Original Build form on the left
Recommended building form on the right
New Evaluator #1: Directness to two different buildings (one building being more attractive to look at than the other)
I created a metric that increased depending on the directness of the views to two different buildings in the area. This is to simulate attractive views offered by two different building in the city while one of the buildings is more attractive than the other.
In the above picture I created the vectors for the two buildings I uploaded into the Revit environment
In the picture above you can see that I scaled the dot products differently for each of the two buildings before adding them together to get the final metric. This is meant to simulate one building view being slightly more attractive than another.
New Evaluator #2: Value of building over Cost
For my second evaluator I worked off of our class example involving higher value of building levels as you go higher up in the building. To add some more depth to this evaluator I decided to include both the benefits of higher levels as well as the additional costs from either being hard to access or more dangerous construction. I did this by scaling both value and costs up as you go higher up the building. Then I subtracted the costs from the value to get my no evaluator metric.
This picture above shows the creation of inputs and the lists form both value and costs
This image shows the node where I subtracted costs from value to end up with my new metric.
Summary Table and Optimization scheme
I used the ranking approach for my optimization scheme. I first gave each building alternative a ranking for each of the evaluators that I tested for. I then ranked each evaluator based on what I believed to be most important for the project. I determined costs and value creation should be ranked the highest. Both of my new metrics were listed towards the top for this reason. Floor Area was also very important given rents and tenant spaces being linked to this metric.
After computing the rankings, I multiplied the rank of the alternative by the rank of the evaluator for all of the evaluators listed. I then added up the total weighted average for each alternative. As seen in the table above the best alternative has a base width of 350 with a middle radius of 70.
My recommended building form is the best because it scores very highly in every major evaluator compared to its peers. This alternative separates itself as number one by being the best overall when it comes to value and costs which I believe are the key drivers of the project.