Working share link to your Forma project, view access for the teaching team.
- Also shared with the teaching team via emails
Comparison matrix, one page.
Comparison Matrix Link —> Also shared with the teaching team via emails
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.
For my project, I chose the site at 3275 Capitol Ave, Unit 506, Fremont, CA 94538, United States. It is a 0.86-acre corner parcel in Downtown Fremont, ideally primed for mixed-use development. The site is accessible to good schools, medical providers, and retail stores. It is also in a strategic location near high-tech and manufacturing firms, highways, and railroads.
For proposal #1, I designed a U-shaped perimeter building cut into three sections. All being 8 floors tall, the first floor would include a cafe on the first floor and a small-scale mini-market on the second floor. Floors 3-8 would be residential spaces. The center of the site would include a courtyard with a fountain, green space, and benches, centering the space with greenery. For proposal B, rather than three rectangular sections, I created 3 circular towers, clustered in the northwest corner of the site. Mirroring this cluster is a rectangular corner building pointing southeast. The circular domes will include a community art hub and art gallery. Finally, proposal 3 has two stair-case/jigsaw buildings mirroring one another from the northeast and southwest corners. In the upper northwest corner is a rectangular tower. These positions create a Y-like space running through the site. The rectangular tower will include a community lounge and public restrooms, and residential spaces on upper floors. The ground floor will have a restaurant and bar.
All proposals have the same efficiency factor of 90% in relation to the usable area and total built area. Proposal A performed best in sun hours, with 61% of facades receiving direct sun for at least 3 hours, compared with Proposal B: 49% and Proposal C: 51%. Proposal C performed best at shielding the site from noise, followed by Proposal B, with Proposal A performing the worst. Proposal C has the lowest total carbon at 3.07 M kgCO2e, which is only slightly smaller than Proposal B: 3.16 M kgCo2e. However, Proposal A’s total carbon was significantly larger, at 3.48 M kgCO2e. These numbers can be reduced by replacing the cement being used (Portland cement) with industry-grade byproducts to take into consideration sustainability goals. Although proposal A performed best in sun hours, which is important for reducing energy use in colder months and the use of solar energy, proposal C performed better in the noise and total carbon analysis. And so, when considering comfortability and sustainability in total carbon reduction measures, I chose to move forward with proposal C.
One place the analysis disagreed with my instinct was the noise analysis on all sites. For context, the location is in Downtown Fremont; however, I was not expecting the site to be in the red, orange, and yellow zones. Given the site's proximity to downtown, which is a space known for public work projects, from parks to community centers, it may pose a challenge to enabling the visitor-friendly vibe of a central hub with the congestion and noise that the high-volume traffic may cause.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
From left to right: Design A, Design B, and Design C