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?
◦ What kinds of mistakes only become visible once the context is present?
It matters to model the real terrain around the building to be able to understand how the design will impact those around it. For example, in my design, when I built too close to the homes around my site, it impacted the sunlight and daylight those homes experience. This is a problem that should be considered when designing a real building. It makes it so the design takes everything that is real into consideration to see what is truly feasible and what would not be. The orientation of the building, the height of the building, and the shape are all design choices that affect the surrounding area and are also affected by the surrounding area.
Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
◦ From a designer's perspective?
◦ From the perspective of the neighbors who already live there?
I think both the building should adapt to the site and the site should adapt to the building. The developer’s would be more okay with adjusting the site to accommodate the building as their main goal is to make the building operational and feasible. For them it is also easier to fix grading or modify the site than it is for them to modify the design. The designer will make a building that works with the site’s existing conditions. They will do what we have just done for this assignment to pick the best building option given the site, not the other way around. The neighbors probably lean more towards the designers standpoint but see it as how the new building will impact them and their property.
Sun hours and wind frequently want opposite things from the same massing.
◦ How should a team break the tie when two analyses disagree?
◦ Who should have the final say, and at what point in the process?
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?
The analysis and numbers chose my design for me. I liked the way the other two designs looked more, but all of the numbers and the analysis made a much more convincing argument for choosing my third proposal. I worked to make my third proposal fix the issues I saw in my first two proposals, so it makes sense I ended up with that design. I think if the lot next door is built out than I would still pick this recommendation. Any development around this site may impact the sun hours and daylight, but that would be the case for any building on this site. If the lot across Donohoe street were to be built up, there would at least be a gap as wide as the road between, so it is not like the building would be causing severe shadows. Any development on the north side of the building would not change my recommendation. I think this site design is the best of my three options and it makes the most sense for the moment.