What does this studio actually demonstrate?
One parametric model carrying a build-to-sell apartment scheme, chapter by chapter. The massing engine fits the chosen built form inside the planning envelope, then the typical level is packed for real: sized cores, corridors, homes, rooms, balconies and aspect, with the brief mix reconciled onto the slots that actually fit rather than assumed. One structural grid is solved across that plate, the blades and the transfer deck it implies are priced into the cost plan, and the parking brief is packed into real bays in the basement tank below. Eighteen Apartment Design Guidelines checks measure that drawn geometry directly, a sustainability pass rates NatHERS and BESS-style performance from orientation and form, and the feasibility chapter prices every home on its own aspect and level to close the loop on margin on cost. Change the built form in chapter two and the margin in chapter seven moves.
Which rules is the design checked against?
An indicative distillation of the Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria: building depth, unit and room minima, dual aspect share, balcony area and dimensions, homes per core, corridor run, communal open space, deep soil, site coverage, services, parking and entry activation, among others. Every check reports what was measured against what the guideline requires, so a warning is traceable to a clause. Client deployments encode the full standards plus the site's specific planning controls.
What does the structure and parking chapter add to the feasibility?
A cost line the massing cannot see. The engine solves one grid across the typical plate, sets it out to catch as many party walls between homes as it can and publishes the share it actually caught, then places blades and shear walls sized from the floors above and rings every column that lands in habitable space. Ask the ground plane for a clear span and the verticals that no longer run to ground become a transfer deck: the studio measures its area, names the walls that caused it with their offsets and tributary loads, and prices it in dollars and working days that land in the cost plan and the programme rather than in a footnote. Below that, the basement tank is packed with real 2.4 by 5.4 m bays, 6.0 m drive aisles, a ramp and hatched core exclusions, and the count reported is the count drawn: where it falls short of the parking control, the shortfall is stated on the drawing and in the board pack. At the shipped default the ground plane runs straight to footings, so the transfer is zero and the structure premium is zero, and the studio says exactly that rather than inventing a number.
How does goal seek reach a target, and what stays fixed?
It searches the movable design variables, built form, levels, mix weights, ground use, the structural module, the ground clear span, the basement count and the sustainability settings, for the closest scheme that clears a stated target: a margin on cost, a homes count with margin held, a zero-fail ADG register, a premium market pivot, a transfer-free ground plane under a column-free leasing brief, or every parking space the planning control asks for. The site and its planning controls hold throughout, and every run reports what changed and the achieved result against the target. The Hey GIRIH wizard can launch the same presets conversationally.
Is this meant to replace a developer's design and feasibility team?
No, it is an educational demonstration of GIRIH X technology. Its value is speed at feasibility: test dozens of massing, mix and performance options in minutes with a live compliance and margin readout, then take the shortlist and its board pack into design development with your architects, planners and quantity surveyors.