This is a continuation of the SuperZone concept that emerged when I was thinking of better ways to manage finished floor and ceiling slabs (modeled separately from structural floor plates). Matthew is correct in identifying that the placement and editing of many other finishes, furnishings and fixtures (the 3Fs) will likewise benefit from the same connectedness.
I'm voting essential not because we "need" any of this to do good work today but because this space orientation is a good counterpoint to the solid (structural) orientation that modeling typically emphasizes, and because it represents an alternative, more design minded, approach to Revit's linear linking methodology.
The key is scalability and flexibility. In early design phases these SZs need to work as space planning tools that can automatically place and move interior walls as well as adjacent zones. Later the 3Fs could be associated. I love Tom's idea that entire schemes could be substituted.
A hard look at the limitations of the concept is also needed. It seems to me that SZ's influence on other elements should probably be limited to their X, Y location along horizontal planes established and edited with other tools. For example editing the zone polygon in plan, or it's vertical face in 3D, would move the walls, 3Fs and adjacent zones, but that raising the ceiling would be controlled by a hybridization of stories and the floor plan cut plane. Similarly, while the vertical edges of finished floor and ceiling slabs could be linked to the zone, their horizontal surfaces should be fastened to the structural floor plate such that the entire assembly could be elevated as one. It is critical that managing these relationships not be onerous (e.g. the current FPCP).
Regards,
Geoff Briggs
I & I Design, Seattle, USA
AC7-27, M1 Mac, OS 13.x