Continuing further on Module 5, I will further develop some alternatives for the one WTC but for San Francisco, CA
For more variation, we will flex 3 parameters - Top Flat Side Length 1, Top Flat Side Length 2 (both will have the same value for symmetry as it varies from 10 to 180 ft) and also Top Tower Rotation (from 30 deg to 150 deg)
This time, we will evaluate the cost of the alternatives in a more accurate manner. This will be divided by batches of levels:
For Levels 1-30: $400/SF
For Levels 31-70: $650/SF
For Levels 71-100: $750/SF
This is a more simpler and practical approach compared to having to linearly interpolate between the lowest and highest level.
For this, we will create a custom which lists of all the floor per SF costs for corresponding levels and appends the costs of the batch of levels together as <400,400,400… 650,650,650… 750,750,750..>
Then, this will be multiplied by the floor area massed by the custom nodes made in the 220C library. We will add this to the custom node that tests all the alternatives.
Next, we value the view directly towards the water and the Bay Bridge the most. So, we will calculate the directness of view of all alternatives towards the Bridge. Each panel will have a score from -1 to 1 and this summed up will give the alternative’s total score.
This follows per the 220C library, edited to reflect the scoring system as described above.
We will then place all the inputs and the reflected outputs of surface area, floor area, volume, cost and directness of view score into a list.
Finally, this list will be exported to Excel where further evaluation will take place. The custom node for all building evaluations is finalized.
This completes the work for 2 units. I will proceed to create a scoring system in Excel for simplicity. This does not follow the work required for 3/4 units, but it gives a conclusive answer to the preferred design alternatives.
Here is the Excel Output for Cost and View:
Now, we will provide a cost score and a view score.
Cost Score = Average Building Cost/Building Cost(Flat Side Length, Top Rotation)
So, a higher than average cost will have a score lower than 1. Lower than average cost will have a score greater than 1.
View Score = Total View(Flat Side Length, Top Rotation)/Average Total View
So, a higher than average view will have a score higher than 1. Lower than average view will have a score lower than 1.
We will say that the cost is twice as important as the view. So,
Weight Average Score = 2/3*Cost Score + 1/3*View Score
Here is the final score:
We will sort by Weighted Average:
The best 3 alternatives are:
1) Flat Side Length: 10ft, Top Rotation 120 deg (BEST)
2) Flat Side Length: 20ft, Top Rotation 120 deg
3) Flat Side Length: 10ft, Top Rotation 150 deg.
Here is a rendering of the best option:
