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?
The usability and operability of a building is most impacted by what is around it, because that is where wind tunnel, noise levels, and shadows cast by other structures can come into play. A wind tunnel, loud road, exposed area without privacy, or dark/cold area can make living in, using, and operating a building difficult. This is not apparent if a building is simply designed on a blank sheet of paper without taking context into account.
◦ What kinds of mistakes only become visible once the context is present?
An entrance to a building that is situated on a busy road or a highway could be a mistake because residents/customers may not be able to easily enter or exit the building. A dark shadow may make an outdoor play area too cold and windy for residents to use. High noise levels from busy streets or railways may make it hard to lease out residential units.
Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?
◦ From a developer's perspective?
From a site developers perspective, the building should adapt to the site in order to be the most marketable. For example, a building does not adequately buffer against high noise levels coming from one side of the property, it will be hard to sell residential or commericial units right on top of the noise level source.
◦ From a designer's perspective?
From a designer’s perspective, the site should adapt to the building because the designer wants to create the most architecturally, structurally, and functionally appealing design. The site may place constraints on the design which the designer thinks would be easier to “fix the site” with grading or landscaping rather than altering the design.
◦ From the perspective of the neighbors who already live there?
From the perspective of the neighbors, the building should adapt to the site in order to fit into the existing landscape. No resident wants a new development which does not aesthetically match the neighborhood or surrounding area or which creates unwanted traffic in the area. Additionally, the building could result in wind tunnels, shadows, or other environmental alterations to the neighboring developments.
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?
My analysis chose the proposal. I initially did not want a podium and tower design because I wanted an aesthetically unified design. However, the numbers dictated that the podium provided increased surface area for photovolatics while successfully blocking wind and noise levels at the ground level for the open space area. This decided my proposal.
◦ What would you have had to see to abandon your favorite option?
I abandoned my favorite option, which was a line building with two L-shapes on the end (a 1/2 wraparound building). I did so because I noticed that the crevices of the L-shape barely received sunlight or daylight, which I thought would make residential units in those locations less marketable.
◦ If the lot next door is built out in three years, does your recommendation hold?
The recommendation to abandon my favorite option holds because a new development would only make sunlight and daylight less available to my property, which was already an existing issue. While a new development next door could decrease the photovoltaic potential of my design, it would not alter the low wind and noise levels which make for a suitable residential environment. Thus, I do think my recommendation holds if the goal is to build a marketable mixed use building. If the goal is to maximize sustainability and clean energy potential, then there is a risk that some of the photovoltaic potential on the first floor podium is reduced.