Why does it matter to model the real terrain and real neighboring buildings?
◦ Which aspects of a building design are most affected by surrounding context?
Elevation levels, sea levels when we are in an area that can be affected by FEMA, site orientation for sun/shade, and more
◦ What kinds of mistakes only become visible once the context is present?
How are we impacting communities? When I add this certain part to my building, how is affecting my thermal comfort of the rest, the sun/shade, the wind analysis and more. Sometimes, things can only be seen the more we start building or the addition of what is already there.
Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
From a financial standpoint, which is easiest? Usually developing the building to the site so the least amount of work can be performed at most cost effective methods but only when it serves feasibility.
◦ From a designer's perspective?
From a designer’s perspective, both should be happening. You want to create a building that is harmonious in its site but the site should also serve the buildings purpose.
◦ From the perspective of the neighbors who already live there?
Building should serve the existing infrastructure and neighborhood, meaning that not only looking at the property is important. It should not disrupt or impact neighbors negatively in terms of sun, wind, noise, etc.
Sun hours and wind frequently want opposite things from the same massing.
◦ How should a team break the tie when two analyses disagree?
Should consider the goal: What are we optimizing for and what is more important for the context of the building, usage, and budget? Then, which impact is more and how long is that impact a problem? Ex: do we loose sunlight for only an hour or during a time where we can compensate in other areas? and ultimately should find a design that meets in the middle.
◦ Who should have the final say, and at what point in the process?
Ultimately, the person paying for it is the one that has to agree, however the design team needs to be able to argue their decisions in simple terms for why they chose one option over the other to the people not designing it, AKA your client and their backing for the project if they have it.
Forma's rapid analyses are fast because they are approximate.
◦ What is a rapid operational energy analysis leaving out?
◦ At what stage does that approximation stop being good enough?
◦ What would you need before putting a performance number in front of a client?
You generated three proposals and recommended one.
◦ Did the analysis choose it, or did you choose it and then find numbers that agreed?
◦ What would you have had to see to abandon your favorite option?
◦ If the lot next door is built out in three years, does your recommendation hold?