Working share link to your Forma project
Board: https://app.autodeskforma.com/board/up_tkm51pwomy/board_1818b3fe-0ec8-408a-998b-ec06811e162d
One page facade comparison showing both options with their metrics
Typical floor plan image with unit types or zones labelled, plus the unit mix schedule
Floors 2-4 Typical Layout
Floors 5-7 Typical Layout
One AI render of the chosen scheme
disclaimer: renderings of images represent potential concepts of front and back of building after construction. Done by AI and not completely accurate to model.
Pespective views of model:
Design memo of 300 to 500 words: how the massing changed from Week 2 and why, what the facade studies showed, what you chose, and where you overrode the automation
The massing has changed significantly from week 2. Previously, there were many changing floor plans and elevations, and the size of each “cube” was 50’ x 50’. First, I reduced the number of changing floor plans to just three (the ground commercial floor, residential floors 2-4, residential floors 5-7). After changing the width to 66’ to include a double loaded corridor, I quickly realized that there was not a big enough building footprint to have a square shape with a center hole since the hole would be too small to allow any light to the units facing inside. Hence, I changed the residential floors to an symmetric L shaped footprint and included a green courtyard on the empty space above the ground floor. In summary, I kept the “cubed” concept with stepped floor plans but adjusted it to be more practical for a residential building. Floor heights were kept consistent (16’ ground and 12’ otherwise) to leave space for mechanical ducts.
The two facades I chose showed very similar results across sun hours, daylight potential, and carbon. Facade one utilizes a variety of different window shapes and layouts, while facade two aims to keep simple and repeated shapes. The two showed the same carbon footprint, and similar daylight potential and sun hour results. Although facade 1 showed slightly higher totals for both (~1%), the percentage distributions were pretty close. Hence, proposal two was chosen since the slightly less favorable study results is made up for in ease of construction. Also, since all units have a balcony, tall rectangle windows are more favorable against the shadows from upper floor balconies. These are commonly used in facade 2 while facade 1 includes more wide short rectangles.
Althougt the automation proved helpful at times, there were a few instances that I had to overwrite it. For example, it doesn’t consider interior partition walls, which should not be in the middle of a window. Also, it would overlap sometimes or stretch to the very edges of the building where there are thick facade walls. In these cases, I had to manually shift around elements to be more realistic. It would be helpful if Forma had an option for considering walls automatically.