraps for now. It's an incentive to stay tuned for updates.
Sustainable Design Features:
- Construction waste management
- Drought tolerant planting
- Pervious paving
- Collection and storage of recyclables
- Reduced water consumption (low-flow fixtures)
- Natural light provided to 95% of occupied spaces
- Access to views provided to 95% of occupied spaces
- 90% of exterior surface (concrete and tile) will require no annual maintenance (reduction of building materials)
- Reflective cool roof material to reduce building heat gain
- Naturally-ventilated, two-story lobby
- Green housekeeping products and procedures
- Light pollution reduction
- Motion Sensor lighting systems
- Low emitting materials - minimizing VOC off-gassing
Here's a fun game of "Guess the Designer."
- This man was a lifelong admirer of locomotives and train systems.
- He helped introduce the first mass transportation system of its kind in the Western Hemisphere and implemented it at multiple projects. Today, this type of system can be found in many cities across the world.
- He envisioned his own utopian, master planned city of the future which would focus on a dense urban core that radiated outward to more open suburban rings.
Give up? I'm not talking about renowned masters like Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier, or modern icons such as Rem Koolhaas or Renzo Piano, but rather about Walt Disney, a man most famous for movies and theme parks but also a visionary who held a surprising interest in social and urban development. In fact, it's quite interesting to contrast parallels between many of Disney's dreams and the goals of today's sustainable mindset.
Perhaps Walt's earliest contribution to society was the Disneyland monorail, which opened in 1959. During a time and place where car was king, Walt foresaw an eventual need for alternative mass transit. Although the monorail has never reached significant popularity in the United States (it's actually pretty prominent in other parts of the world, like Japan), it has been installed in several U.S. cities; Las Vegas might be the most prominent example. And at Walt Disney World, the monorail system offers such a great way to get around from the Magic Kingdom to EPCOT to several of the resort's hotels that one wonders why it hasn't been expanded to include other itineraries on property.
There's also the original concept for EPCOT. Far from the "Educationland" theme park many see it as today, the original Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow was meant to be a progressive approach to urban planning, with a radially organized system anchored by a dense city center that gradually opened out toward a greenbelt to provide a connection to nature, an industrial park buffered away from the vibrant core, and nearby farms and food labs to make the city self-sustaining--with plenty of alternative transportation in the form of monorails and people-movers to take residents and guests in, out, and around town. Sound like concepts many designers champion today? Indeed, this project, the original inspiration for even creating a "Disney World," called for proximity between where people lived and worked, leaned away from automobiles as primary transportation, championed expanses of green space to retain the natural environment, and embraced new technological systems for basic infrastructure.
While Disney World has grown to be noticeably different from this original concept, it has retained some of these characteristics. In addition to the monorail system, there is also a network of buses and ferries that shuttle people around the resort, offering guests bountiful alternatives to driving. Every park also rests on top of a basement level used for transporting equipment and supplies and running utilities, all behind the scenes. The resort is tremendously green--literally! Many first time visitors (myself included) comment on how natural everything is and how there are trees everywhere. Indeed, Disney designers wisely paid attention to water management and crafted a web of waterways and canals to control the water level and minimize the effects of the developmental footprint. Leaving most of the forests and wetlands around the resort in their pristine condition decreases erosion and lessens the effects of flooding.
And when it comes to resources, the theme is reuse, energy saving systems such as central plants and alternative power reduce the electrical and heating load for the whole resort; sewage treatment uses water hyacinths to naturally absorb pollutants and clean water; water reclamation is practiced on an huge scale across the 25,000-acre resort; even food grown on site is used in restaurants on site--something that's highlighted in educational attractions, of course.
Now, these items might be discounted because they occur at a theme park and not a "real city," but Walt Disney World basically is a real city. What I find fun and fascinating is how these were ideas that Walt contemplated decades ago. Think of what things might be like if other cities embraced these ideas (and more) along a mass scale? Imagine what our cities would be like today if everyone had explored similar ideas back then? Perhaps we'll find out in 30 years. We now more value ideas like working with the site and integrating sustainable features intrinsically within new projects. But the greatest lesson I take from this is the power of drive and commitment. Sustainable ideas can come from anywhere, and with the proper dedication, anyone and any place can create a more sustainable environment for the future.
Of Mice & Elephants: Envelope Load vs. Internal Load Dominated Buildings
The use, massing and scale of a building greatly impact how much the ambient climate is a factor in that building's ultimate energy use. Envelope Load Dominated buildings are smaller, low-rise, narrow, and/or heavily fenestrated buildings. Internally Load Dominated buildings include larger, high-rise, deep floor plan buildings, with significant internal heat loads (occupants, electrical lighting, and equipment).
Think of Envelope Load Dominated buildings as mice --small with a fast metabolism and a lot of surface area relative to their mass, subject to extremes of temperature and using lots of effort trying to stay warm.
Internally Load Dominated buildings are like Elephants --large beasts with a lot of internal mass that respond slowly to changing ambient conditions, most of their effort is in trying to shed excess heat and stay cool.
And, of course, there is a spectrum of building conditions between these extremes, while specific site conditions may impact building design and energy use as much as the local climatic conditions. A mouse exposed to the heat of the dessert will overheat while an elephant buried in a snow storm will feel chilly.
LPA treats climate and site as two important influences of our integrated design process. We evaluate the climatic and site conditions for every project and allow this analysis to inform design decisions about massing, envelope, and fenestration. In this manner, the building fundamentally requires less lighting and HVAC energy over its lifetime and provides a comfortable and productive environment for its users, than if we disregarded whether the building is a mouse in the arctic, an elephant in the tropics, or something in between.
CASE IN POINT
The Environmental Nature Center (ENC) is a small, envelope-load dominated building that clearly responds to its climatic conditions in Newport Beach, CA. The ENC relies on natural ventilation exclusively to stay comfortable in its mild coastal location.
The Ford Premiere Automotive Group HQ in Irvine, CA, now occupied by Taco Bell, experiences the same climate conditions as the ENC, but it is a much larger, deeper plan building and it is sited right next to the I-5 freeway. The natural ventilation strategies used effectively at the ENC would be utterly inappropriate for the Taco Bell building --even though the climatic conditions are essentially the same.
The most interesting sustainable design blends simple, passive, fundamentally sound design strategies, such as understanding and responding to climatic conditions, with high tech green technologies. Again, the ENC is a great example, as it is a well oriented, daylit, naturally ventilated building with a significant grid-connected PV system on the roof that more than offsets its modest energy use.
Although much of LPA's work is in California, the climatic and site conditions (and subsequent design responses) are highly varied. From Malibu to Hesperia to Lake Tahoe, LPA designs buildings that are appropriate, cost effective, and of their place. By recognizing that climatic and site conditions are a fundamental design consideration, by carefully evaluating the specific climatic and site conditions of every project, and by allowing the site and climatic conditions to inform our architectural designs, LPA designs buildings for our clients that are both timeless and uniquely suited to their location.
By now, you've probably heard about the
opening of the Burj Khalifa (a.k.a. the tower formerly known as the Burj Dubai; a.k.a. the new World's Tallest Building by a Landslide). At 2,717 feet tall, this titan is a grand and overwhelming testament to extremes and excess. Consider the following building facts, which border on the lavishly absurd:
- It is as tall as stacking both former World Trade Center towers on top of each other.
- Its spire can be seen from 50 miles away--which would be the country of Iran.
- Its foundations drive 150 feet into the ground.
- Full occupancy will allow 60,000 people to be inside the building at the same time--literally a self-contained city.
- Air conditioning the building requires the equivalent of melting 12,500 tons of ice a day.
- Enough rebar was used in the building's construction to stretch a quarter of the way around the world.
- A base jump from 4/5ths of the way up the building (2,205 feet) still allows for over 20 seconds of freefall before the divers pull their parachutes.
Clearly, the Burj Khalifa is meant to showcase Dubai's wealth and prestige to the world. And yet, as L.A. Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne (among many others) points out, the timing could not have been worse. With the emirate having recently asked for a bailout from neighboring Abu Dhabi due to its economic recession and collapsing building bubble, this is hardly the time to make grand statements of material riches. And it's already showing--the building is currently empty, and there is no expectation as to when people will actually start living or working within the Burj's 200 stories of apartments, offices, and retail spaces. To no surprise of many, the Burj Khalifa will have an extremely tough time getting to a point of operation.
Clearly, all of this seems to state that the concept of sustainability is more vital now than ever before. And not just environmental sustainability (that AC tonnage is borderline laughable), but sustainability of all aspects, from financial to social to developmental. Consider the Burj Khalifa, which offers all the amenities one might ever want within one single structure ... this skyscraper is elegantly designed and is commendable on its own for its architectural aesthetics. But it rose in the middle of the desert, amidst a forest of similar monuments, in a land where islands resembling palm leaves or countries of the world were artificially created almost for mere show, as if to say "We are amazing. You will come to look at us and then stay here forever."
When Dubai's building boom began, it was a fest of one-upsmanship. Each developer competed to create something taller or flashier or more incredible-looking. Little regard was paid to urban development or social sustainability. Planting an infrastructure of actual grounded business and population seemed beside the point. This was Las Vegas Syndrome, only on the most potent steroids imaginable (and at least Las Vegas succeeds with tourism and established a service based structure that encouraged people to live there). Downtown Dubai was a city that looked like a dream but had no soul--no actual foundation that would ensure long term success. How pompous is it to assume that if something showy and extravagant was created, people would simply come? And stay? Well, when the world economy took a nosedive, businessmen fled, leaving behind a city of abandoned icons ... a city where luxury cars sit empty at airport parking garages, never to be reclaimed while skyscrapers sit empty over wide boulevards, their fates undetermined.
Hopefully, Dubai can recover and re-establish a framework that allows for a self-sustaining city. More recent projects had already begun to address environment and energy issues, and urban planning had begun to command more attention from designers, who were looking at a more integrated approach to cultivate a properly functioning city. But, of course, what many call "The Great Recession" has certainly derailed things. Worst-case scenario, Dubai becomes the architectural relic portrayed in many post-apocalyptic movies--a lifeless husk in the desert sands and the Burj Khalifa becomes its obelisk. In any case, we've already seen a lesson in the importance of factoring the full sustainable life cycle in any project, and responding with the proper gestures to ensure a true, sustainable success. If Dubai hasn't reached so fervently toward the skies, it may not have crashed down so violently.
By Guest Blogger Donald Pender, AIA, REFP
We all know the importance businesses place on "branding." Disney is a classic example. They build their brand by making sure everything they do, say, sell and build reinforces the company's values and goals. By brand, I don't mean a trademark, a logo, or a particular style of design.
A brand is a visible manifestation of a company's identity and values that is visible in everything they do. Even if you never set foot in a Disney theme park, which is unlikely because of the prevalence and strength of their brand, you'll still recognize their brand and its meaning. When budgets get tight, communicating the brand becomes even more important. In a harsh, competitive environment the brand differentiates a company from the rest of the market and can protect and grow revenue, as it ensures the company prospers when better times arrive.
Public Schools also need to build and protect their brand, especially in times of stress. Many people who live, vote and pay taxes in a District never set foot in a public school. Some are retired. Some don't have children. Some send their children to private schools. They are still stakeholders in the community and their support for Public Education is critical for the ideal of public schools to flourish. One way to build that support is to build a District brand that demonstrates District values to the community.
Here are some ideas to help a District build their brand through the facility planning and design process:
- 1. A vision for the future is the basis for a recognizable brand.
Develop a long term vision for the future of education in your community, then work to ensure that everything built supports that vision. For example, if sustainable design is a District core value, communicate sustainability through your facilities improvements in ways that can be seen by all stakeholders.
Installation of photovoltaic panels, rainwater collection and distribution systems, wind generators, green roofs and bioswales are all sustainable design elements that not only improve the environment and save on operating costs, they also speak to the community about core District values and the fact that students are learning valuable lessons about being responsible members of society. Celebrate these elements in your designs and let them be seen.
When adding to or renovating an existing school, think about how construction dollars can be used to satisfy priority needs while improving the appearance of the school. A school may need air conditioning. New air conditioning systems may improve student performance and comfort, but will the public who never sets foot in the school see the improvement and connect that improvement with stewardship of tax dollars? At LPA we often recommend putting a percentage of those dollars to work in a way that is visible to the public. One idea might be creating a single point of entry to improve security combined with an attractive entry canopy and signage. We frequently recommend locating new or renovated construction elements on the public side of a project to give the appearance of transformation from the street. This communicates transformation and progress to the public in a way that maximizes the value of every dollar spent.
- 3. Use Landscape Creatively.
Construction projects at schools typically trigger a need for handicapped access upgrades. Rather than approaching these from a utilitarian standpoint, think about combining them with landscape, lighting and paving upgrades that renew the image of the school from the street. Landscape improvements are an economical way of improving the appearance of a school. They invite people into the school. They say the District cares about the quality of the learning environment, and create a sense that the school is part of the fabric of the overall community.
A truly inclusive process that makes the whole community an active participant in establishing the direction of facilities improvements can be an effective way of communicating and building broad support for the District's vision. Communicate early regarding upcoming District initiatives. If there is community opposition, take it seriously and try to address root concerns. Invite the stakeholders to offer their own solutions so those can be evaluated and discussed. By putting community members in a position where they have to work constructively toward finding solutions, complaints can be defused. A long term pattern of collaboration can build trust. That reputation will become part of the overall District Brand.
Construction projects at school Districts are about more than "nuts and bolts." They inevitably, are part of the complex web of communications between the District and the community. Use them as opportunities to build the District's brand sentiment and build support for the transformation of public education in your community.
Donald Pender, AIA, REFP has more than 28 years of experience managing large, complex projects and is currently in the role of Principal at California-based LPA Inc. He is a LEED Accredited Professional responsible for the creation of more than 50 K-12 schools.
Photos: These renderings depict Montgomery Middle School in Chula Vista, Calif., the first LEED Platinum K-12 school in the state.
By Guest Blogger Jeremy Hart, LEED AP
According to the Department of Energy's website, more than $800 million has been awarded in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG). Were you one of the 700 cities that benefited from this funding? With more than $2.7 billion in formula grants available why not?
Toward the end of last year, our Civic teams worked with three different cities to help them realize their funding capabilities through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We celebrated, along with them, when all three were approved for their monies.
For the City of Hesperia, they used their grant for a solar energy project for their new police station. Approved for more than $770,000 the add-on created 35 jobs and energy savings the city will absorb for years to come. Since police stations have high electricity demands around the clock to begin with, putting money toward making the Hesperia Police Station more efficient was a shrewd and strategic decision.
For the City of Laguna Niguel, they wanted to go greener with additional sustainable features for their new city hall. Residents are excited for this new 40,000-square-foot facility because they will finally have a civic center to call their own. The Laguna Niguel City Hall will feature a 3,860-square-foot photovoltaic system which will generate power during peak demands. Would these panels have been there had the city not received the $572,000 grant? We'll never know but they are thrilled for their future energy savings and the 10 jobs that were created.
For the City of Santa Clarita, they divided their grant amongst several projects and worked toward the aforementioned theme of energy efficiency. Newhall, an area ready for a renaissance, received more than $1 million for the Old Town Newhall Library. The library, designed to achieve LEED Silver certification, will save energy with a high efficiency HVAC system, high performance building envelope, and energy efficient lighting. Library stacks will be lit with LED lights and more than 20 jobs resulted from these measures.
In a sense, the federal government is now following similar energy efficiency policies enacted in California during the mid-1970s, and for good reason.
As a result of the Warren-Alquist California State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Act (1974), Californians use almost half of the electricity on a per capita basis as the rest of the nation. The electricity savings are estimated to be 15 percent of total 2003 Ca. demand. If we hadn't embarked on these efficiency programs and stuck to them, our state would have had to construct about 24 new power plants at 500 megawatts a piece, and this capital outlay would have made us less competitive economically.
Since these policies were put in place, Californians have increased GDP per unit electricity usage by 40 percent versus the eight percent increase achieved nationally. In the coming decades energy efficiency will continue to be the quiet hero, helping us conserve natural resources, maintain our financial standing and preserve our environment for generations to come.
Jeremy Hart is an architect and LEED Accredited Professional at LPA Inc. He has worked on more than 15 civic facilities, for more than a dozen California cities.
Yesterday, we began our discussion about
Building Information Modeling benefits and experiences. Lets continue right where we left off, with more about the mindset changes required in transitioning from a two dimensional drafting program like AutoCAD to a three dimensional "smart" modeling platform such as Revit.
Revit Encourages Construction Knowledge
What makes BIM different from regular 3D modeling is the fact that in a program like Revit, a wall actually carries information relating to its composition, finish, and construction, whereas in a regular modeling program, a wall is just a colored shape that happens to look like a wall. To me, this suggested that a Revit model couldn't simply look like a building; it had to be virtually constructed in a manner similar to actual building construction. For example, a building with masonry block should have its CMU walls continue below grade to the foundations, not simply sit on top of the concrete floor slab, while a stud framed stucco wall should also include a concrete curb on top of the floor slab for the studs to sit on and the sheathing to continue over. It behooved me to acquire as much knowledge of materials and methods as I could, so that my models could reflect the anticipated built condition as accurately as possible. I regularly consulted with the construction administration people within LPA. The result: in less than a year, I learned more about detailing and building assembly than I ever did during college. This wouldn't have happened so aggressively if I was still thinking about building documentation in 2D and not pondering how components of my buildings were coming together in 3D, even before the construction documents phase.
Multiple Disciplines Can Be Integrated into One Model
Revit started out as a platform aimed toward architects, but it has since expanded to offer software for structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers. Traditionally, the largest coordination headaches have been caused by trying to make sure different disciplines --documented on different sheets-- were not conflicting with each other. Ducts running into beams ... equipment sitting over an area without any structural support ... pipes cutting through footings ... these were inevitably common occurrences that could result in costly change orders once they were discovered on the field.
When multiple disciplines share Building Information Modeling, however, these issues can be caught before the first pile of dirt is ever excavated. Revit itself has a feature called Collision Detection that will inventory a list of all condition where items in the same model or between two or more linked models run into each other. Furthermore, outside software such as NavisWorks can be used to determine similar issues and categorize them in additional detail. This exercise is currently being applied to one of my current projects, a brand new high school to be built in East Long Beach. Hopefully, this will drastically reduce the number of in-the-field conflicts and smooth the construction process, preventing situations such as, say, having to lower a ceiling below a window line because the air conditioning ducts above the ceiling had to duck under a steel beam that was deeper than the designers realized.
Final Thoughts
BIM inherently fosters a spirit of collaborative integration among traditionally disparate trades. Certainly, this method of documenting buildings is not without its learning curves. The fact that everything is connected means moving or deleting some items may have unforeseen impacts. Programs like Revit also have their own quirks in how elements are modeled, joined together, and assigned parameters. It's easy to be sucked into the mindset of modeling solely for accuracy and efficiency and forget to actually design (thus, I'm don't mind waiting until DD or CD's, when the focus is more on documentation, before transitioning to Revit from something like SketchUp or CAD). BIM also requires a front-loaded schedule: there is a lot of set-up that must occur initially for sheets, notation, and of course, the actual modeling. Plus, the model itself may be poor at first as designers transition to a new software and a new way of thinking about documenting buildings, but this should improve over time with familiarity and lessons learned from past mistakes.
Ultimately, though, such inconveniences do not override BIM's greatest benefit --that front end effort will pay off over time as inter-disciplinary efficiency and integration solves problems that would otherwise arise during actual construction. If anything, they reinforce the issues that are better pondered earlier than later, saving time and money in the long term by minimizing often-overlooked errors. After all, BIM designs a building in a virtual world. With such powerful software, a team can create the prototype on computer, so that the real thing in the real world gets it right.
Last month,
Architectural Record had a Continuing Education article that explored the proliferation of
Building Information Modeling, and how this rapidly spreading software is changing the process of design and construction. This prompted me to take another look at my experience with BIM here at LPA and evaluate what sorts of effects it has had on my project production process. With two years of experience in Autodesk's Revit and several such projects under my belt, I've had plenty of opportunity to explore this powerful software, fine-tune best documentation practices, and review what BIM brings to the table.
This blog has eschewed the
features of Building Information Modeling before, and my sentiments are very similar to Mr. Cadd's. But I'd like to delve a little further into the various branches of project development and highlight the benefits that Revit has brought to my work.
It's Not a Bunch of Drawings; It's One ModelTraditional drafting features a series of linework drawings that are never actually connected to each other. A floor plan is drawn. This might get underlaid in a reflected ceiling plan to determine ceiling design, and then traced over in a roof plan to determine instructions for how top of a building should function. Exterior elevations and building sections would then be arrayed off the plan, but they would only be as accurate as the designer is cognizant. Misalign a window or a door or forget about a canopy, and suddenly there's a disagreement between two parts of the same set of documents.
In BIM, however, everything is one model, located in one file. A plan is simply a view of the model cut along a horizontal plane. Elevations are simply vertically framed views of the building exterior and sections are simply vertical cuts. But whereas in CAD, a drafter had to construct this information based off of previous drawings, in Revit, this information is automatically generated. Indeed, one of my first feelings of
triumph with Revit was realizing I could generate any building section, whenever I wanted, and it would be accurate based on how I modeled the building. Need to figure out a soffit? Cut a section. Need to look at a nook or corner? Cut a section. I didn't have to do extra work; Revit was generating views for me. This, in turn, made my work more efficient providing information for me, instead of vice versa.
Everything Is ConnectedFor me, the most drastic change in Revit was understanding that every single element in a building file was connected to each other and to a database that catalogued a plethora of information in order to tabulate schedules and take-off charts. Changes in plan automatically reflected in section and elevation, and information was always coordinated within a file. For my first project,
Paramount High School, this proved invaluable later on in the construction process, when accurate material takeoffs and area calculations were requested to determine budgeting and eventually to bid phases of the project.
A three dimensional model also provided me a deeper understanding of tricky conditions that could have otherwise been missed in traditional drafting, simply because I hadn't thought to draw it. Design issues were much easier to dissect when I could plainly see 3D representation of the space, as opposed to having to imagine it based on 2D linework. Over the course of time, this cultivated an evolved manner of thought in regards to a building. I began to think about and anticipate the effects that a design move in one plane might have on another plane, and the assembly of a building also began to sift into clearer mental focus. It might be easy to forget that moving a wall in plan could result in a funky corner condition in section when I had to manually draw both conditions, but in Revit, the result was in plain sight.
For more BIM sustainable design solutions and experiences, please check back tomorrow for Part Two of BIM Equals Integration.