Your 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:
Daylight potential:
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
After comparing my analyses of the 3 proposals, I decided to choose Proposal 2 as the “best” design option. In terms of solar potential, I found that to maximize sun exposure in colder climates like Copenhagen, the building should be oriented along the east-west axis. This orientation allows the southern façade to receive the maximum amount of sunlight throughout the day. As a result, roofs or those with a gentle slope facing south (in the northern hemisphere) are ideal for solar panel installation. Out of the three alternatives, Proposal 2 has a south facing slope which can increase the surface area available for capturing solar energy. Solar potential is an important consideration in my design because it is a great way to promote renewable energy and visibly showcase the building’s contribution to sustainability goals. In addition, the multi-tiered roofs can also be designed as green roofs to reduce energy costs by absorbing heat and improve the overall building aesthetics facing the main street.
On the other hand, Proposal 3 uses a bold, eye-catching design that contains two interconnected masses which can be optimized for different program spaces. It also uses overhangs that can be beneficial by blocking the high sun and reducing overheating in summer. In winter, they allow the lower sun to penetrate and warm the building. However, this feature is not very suitable for a building in Copenhagen where overheating isn’t normally a problem, because the summers are quite comfortable with a mean temperature of 15.7˚C. The excessive amount of shadows also reduce the amount of natural lighting inside the building which negatively impacts user experience.
One major trade-off in Proposal 2 is its interaction with adjacent buildings. It was designed to be relatively short (15m) in order to avoid casting too many shadows on its neighbors. However, this objective along with the 30,000 - 35,000 SF constraint and the tiered roofs meant that the building had to take up most of the site area. This means that the corners of the building will have poor sun hours due to shadows from adjacent taller buildings. When designing the indoor spaces, it is important to consider the function of each space and designate rooms that do not require too much sunlight (e.g., storage rooms for equipment) to occupy the corner locations. Another trade-off is that it does not blend into the aesthetics of the surrounding buildings which are more traditional and tend to have courtyards in the middle. One the other hand, this uniqueness could be advantageous and make the building stand out, which is helpful for attracting vistors.