To provide some context, the site is located in the Mission District of San Francisco, the heart of the city's Latino Community. Mission District is my favorite place to have fun, relax, and study on a nice weekend. From my experience walking around the neighborhood, there is so much energy and history, all of which could benefit from design interventions that balance dense housing growth with pedestrian safety, green infrastructure, and cultural preservation. Most buildings don’t exceed four or five stories. The site itself is L-shaped, surrounded by a mix of low-rise residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. I think the irregular shape allows for opportunities to explore how massing can adapt and add to the urban environment. Some issues that I’ve noticed in mixed-use buildings are that the buildings do not provide enough green space, fail in creating a community-centered environment, and overall present a very cookie-cutter design, not whimsical enough to be an enjoyable third space, office, or home to many people. My goal therefore was to explore three distinctly different massing strategies that would promote all of the charming qualities that most commercial buildings lack.

Proposal A’s shape mimics the site’s shape, taking the most ground area. This approach prioritizes efficient land use, continuous street access, and a semi-private outdoor space for residents. Its relatively simple geometry makes it easier to organize floor plans and circulation.

Proposal B is a much more experimental approach, using lofted, croissant-like buildings volumes to create a public covered plaza underneath and between the masses. This proposal creates openness and invites people to gather by lifting and separating parts of the building.

Proposal C explores curved and mirrored volumes stacking on top of each other. I wanted to try a more sculptural form that contrasts with the predominantly rectangular buildings in the neighborhood. This approach is unique, although neighbors may be unhappy about the weird shape.

The analysis showed that there are compromises to be made if I were to choose any one of the three massing proposals. Proposal A achieved approximately 108,000 ft^2 of gross floor area, which makes it the most effective at meeting the program’s area requirements. However, it also had the highest carbon emissions out of all three at 3.96 million kgCO2e. Proposal B showed the lowest estimated carbon emissions at 2.12 million kgCO2e while being 94,000 ft^2 of floor area. Proposal C produced 2.96 million kgCO2e and showed a slightly lower energy usage than the others. The sun, wind, and microclimate analyses also showed how changes in massing influence environmental conditions and the amount of public space that results in the design.

Personally I recommend developing Proposal B further. I’m still debating about the overall form, but it represents my design goal the best because it creates a stronger relationship between architecture and public space. Its unusual form could transform the site into an inviting third space rather than another boring residential block. I would continue investigating the structural feasibility and ground-level daylight.

The biggest surprise was that the most unconventional form Proposal B also produced the lowest estimated carbon emissions. I initially expected the L-shaped building to perform better environmentally because of how compact and simple the geometry is. These results challenged my assumption and showed me that architectural efficiency is more than filling the gaps.