Description
Principaux enseignements
- Discover a BIM strategy that accommodates all skills levels, from BIM novices to industry innovators.
- Learn about developing a technology strategy that considered the concept sketch, to building operations, and everything in between.
- Learn about placing interoperability at the heart of the digital delivery strategy.
- Learn about centralizing on-site construction management and communications in a 3D digital environment.
Intervenants
- Ciaran GarrickArchitect, Certified Passive House Designer, lecturer, and digital design enthusiast. I am currently leading our BIM Information Management services across a number of masterplans, cultural, residential, commercial and heritage projects. I am also involved in practice research initiatives relating to sustainable design and the use of technology in project delivery.
- Michael BartyzelMichael Bartyzel is Global BIM Lead and Director at Buro Happold based in London. Michael is also part of CIBSE BIM/Digital Engineering Steering Group in UK for the last 11 years, Vice Chair of CIBSE Society of Digital Engineering and contributor to AEC (UK) BIM Standards. After joining BuroHappold in 2008, Michael has helped with organizing and presenting at LRUG (London Revit User Group) and is now in charge of selecting all the presentations. His level of experience has been fundamental to the development of BIM/Digital Engineering throughout BuroHappold to the point where BIM is now only method of working. In early 2017, Michael has been asked to lead Buro Happold’s focus group in charge of efficient production, concentrating on efficiency workflows and internal/external tools creation and implementation. Michael has presented at conferences and has taken part in several round table discussion on future of BIM.
CIARAN GARRICK: Hi, everyone, and welcome to our presentation. This presentation is the 1.5 Million Piece Jigsaw, Delivering the London Olympic Legacy. And it's about a project that Mike and I have worked on here, in London, UK. Just starting with myself first. My name is Ciaran Garrick. I am an architect, but my role here at Eliza Morrison in London is to lead the design technology team. I'm also a certified Passive House Designer. So very interested in the use of technology in delivering sustainability goals. And I do also lecture at the University of Middlesex.
MIKE BARTYZEL: Hi, everyone. My name is Mike Bartyzel. I'm a global BIM lead for Buro Happold. And I'm also, as you can see, quite long in the tooth. So I've done a few things in the past. And the really good one is that I'm a member of Autodesk customer advisory board. So we can help shape the products that we are using.
CIARAN GARRICK: So firstly, just very briefly, a little bit about the practice, Allies and Morrison. We are, as I mentioned before, primarily an architecture and urban design practice. We are 40 years in the running now. And we work internationally across 15 different countries. So the images I've shown here are just a sampling of the types of projects that we work on. And I think the idea here is to show the kind of broad breadth of types of projects that we have both in the UK and internationally.
We also have strong sustainability credentials on our projects and it's at the core of the ethos of the practice. And also obviously, the use of design technologies and BIM in how we deliver our projects. As part of my role in the practice is to coordinate a group of BIM managers and BIM coordinators on projects such as on the screen. So we work on large scale projects across the UK and internationally, as BIM managers. So separate services from the architectural role.
And we currently have about 25 projects that are live across the UK and internationally. As part of those services, a heavy focus on information management, data management, how we can use technology in interesting ways in the design process like mixed reality, building performance analysis to, again, support our sustainability goals. And quite recently, obviously, the integration of AI and machine learning in how we work.
MIKE BARTYZEL: A little bit about Buro Happold. So we are consulting engineers. We have around 31 offices located around the globe. And we believe we are pioneers in digital design. We have started quite early several years ago. But the main thing is that we are operating in one collaboration space with all those different offices in different places. And we are quite famous for a few projects that we have done.
One of them that probably most people know is the Museum of the Future in Dubai. And that's a shining example of how we can do things, how we can be a little bit different to everyone else. Another really famous project was The Jewel at Changi Airport in Singapore. And that's something that we're very proud of. And it's the tallest indoor waterfall in the world. And a little bit closer to where we are at the [INAUDIBLE] Academy Museum of Motion Picture in LA. That's also a very interesting project that we have done not a long time ago.
There are a few other projects, as you can see. We also worked on stadiums. And this will feature in this presentation a little bit. And we also are very proud of what we achieving, what we doing in the digital space. As you can see, we are winning quite a few awards over the years. And we have also won two awards at AU, one of them being Museum of the Future and the other one being the Browns' University.
CIARAN GARRICK: So to talk very briefly about the context of the project and what drove the strategy, just a little bit about the legacy itself and the Olympic games in 2012. So this master plan began obviously, quite a few years before the Olympics to be able to deliver a project on that scale. So from the vision that was developed and the submission that went in 2000, it was very much about delivering the Olympic games. But first and foremost, was the vision for 2024. So this was about realizing the use of the Olympic Park beyond just the games itself. And it was underpinned by being the sustainable Olympics.
MIKE BARTYZEL: And as I mentioned, it did include the Olympic stadium, as you can see. Tell you just one more secret, I've heard that the design of that stadium has been done on the back of the cigarette pack, if you can believe it or not. At least that was the idea. And as you can see, it turned out to be an amazing project. And now the stadium is occupied by the football team called West Ham in London.
And as part of the master plan, there were several iconic buildings built on the site. You can see Aquatic Center and the stadium there. And it might be visible right in the middle, there's a orbital-- metal orbital that there's a little slide inside. And that is the largest art piece in Great Britain. A little bit more about the site.
CIARAN GARRICK: So just in the center of the picture there beside the Aquatic Center, which is in the right foreground, is where the site is that we're going to talk about today. So part of the Olympic game legacy strategy was actually to peel back a lot of the facilities that provided during the Olympics. And this is how the site, the East Bank site has emerged today. And it really was intended to be quite a jewel in the master plan as the cultural quarter, but really challenging brief.
And that's really what we're going to get into today, is how that pushed into the BIM strategy. And the area of the site itself was about a quarter of the total area required for the buildings that were designed on the site. So we had a really challenging stack of uses and accommodation and that had to be navigated quite early in the design. And in guiding us along that route were many, many stakeholders on the project. So from the key building stakeholders, the BBC, Sadlers Wells, University of the Arts London, London College of Fashion and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
And that led by the London legacy Development Corporation, which is the government entity on the project. So we had many different briefs coming through on the project that we had to digest and understand the various requirements for the delivery of the projects in a digital form. And the key to the design strategy on the project was the interconnection of Stratford in East London, back to the wider city. So it was a very bustling and busy part of London prior to the Olympics, just not very well connected back to the city.
And the idea of the East Bank project was really to create a beacon almost or a gravitational pull to the East of London to have an impact on the communities as a whole. And that really distills down into six distinct projects for what we're going to talk about today. So while East Bank is the name of the project that we started the presentation with, in many respects, there are six buildings here. There's the V&A East, London College of Fashion, the BBC Concert Studios, Sadler's Wells East, which is a dance studio. The Public Realm and the retail spaces, which we were treating as a separate project. And also there's some infrastructure work in there through the carpenters land bridge, which linked to the north of the site.
MIKE BARTYZEL: And just one other look at the site. So this is how the vision was-- and you can see the East Bank right in the middle-- and how it all fits within the iconic buildings that were put on the site previous to design of the East Bank. You can see London Stadium. You can see the Aquatic Center, international port of London, Westfield Stratford City, which is a shopping mall and the overall of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
CIARAN GARRICK: And again, just part of the concept behind the project itself, and I know this feels slightly detached from a BIM strategy, which is the premise of the presentation, but this really was key the strategy that we presented quite early in the project back in 2015. And that was the vision from the London mayor, which was to have a project that appeals to local communities and recognize that there were local communities prior to the project, but also attracting demographics across the city to the facilities once completed.
So the idea of communicating with the public and communities was really priority number one from the outset. And that was something that was included in our brief from the digital point of view. So the brief coming from the client itself had three main components to it. Because of the complexity of the scheme itself and the proximity of each of the buildings, there was clearly going to be a mammoth task to coordinate the design across these buildings in both the design stage, but also how that was delivered through construction. So a key part of how BIM processes and 3D modeling were going to support, that was the ability to de-risk the project or reduce risk because of visibility of interfaces between the different disciplines. And again, an enormous amount of information has to be produced to deliver buildings like this. And BIM provided a really efficient method of doing that that allowed all disciplines and all contractors to work in a common environment.
And almost-- the main priority really of the BIM strategy for the project was the aspiration for each of the end users of these buildings to use the models, use BIM and the data associated with those models for the operations of these buildings for the 60 to 100 years thereafter. So that really was the value that the client on the project was looking to embed from the outset.
And we had to come up with a strategy to respond to that. In addition, as a group , so from Mike and his team and our team within the architectural group, we had our own aspirations for BIM on the project. We had a huge task to coordinate these models across multiple teams in multiple locations. And that really was where we wanted BIM and the technologies in place to support.
We also had a criteria at the beginning of the project, our key part of the strategy. And that was to embrace all technologies. We weren't mandating any particular BIM software's. We wanted an open ecosystem. The big "but" in that is that the interchange of information, so how information was exchanged between platforms had to be demonstrated. And really, that came down to, could it work with IFC models? And again, the communication piece, as I mentioned in the communication, both with the communities, but also within the project itself, with the various stakeholders was a key part of that.
And that's really what we're demonstrating here with this image, was our ability to use traditional forms of engaging with the community. But back in 2015-16 when the emergence of VR was starting to come into how we worked, it was an incredibly powerful way of showing early design ideas in the public forum and getting opinions on that, making sure that the direction of the project was aligned to the thoughts of locals within East London. And getting into a little bit more detail of the digital strategy itself was how we landed on the tools and ecosystems of software's that we did.
And really, we had to have a set of core principles that drove that. So at the very core of that was design. We are architects at the end of the day and engineers. And it was really important that remained the focus, that the technologies and software's that we use on the project didn't in any way impede the fluidity of the design work. And that had three pillars that surrounded that. And that was data, that was a core focus of the project. How could we produce and manage information in an efficient way that allowed for quick decisions based on accurate information people, which was a key part of this.
How could we address the fact that we had a wide range of skills across the teams on the projects and making sure that any decisions around the technology and software has been used was supported hand in hand with a training and skills support along the way in a proactive way, rather than mandated. And that really drove the efficiencies of what we have. Information management across the project. So it was really robust workflows in place to make sure that happened in an organized and structured way.
The production of information itself was a requirement right from the outset that all 2D information, all drawings produced across the project must be generated through 3D modeling information. So had to come from a BIM software. That's fairly simple to do in the design stages, as the skills are there. That strategy starts to creak a little bit as you get to construction. But that remained the case all the way to the end of the project. And I'll touch on that a little bit more.
And as we mentioned in the previous slides, we're quite an international team here on the project. And how technology was to be used to support that, the movement of information across the various organizations from O'Donnell and [? Tuomey, ?] the architects of Sadler's Wells, and the V&A based in Dublin, Ireland to Buro Happold, Allies and Morrison here in London and in Warsaw in Poland. And also the architects of the bridge, the Carpenters Land Bridge, architects based in Spain.
We also worked closely with BIM Track, based in Canada, around their platform, which was used for issue management across the project. But at the beginning of the project, I mean, we were, back in 2015, quite early in our BIM journey as a practice and didn't really have a clear idea of how this might scale up from the design stages into construction. But we did have an idea about the trend. And this is just an indicative diagram of how we envisaged the geometry going. And we wanted to keep a very lean BIM strategy through the project.
So no unnecessary modeling of crazy curved objects through the design stages that was going to annoy the engineers in their coordination. But at the same time, we recognize that there was an incredibly complex jigsaw piece puzzle with the interface of contractor packages through construction. So we set a strategy up that reflected that to have the gradual phasing of detail throughout the project. And another stream of information that comes from them is obviously, the data that's embedded within that geometry.
And again, we saw this as a very different work stream and a very different trend in where we really needed to push the input of this information. So we worked closely with the design team to make sure that the obligations to produce data were not too onerous through the design stages, as again, the focus of that data was on the operations of the buildings. So we're in that period of the project now where we're starting to see as built information come through from the contractors.
And that's really the focus of the strategy and the review work that we're doing at the moment, is on data compliance and how it aligns with the original brief. And to just touch a little bit on how that really how that came through in principle, so from back in 2015, in what we call stage two here, or yeah, stage two, which is the equivalent of concept design, very simple models were produced at the end of that stage, which mainly reflected the architectural vision. So these were producing renders and some kind of high level drawings as well.
As we progress through more detailed design in stages three and four, that, of course, started to fragment into different disciplines. So we were up to about 34 models by the end of stage four, and about 320,000 objects across the model. The 300 LOD, and that is level of development. So that is aligned to the AIA system. Again, that was carefully coordinated, but no geometry went any higher than 300. And that was an important part of our strategy, again, to keep the process lean.
That went out the window a little bit as we got to construction. We are now over 280 models, actually it's grown a bit since that image, and 1.5 million, as is in the title of the presentation. So the explosion of fragmentation of the packages, that was a really challenging transition that would have been much more difficult if we were not in a well-developed and well-managed BIM process. And that is the same for the data. And each of those objects, or quite a few of those objects had quite challenging data deliverables associated with it as well and were into the millions when we start to talk about those fields. And we'll touch on that in a little bit more detail.
But in a kind of-- as a high level slide, there were five areas that we categorize technology across the project. The authoring tools, the real kind of powerhouse of the BIM process. And that was vast majority of the team working in Autodesk Revit, but not exclusively. So we were working in the design stages with other computational software's, such as Rhino, that had to plug into that workflow. But as we got into construction, that really started to fragment a bit more, especially in packages where they're fabricating their scope offsite.
And that's when you start to see more technical-orientated software's, or Autodesk invention. And visualization, again, going back to that communication piece, there was always a heavy focus on no matter what we were doing in a BIM environment, could you communicate that to a lay person in a simple way? And there was a lot of attention put on how that could be achieved. The collaboration platforms, we made very specific decisions around issue management tools, such as BIM Track. And the reason that we settled with a platform like that was, again, it was cloud hosted. So it allowed for easy access to client teams and stakeholders where they could log in, view the models, see the issues that had been raised without having to download any software's.
And that was plugging directly into our Solibri office software again, which was our tool of choice for the analysis work. In terms of reporting, because again, of the scale of the project, how we reported, we went through quite painful process of producing large reports against each of these buildings, only for nobody to read them on the other end. So we changed tack quite quickly and we developed Power BI dashboards that were cloud hosted, which were feeding directly into the data coming out of both Solibri, but also data coming directly from BIM Track via API. And we can touch on that in a bit more detail later on.
And so the four key guidance points that we had in the technology strategy, and again, we're talking here about an eight year, eight to nine year strategy that had to be established. And we did have-- that was underpinned by these four points here. So as I've mentioned before, no restrictions and software is used. The open BIM approach was important to the strategy that we had.
And the focus was on connectivity between platforms rather than focusing too much on functionality. Can the software you're using speak to my software that I'm using? It really was that simple. And could we use APIs, for example, or more kind of workflow-oriented ways of exchanging information.
And that was vital to keeping the information working in a fluid, but structured way across the project. Be ruthless when the software has overstayed its welcome. That again, was important, particularly, in the software's that you use through the design stages are not necessarily appropriate for what you might use in later detailed design and into construction. So we had quite a nimble attitude towards software's, which meant rarely did we get into long-term licensing agreements with vendors. It was important that we could drop the software if we felt it wasn't working with the overall strategy of the project.
And I know that sounds quite ruthless, but it worked well for us. And support everyone. That was really key. And if you brought or suggested a technology integration onto the project, how were you going to support the client in engaging with that and other stakeholders on the project? So the diagram I have here on the right hand side is a huge amount of information on it. And I'll go through that in a bit more detail later on. But it was a really important mind map, I suppose, of not something that we roll out and present in conferences, but it was actually a live tool that was used throughout the project to investigate how we could make the workflows more efficient.
Were we getting the deliverables to the client at the end of the day? And where would reviews need to be introduced to help with that? And this is it in a bit more detail from the client teams, so that again, the four main partners on the project, the UC side as well, as, [? UAL ?] and V&A, the strategy that we developed off the back of that, so we had an overarching employer's information requirements across the entire project. But it was really important that the data strategy in particular reflected the kind of uniqueness of each of these partners and the uniqueness of their buildings.
And so we produced asset information requirements on a building by building basis. And that was really driven by the end user systems that they had in place. So the [INAUDIBLE] systems, the systems that they were using to operate the buildings. But I would say in the vast majority of cases with these partners experience in working with BIM data was next to 0. So when we talk about skills development across the project and the partners themselves and the client team were very much on that roadmap, and how we could progress through the project and develop their skills in parallel.
So at this point today, we're at the point where we're delivering a lot of this data over to these partners. But actually, that training roadmap started eight years ago when we wrote the documents in the first place. And zooming out to the extreme example here, which is then the authoring models and the packages produced. And that was quite significant in the construction stages especially. And what we focused on heavily here was the division of the packages. So again, because of the procurement route here, we were getting different contractors for each one of these packages.
So it became apparent quite early on that whilst we were dealing with maybe 10 to 15 teams in the design stages, that was going to swell to 50 to 60 teams through the construction stages and could our strategy flex to accommodate that? So the BIM execution plan that I have over here on the side, that had to change drastically from that transition to design to construction to accommodate that workflow. And we had to reinvent ourselves in many ways in how we were going to work with the different tools.
To coordinate all that we were using cloud platforms, again, as much as possible. And the icons there on the right hand side are the Google Suite. So what we call task information delivery plan, so communication between teams on information being produced, that was all being tracked in a Google Cloud. So progressing onto the collaboration piece, as I mentioned before, most teams were publishing their models directly from the authoring tools into a cloud environment, which was the IOC viewer that we're showing here in BIM Track.
And that really was an efficient way of teams producing the information all the way through design. That was important in construction that we, as the BIM managers on the project, were not having to download and work with 280 models every week and manage it into the system. So we removed ourself from that chain and allowed teams to publish directly. So there was a degree of recognizing that some information was going to be rough and ready at various points on the project, but we wanted to encourage the fluid exchange of information across each of the teams.
Once that information made its way into common data environments, then that was a different scenario, that was much more robust reviews at that point. And that was feeding directly into our Power BI dashboards, which was tracking model uploads and also how teams were reacting to the issues that we were placing on the system. And the kind of generator of those reviews was in a Solibri environment.
So we made a decision quite early on to pick an analysis software that focused both on geometry and data reviews that was, again, an important decision that aligned with those trend graphs that I showed earlier on, which is making sure that data was on everybody's radar and the importance of compliance of that data. And we worked within Solibri Workflows to do exactly that. The other use case for Solibri was really about its ability, again, to scale up from design stages to very complex IFC models in construction. And it worked quite well there.
Moving on to the communication bit, and again, that was slightly different from the design stages of quite a lot of use of rendering platforms, such as Enscape because it really brought out the materiality decisions that were being made in the architecture team. But the qualities of that software which just emerged as we were kind of working through those design ideas in 2017-2018 was an incredibly powerful tool, again, to show the end users of the building, what the vision really was about. And that can be as simple as using walkthroughs and screen.
But we also set up many, many VR workshops that include the client team. And that was such a success that the client team invested in their own VR hardware to benefit from the kind of iterative work and the design changes that were happening. In the construction stages, that was quite different. The real challenges of the site here were about logistics on site, how could you have 50 to 60 contractors working and stepping on each other's toes? And how do you simulate that in a 3D environment?
So the development of that information all the way through the design stages gave a fantastic head start to the contractor team in being able to input that geometry into synchro and simulate phasing of construction, but logistics and access across the site. And then in the site monitoring itself, so BIM, our Autodesk 360 field was a core part of recording commissioning data and recording progress of information across the site. And it was the important link between site and the models themselves.
So we had a really valuable data set being generated and aggregated on a daily basis. And that was feeding into other platforms that we had, like photographic records across the project from disperse, which was able to track progress of works on site against the 3D models and the information themselves. And moving on to the final chapter of that, which was recording that information or landing that information on end user platforms.
And we recognize that the common data environment and the project had limitations in the sense of coordinating and managing the handover of data. So we brought another common data environment onto the project called Glider. And the intention was that at the handover the project at the end, that separate parts of this platform could be handed to each of the building end users and they could then continue their journey with the data and through the operations of the building.
And that brings us right back to the start again. So that kind of workflow was really important from writing the documents to being able to aggregate the data directly into the end user systems and allow them efficient maintenance of their buildings. So quite a lot to digest there. So we're just going to take a brief break. Anybody who's interested in interrogating that in more detail and scrolling around, if you scan the QR code on the left hand side, it will take you to an Adobe link to that document.
MIKE BARTYZEL: Important context of the project was obviously the mandate, the BIM mandate that came into UK in 2016. And it was a shining example of how to deliver BIM level 2. That's what probably our government wanted. And that's how it was done. The key to it was the right division of the models from the very beginning, from design and then how it was done in a construction phase.
CIARAN GARRICK: And to support that, there was a very simple structure that was established. So from the federation of the models, we worked quite hard from the outset on classifying geometry and spaces across the projects. And that was generated through the use of Uniclass codes here in the UK, which is very similar to how Omni classes is used in the US. And we knew we needed to establish that rigor very early in the project to enable us to automate some of the checking that happened across the project, particularly in the data side of things.
So the resources that we had developed in the Solibri environment were all tailored towards reading classification codes because it's the same language being spoken between design disciplines as is being spoken with the contractor teams. It was the only kind of common ground that we had to work with. And that was really driving, taking a typical example here from the V&A of an [? AHE ?] unit on the roof. And what we're showing here in green is the data, the typical data set that would come through from an asset in the design stages.
And what's showing in red at the bottom is what would be supplemented from the contractor as part of their "as built" delivery. And really, the important information is that right information, which reflects the specific manufacturing data across the project. And through those automated processes, we were really working hard to be able to identify any kind of rotten apples in the bunch because the testing of the client end user systems that we did very early on in the process, that generated some quite scary realizations that if one piece of data was incorrect, the systems generally wouldn't allow a lot of the correct data to be integrated.
So we had to make sure we were finding those errors in the models before it got anywhere near the client system. And that challenge and fun continues to this day. So that's a bit about the concepts of the project-- the strategy that we've set out and the different technologies. I think important to also touch on how this actually happens in practice. And that's what I'm going to go through here today. So from the concept images, this image would have been generated in the design stages of stage three, stage four, to where the models currently sit today, which is having to reflect quite a lot of that detail.
And as we spin through the different packages project, right from the beginning, BIM played a really key role in allowing us to visualize the constraints, the constraints that were driving the design decisions in the first place. And that was about what was happening beneath the ground, really. So the huge amount of utilities and constraints that are some of a hangover from the Olympics, but also some of the infrastructure that feeds both kind of East and West of London and how we could navigate around that in a design environment.
And that also was important to developing the substructure, which was a single package across all buildings to when the first buildings started coming out of the ground. And this is the package for the concrete cores on the building. And this is just a quick image on the left hand side from, that's going back two or three years now of how that was realized on site. But that had to interface with a separate contractor, which was working in a steel frame structure. So we had to do-- and there was a sequence issue there, so we had to review those interfaces in a lot of detail in a 3D environment to make sure that all came together accurately on site.
And another part of that was making sure that the steel frame was considering the facade panels that were connecting onto that, which were coming a bit later in the process. So we were able to simulate that quite a lot in a 3D environment. And this image here is really just trying to communicate or get across the number of contractors that were working in the same place and how that was all coming together and coordinated. So we were doing detailed reviews all the way through construction in a BIM environment to make sure that all those interfaces were visible to everybody.
And as I mentioned previously, every single package on the project had to be in a BIM environment. And that includes the signage, which is at the top there, which would have had MEP connections for the lighting. And as we progress through the project, we were working with many different packages. So here, we're showing examples on the largest building and London College of Fashion, a mix of In-Situ and Precast packages. Again, that was to do with site constraints.
So that was all simulated again, in an environment and how that worked to some of the more specialist areas, which was looking at the 3D geometry of some of the kind of feature stair profiles in terms. We needed to bring in specialist design technologies through the design process, but also working very closely with the contractor through construction to make sure that was coming together in the right way. So as we kind of spin up to looking at that and plan, and I can show this in a bit more detail, here is an example of how that was actually cast and realized on the site. So extremely challenging form to achieve. But it has worked out really beautifully on the site itself.
So taking, again, just a quick breather at that point. Again, you can scan that QR code in the top right hand side just to get a better idea of the size of that space and the kind of complexities of how that stair network came through. So I'll just give some time to have a look at that. And that was, again, as I mentioned, really important in getting the client to understand the ideas. As we move through the project, we had many more challenges with some of the smaller buildings that we have here at BBC and Sadler's Wells.
And the challenge really here was the adjacencies, the really narrow space between the buildings and how that was going to work on site. So that was sequenced quite a lot in a 3D environment. But really, how we moved into the building services and how that reflected the bespoke nature of the buildings, these are cultural buildings and University buildings. And so the building services part feeding into those everything from theater to dance spaces to lecture halls was really important.
And that-- we planned as best we could for how that was going to scale up, but never really kind of grasped the complexity of that and the different packages that came together. So we had a real challenge to the project in that volumetric strategy that I mentioned previously in how we divided up the design models into smaller parts to be coordinated with contractors. And just moving through, and that moved into a fitout packages. And again, our gut instinct is always to keep the fitout packages as simple as possible. We couldn't do that on this project.
We had to go to LOD 350 again. So that includes the sea studs behind the dry line and within the packages. We had to do that because of the complexity of the services passing through that. So being able to recognize or review the interfaces between services passing through a partition. And the sea studs that sat in the background was really important. And then we had specialist packages from the BMU to the signage that was on-- sitting on the facade, to another real challenge in the project, which was the rooftop terrace, the landscaping of that space, which was a package in itself and how the irrigation of that space connected into the drainage services within the building.
Also across the public realm, again, going back to the utilities that run underneath, that had to coordinate with the landscape components that were above. So we had another challenge there, which was from tree pits, tree root pits, to the kind of small pod foundations that were supporting bike racks, lampposts, street lighting, bus stops, everything had to be reviewed against those services to make sure that they weren't clashing. And we had quite an interesting threading of needles in that scope.
And then the last piece of the infrastructure was the bridge itself, how that coordinated with the rail that ran beneath it. And that, because of the complexities of that the rail, this bridge, this footbridge, had to be installed much earlier in the project, so back in 2020. And then the surface has been recently placed, which we can show in a bit more detail here. So that's how it's now pretty close to how it's looking today.
And really, this was about the interfacing of different packages and enabling communication across contractors. So that was only possible because of the enormous effort that the contractors put into the modeling. And the amount of issues that we picked up in a digital environment that didn't make it through into fabrication was, again, it was massive. And that's really where the return value and value investment came from. And part of the review process that we're doing is trying to pull together some of those traditional deliverables, such as 2D drawings. And this is an example of as-built information for the substructure package.
And reviewing that against the 3D geometry to make sure they align because we want to make sure that what's handed over to the client at the end of the day is accurate, that the drawings connect to the 3D models that they have commissioned. And then the last piece was piecing together some of the facade work. So from curtain walling panels, to the concrete panels themselves, which is how this is starting to look, to how that has materialized on site, which is something a little like this. So again, we're quite proud of how close the model development aligned to what's actually happening on site.
And this, just to finish up, these are some of the images which we're taking quite recently on how the building has come to fruition. So this is planned to be completed in total early in 2024. And we're really excited about this being opened up to the public. Huge number of stakeholders involved in this project.
And it's-- yeah, it's been a pleasure to be part of it. And to finish on a slide that I used early on in the project, and again, the lessons learned from eight years of driving this strategy into the project, from the good days and some very, very bad days, it all came down to people at the end of the day, the communication between the different stakeholders. Respect between the teams, to be honest, was a huge part.
The recent incredibly innovative technologies been used here, it was keep it simple, allow it to scale up as it needs to, keep it lean, which was really important. And make sure that everybody is involved along the way so that they understand the process that we went through. Thank you very much.
MIKE BARTYZEL: Thank you very much.
Downloads
Étiquettes
Produit | |
Secteurs d'activité | |
Thèmes |