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?
Sun, daylight, wind and noise. All of them depend on what's around the building. On my site the roads mattered most: the Adeline truck bridge and I-880 put 74% of the empty lot above 65 dB before I drew anything.
◦ What kinds of mistakes only become visible once the context is present?
Things like putting the courtyard on the loud side, facing windows into a neighbor's wall, or making a windy gap between buildings. My perimeter block looked like the quiet option on its own, but once the roads were in, most of its open space was outside the U facing the trucks.
Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
A developer mostly wants the site to fit the building: max floor area, simple repeatable floor plates, nothing custom. Adapting is only worth it to them if it raises rents or speeds up approval.
◦ From a designer's perspective?
As a designer I think the building should adapt. The site's problems are basically the brief. My bar scheme only makes sense because of the trucks on Adeline.
◦ From the perspective of the neighbors who already live there?
Neighbors want the building to adapt. They care about losing sun, more traffic, wind on the sidewalk, and whether it fits the block. People in West Oakland have dealt with truck traffic and pollution for a long time, so a new project shouldn't add to that.
Sun hours and wind frequently want opposite things from the same massing.
◦ How should a team break the tie when two analyses disagree?
First check if either result actually fails a target. If both pass, go with the one that matters more for how the space is used, and fix the other with smaller moves like canopies, trees or screens. C lost some ground sun (81% vs 92%) but still cleared 50%, and its wind issue was one corner a canopy can fix.
◦ Who should have the final say, and at what point in the process?
The owner gets the final say since they're paying, but the design team should lay out the tradeoff with numbers early, during massing. Once the massing is locked, fixing sun or wind problems gets expensive.
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?