Design Journal Entry - Module 4

Scored
Your Name
Aigbekaen, Jovan
Journal Entry For
Module 4 - Conceptual Design - Building Context & Passive Design
ACC Folder Link
ACC Revit File Link
Created
Jan 6, 2025 12:34 AM
Last Edited
Jan 6, 2025 12:34 AM
Created by
Glenn Katz

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

image
image

Proposal #2

image
image

Proposal #3

image
image

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…

Note: the proposals are ordered by number from least to greatest for all screenshots

Sun Hours - December 21 (Summer Solstice)

Front (south facade)

image
image
image

Rear (North Facade)

image
image
image

Daylight

image
image
image

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 context info:
    • site is located directly south of a series of tall high rises which cast significant shadows over the site throughout the day
    • given that Sao Paulo is located in the Southern Hemisphere, the sun travels across the northern half of the sky. As such, for this particular site, the high rise buildings to the north block a lot of direct sunlight on the north facade
  • Chosen design: proposal #3
  • Reasons:
    • balance between sun hours on both the north and south facades; maximization of daylight potential and penetration on rear and front facades;
    • Direct Sun Hours:
      • direct sun hours is important because the number of direct sun hours is indicative of potential PV performance which will be critical in determining whether the building will be able to generate enough site energy to cover building energy demand in totality
      • design 3 positions the building along the southwestern edge of the lot to escape the majority of the shading from adjacent buildings; it is also angled to maximize the amount of sunlight that can reach the interior courtyard spaces during sunset hours. The taller portions of the building are positioned to the southeast of the lot unlike in proposals #1 and #2 to further facilitate the penetration of direct lite into the site footprint; the north facade has strategic recess and overhang elements to maximize sun hours across the facade
      • potential tradeoff: proposal #3 does not have as much elevated roof space, so potential PV units may have to be spread across the site rather than residing solely on the roof
    • Daylight Potential:
      • Daylight is important for reducing reliance on artificial lighting fixtures which can incur significant electricity usage and consequently rachet up overall building energy demand. Moreover, daylight is important for user comfort as it ensures that interior spaces are adequately light and users have access to exterior views and vistas
      • The footprint of proposal#3 is oriented and positioned strategically to maximally distribute daylight exposure across the different building facades, particularly in the rear end of the lot which has the challenge of being within the shade zone of the adjacent high rises to the north of the lot; proposal#3 does not have any elements that dwarf the surrounding spaces which reduces self-shadowing of the building. Moreover, the form follows the contours of the downward slope of the site, with the building masses gradually rising in height as the slope progresses downward which serves to maximize the number of spaces exposed to daylight as well as daylight penetration capabilities
    • Other potential tradeoff:
      • the angled orientation caused edges of proposal#3 to exceed the site boundaries by some amount on top edges (west and south boundaries). As such, the design would have to undergo significant footprint modifications to ensure that the site limits are respected.