Facade automations generate a pattern across a whole building in seconds.
The automation understands factual information, such as the parameters and constraints programmed into it, including geometry, window-to-wall ratios, and material properties. However, it doesn’t understand more subjective aspects, such as how design choices impact the intended use of a space, aesthetic quality, or how well the design fits within its surrounding context. It also doesn’t necessarily know how to adapt patterns between modules to accommodate changing geometric constraints.
The generated pattern needed adjustments where floor plans and building geometry changed. My design includes varying floor lengths, stepped levels, and mirrored layouts, which required different modules and manual adjustments. I also made changes around walkways and circulation spaces to ensure that windows and balconies corresponded to the actual functions of the spaces behind them.
I think a design that performs well but looks wrong is generally preferable to one that looks good but performs poorly. However, neither should automatically win. Mandatory requirements, such as those related to safety and comfort, should take priority regardless of whether they are addressed through analysis or design decisions. Beyond those requirements, the goal should be to achieve both good performance and aesthetic quality, making adjustments and trade-offs rather than treating them as complete opposites.
What drives a project team's decision about floor to floor height?
Developer: The priority is financial efficiency. Floor-to-floor height affects construction costs, the number of floors permitted within height restrictions, and the amount of rentable or usable space.
Designer: A designer considers the intended use of the space and human experience. Higher ceilings can improve spatial quality and natural lighting while different functions may require different heights.
Engineer: An engineer focuses on structural performance and efficiency, considering the space needed for structural systems, mechanical equipment, and building services while meeting safety requirements.
Builder: A builder prioritizes constructibility, considering how floor heights affect construction methods, material quantities, labour, costs, and scheduling.
Overall: The final decision should balance these perspectives. Good developers and designers will attempt to anticipate the engineering and construction requirements while good engineers and builders will refine the design while trying to maintain the original plans or objectives as much as possible.
Last week we chose a massing option based on site evidence. This week you had to fit a program inside it.
One of my biggest challenges was deciding whether to orient spaces toward the inner courtyard or the outer facade since the width of my massing generally only allowed for one row of rooms. I ultimately prioritized the inner courtyard to support the overall design intent, but this created challenges at corners where the geometry made it difficult to accommodate functional rooms. In these cases, I generally adjusted the program to fit the massing.
I would have reconsidered the massing if accommodating the program required significant compromises to the functionality of the building. For example, if the geometry resulted in poor circulation, insufficient number of rooms, or an inability to provide adequate window access to the necessary spaces.
This is particularly important because, moving forward, the structural and mechanical engineers will assume that the intended uses, distribution of spaces, and circulation have been reasonably determined. This is why it was important to ensure that the massing could actually accommodate the building’s intended functions.
Total carbon can now be estimated before materials are specified.
◦ How much confidence should a team place in that number at this stage?
◦ Which decision made this week has the largest effect on it?
◦ How would you present it to a client without overstating its precision?
At some point a conceptual model has to stop being conceptual.
◦ How do you know when a proposal is resolved enough to move into Revit?
◦ What is the cost of moving too early? Of moving too late?
◦ Which parts of your Forma model do you expect to survive the handoff?