search results

Unitized CW Facade Engineering for Large-Scale Hospital Project image courtesy: NKY & Popaesu Hospital facades are judged long before anyone discusses aesthetics. The real test comes when a ward remains quiet beside a major road, patient rooms stay comfortable under harsh solar gain, maintenance access does not disrupt clinical operations, and the envelope continues to perform under strict fire, hygiene and durability demands. That is why choosing the best facade systems for hospitals is less about product preference and more about matching risk, performance and constructability to the clinical brief. In healthcare projects, facade decisions affect patient recovery, staff efficiency, operational continuity and whole-life cost. A system that performs well on a commercial office may be the wrong answer for an acute care block, imaging suite or specialist treatment wing. Hospitals are not one building type in practice. They are a collection of spaces with different thermal, acoustic, privacy, infection-control and access requirements, all wrapped within one envelope strategy. What makes hospital facades different Hospitals operate continuously. Unlike commercial buildings, shutdowns for remedial works are difficult, expensive and sometimes impossible. That changes the tolerance for facade failure. Water ingress, thermal bridging, poor airtightness or difficult replacement access are not minor defects when the building supports theatres, isolation rooms, intensive care units and diagnostic equipment. The facade also sits at the junction of competing priorities. Architects may seek daylight and a calm external expression. Clinical planners may prioritise privacy, glare control and controlled ventilation. Developers and operators will look closely at capital cost, maintenance cycles and programme certainty. The right solution is usually one that resolves these demands with the fewest technical compromises. For that reason, the best performing hospital facades are rarely selected on appearance alone. They are developed through early engineering input, mock-up validation, interface coordination and clear performance criteria for air, water, structure, acoustics, fire and cleaning access. Best facade systems for hospitals by performance need There is no single universal system, but several facade types consistently suit hospital use when properly detailed. Unitised curtain wall systems For large acute hospitals and major clinical campuses, unitised curtain wall systems are often one of the strongest options. Their main advantage is quality control. Panels are manufactured in factory conditions, which improves dimensional consistency, gasket installation and assembly quality compared with more site-dependent systems. On programmes where speed and repeatability matter, that is a major benefit. Unitised systems also support complex sequencing. Installation can progress floor by floor with reduced external scaffolding and less wet trade dependency. For hospitals, this can shorten enclosure time and protect interior fit-out earlier. That said, unitised curtain wall is not automatically the best answer everywhere. It requires disciplined interface design, particularly at slab edges, fire stopping zones, movement joints and interfaces with cladding, roofing and louvre systems. It also needs careful consideration of replacement strategy, especially where occupied areas below limit access. In hospital settings, the value of unitisation is highest where the design team has strong facade coordination from early stages. Stick curtain wall systems Stick systems can still be appropriate for smaller hospital buildings, lower-rise healthcare facilities or facades with irregular geometry where unit sizes and lifting logistics become inefficient. They offer greater flexibility on site and may present a lower initial cost. The trade-off is quality risk and programme sensitivity. More assembly happens on site, which increases dependence on workmanship, weather conditions and supervision. In a hospital project, those variables deserve scrutiny. If a stick system is selected, inspection and testing regimes should be correspondingly tighter. Rainscreen facade systems Rainscreen systems are particularly effective for opaque hospital elevations, back-of-house zones and facades where durability and maintainability take priority over transparency. High-pressure laminate, fibre cement, terracotta, porcelain and solid aluminium panels each have roles, depending on exposure, cleaning regime and architectural requirements. A well-designed ventilated rainscreen provides strong moisture management, helps protect the structure and insulation layer, and allows a controlled external finish strategy. For hospitals in hot climates such as the Gulf region, the combination of insulation continuity, cavity design and solar-resistant outer skin can support energy performance and envelope longevity. Material choice matters. Some panel finishes age better under repeated cleaning and UV exposure than others. Some systems simplify panel replacement more effectively after impact damage. For healthcare operators, those practical questions often matter more than marginal savings at tender stage. Window wall and punched window systems For ward blocks and accommodation-style healthcare buildings, punched window systems within insulated wall construction can be highly effective. They simplify privacy control, improve the balance between solid and glazed areas, and often deliver better thermal performance than fully glazed elevations. This approach is particularly useful where patient comfort and low glare are central. It also allows more targeted acoustic specification at room level. However, design teams need to manage condensation risk, interface detailing and visual consistency carefully. Poorly resolved punched opening details can introduce avoidable thermal bridges and maintenance complications. Performance criteria that should drive selection Acoustics and patient recovery Acoustic performance is often underestimated during facade concept design. Hospitals near roads, airports or dense urban districts need facade assemblies that can deliver stable internal acoustic conditions, especially in wards, recovery spaces and consultation rooms. This is not only about glass thickness. Frame design, seal continuity, spandrel construction, vent selection and interface detailing all affect the result. A facade with impressive thermal metrics but weak acoustic control is not a strong hospital solution. The specification has to be based on the actual noise environment and room use. Solar control and daylight Natural light supports patient wellbeing, but excessive solar gain creates discomfort, cooling load and glare. The best facade systems for hospitals strike a controlled balance. That often means combining glazing performance, external shading, fritting, deep reveals or reduced glazing ratios depending on orientation and clinical use. Highly glazed facades can look refined in visualisations, yet they may be inefficient for patient rooms in hot climates. By contrast, a more disciplined façade composition with optimised window areas often performs better over the life of the building. Fire safety and compartmentation Hospitals require rigorous facade fire strategy, particularly where the building includes multiple occupancy types, evacuation challenges and critical care functions. Combustibility, cavity barriers, slab-edge fire stopping and interface continuity all require precise design and verification. This is where system selection cannot be separated from detailing. A compliant panel material alone does not create a safe facade. The built assembly and all transitions must perform as intended. Hygiene, cleaning and access Hospital envelopes need regular cleaning and predictable maintenance. That includes glazing, solid panels, seals, louvres and interfaces around air intake and exhaust zones. Facade access strategy should be integrated early, not added after the elevation is fixed. Some systems are easier to maintain without disrupting hospital operations. Others create long-term access difficulty, especially over podiums, plant zones and landscaped setbacks. A technically strong facade that cannot be safely accessed is not complete. The best facade systems for hospitals are usually hybrid Most successful hospital envelopes combine systems rather than relying on one facade type throughout. A project may use unitised curtain wall for entrance atria and outpatient blocks, rainscreen cladding for inpatient towers, louvred screen systems for plant areas, and punched windows for wards. That is often the right approach because building functions vary significantly across the campus. The discipline lies in making those systems work together. Interfaces must be buildable, tolerances realistic and appearance consistent enough to support the architectural intent. This is where specialist facade consultancy adds measurable value - not only in selecting systems, but in resolving the 1:1 details that determine whether the design performs on site. On complex healthcare projects, that coordination also reduces downstream risk. It supports contractor pricing, mock-up approval, manufacturing review and installation quality control. Facade Design Manager approaches these packages as a delivery problem as much as a design problem, which is the correct lens for hospital work. How to decide what is right for your hospital project The starting point should be the clinical brief, not the preferred facade product. Define the environmental targets, room-by-room performance requirements, fire strategy, cleaning method and maintenance philosophy first. Then test system options against programme, procurement route and local supply chain capability. In markets such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, solar load, dust exposure and maintenance access often become major drivers. In denser urban conditions, acoustic control and replacement logistics may carry more weight. In all cases, early facade engineering helps avoid a common mistake: selecting a visually attractive system that becomes technically expensive once compliance and operation are properly addressed. The strongest hospital facade is the one that stays predictable. It protects internal conditions, supports recovery environments, accommodates maintenance safely and can be delivered without late redesign. That standard is achieved through informed system selection, disciplined detailing and verification at every stage. If a hospital facade decision feels complicated, that is because it is. The right response is not simplification for its own sake, but a facade strategy that is precise enough to protect the building long after handover.

Roof Clash Coordination Extract from Airport Terminal Roof BIM Model Complex roofs fail in familiar ways. Geometry is simplified too early, drainage is treated as an afterthought, plant zones expand late, and interfaces with the facade become somebody else’s problem. The best roof BIM workflows prevent those failures before they reach site. For architects, developers, contractors and envelope teams, the value is not software output alone. It is clearer coordination, fewer assumptions and better control of performance-critical details. Roofs sit at the intersection of structure, waterproofing, drainage, MEP, access, fire strategy and edge conditions. On large terminals, hotels, hospitals and commercial developments, that intersection is where programme risk accumulates. A useful workflow therefore has to do more than produce a model. It must protect design intent while making the package buildable, measurable and verifiable. What the best roof BIM workflows actually solve A strong roof workflow solves three recurring project problems. First, it manages geometry properly, especially where roofs are folded, curved, stepped or combined with screened plant zones and complex parapets. Second, it controls interfaces - roof to facade, roof to skylight, roof to louvre, roof to access system. Third, it turns performance requirements into modelled decisions rather than notes buried in separate documents. That last point matters. A roof may look coordinated in plan while still failing under rainwater loading, maintenance access, thermal movement or fire stopping continuity. BIM only adds value when the model reflects how the roof is intended to perform and how it will actually be assembled. 1. Start with a roof zoning model, not a finished roof model The most reliable projects do not begin by modelling every layer in detail. They begin by zoning the roof according to function. Main weathering areas, plant decks, maintenance routes, smoke exhaust zones, rooflights, solar areas, edge protection and drainage falls should be separated early. That simple move creates a coordination structure before detail begins. This is especially useful on mixed-use or large-footprint projects where one roof accommodates several technical agendas. A hospital roof, for example, may contain highly controlled plant access zones, screened equipment, smoke control provisions and sensitive waterproofing transitions. If all of that is introduced into one generic roof element, coordination becomes slow and error-prone. If it is zoned from the outset, each area can carry the right level of geometry, clearance logic and approval sequence. The trade-off is that early zoning can feel abstract to teams who want a visually complete model. In practice, disciplined abstraction saves time. It gives the team something better than premature detail - it gives them control. 2. Build falls and drainage logic into the model early Many roof models still show drainage as symbols and annotations until late stages. That approach is risky. Falls, sumps, outlets, overflow provisions and upstand heights should be embedded into the roof workflow as soon as the structural and architectural strategy is stable enough. This does not mean overmodelling every taper from day one. It means establishing the drainage logic clearly and testing whether the roof geometry supports it. Flat roofs are rarely flat in delivery terms, and complex roofs often hide local low points where services, kerbs or edge build-ups interrupt falls. A BIM workflow should make these issues visible before procurement. For projects in intense rainfall regions such as Singapore or parts of the Gulf, this becomes more than a coordination exercise. Drainage resilience affects operational continuity and defect risk. Early modelling of primary and overflow drainage routes allows the team to review not just quantity of outlets, but whether the roof can be maintained safely and whether local detailing supports waterproofing integrity. 3. Model interfaces as assemblies, not lines on responsibility charts Some of the most expensive roof failures occur at boundaries. Parapets, perimeter gutters, expansion joints, rooflights, canopies, louvre screens and facade head conditions are all interface conditions first and ownership questions second. If the BIM workflow treats them as package edges, the model may look tidy while the built result remains unresolved. The better method is to model these locations as assemblies with defined control points. That means capturing support, waterproofing continuity, insulation continuity, movement allowance, fire stopping and tolerances in one coordinated condition. It also means agreeing who authors what, and when, without allowing authoring boundaries to fragment technical intent. For facade-led projects, the roof edge is particularly sensitive. A parapet is not only an architectural finish. It is also a water management detail, a thermal bridge risk, a movement interface and often a maintenance safety boundary. Treating it as an assembly gives teams a realistic basis for coordination reviews and mock-up planning. 4. Set level of information by decision stage, not by generic BIM matrix Generic modelling standards can be useful, but roofs often need a more deliberate approach. The information required at concept stage is not the same as the information needed for contractor coordination or fabrication support. The best roof BIM workflows define level of information according to the decisions being made. At early design stage, the model should answer whether the roof form works structurally, drains properly, accommodates plant and respects access and fire constraints. At developed design stage, it should support package coordination, upstand strategy, typical build-ups and key interfaces. At technical design and construction stage, it should enable setting out, tolerance checks, sequencing reviews and inspection planning. This sounds obvious, yet many teams still either under-model critical decisions or over-model too early. Both create inefficiency. A disciplined workflow avoids detail for its own sake while refusing to leave performance-critical items vague. 5. Integrate roof access and maintenance from the start A roof that performs on paper but cannot be safely inspected or maintained is not fully resolved. Access systems, walkways, mansafe provisions, guardrails, ladder zones and plant service clearances need to be part of the BIM workflow from the beginning, especially on healthcare, hospitality and transport projects where operational continuity matters. This is where roof BIM often becomes too design-centric. Teams focus on geometry and clashes but miss maintenance logic. Can the operative reach the outlet safely? Is there enough working space around plant without damaging the waterproofing? Do the access routes conflict with solar arrays, smoke vents or facade maintenance equipment? These are not secondary questions. They affect liability, whole-life cost and the speed at which defects can be diagnosed and corrected. Facade Design Manager often sees the same principle on envelope packages more broadly: if access is not coordinated as part of the design, it returns later as cost, delay or compromised safety. 6. Use clash detection carefully - geometry clashes are only part of the picture Clash detection is useful, but it is not a workflow on its own. On roofs, the more significant problems are often rule-based rather than geometric. A service may clear a rooflight structurally yet still block maintenance access. A gutter may fit physically yet fall below required upstand logic. A screen may align visually while creating unacceptable wind-driven rain exposure at a louvre interface. The strongest BIM teams therefore combine clash reviews with rule checks and targeted technical reviews. They ask whether clearances are adequate, whether waterproofing continuity survives support penetrations, whether sequencing assumptions are realistic and whether temporary works or installation tolerances have been considered. This is where experience matters. Software identifies collisions. Technical judgement identifies failure paths. 7. Carry the workflow through to inspection and as-built verification A roof BIM workflow should not stop at coordinated design. It should support inspection planning, hold points and as-built verification. That means using the model to identify critical details for pre-installation review, mock-up sign-off, inspection checklists and final record capture. On complex projects, this is often the difference between a coordinated package and a controlled delivery process. If the model clearly identifies waterproofing transitions, movement joints, edge details and high-risk penetrations, site teams can inspect against a defined technical intent rather than relying on fragmented drawings and informal memory. There is a practical balance to strike here. Not every project needs a highly elaborate field verification workflow. But where the roof geometry is complex, where interfaces are numerous, or where maintenance and weather performance are critical, extending BIM into inspection adds real value. Choosing the right roof BIM workflow for project type Not every roof needs the same workflow intensity. A simple repetitive residential roof can often operate with lighter modelling, provided drainage, edge conditions and penetrations are still properly controlled. A major airport, hospital or mixed-use podium roof is different. The coordination burden is heavier, interfaces are denser and future access requirements are less forgiving. That is why the best roof BIM workflows are not the most elaborate ones. They are the ones matched to risk. If the roof is architecturally expressive but technically simple, geometry management may drive the workflow. If the form is straightforward but loaded with plant, maintenance and drainage constraints, performance coordination should lead. If the roof meets a sensitive facade edge, interface modelling becomes the critical path. The useful question is not whether the team has produced a detailed roof model. It is whether the workflow has reduced uncertainty in the places where roofs usually fail. The roof is rarely an isolated package. It is a performance surface, an access zone, a plant platform and a facade interface all at once. The right BIM workflow recognises that early, holds the line on coordination discipline, and keeps technical intent visible all the way to site verification.

A curtain wall can look resolved in a planning set and still fail a project at tender, procurement or installation. That gap between visual intent and buildable reality is where curtain wall engineering earns its value. On complex buildings, it is not a drafting exercise. It is the disciplined process that turns an architectural concept into a facade system that can be manufactured, tested, installed and maintained without compromising performance. For architects, developers and contractors, the real question is not whether a glazed envelope can be designed. It is whether it can be delivered with predictable structural behaviour, weather performance, thermal control, fire strategy compliance and installation quality. The earlier that question is addressed, the fewer surprises appear later in the programme. What curtain wall engineering actually covers Curtain wall engineering sits at the intersection of architecture, structural design, building physics, fabrication and site delivery. It defines how the facade resists wind and imposed loads, manages movement, sheds water, limits air leakage, controls solar gain, supports acoustic targets and interfaces with the primary structure. That scope is broader than many teams first assume. A facade detail is not complete because it looks coherent at 1:20. It needs to work at 1:5 and often at 1:1, where tolerances, gaskets, brackets, anchors, drainage paths, thermal breaks, fire stopping and access requirements become critical. In practice, the success of a curtain wall system depends less on the headline geometry and more on how these small conditions are resolved consistently across the building. This is also why facade packages can become high-risk procurement items. The visual language may be fixed early, while the engineering logic remains underdeveloped. If that imbalance continues into contractor pricing, teams face redesign, delayed approvals, budget pressure and compromised specifications. Why curtain wall engineering matters early Early engineering input does not reduce design ambition. It protects it. When facade logic is tested at concept and scheme stage, project teams can understand what a proposed module, joint rhythm or feature condition will demand in terms of span, dead load support, movement capacity and manufacturability. That matters particularly on airports, hospitals, hospitality projects and tall residential towers, where facade performance is tied directly to occupant comfort, operational continuity and asset value. A system that underperforms on air tightness, acoustic separation or thermal bridging may still appear acceptable in drawings, yet create long-term operational cost and remediation exposure. There is also a commercial reason to engage early. Well-developed curtain wall engineering improves tender clarity. Contractors price with fewer assumptions. Specialist suppliers spend less time qualifying unknowns. Interfaces with structure, waterproofing and interior finishes are defined before they become site disputes. The result is not simply a better detail. It is a more controllable project. The main performance demands on a curtain wall Every project has its own priorities, but curtain wall engineering usually balances the same core performance demands. Structural adequacy is the obvious one. Mullions, transoms, brackets and anchors must resist wind pressure, suction, dead load and maintenance loads while remaining within acceptable deflection limits for glass and finishes. Weather protection is equally decisive. Water penetration rarely comes from one dramatic failure. More often, it results from a chain of modest weaknesses: poor pressure equalisation, interrupted drainage, badly coordinated seal lines or interfaces that assume unrealistic site tolerances. Good engineering anticipates those cumulative risks. Thermal and energy performance are now central rather than secondary. U-values, condensation control and solar performance affect compliance, comfort and plant loads. The engineering response may include thermal break strategy, glazing composition, spandrel build-up and interface insulation. However, one improvement can create pressure elsewhere. Higher thermal performance may increase profile depth, alter sightlines or affect cost. That is why facade decisions need to be tested as a system rather than as isolated upgrades. Acoustics, fire and maintenance also shape the design. A facade beside a transport corridor may require stronger acoustic laminated glass and tighter perimeter sealing. A high-rise may demand careful consideration of slab edge conditions, cavity barriers and fire stopping continuity. A premium commercial building may place strong emphasis on access and replacement strategy, particularly where large-format glass or bespoke panels are involved. Where projects usually go wrong Most curtain wall problems do not begin with fabrication. They begin with assumptions left unresolved too long. One common issue is designing around nominal dimensions while ignoring tolerance stack-up. Structural frame variation, edge beam irregularity and slab line deviation all affect bracket zones and facade alignment. If those realities are not considered in the engineering stage, site adjustment becomes excessive and quality becomes inconsistent. Another recurring problem is poor interface definition. Curtain walls do not operate in isolation. They meet roofs, parapets, balustrades, soffits, smoke lobbies, movement joints and cladding zones. If responsibility for these interfaces is blurred, water management and fire continuity are often the first casualties. There is also the matter of specification drift. Teams may begin with a high-performance facade concept, then gradually substitute components to meet programme or budget pressure. Without proper engineering review, that drift can weaken the whole assembly. A cheaper gasket, a revised anchor arrangement or a thinner thermal separator can alter performance more than expected. Curtain wall engineering and constructability Constructability is not an add-on to engineering. It is part of engineering. A facade may satisfy calculations and still be difficult to fabricate or install reliably. Repetition, unit weight, handling constraints, erection sequence and access all influence whether a system will perform consistently on site. Unitised systems, for example, can offer speed and factory quality benefits, but only when transport limits, slab edge tolerances, lifting methods and inter-panel joints are resolved properly. Stick systems may provide more flexibility on some projects, yet they can increase site labour, weather exposure and quality variability. The right answer depends on building scale, geometry, local supply chain capability and programme. In the Gulf region, where climate exposure, fast-track delivery and demanding visual standards often coincide, these decisions require particularly careful coordination. The same facade concept may need a different engineering pathway in Singapore or Saudi Arabia because labour models, logistics and compliance frameworks differ. The role of testing, review and verification Curtain wall engineering does not end when drawings are issued. Performance has to be verified. Mock-ups and laboratory testing remain one of the clearest ways to validate weather performance, movement capacity and interface logic before full production. They are especially valuable where a project includes bespoke geometries, complex transitions or high exposure conditions. Testing does not remove all risk, but it reveals weaknesses when they are still manageable. Design reviews during fabrication are just as important. Shop drawings, structural calculations, material submittals and sample inspections should confirm that the supplied system still aligns with the design intent and performance criteria. This stage is where many projects either maintain discipline or begin to lose it. Site inspection completes the chain. Even a well-engineered system can underperform if anchors are misplaced, membranes are damaged, sealant preparation is poor or fire-stopping is interrupted. Quality assurance on site is therefore not separate from engineering. It is the field confirmation that the engineered logic has been carried through into the built work. What clients should expect from a specialist facade partner Clients on complex projects should expect more than isolated calculations or generic details. Effective support means translating architectural intent into coordinated facade packages, identifying risks early, developing manufacturable details, reviewing specialist proposals and verifying site execution against the agreed performance standard. This is where a specialist consultancy adds measurable value. The role is not to duplicate the work of the architect, contractor or supplier. It is to connect those parties through a technically coherent facade strategy and to challenge assumptions before they become cost, delay or defect. Facade Design Manager approaches this work as a delivery discipline, not simply a design service. The strongest curtain wall engineering is often invisible once the building is complete. Occupants notice comfort rather than condensation, quiet rather than traffic noise, clarity rather than distortion and reliability rather than remedial works. Project teams notice something else: fewer disputes, cleaner coordination and greater confidence that the facade will perform as promised. For decision-makers, that is the real standard. A curtain wall should not only look right on completion day. It should remain technically defensible, maintainable and fit for purpose long after handover. When engineering leads that outcome from the start, the facade becomes far easier to deliver with confidence.

Discover the ultimate solution for streamlined facade design and engineering services at Facade Design Manager. Elevate your architectural projects with intuitive tools and seamless collaboration. Explore now! facade detailed design OUR EXPERTISE facade design and engineering consultancy infinite scale, finest details... Our specialized façade consultancy has leveraged 20 years of architectural facades experience to design and deliver complex building envelopes for mega airports and iconic buildings which are globally recognized structures. Achieve façade excellence — reliably, efficiently, and on time. SEE REFERENCE PROJECTS FACADE DESIGN & BIM We evolve the architect’s idea into 1/1 facade details — ensuring design and performance are achieved together. READ MORE FACADE ENGINEERING We set the standards, coordinate the performance, and witness the results — ensuring every facade delivers the comfort and quality promised. READ MORE FACADE INSPECTION We safeguard the full-scale construction quality of facades. By assessing existing envelopes and diagnosing performance failures, we provide targeted remediation strategies that secure future comfort. READ MORE FDHF Our facade design proficiency is validated through a diverse portfolio of high-performance buildings — from long-span airport terminal envelopes to climate-sensitive hospitality schemes, vertical residential structures, and sustainable hospitals and commercial offices. We deliver robust facade systems tailored to stringent environmental, acoustic, fire-safety, and structural criteria. Read More mega airport terminals RIXOS DUBAI ISLANDS Villas Residences Hotel PETRA SEA RESORT Pullman Living Residences DR DIMITRI GEROTA EMERGENCY HOSPITAL BUCHAREST ROMANIA REGIONAL EMERGENCY HOSPITAL CRAIOVA ROMANIA KUWAIT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT T2 Kuwait ISTANBUL AIRPORT T1 TURKIYE KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT T2 Bengalore INDIA BURSAGAZ HEADQUARTERS Bursa TURKIYE TAEGUTEC HEADQUARTERS Kocaeli TURKIYE Join our mailing list Email* Subscribe I want to subscribe to your mailing list. Enter Your Name Enter Your Email Enter Your Subject Enter Your Message SEND SEE YOU SOON!

consultancy services to architects and contractors through facade design services. Facade Design Managerhttps://static.wixstatic.com/media/ff9754_a64f7bb722b1441da559824beaf05b9a~mv2.pnghttps://static.wixstatic.com/media/ff9754_9987e7688c4d426bbe10148301bd01ed%7Emv2.jpg Page Not Found You can return to the homepage and try again. Go to Homepage

consultancy services to architects and contractors through facade design services. Facade Design Managerhttps://static.wixstatic.com/media/ff9754_a64f7bb722b1441da559824beaf05b9a~mv2.pnghttps://static.wixstatic.com/media/ff9754_9987e7688c4d426bbe10148301bd01ed%7Emv2.jpg Page Not Found You can return to the homepage and try again. Go to Homepage