Why does it matter to model the real terrain and real neighboring buildings?
Modeling the real terrain and neighbouring buildings help ensure that a design actually fits its context and does not negatively impact spaces that already exist. Some examples of important factors to understand are scale, view, access, daylight, wind and how the building relates to the surrounding landscape and architecture.
Some mistakes that may become clear only when the context is present are as follows:
- Buildings being out of scale with its neighbours
- Blocking important views and sunlight
- Creating unexpected environmental effects
- Specific materials or massing that does not work well with the surrounding area
Should the building adapt to the site, or the site to the building?
I believe that for the most part, the building should adapt to the site.
From the developer’s point of view, there are many natural and existing site conditions that realistically cannot be changed. It would probably make the project more effective and financially feasible by adapting to these conditions
As a designer, creative freedom is important because it allows for innovation and helps push the field forward. However, design decisions should also align with the other practical and financial goals of the larger project team. Adapting to the site can support both these goals while often also improving performance through utilizing natural strengths and executing thoughtful, creative design.
For the neighbours who already live there it is most obvious why adapting to the site is beneficial. New development should aim to avoid unnecessarily disrupting the existing community, especially in relation to removing access to things they depend on. For example, one should consider how sunlight, views, community spaces etc. are impacted as these aspects will impact the quality of residents.
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?