Bat, Traffic, Refuse, Parking, Access, Ecological... All these and more inform and define the considerations and constraints of design in the built environment. BIM is a process whereby all parties, and all factors, are engaged universally and holistically, so there is no reason why BIM, as a more informed, intelligent approach to AEC can not better equip local authorities in their process. If the question is, how does one integrate said bat survey into Revit - there's no need - BIM can't be wrapped up in an .rvt file, and isn't meant to be. Reference, and collate, all external documents (to your model authoring packages) and include them as appendices - its the breadth and depth of dataset, not a singular format, that truly defines a BIM. IMO.

*EDIT*
BTW, I once modelled bat tiles for a child mental health unit, that was interesting.

well said.

ps. what are bat tiles?

Tiles designed specifically to allow loft-space access for bats!

We have quite a big thing here in the UK where the onus is on refurb. and reuse - and a lot of older building stock plays host to protected wildlife - so when we go in for the fitout, we often have to do environmental analysis at micro, aswell as macro, scales - and propose solutions for the "residents" - which can be managed relocations, or often, designed-in spaces/allocations.

GTFO! That's awesome!

Sorry to be frivolous with my bat comment but I know more about bat-lofts than I did before.

When I said about BIM and Revit, I didn't mean to include planning in a rvt file, silly; it was the BIM relationship with the local-government. I was forced to be involved with BIM on the Olympic Village and the Cafe Royal with the use of the BIW. After a very steep learning curve, I and the company I work for 'got there' and I understand the very basic principles. After I have had time to read the excellent links that led me here, I will hopefully know a bit more.

But the government will bring this in, same as they brought in health-and-safety, PPI and what-ever. My experiences of BIM have been ISO 9001 led and the BIW - there must be more. Will it be good thing if the whole construction industry from Olympic Village/ Wembley/ O2 money-pits (rant again) to the kitchen extension will be subject to the local-authority's description of BIM? Bet the government won't employ BIW to run the software; do a BBC and reinvent the wheel. Must admit, the planning portal is very good. Suppose Revit not the right forum for this.

No, no, no quite the opposite - there's far more to this forum than it's namesake implies - sure, most questions start with Revit, because it is first and foremost a Revit-revolving-site, but most, if not all of us are here to talk BIM - and your thread is most welcome! :thumbsup:


As do a few others now thanks to you asking about it - and me being a divergent talker!

Which is exactly what I got from the OP. And yes, I totally get where you're coming from - but the Government themselves don't have all the answers - and I'm glad they're not pretending they do. In fact, I quite like how they're ramping it up ahead of time - almost approaching the process in a metaphorical way to how the AEC industry should be, (as in, "start looking at it now, early, before it all goes **** up on the final day when you'll be stuffed to do anything but compromise") - although I, like many others talking about the whole 2016/2020 thing, would like to see things be phrased in the language of legislation, rather than guidance.

It's interesting you mention the Olympics and the systems employed in it's architectural delivery. First off, I don't think we can put the financial blackhole of the event down to bureaucratic decisions entirely - they can't have helped - and yes, BIM has introduced it's own quagmire of redtape - but again, it's all still "early days" - and the pilot schemes (sacrificial lambs?) for the Government's aspirations for the UK AEC industry's increased use of BIM have been proving grounds to find the answers to questions posed, and raise questions not yet thought of.

For one, BIW, (as in conject I assume?) as an EDMS, is flawed - but I highly doubt the Government will ever back a singular (existing) system from a lone-supplier in a professional (open) market where enterprise-contracts between larger partner firms and other EDMS vendors (like Aconex, Asite, etc) are still very much in affect. All that gets handled by a project BEP anyway (or at least it should) - and the Government would be wise to steer clear of how teams operate until submission day - at which point there will need to be transfer/exchange process/protocol in place between project-proprietary EDMS and a Government "back end" like the planning portal.

But the Planning Portal itself is an interesting vehicle for discussing "What's coming" in terms of the UK Government + BIM. For those not UK-based, it's an electronic document submittal system introduced less than a decade ago to simplify the submission of planning applications - basically to consolidate local authority planning department administration - and (in my eyes, the best reason) reduce on print and postage costs. It works - but only when councils sign up wholy - and that there lies the problem with Government-level bandstanding on policy change. Local authorities still very much act on their own whim (budget) - and universal uptake is not there.

A friend of mine is a planner, (Newham, the council area of the Olympics, for those not UK/London-based) who is well versed on BIM - and it amazed me to learn that they're not gearing up for "BIM Submittals" in any shape of form. Which begs the question (from some) why should "we" be jumping aboard the BIM bandwagon simply because the Government said so when the Government aren't even driving the wagon - or at least (to flog the metaphor) gave us a wagon with only three wheels.


...I'm going to back out for now, because I can't talk for the whole forum, and certainly not for the whole of the UK's AEC community - but more because I'd like to see some thoughts from others before I totally hijack the thread!

But do stick around cve60069 - there's plenty of talk here on "Change Management" (which is really all this is about) - and PM me if you want some pointers toward more "on topic" places/groups. :thumbsup:

The plan submittal process here varies quite a bit from city to city and state to state. In Indiana everything is done electronically and it's awesome. From submittal to approval is usually about 15 working days. In fact they discourage paper reviews. In Kentucky everything is still on paper. There are a few cities that have jurisdiction and run their own plan reviews but most items go to the state and it can take AGES to get anything into the system, let alone actually reviewed. On more than one occasion I have submitted plans on the 1st (overnight w/ UPS tracking, signed for on the 2nd) and they weren't even logged into the state's system until the 15th. It's another 30+ working days to get a permit :banghead: I would imagine that an electronic submittal process would save the government money, although I've never seen research to back that up.

It brings up a variety of issues between state laws & rights vs. federal laws. As much as I want to see a national standard for this type of thing I know it will never happen and would open up the floodgates to a host of other issues that frankly scare the bejeebus out of me (in terms of state vs federal.)

We are sitting on the edge of a paradigm shift and those tend to scare people and governments aren't known for being quick to adapt or change. Toffler has some good stuff discussing all of this (albeit not BIM specifically) in The Third Wave and his other books.