How do I handle several buildings in one project that need to be on separate plans?

[heathldesign]

Hey everyone,

I often have a project where there will be separate structures like a house and detached garage, and when I submit the plans for building permits they are considered separate applications and therefore separate permits. However, I use the same site plan for both, and one or both sets of plans will need to show the location of the other building. So what the best practice for this? I’ve been doing the terrain and site plan in one project then copying it to the next, but that really doesn’t seem right to me. Also, if I need to change something on the terrain say, in one model, it means either repeating all the work in the other or copying and pasting again, but then I need to do all the solid element operations again. Or should I be doing it all in one file and having different layout books?

[Marc H]

Hi Heath,

There are different approaches. The approach I use is to have the Site (north up) in one PLN and the building(s) in their own PLN(s).  All PLNs are modeled orthogonally.  Then I hotlink the buildings into the site and rotate the buildings in plan on their SW corner according to your site conditions.  

At first, it is more work to set up than some other methods (and may not be as time efficient for smaller projects), but it has several advantages: a)  very little model redundancy, b) the ability to place existing and new buildings to their exact placement, in plan, section, and elevational relationship to each other as are or will be, c) the ability to keep (typically) larger site PLNs in a separate model from buildings, d) model and document exchange easier with separate PLNs, and e) ability to have separate or combined documentation as needed.

The one model redundancy I have using this in AC so far is I place an SEO with the building outline into the Site PLN (as opposed to using the hotlinked building itself with upward extrusion), so I may have a 'chunk' of site in the building model.  There may be a more elegant way, but I find it a little easier.  

Note: For consistent visualization and documentation, the attributes you utilize need to be the same across models.  For my work, I have a standard set of base attributes with standard naming and I keep my custom add-ons above that base set, so its makes it a bit easier to manage.

There is also an alternative document based approach described in this recent post:

https://community.Graphisoft.com/t5/Wishes-forum/Geo-referencing-maps-with-global-coordinates-combin...

[Lingwisyer]

Do note that Hotlinking is unavailable on a SOLO licence. Do not think it is available on a START licence either...

[Marc H]

Ah, yes, I was unaware of the (limited) Solo version. Mine is a USA Full License, which allows me to hotlink PLNs and .MODs. I wonder if the Solo version allows at least 2D xrefs as a documentation option.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

For home and detached garage I can see no point in having two separate files (please comment), and there are many advantages to having everything in a single file. You can extract the different views and layout sets from the same model.

One could argue for hotlinking especially if the garages were an off-the-shelf design, so one would have the garage model-layouts file, and hotlink modules into a site file for site plan and illustration purposes only. But in reality each garage is different.

[jl_lt]

The approach described by marc h is what i would definetely use for a slightly bigger project. For a house, even with a detached garage, assuming the terrain is relatively flat, i would try working everthing in one file and generating all the separate info for each part through the view map and layouts. Using cloned folders is of great help here.

Still, it is worth trying to practice marc h approach, because once you get that process down you can tackle bigger projects with confidence.

[Karl Ottenstein]

---

@Ignacio Azpiazu wrote:

For home and detached garage I can see no point in having two separate files (please comment),

---

If the detached garage is at an angle to the main dwelling - even if it is a simple garage, and not one with an accessory living unit/etc - I think separate files make things easier.   Since the OP's permit process requires separate plans for each (being detached) - and any contractor would also prefer separate plans for each - and the angle/spacing of the garage on the site might be adjusted according to setbacks, aesthetics, etc ...I think a file per structure makes it easier to create the CD package.

The position of the garage structure could interfere with being able to set up exterior elevations of the dwelling that don't cut through the garage or part of its hardscape (or similarly trying to create the elevations for the garage).   Moving just the garage with a bold marquee in a single file can often miss ancillary bits that are outside of the selection rectangle.  And, if the overall elevation of the garage on a sloping site plan is to change, that is impossible to model reasonably in a single file.

Just some random thoughts...