Your Design Journal entries for this module should highlight:
- the design alternatives that you modeled and tested
- the results of the analyses and how they influenced your thinking about how to move forward
Use text , images, web links, movies... Whatever media works best to express your ideas!
Images of Your 3 Design Proposals
Paste screenshots of your 3 proposed building forms here...
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2:
Proposal 3:
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Paste at least 2 screenshots showing the side-by-side comparisons of the analysis results for your 3 proposed building forms here…
Sun Hours:
Daylight Potential:
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Create a few paragraphs outlining a brief explanation of why you chose this design option as the “best” after comparing your analyses of the proposals. Explain your reasoning and the tradeoffs that influenced your decision about which design option to move forward with.
By comparing the analyses results for the 3 proposals under the categories of “Sun hours” and “Daylight potential”, proposal 2 is chosen the be the “best” design alternative. Due to the geographic nature of the project location, Copenhagen, which is located in the upper northern hemisphere with relatively chilling climates, it is in the best interest in terms of energy efficiency to make the best use of solar energy to reduce the heating bills during the colder days, which contributes to one of the sustainability goals for this project. For this reason, proposal 1 is out of the contest since it has the lowest average sun-hours and daylight potentials among the 3 alternatives. Although the unique feature of the building does enlighten the exhibition center to some degree, it is not the most viable choice to satisfy all the considering criteria for this project.
When comparing between alternatives 2 & 3, it is worth mentioning that they share some similarities when it comes to intentionally carved-out sections to receive sunlight during the day. As seen in the design illustrations, alt 2 has an intentionally sloped terrace facing the south to receive the maximum amount of sunlight during colder seasons, for which its functionality can also be similarly recognized in the “pac-man” shaped part of the building with its “mouth” to receive sunlight. Both design alternatives can provide balconies to encourage outdoor activities if visitors need to catch a breath outside. Although Alternative 3 allows for a slightly larger balcony area than Alternative 2, the rigid corners at the center of the terraces as well as the south-facing surfaces that are perpendicular to the ground, result in such a design not being able to make the best use of the sunlight exposure.