MasudaNaoyaYour 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 analysis
Daylight potential analysis
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.
Site Selection: Copenhagen, Denmark
I chose Copenhagen as the project site due to the following factors:
- Access to sustainable timber: Denmark has strong trade connections with Scandinavian countries, making locally sourced engineered wood (CLT, LVL) readily available, aligning with the project’s sustainability goals.
- Moderate high-rise demand: Unlike cities such as New York, where extreme vertical growth is necessary, Copenhagen presents a balanced urban scale, allowing for a mid-rise timber structure that integrates well with its surroundings.
- Commitment to carbon neutrality: Copenhagen’s target to become carbon neutral by 2025 supports the adoption of innovative, low-carbon timber architecture.
Sun Hours Analysis
To optimize solar exposure for passive heating and energy efficiency, multiple design proposals were evaluated. The final selection was based on the following key factors:
- Maximizing winter solar gain: Due to Copenhagen’s northern latitude, sun angles are lower in winter, making passive solar heating crucial. The chosen massing ensures that key facades receive direct sunlight during colder months, reducing the need for mechanical heating.
- Minimizing self-shading: A key issue in the initial proposals was excessive shading on lower floors, particularly in Proposal 1 (a courtyard-centered massing). Adjustments were made to open up solar access, especially for south-facing areas.
- Enhancing solar energy generation: The final massing allows for an optimal roof and facade orientation for photovoltaic panels, ensuring higher energy production potential.
Through this analysis, Proposal 3 was selected as it allows for maximum sun exposure while minimizing shading on critical zones.
Daylight Potential
Natural daylighting was analyzed to enhance indoor comfort, reduce artificial lighting needs, and improve overall energy performance. The selection process considered:
- Daylight penetration depth: The massing was evaluated to ensure sufficient daylight reaches deep into interior spaces, particularly in work and living areas.
- Glare and uniformity: Proposal 3 was found to balance daylight distribution effectively, reducing the risk of glare while maintaining a bright and open atmosphere.
- Indoor courtyard illumination: The selected massing improves light access to the central courtyard, ensuring better natural illumination throughout the day.
After detailed analysis, Proposal 3 was confirmed as the optimal choice for maximizing natural daylight access across all interior spaces while maintaining a balanced shading and glare control strategy.
Final Building Shape
After analyzing solar exposure and daylight potential, Proposal 3 was chosen as the optimal building shape. Its rotated L-shaped configuration effectively maximizes sunlight access while ensuring even daylight distribution across interior spaces. Compared to the enclosed courtyard form of Proposal 1, it reduces self-shading and enhances passive heating efficiency. Additionally, its open orientation improves natural ventilation, contributing to indoor comfort. The design also allows for better integration of photovoltaic panels and sustainable building systems. By balancing energy performance, spatial efficiency, and occupant well-being, Proposal 3 serves as the most effective solution for this timber-based development.