Module 2 - Points to Ponder

Why does it matter to model the real terrain and real neighboring buildings?

• Modeling the real terrain allows me to make decisions about where on my site the building should sit. It also can help compare sites. For example, if you were choosing between two sites and Site #1 has a steep grade, Site #2 may be the better choice. Terrain is extremely important to consider because it drives foundation cost, drainage, accessibility, and how sound and wind move across the site.
• Modeling the surrounding context, including the roads, is what makes analyses like noise meaningful. Without it, you wouldn't be able to quantify and see what the noise levels are or adjust your building to mitigate them. That could leave the building with high noise levels, and residential units could become hard to fill and keep tenants in because noise decreases people's ability to live the way they want.
• Modeling the real neighboring buildings also allows you to design to protect privacy and to account for the other buildings' aesthetics and scale.

Which aspects of a building design are most affected by surrounding context?

• Noise: it affects where you place residential areas. If residential units end up with high noise levels, they could become hard to fill and keep tenants in, because noise decreases people's ability to live the way they want.
• Sun: I want to make sure solar panels can be placed to maximize my solar generation, while also giving my outdoor seating area enough shade for people to escape the sun. Shadows go both ways: neighbors can shade your site, and your building can shade them. Most of the Inner Sunset is 2–4 stories, so my ~6-story building is more likely to cast shadow than receive it. Because my site is on the south side of Lincoln Way, much of my midday shadow falls toward the street and the park rather than onto homes which is beneficial because it will naturally shade my outdoor sitting area.
• Wind: it affects where outdoor spaces can comfortably go.
• Views: a big reason I chose ~6 stories was the view of the SF Botanical Garden, and that view depends on what sits between my building and the garden.

What kinds of mistakes only become visible once the context is present?

• I noticed that the placement of my residential units wasn't adequate. I had put them on the border of my building, but that meant more noise was reaching them, so I moved them more inward to help mitigate the noise.
• I originally had my outdoor seating on the left side of my building. The wind analysis showed that the wind comes from the west, so placing the seating between the left and right sides, facing Golden Gate Park, was better for decreasing wind exposure.
• Other mistakes that only show up with context include designing around a view that a neighboring building actually blocks.

Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?

• Personally, I think the building should adapt to the site. There are many ways to configure or change a building based on the location or site you choose. I'd argue that adapting to the site actually helps develop a more unique design, because not all sites are the same.

From a developer's perspective?

• I think the building should adapt to the site. Financial risk, regulatory constraints, and market demand all point that way. Moreover, site preparation, utility integration, zoning codes, and ease of permitting are all simpler when the building works with the site. In the end, forcing a site to adapt to a predetermined building design is rarely efficient or profitable

From a designer's perspective?

• Adapt to the site to respect environmental conditions, preserve nature, and benefit from passive savings like natural light, ventilation, and solar orientation.

From the perspective of the neighbors who already live there?

• The building should adapt to the site. Forcing the site to fit the building results in more construction affecting shared spaces such as sidewalks and green areas, which means disruptions to neighbors' lives. It is important to protect the neighbors' quality of life. Arguably, they are the last people you want against you, because you'll be next to them for the foreseeable future.
• Additionally, the building should fit the scale and aesthetics of the neighborhood. In SF, I know that for some people, choosing a neighborhood to live in is partly based on its aesthetic and vibe.

Sun hours and wind frequently want opposite things from the same massing.

How should a team break the tie when two analyses disagree?

• I think they should follow steps similar to this:
1. Go back to the project's goals. For my project, the goal is net zero, which gives solar access a strong claim on the roof and upper massing.
2. Check whether the two actually conflict in the same place. Sun mostly matters at the roof and upper floors, while wind comfort mostly matters at ground level, where people sit and walk. Generally, the conflict can be resolved by levels instead of strictly choosing one analysis over the other and applying it to the whole building. My outdoor seating decision is an example of this.
3. Early on, it is very important to favor the factor that's hardest to fix later. Massing that blocks solar is nearly impossible to change once the building is built. For my goal of integrating nature, I’m planning on favoring solar over wind because ground-level wind can usually be mitigated afterward with trees, screens, canopies, or landscaping.
4. I have considered the local climate. The Inner Sunset is foggy with westerly wind, so sun hours can be scarce and valuable while wind is a constant factor and can be adjusted for through mitigation strategies since a majority of it is coming directly from the west.

Who should have the final say, and at what point in the process?

• I believe the owner or developer should set the priorities, since they carry the cost and the risk. The others such as design lead and engineers can do their own analyses and makes a recommendation to inform the owner or developer of their findings.
• Although when sun or wind affect code and safety requirements everyone needs to adjust their approach to ensure the requirements are met.
• The decision should happen as early as possible, during massing and design, specifically when changes are cheap. In my mind, I already have a general order for priorities. This way, when two analyses disagree, the tie-break follows the priorities I’ve already chose.