City Site Selection
Before creating building forms, I analyzed the conditions of each city site to determine where would be best to design the exhibition center. Ultimately, my analysis found that Sao Paolo is the best location.
Average Temperatures
Sao Paolo has the least variation in temperature throughout the year and never experiences very cold or freezing states. Since sustainable design practices often look to optimize over a range of cases, less variability allows for easier design because less cases have to be considered, especially when considering thermal comfort. Additionally, avoiding freezing temperatures is a plus because you don’t have to plan for snow loads and the interaction between the building and the natural environment can more easily be facilitated in terms of how tightly “sealed” the building is.
Rainfall and Humidity
While Sao Paolo does not have to deal with snow, it does receive plenty of rain. This provides a unique opportunity, however, to anticipate the design of an efficient and robust rainwater collection system. This rainwater can then be repurposed for irrigation, heat recovery systems, or water treatment. There should also be large collection tanks for rainwater storage.
The biggest challenge with choosing Sao Paolo is humidity as it experiences muggy conditions at the highest rate of all three cities. Knowing this, though, allows us to plan for it. Powerful dehumidifiers should be installed throughout the building to ensure that occupant comfort is maintained, particularly during the summer.
Daylight and Solar Energy
Just like how Sao Paolo experiences relatively steady temperatures, its daylight hours are least variable among the cities. In the spring and summer months, it does not receive as much daylight as New York and Copenhagen, but this is offset by its relative gains in fall and winter. Also keep in mind that less variability facilitates more feasible design.
Even though it is not the clear frontrunner for hours of daylight received, Sao Paolo receives the most solar energy. All three cities are similar in the summer season at about 6.5 kWh per day, but the drop-offs for New York an Copenhagen are precipitous during the fall and winter. While Sao Paolo does decrease as well, it is considerably less significant than the other two cities.
Using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s PVWatts calculator, we can clearly see that Sao Paolo has the best potential for harnessing solar energy. The following data inputs were standardized across the sites with the only differences being their physical coordinates
Running the calculations yielded the following results:
- Copenhagen: 863 kWh/year
- New York: 1,291 kWh/year
- Sao Paolo: 1,584 kWh/year
Sao Paolo is the clear best option among the three cities as a candidate for solar panels. For context, using the same inputs, Sao Paolo is only slightly behind Palo Alto’s 1,634 kWh/year
Images of Your 3 Design Proposals
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Daylight Potential Comparison between Proposal 3 (left) and Proposal 2 (right)
Solar Energy Comparison between Proposal 1 (left) and Proposal 2 (right)
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
I created my three proposals to mostly focus on how complexity of shape would impact each one. I view Proposal 1 as a baseline because of its simple rectangular form. Proposals 2 and 3 are more interesting in terms of their form, but I see Proposal 2 as being the more striking of the two.
As mentioned in previous posts, one of my main goals on the project is to balance sustainable design with architectural beauty, so I was hoping that Proposal 1 didn’t outperform the others in my analyses. Thankfully, this was not the case.
One of my main reasons for choosing Sao Paolo was due to its solar potential in comparison to New York and Copenhagen, so I was particularly interested in the differences in daylight potential and solar energy between building designs. Proposal 2 outperformed the others in terms of daylight potential and solar energy, making it the most sustainable option. Its form efficiently maximized natural light and solar exposure, especially due to its slanted roof.
Overall, Proposal 2 seems to be the best option due to its architectural appealing architectural form and optimal energy efficiency. However, I would still like to iterate through different forms moving forward through the project if time allows