Working share link to your Forma project, view access for the teaching team.
Comparison matrix, one page.
Design memo of 300 to 500 words: what you read in the site, the three strategies, what the analysis said, your recommendation, and the surprise.
Paste your design memo here…
The proposed site was analyzed through two lenses: its surrounding urban context and its natural environmental conditions.
From an urban perspective, adjacent Mariposa Park was identified as a major amenity and visual focus for the project. The surrounding area also includes a mix of modern university, residential, and commercial buildings. The project therefore seeks to strengthen the relationship between these uses through a mixed-use residential development that connects the existing neighborhood, university setting, and park while remaining accessible to the broader public.
Environmentally, the site receives strong solar exposure, although the southern portion becomes more shaded during winter. Wind is not a major concern overall, but exposed areas are better suited to active rather than stationary outdoor uses. Noise is a more significant concern due to the nearby highway, emphasizing the need for protected residential and outdoor spaces.
Three strategies were developed in response to these site conditions. Copy-and-Flip deliberately follows the existing urban form, while modifying it to direct attention toward Mariposa Park. Connection uses simpler geometries intended to perform well environmentally, while more deliberately linking the three main site elements: the park, the new development, and the existing residential building. UC takes a more expressive approach, with a massing concept inspired by the UCSF name. It also prioritizes public access by orienting the internal courtyard toward the park and recreating aspects of the park experience within a more protected, enclosed setting.
The analyses revealed distinct strengths and weaknesses across the three schemes. Connection performed well in daylight access, rentable-area distribution, and carbon impact, but provided poor noise protection for the residential portions and did little in creating outdoor spaces suited to passive or casual use. Copy-and-Flip provided strong noise protection and good ground-level wind comfort, but had the least rentable area and felt comparatively enclosed. UC achieved a strong residential/commercial area distribution and excellent rooftop solar exposure. Its enclosed form also created a courtyard protected from noise and nature and usable rooftop space. However, UC experienced greater daylight challenges at internal corners and had the highest carbon impact.
It was surprising that the south-facing orientation of these corners did not mitigate their daylight issues. In the same vein, some north-facing facades performed poorly for sun hours but still showed better daylight potential than those corners. This reinforces the importance of geometry in addition to orientation.
Ultimately, UC was selected for further development because it offered the strongest potential for creating meaningful shared outdoor spaces. Although it presents challenges related to daylight and carbon impact, there is confidence in addressing these through later design decisions such as material selection, program placement, and use of the site’s strong solar potential. The building’s scale also makes it important to carefully humanize the experience at ground level through facade, landscaping, and other design elements. The overall geometry should however be largely preserved, since it has been optimized to balance several environmental benefits, including the protected courtyard and the unexpectedly favorable combination of solar access and thermal comfort on rooftops.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
Proposal 1: Copy and Flip
Proposal 2: Connection
Proposal 3: UC
