All projects in the same way

We work in 3D therefore put the 3Dimensions in place first.
X,Y,Z (horizontal/vertical grid system, and elevation)

If the site data is available put that in place next, and geo-position the building, and place it in its' context on site. This means site coordinates (assuming they are available) and manage the position geographically (input the address and in which country) and manage the projects orientation in relation to true north.

After that either rotate your project north or use scope boxes to turn your building in the desired sense for documentation. (I prefer scope boxes but its a strategical decision)

After that its all guns blazing.

beer. lots of beer. :laugh::hide:

It really does depend, but it generally goes paper, pencil, then pen, then pencil again, some thicker pens, more paper, talking, lots of talking...

How I approach Revit (one presumes that's what you're asking) differs dependant on brief and project. Is there a site or is speculative? What is the nature of the project? Is context/extant asset a primary driver or is it more blank-sheet? Are there client design parameters? Framework guidance? What are the targets and desired outcomes of my immediate, and long term output?

...Lots of talking.


The Revit can wait.

It depends on the client. A professional framer can draw in the dirt with a stick where somebody who is frightened and enraged by the very idea of conceptualizing in 2D will need something more like a pretty picture. More often than not I've worked with basic sketches on graph paper coupled with pictures the client has provided. Then build a basic model without any finishes to get the spacial relationships worked out. Flesh out the model some more, add in some prettier elements like cabinets and windows and the client starts to understand their project enough to change their mind 27 million times in the next hour.

A bit of coaxing them out of option paralysis gets them back on track and then the model gets the rest of the fleshing out. At this time they get sticker shock, revise the project down from their champagne dreams to their beer budget. Finishes get added after the model is revised to meet their reality. Once the design phase is complete, they find discover whether or not their banker will kill the project. If the project survives the bankers, you go into construction documents.

Or you get a corporate client with a proper budget, a plan for success and know what they want. In that case they ride up on a unicorn, sprout wings and vanish in a cloud of fairy dust.

:thumbsup:

Are you hiring? :hide:

LOL! As one who has had two houses built this really hits home. My last house was designed on graph paper and built T&M since we’d been thru it before and the 27 million changes cost us way more than they should have. The T&M route was good for everyone. We paid cost + a pre determined markup so we were free to spend or save as much money as we wished. And the Contractor just built exactly what we wanted with no hassles about costs or profits. The house was spectacular but unfortunately the weather there was not optimal so we moved to SLO. We sold that house for almost twice what it cost us to build it. So it was good all around
Dave
DDP


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I recently did a set of plans for a client that appraised for less than its construction cost. So they asked if I'd do another set of plans for them. "It's basically the same plan, just with a upstairs bonus space", they said. Finally got the layout finalized and sent to the engineer after a mere 80 emails back and forth with the client.

Love the answers, "definitely a great job except for the clients" is what I'm hearing. Already at the lots of beer stage.......
What I was wondering was more along the revit side of theings.
Imagine a perfect world, where we have the site bought, outline permission for a two storey dwelling and the client has a rough idea of what they want, now I have to draw it for consent.
Do you start with the site, it is on a slight hill which makes the topography a bit awkward, or do you start with the building then set it in a site and then finish with topography, this is more the sort of question I had in mind.
I once did a job for a fellow architect and I thought it would be easy......oh my god, what a mistake, some of the most preposterous ideas imaginable imagine, hobbit hole meets thai shag palace.....very strange.
Anyways any thoughts on revit side of things...
cheers
Hank

Previous answers pretty much sum up our profession. LOTS of talking to find out what the desired outcome and expected deliverables are, and when they are due. Nothing worse than running around in circles and working stupid hours reworking things over and over due to lack of communication.

But from a purely Revit project setup point of view, the very first things I do are-

Project information
Site boundaries
True north / project north
Levels + extents of levels
Preliminary sheets
Preliminary views on sheets