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.
Upon analyzing the site by itself, Forma showed that the two surrounding buildings would block sunlight from reaching some locations such that only 87% of the site would receive direct sun for at least 3 hours. For the wind analysis, most of the site would have winds comfortable for strolling. Most of the light wind would be offsite.
The strategy for proposal 1 was to keep it simple and keep as much of the land as possible for aesthetics and emotion. This accelerates construction and reduces embodied carbon. Since this building is replacing a park, I wanted some of the nature to stay. The building has indents to separate room functions. One half of the first floor can be the lobby and the other half a convenience store. Above that would be residential apartments on both sides.
The strategy for proposal 2 was to create a private courtyard while increasing the surface area for more daylight potential. It also protects the center from wind and noise for relaxation. The holes in the right side allow wind to enter and exit, reducing pressure build up. It also creates a gentle breeze.
The strategy for proposal 3 was to angle the walls so the sun does not travel perpendicular to the surface of the wall. This maintains a more consistent level of sunlight entering the structure throughout the day. There is a segregated convenience store with its back to the street. This separates some land away from the roads, noise, and wind. The roof steps up to reduce wind speeds.
The largest GFA went to proposal 2, but all proposals had the same efficiency factor. Proposal 3 appears to have the most balanced amount of sun hours with 49% of facades receiving direct sun for 3 hours. Proposal 2 experiences 2% less and proposal 1 receives 14% more. Proposal 2 has the greatest daylight potential by far, at 76,000 compared to 52,000 for the second highest score. Proposal 1 has the best microclimate temperatures, but proposal 2 has similar levels. Proposal 2 has a quiet courtyard, while proposal 1 has a quiet lawn between the convenience store and main building. Proposal 1 has the least carbon footprint due to its simplicity, and proposal 2 has the most carbon. Proposal 2 has the most comfortable wind levels.
Ultimately, I recommend proposal 2. Whenever it wasn’t best at a metric, it was close to 1st. It is really strong in daylight potential, noise levels, and wind, all of which it was designed for. Unfortunately, it will have a larger carbon footprint.
I was surprised proposal 2 had the least sun hours considering that it had the most surface area. Forma shows the height of the structure is tall enough such that sunlight doesn’t directly get into the courtyard region, and I didn’t consider that.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
