For this assignment, we were asked to compare 10 different alternatives of buildings. My particular building begins with the profile of a 4 pointed star, and tapers upward to form a smaller star. It also has a top rotation, which I initially set to be 80 degrees. My tower can be seen below:
The initial properties of this tower can be seen in the Revit table below:
I began by first varying the height of the building, from 660 to 750ft to find the best alternative in terms of height. It turned out that my best alternative was this building with a height of 670ft, based mainly off of the EUI energy analysis measures. This building also had the second lowest net revenue compared to the rest of the buildings, however it was still the best alternative because the cost does not incorporate how the larger floor area affects the price. 670ft was only a bit more expensive because of the larger area, therefore allowing 670ft to still come out on top.
The next best alternatives based on height were the 750ft, and 730ft, in that order. The data can be seen in the table below:
After testing the heights, I decided to go ahead and test rotation based on my best case of 670ft. I tested rotations from 50 to 100 degrees. From this analysis, I discovered that the best rotation at 670ft was at 65 degrees. My next alternatives were at 80 and 70 degrees, in that order. A table showing the values used for my analysis can be seen in the table below:
It's interesting because the 670ft 65 degree rotation building is one of the most expensive buildings, however the EUI is the lowest. However, I think the discrepancies arise from the difference in floor areas, but overall if all floor areas were normalized, this building would be the ultimate winner. I therefore choose it as my best alternative.