As for Riot's post, all you have to do is create a new view type and then assign filters to your proposed drawings to remove all references to the demo drawings. The intended workflow is to create multiple view types and create filters.

For example: you have two view types, one called Building Section and one called Wall Section. In your overall plans, you would want to show both sections, but perhaps in your enlarged plans you only want to see wall sections. In that case, you assign a filter to your overall plans to not show the Building Section.

More specifically, you can create demolition view types and simply filter them out your proposed work views.

I would advocate for what Luke proposed. I too used to create a third demolition phase, and the great majority of people I know do it because on the surface it seems like the thing to do. However, as many have already pointed out, the software was not intended to work with this way. I began changing this workflow at a previous firm, pointing out the redundancy in creating a separate phase, a separate set of room boundary lines, etc., You also have the graphical issues to work with, particularly with openings/voids/infills across phases. The phasing filters only work one phase backward, and now you have an intermediary phase that can create problems.

The most Revit-friendly way that I have found to work with this issue is to simply have two phases (assuming there aren't multiple phases that the drawings need to be broken up into): Existing and New Construction. Simply duplicate a view from the Existing phase that only shows Rooms and Room Tags, and then overlay that view over your other view which is in the New Construction phase set to Show Previous + Demo with Rooms turned off. This way, if your rooms for whatever reason change in the Existing phase (say the record drawings you got were wrong and you update the plans after doing some field verification, which is often the case), your demolition drawings are updated automatically.

I've also seen people use dummy tags, but this loses the automation that Revit could provide.

One setback to this is that if you have a separate set of views for exporting purposes (i.e., CAD backgrounds for consultants), you will have two x-refs for the demolition drawings: the plan view and the room tag view. Just give them a heads up, and you should be okay.

Kind of a bummer situation, but this has proven for me to be the best way to show existing room names in the demolition drawings.

Amen, Marc!

My man Taff, having been the originator of many a family myself, along with the associated shared parameters, custom tags, view templates, and coordinated keynote file, there is incredibly power in having a series of coordinated 3D families/views/detail items in your project. An incredible amount of money can either be made or lost depending on how families are used in projects. There is the "under-the-hood" Revit mechanics in that there are time savings in the creation of the details and annotating them, and there is how the drawings actually look when plotted, with consistency in annotations and graphical appearance. One of the greatest delights is receiving a model from a competing firm and seeing how they set up their models. I look at both the 2D content and the 3D geometry. Our workflows have improved as a result, and seeing others' models has also empowered us, knowing we're ahead of our competition. To answer your question, it is extremely likely--I have seen it done all too often.