[30] Landscape Footpath Inspiration

[29] Landscape Sketch Design

[28] Landscape Schematic Design

[27] Landscape Concept Sketches

[26] Apartment Design

 

                                                                01. Design option 1                              02. Design option 2

Apartment Design

When designing the apartments a layout was quickly configured in Revit with walls and basic furniture to see how well that layout would function. Design critic occured between the architect and interior designer (Hasini and Kristy) to talk about what worked and what didn't. Then from that a solution was implemented into the Interior Revit model. As you can see from the two options above the following changes occured:

• reconfigure kitchen to be situated along the wall of the bathroom - this keeps all the pluming in one area.
• move the stairs to run along the exterior wall - this increases the size of the kitchen and dining area.
• move laundry to under the stairs instead of being apart of the bathroom - this ustilises the space under the stairs and allows for access into the bathroom.
• move the entry door to the hallway rather than entering through bedroom - drawings need to be cleaned up

The apartment shell (exterior and party walls of all the apartments) was modelled into the architecture model and the interior layout has been modelled in the interior model. This method was undertaken so the Architecture model was not overloaded with too much detail that it would slow the file down. 

[25] Model Issues

The existing model was using pads as its floors. When tring to articulte various surfaces by editing and adding different pads, the model continued to crash. The landscape Dept has re created the pad over the property boudry of the site and has set this pad at - 127.00mm below ground floor level so as not to interupt the existing conditions of the topography model. A 200mm slab has been situated ontop of the pad for the internal ground floor of the MCN project.

This proceedure shall also free up the model to begin adding the various surface treatments.

New floor added above building pad RL has been dropped

[24] Car Parking Requirements

Under the requirments of the Brisbane City Plan 2000, minimum parking for Project MCN shall be as follows:

   Total GFA = 1800 sqm  thus 108 spaces required

Total redidential  GFA < 75 sqm = 5 apartments thus 5 x 1 spaces required

                          GFA > 75 sqm = 5 apartments thus 5 x 1.25 spaces required

Service bay reqs for 1500sqm to 1999sqm are:

                                               

                             2 for VAN

                             2 for SVR

                             1 for MVR

3% of parking shall be provided for people with disabilities

15% of surface car park sites be permanently landscaped with shade trees, shrubs and groundcovers

Planting intent shall include consideration of the following:

Trees often perform poorly when planted in areas with hard surfaces, suffering stress from lack of water

and air. When trees do grow well there is often a conflict due to roots damaging the surface.

The following points should be considered when selecting species.

a) Plants should be selected that have vigorous growth, longevity, minimal maintenance and ample

shade.

b) No trees are to be planted within 2 metres of underground services or 1 metre of footpaths and

kerbs, unless root barriers are provided

c) Trees or shrubs should not be planted where cars overhang, unless wheel stops are installed. The

normal car overhang allowance is 1 metre.

d) Plants with thorns and berries are generally not suitable for car parks and should not be used.

e) Shrubs and trees should be selected that require minimal pruning at maturity.

f) Trees that drop nuisance litter such as fruit, bark and sap are not suitable for car parks.

g) Trees need air and water in the root zone. An area of porous paving should be provided for at least

one metre on all sides of trees.

[23] Living wall cell model

These images show initial modelling stages of the living wall cells.

[22] Greenwall Design

Living walls have been chosen to feature internally in Project MCN. The benefits of incorporating living walls into building design include the following:

• a lowering of energy consumption and hence greenhouse gas emissions
• the reduction of urban heat island effects
• increasing the thermal performance of buildings
• positive effects on hydrology and improving water sensative urban design (WSUD)
• improvment on indoor air quality (IAQ)
• the reduction of noise pollution
• increasing urban biodiversity and urban food production
• improvment of health and wellbeing (Loh 2008)

Atlantis Gro Wall 4 has been chosen as the proprietry system for the implimentation of the living wall strategy. Given the nature of the retrofit this system has been chosen due to its ease of instilation (wall anchoring) and simplified, ease of access, watering system (low maitenence and water efficiency). 

In consultation with Susuan Loh from QUT, we propose a trough base drainage system be placed on top of the existing slab work rather than saw cut concrete to install a drain. This should minimise costs and the hazards associated with concrete cutting.

Image sourced from www.growall.com (accessed 26th September 2012)

References

Loh, S. 2008. Living Walls -  A Way to Green the Built Environment: Australian Council of Built Environment Design Professionals 

[21] Landscaping Notes

CONCRETE PATHS

As stated in the Brisbane City Plan 2000, the site of project MCN falls under the applicable code requirements as set out in the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan. Consideration must be given to the streetscape when installing concrete footpaths, in particular the following issues must be addressed:

The width of the strip is appropriate to its location. For example, concrete footpath will be required in high density urban residential areas or where it is obvious pedestrian traffic will be substantial, ie school, railway station, high density housing. Refer to Transport and Traffic Facilities Planning Scheme Policy of the City Plan.

In general, full width concrete footpaths or pavers must be provided to frontages of commercial and  hopping centre developments. However exemptions may be approved by the Engineering Officer Development & Regulatory Services for isolated businesses in residential areas. Also refer to Standard Drawing No UMS 232 and the Reference Specifications for Civil Engineering Work (Brisbane City Council, 2000).

Provision for street trees and landscaping in full width concrete footpath.

A concrete strip footpath is required on both sides of Industrial Access Roads.

In subdivisions in new areas, standard concrete footpaths must be 1.2 metres wide. The edge of the pathway closest to the property boundary is generally 1.42 metres from the property boundary and must be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawing UMS 231. Generally footpaths should not be constructed over water mains.

Concrete footpaths within pedestrian links must be 1.8 metres wide, extending to the kerb and channel with a kerb ramp. Where there is a concrete footpath in the street, the concrete footpath in the pathway must be extended to the concrete. Also refer Figure B8.5.1.

[20] Preliminary Design Requirements

Preliminary Design Requirements

 

As stated in the Brisbane City Plan 2000, the Local Plan Component of the City Plan “provides detailed guidance for development outcomes across particular localities of the city” (Brisbane City Council 2000). 

Given this, the preliminary design process includes research into the requirements of the Local Plan noting that The Local Plan “contains Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions that vary from or are in addition to those contained in applicable/ relevant Codes. For example, Local Plan Acceptable Solutions may specify different heights, setbacks or car parking requirements, or provide additional Acceptable Solutions in relation to preferred built form outcomes” (Brisbane City Council 2000).

Further reference shall also be made to the Brisbane City Council Landscaping Code noting that the Landscaping Code applies to our sites circumstance with the Landscaping Code stating that “…a Landscape Concept Plan may also be requested for a Reconfiguring of a Lot application, depending on the nature and scale of the development” and it shall ”be limited to where landscaping detail is critical to the mitigation of impacts” (Brisbane City Council Plan 2000, Landscaping Code).

Other relevant standards apply to the layout and physical geometry of car parks and these are to be designed in accordance with Australian Standards AS 2890.1, AS 2890.2 and AS 2890.3.

REFERENCES

Brisbane City Council Brisbane City Plan 2000- Volume 1. http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/tools-forms/city-plan-2000/city-plan-2000-document/index.htm (accessed 24th September 2012).

[19] South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan

Our site falls within the area of developments regulated by the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan, a part of the Brisbane City Council City Plan 2000

[18] Grant's Tasks

1.0 Grant tasks

1.0.1 Having established with the team our Building Information Model Management Plan,  It has now been agreed that I am to undertake the Landscape design. With this task the following deliverables apply:

1.0.2 Interior landscape design (garden wall)

1.0.3 Exterior Landscape design (landscape furnishings, general planting, car parking facilities, footpaths, exterior lighting)

2.0 Requirements to be met as agreed in the BMP

2.0.1 Landscaping and Site elements include topography, excavation and stormwater, services, roads Parking, Paths and Paving, walls and fencing and soft landscaping (as stated 5.2 of the BDS BMP) 

2.0.2 Weekly meetings (BIM Co ordination Meetings) to be maintained

2.0.3 Model LOD shall be 200

2.0.4 Model checking of Landscape to include code compliance, interdisciplinary model co ordination and potential quantity take off utilizing the required Project software as set out in 7.2 of the BMP.

Lighting Analysis - The great BIM interoperability Debate!

With the project focus on BIM, this provided an interesting opportunity to look at the issue of what software is classed as BIM. As most know, Ecotect is BIM and very typically used to calculate daylighing analysis, however 3ds Max is not. This presented an opportunity to compare the two processes.

Let me first start by explaining that there are essentially two ways of going about this proccess of using ecotect, the first ( which I took and have documented) is to import your file as a DXF into ecotect. This proccess isnt BIM as exporting the project as pure geometry looses the vital information essential to BIM. I learnt this the long way.

This proccess of exporting as DXF had another major implication- many faces = complex + really really realy slow calculation, I mean really Slow! All of this is without materials as well- so the accuracy of this analysis is down the drain- or is rather a study of light levels based off uniform material surfaces..

 The second second proccess ( and essential the correct proccess ) is to Export as a GBXML file which uses room data allocated in revit to calculate basic room geomerty. This also exports basic information such as object data and awareness ( it knows a wall is a wall, and glass is glass). However this is as detailed as it gets, with some vital geometry such as working planes ( desks etc) omitted. This means it has limited capabilities in the later design stages.  It also fails to translate any more detailed material information which poses me to ask the question of how well this integrates with the BIM process if it only brings across basic information?
In addition to this, the program is quantitative based with the only way to acquire qualitative data ( basic at the most) is to import to radiance.

This brings us to the second analysis method used for the project- linking into 3ds Max Design.

 What is great about using 3ds Max Design is its accuracy in both a Quantitative and Qualitative manner; it can measure Illuminance and Luminance using false colour images as well as using the lighting analysis assistance to measure lighting levels at any point in physical space using the light meter tool.

 3ds Max Design calculates all this from material data carried over ( and updated by a linked file) from Revit meaning much more accurate results than Ecotect. In addition to this, photometric data is carried across for artificial lighting analysis. 

 Measuring light levels in the apartments

 Measuring lighting levels from Atrium 

 Illuminance Psuedo Colour Output Image

As mentioned previously, Max also measures light in a qualitative manner based of the material selection made in Revit, including surface properties such a reflectance, colour and transparency, all critical to designing accurate task lighting.

After comparing the two, the question must be asked, could 3ds Max be classed as BIM considering it contains the same amount of data as an ecotect file, while providing a more detailed analysis and using a constant link to the revit project? If not what is needed for this to become BIM integrated?