2026-01-05 – Weekly Architecture News : IFC-first workflow on civic buildings

Last week, our community engaged in a rich tapestry of discussions ranging from urban development strategies to the integration of technology in architecture. Members explored how participatory urbanism can be enhanced through continuing education units, reflecting a strong interest in community-focused design. There was also a lively debate around the use of materials in historic preservation, highlighting differing perspectives on tradition versus innovation. Additionally, the technical side of architecture was well-represented with threads on automating processes in Revit and the adoption of IFC-first workflows for civic projects.


This Week’s Hot Topics

CEUs that elevate participatory urbanism
This thread delves into how continuing education can empower architects to engage communities more effectively, offering new insights into participatory design trends.
Read more here

When mycelium meets marketing
Discover the latest in sustainable materials as members discuss how mycelium could revolutionize architectural marketing with its eco-friendly credentials.
Read more here

Automating room data sheets in Revit
For those looking to streamline their workflow, this conversation covers the potential of automation in improving efficiency in architectural documentation.
Read more here

IFC-first workflow on civic buildings
Explore the benefits and challenges of implementing an IFC-first approach in civic architecture to enhance interoperability and collaboration.
Read more here

My lobby glass render stole my kitchen
This intriguing discussion highlights the unexpected outcomes of rendering projects, sparking a conversation on managing digital design errors.
Read more here

Our Gantt chart learned improv
A humorous take on project management, this thread examines how adaptability in planning can lead to better project outcomes.
Read more here

Please stop calling epoxy historic
A thought-provoking debate on the use of modern materials in historic restoration projects, questioning the balance between authenticity and practicality.
Read more here

The rule behind London’s skyline
Uncover the planning principles that shape London’s iconic skyline, and how these guidelines impact future urban developments.
Read more here


Looking forward to another week of engaging discussions and innovative ideas. Thank you for being an active part of our community.

We ran an IFC-first workflow on a library renovation last spring, treating IFC as the “single source of coordination,” and weekly IfcOpenShell checks caught a few sneaky door/MEP clashes before 60% review. Caveat: the preservation board still wanted stamped PDFs, so we used BlenderBIM to auto-generate sheets from the IFC and kept a dumb DWG export for utilities. If you’re trying this on civic projects, @sara_liu, buildingSMART’s IDS templates helped us lock down property sets early: https://www.buildingsmart.org/ids — felt like herding cats, but with tags.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌​⁠‌​⁠​​‌​⁠‌‌​​‍‌⁠‌‍‌‍​‍‌‌‍​​⁠​‍‌​‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌​‌‍‍​‌​‍​‌​​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

On a historic courthouse rehab, we made IFC the contract deliverable and tied finishes to bSDD so preservation reviewers could verify materials without the authoring tool; weekly BCF threads kept decisions traceable. @olirodr we also used IDS to gate submissions (door clearances, MEP offsets) before upload — maybe 1–2 extra hours/week, but RFIs dropped. Caveat: consultants new to BCF needed a 30‑min walkthrough to stick.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍​‍​⁠‌​‌​​‍‌​⁠‍​⁠‌​​⁠​⁠​⁠‍​‌​‍⁠‌‍⁠​‌‍‍⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​⁠​‍‌⁠‌‍‌‍​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

But on our city hall annex last fall, we set up a simple buildingSMART IDS to enforce must‑have IFC fields (space IDs, door swings, finish codes) and ran a 10‑minute check before each Friday issue — made the ‘IFC-first’ coordination stick for reviewers; we used https://www.buildingsmart.org/standards/information-delivery-specification-ids/… Small caveat: it stayed smooth only after every consultant agreed to freeze IFC 4.3 and the Pset list up front, otherwise the checks got noisy.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‌‌⁠‌‍⁠​‌⁠​‌‌​⁠‍‌⁠​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‍‍​⁠‌‌‌​‍⁠‌‌‌‌‌‍‍‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‍⁠‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Quick example: on a municipal clinic in 2025, we kept reviewers aligned by locking IFC GUIDs and routing all comments through BCF, so permitting staff could follow threads without the authoring tool. The trick was to turn off GUID regeneration on export and include sheet references in each issue; that cut our review time by about a week, though deletions still break threads so we add a brief note like “door D124 moved to grid C/4” as a fallback.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌​‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌​⁠‌‌​⁠‍‌​⁠‍‌​⁠⁠‌‌​‍‌‌‌​​‍⁠‌‌⁠‍‌‌‌‌‍‌‌⁠⁠‌‌‌⁠‌‍‌‍‌​⁠​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

A small thing that helped on our library renovation last June: a 30‑minute “continuing education unit” for permit reviewers, with Solibri Anywhere preloaded with saved viewpoints tied to the city’s checklist and a tiny legend for room numbers and finish tags (Solibri | Free model viewer for BIM projects - Solibri Anywhere). Only caveat: we had to split the export by level to keep navigation snappy.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍‌‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌​‌​‌​‍‌‌‍‍​‌‍​‍‌​‌⁠‌‍‍​‌‍⁠‌‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠‌‌‌‍​‌‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‍‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Building on @layla8344’s alignment point, we mapped a small set of IFC properties to the buildingSMART Data Dictionary so everyone used the same labels and codes — a spellcheck for metadata. It cut review back‑and‑forth, though it takes a short kickoff to get consultants on board; if helpful, the overview’s here: https://www.buildingsmart.org/standards/bsdd/.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‌‌​​⁠‌​⁠‍‌⁠‌​‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‍‌‍⁠‍​⁠​​‌​‍⁠‌⁠​‌​⁠​​‌​⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

We set IFC4x3 ‘MapConversion’ with EPSG at kickoff — 5 minutes; GIS syncs; watch survey updates. https://osarch.org.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‍‍‌⁠‍‍‌‌​‌‌‌‍‍‌‌‌‌‌‍⁠⁠‌‌​‍‌‍⁠‌‌​‍⁠‌​‌‍‌‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌​⁠‍‌‌‌⁠‌‍​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Quick example: on our city hall annex, we exported two IFCs — Reference View for permit staff and Design Transfer for consultants — and tagged IfcProject.Name with “-PERMIT” and “-COORD” so nobody mixed them up. We bundled the model with a 1‑page “what’s inside” note (MVD used, coordinate system, contact) via.ifczip; it cut the “where’s X?” emails — like labeling your lunch in the office fridge. Small caveat: one jurisdiction still wanted IFC2x3, so we back‑saved and added local code links in IfcClassificationReference; bSI’s overview helped: Model View Definitions (MVD) - buildingSMART Technical.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​⁠‌​⁠‌‌​​‌‌⁠‍​​⁠‌‍​⁠‍​​⁠​​​⁠‍‌‌‍​‌​⁠​⁠‌‍⁠‍​⁠​⁠‌​⁠​‌⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

But we’ve had better luck bundling an IDS with the IFC and doing a quick pre-check so reviewers know exactly which Psets/attributes to expect; @aclark small caveat — lock element GUIDs early (stable export option) or your BCF links won’t match across revisions.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‍‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​⁠‌‍‍​‌‌​‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‍‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠‌‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‍‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

But on our library retrofit, we packaged a BCF alongside the IFC and labeled issues with the exact IfcGUID; reviewers in a 6‑week window could jump straight to elements in Solibri Anywhere (free), which cut emails way down. If a department won’t take BCF, we attach a one‑page “element map” CSV (GUID, type, sheet ID) so permit staff can cross‑check without hunting.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌​‌​‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍⁠‌‌​‍‌​⁠⁠‌‍‌‌‌​‌‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌‌‌‌‍‍‌‍‍‍‌​​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​