Vinayak JainImages of Your 3 Design Proposals
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Key Findings from the Analysis
1. Sun Hour Comparison :
- Proposal 3 receives the highest sun exposure on its facades, with 58% of the facade exposed to 0-1 sun hours, while Proposals 1 and 2 have lower exposure.
- Proposal 3's taller structure and orientation allow better sun exposure, especially on the upper floors, making it ideal for passive solar heating and energy collection.
- However, excessive direct sunlight could lead to overheating, requiring thoughtful shading solutions.
2. Daylight Potential Comparison :
- Proposal 3 shows the best daylight penetration, with a higher proportion of facade receiving optimal daylight levels compared to Proposals 1 and 2.
- Proposal 2 has a more balanced daylight distribution but does not maximize daylight as effectively as Proposal 3.
- Proposal 1, due to its shorter height and enclosed form, has the least daylight potential, which could lead to higher artificial lighting demand.
3. Solar Energy Potential :
- Proposal 3 has a significantly larger solar panel placement area (110,368 ft²) compared to Proposal 1 (3,428 ft²) and Proposal 2 (111,183 ft²).
- The annual electrical output for Proposal 3 is 1,510,000 kWh, which is significantly higher than Proposal 1 (54,800 kWh) and comparable to Proposal 2 (1,560,000 kWh).
- This makes Proposal 3 a strong candidate for sustainable energy generation, reducing operational carbon footprint.
Tradeoffs & Final Decision
- Energy Efficiency & Sustainability
- Proposal 3 maximizes solar energy harvesting while ensuring sufficient daylighting.
- Proposal 1 performs poorly in both daylighting and solar energy, making it the least favorable choice.
- Proposal 2 is slightly better than Proposal 3 in solar energy generation but has less optimal daylight penetration.
- Comfort & Overheating Control
- Proposal 3 may require shading devices or high-performance glazing to prevent overheating due to high sun exposure.
- Proposal 2 offers more controlled daylight conditions but at the cost of slightly lower overall efficiency.
- Proposal 1 would need artificial lighting for most spaces, increasing energy consumption.
- Urban Integration & Structural Efficiency
- Proposal 3 offers a tall, efficient structure, making better use of vertical space while maintaining good daylight penetration.
- Proposal 2 has a more moderate height, which slightly limits its daylight potential.
- Proposal 1, being the shortest, limits both daylight access and solar energy collection.
Conclusion
Proposal 3 is the best choice overall as it optimally balances daylight potential, solar energy generation, and urban efficiency. While Proposal 2 is close in terms of solar energy output, Proposal 3 outperforms it in daylighting and overall sun exposure, making it the most sustainable and energy-efficient option. Therefore, Proposal 3 should be selected for further development. Apart from that according to my design goals Proposal 3 is the best for maximizing renewable energy potential and sustainability. Proposal 2 provides a cost-efficient balance between energy generation and construction feasibility. A stepped or modular form with biophilic integration will enhance user comfort and engagement which matches with my design inspiration(building with front corner having facade)