Multiple "live" Buildings On Single Plan

[keithhe]

First,

 

I know some of the pitfalls to trying to do this, and I know I can bring in separates as symbols.

 

The plan I'm doing involves a steep, lake front lot and owners wish to see what views will look like with house plans' position and orientation on lot. I happened to have worked on the neighbor's house a few years ago, so will bring that in as a symbol, stripped of the interior. I will also do a quick symbol for other side lot house, as I have all those plats plotted.

 

Here though is the problem: They want the house and a separate garage, which will have a small guest room over it, and ask for a variety of locations to be shown to see views, and impacts of neighboring property. Is there a realistic way to have two separate live structures in one plan? The problem, as I experiment, is some of the global commands, like add floor, or roof change everything for both, among other issues. One possible design has the house and garage, connected via a small bridge over a breezeway, and to add to the issue, elevation pad differences. I could do this if both were live or even flat terrain, I suspect, but how to connect a symbol and a live structure?

 

Slightly related, what is the best way to manipulate a plan around a plot without wrecking everything? The frequent requests to move orientations keeps screwing things up. IE: house moves, foundation stays. You get the point. I have not bothered with the walkout "basement foundation" layouts yet for this reason. I can remove it, move and rebuild it, but that brings me back to my earlier problem. Now the separate structure takes the command.

 

Would be nice, where needed, to have the ability to tell CA make this change just to this, or that, rather than forced global like some are. Can't imagine that would be that hard?

 

Hopefully someone has a best strategy for dealing with this. The only one I can think of, is separate plans, than import in, and hope it's in right place.

 

Thanks

 

  

[glennw]

My opinion, for what it is worth, is to do the garage and house in one plan and place the adjoining buildings as you have outlined.

There should be no problem controlling the garage and house, even if they are separate structures - well, maybe some small problems, but none that would be a deal breaker.

Orient you plans on the screen as you want and do not rotate or move them - move and rotate the terrain instead.

[keithhe]

Glenn,

Great idea that never occurred to me. Moving the terrain is something I rarely do. The different levels between house and garage I think means I kind of have to develop one of them (garage) in separate plan, import in, then move the terrain.

Naturally I was hoping there was a magic hotkey that only super users knew that might be the silver bullet, but I can make this work. Thanks !!

[glennw]

I would put the house and garage in the same plan, even though they are at different levels.

That shouldn't cause much of a problem. It is easy to define the garages own levels, etc.

I have done this many times.

 

Too many disadvantages putting them in separate plans.

[keithhe]

Thanks Glenn. I'll try this and see how it works.

[ebdesign]

There's no way I would put outbuildings in the same plan as the main house. (Once in a while I will, if the terrain is pretty flat & the outbuildings are orthogonal to the main house.)

There are way too many things to remember when one of the outbuildings changes: wall angles, absolute elevations relative to main house, floor hgts, defaults, etc.

I use separate plans for each outbuilding. Once those changes are made, making a symbol out of the building & bringing it into the main plan is a matter of seconds..........literally.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

[keithhe]

Thanks Jim,

 

My experiments are proving out what you said, and I feared, hence the original post. I thought my lot was steep!! It actually is, but not quite the cliff you were dealing with. Although in my case, the house goes on the slope.

 

Curious in the renders you show, did you put the boathouse as a symbol too? I have several I will be bringing in, but as symbols like the neighbor homes. I have not done them yet, but in my case they are 1300 and 200o square foot and over the water. I'm guessing I will just sink the symbol into the already established terrain feature (water) where they actually exist.  

[lbuttery]

There are way too many things to remember when one of the outbuildings changes: wall angles, absolute elevations relative to main house, floor hgts, defaults, etc.

 

Jim:

 

this has been my experience

 

Lew

[dshall]

I would put the house and garage in the same plan, even though they are at different levels.

That shouldn't cause much of a problem. It is easy to define the garages own levels, etc.

I have done this many times.

 

Too many disadvantages putting them in separate plans.

I agree with Glenn on this.  Working a a project right now with a detached garage......  I am keeping it in the same file.  

 

The big advantage is when it  comes to doing overviews,  much quicker and simpler.

 

 Another advantage is dealing with the landscaping,  pools,  covered patios that my be linked between house and detached garage.

 

If separate houses on separate lots in one development,  then I would have separate files for each lot.

[dshall]

There's no way I would put outbuildings in the same plan as the main house. (Once in a while I will, if the terrain is pretty flat & the outbuildings are orthogonal to the main house.)

There are way too many things to remember when one of the outbuildings changes: wall angles, absolute elevations relative to main house, floor hgts, defaults, etc.

I use separate plans for each outbuilding. Once those changes are made, making a symbol out of the building & bringing it into the main plan is a matter of seconds..........literally.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Nice  project Jim.  But I would of kept everything in one file. 

 

Works well either way,  whatever floats  our boat.

[ebdesign]

Both the boathouse & the garage are symbols & have their own plan. They can be accurately placed in the main plan or just do it visually.

[keithhe]

Thanks Scott and Jim,

 

I, frankly, have never had to deal with the dreaded outbuilding problem before, thus why I'm asking on here for all the gifted folks to weigh in on it.

 

Scott, I would ideally like to keep in same plan, but how do you get around the problems encountered when you add floors, for example? If I add the floor to the garage for the small guest suite I get an unwanted new floor on the house, same goes for foundation related issues. I do manual roofs for the most part, so get around those global changes. Just curious the strategy you folks use.

 

Jim, the separate plans is the "easy" way, as I have not gotten around the issues I mentioned to Scott. I may develop in their own plans, then when actual know locations are set in stone, move to a live plan and adjust. Just not sure yet.

 

Related, in this case is also the precise location where the building or buildings will eventually reside on the lot, so having to move them often up and down and side to side within the terrain master file I created is also an issue. As Glenn mentioned, I can move the terrain, but as the lot is quite sloped and is not a normal rectangle, the settings on every given location would need to be changed for buildings "C" height to accommodate. Is there a preferred way, to annotate the topo data? I have the actual accurate data I'm using (2' GIS) and "made" up the numbering from top to bottom lake but not sure if that is the best way to handle this.

 

As usual, thanks guys!! Your input, knowledge and assistance is very much appreciated.

[ebdesign]

 

The big advantage is when it  comes to doing overviews,  much quicker and simpler.........

 Another advantage is dealing with the landscaping,  pools,  covered patios that my be linked between house and detached garage.

Overviews? The garage & the boathouse are both in the main plan..........as symbols.

What would I miss? My attached images are overviews.

Landscaping? Don't really see how that would have any effect either. I know exactly where the symbols are gonna go. & you can always place a bldg footprint polyline in the main plan if you want to.

I've done it w/ all the outbuildings in the same plan in the distant past.

.....no thanks.

Particularly for newer or less experienced users, there's just too much to remember....or learn.

But, to each his own. You & Glenn are certainly experienced users. Pick your poison.

Things would get pretty boring if we all did it the same.

[dshall]

.......

What would I miss? ......

My projects are constantly changing and "under construction".  So I would have to make a new symbol for every change.  And let me tell you,  people are finicky these days.  Make it 24" bigger,  now make it 12" smaller....   move the entire building 36" to the left,  now move it 24" to the right (this would effect landscaping) ........you get the drift.

[dshall]

.........

Scott, I would ideally like to keep in same plan, but how do you get around the problems encountered when you add floors, for example? .........

 

I don't know,  but I do not have a problem because from day one my projects have 4 floors whether I use them or not.

 

 I am never adding floors,   they are already there.

[keithhe]

I don't know,  but I do not have a problem because from day one my projects have 4 floors whether I use them or not.

 

 I am never adding floors,   they are already there.

Scott,

 

Not sure I understand this? They all have 4 floors? Is this just the rich neighborhood that has all 4-5 story houses, or is there some technique shortcut you are using? 

[ebdesign]

Keith,

The images I posted are for a plan w/ a supplied dwg w/ elevations, terrain features, etc. It was a complete teardown/rebuild w/ several retaining walls getting down to the lake. I've done many of these types of homes & lots, built into side of mountains, etc. 

[dshall]

Scott,

 

Not sure I understand this? They all have 4 floors? Is this just the rich neighborhood that has all 4-5 story houses, or is there some technique shortcut you are using? 

Keith,  I do not understand your question.   I have 4 floors for every house I do whether it is a one story or a three story.  Just because the floor/LEVEL is there does not mean you have to use it.

 

I have the extra floors for the very reason you are having problems with adding floors.  I do not have to add them,  they are already there.......  and when I say FLOORS,  I should be using the term LEVELS.

[Joe_Carrick]

Scott's point is this:

 

You can add Levels without any walls.  If you don't add walls then there is no "Floor" in that area and the Roof Builds on the Floor below.  By starting with 4 Levels, he can have a 1 story structure, a 2 story structure, a 3 story structure and a 4 story structure all in the same plan and never have to add a Floor. 

 

Of course, this means you can have a "Floating Floor" suspended in the air as shown in the attached pic

[keithhe]

Jim,

Thanks again. I didn't have the DWG/DXF files I wanted for the topo, but did have an accurate PDF I brought in and carefully scaled then traced the

elevation contours. It worked well, but boy I wished I had that already in CAD. My question, concerns this, is given I have the know contours and actual ASL data, is it better to use that data, and adjust the buildings to reflect, or pick a contour, any contour and assign it 0" and then subtract downhill and add downhill 2'?? I currently am using the latter way, but not sure of the pros and cons of either way.

Scott,

now I get it, with the great assist by your golf partner Perry. Thanks Perry. with a 0" value and no walls they are there for the taking if needed. I have to assume though that you are also adding a foundation level to the buildings, and individually adjust their height to reflect walkout or crawl space?

Thant's a great idea, and one I will start using!!!

[dshall]

.......I have to assume though that you are also adding a foundation level to the buildings, and individually adjust their height to reflect walkout or crawl space?.......

No,  I never add a foundation,  again it is already there.......  the foundation LEVEL is already there.  I manually create my foundations,  I have found it is easier for ME,  others do not agree with this method,  but I find it works well for me.

[keithhe]

Scott,

OK, not quite sure I follow this line of though either? In the case, say of a walkout, how do you do this? Are you just using the Level 1 then as the "basement" rather than Level 0? Then Level "1" is actually Level "2"

[Joe_Carrick]

Scott's Golf Partner's (me-JC) name is Joe, not Perry.

 

BTW, Scott and I will be unavailable Thursday afternoon - he want's another chance at whipping my b**t

[keithhe]

Oh, so sorry Joe "Yoda", and I know the difference between you folks.

[dshall]

Scott,

OK, not quite sure I follow this line of though either? In the case, say of a walkout, how do you do this? Are you just using the Level 1 then as the "basement" rather than Level 0? Then Level "1" is actually Level "2"

Yes,  basement are always on level 1 for me.  Again,  I know others disagree,  but the advantage I have found is I can add mono slabs on level zero if need be.