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.
I chose my site by looking on Zillow for lots for sale. I found a lot that was 14,500 sq. ft., which was on the smaller side. For the purposes of my project, I’m assuming that a few neighboring buildings will be demolished to create a larger site of approximately 37,500 sq. ft. The approximate location is 2809 El Camino Real in Redwood City.
I started by analyzing the bare site on its own to establish a baseline. I noticed that wind speeds were relatively low, which makes sense because there aren't many high-rise buildings in the area. Sunlight was sometimes blocked for neighboring buildings, especially in areas closer to the ground. Since my site is located on a street corner, it has less obstruction from surrounding buildings. Still, I tried to make sun exposure a key consideration in my conceptual designs.
My three proposals include staggered steps (Proposal 1), triangular cuts that open up the building to allow more sunlight (Proposal 2), and a central portion carved out of the building to create a courtyard (Proposal 3). The idea behind these designs is that having more openings in the building would not only make the massing more interesting but also allow for greater sun exposure and wind movement.
Based on the performance metrics, I would recommend Proposal 1. It has the lowest total carbon footprint despite having a middle-range gross floor area among the three proposals. It also has minimal areas of blocked sunlight and daylight potential. Its relatively simple geometry could simplify construction, while the staggered steps provide opportunities for rooftop terraces. Additionally, its smaller footprint allows the building to be positioned farther from the noisier main road and closer to the quieter local road.
Proposal 2 was not chosen because it has the smallest floor area despite having a total carbon footprint similar to that of the largest proposal. Proposal 3 was not chosen because, although it has the largest floor area, it also has the worst sun hours and daylight potential.
Two things surprised me during the analysis. First, I was surprised that the carbon footprint did not directly correspond to the building's floor area. I used the same carbon analysis settings recommended in the Week 2 lecture video for each proposal, but the results did not show a direct relationship between building size and total carbon emissions. Second, I was surprised by how much being next to a main road affects noise levels. I shifted the buildings within the site boundaries whenever possible to move them farther away from the main road. I also added trees, although their impact on reducing noise was not particularly noticeable in the results.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
Proposal 1: Staggered Steps
Proposal 2: Triangular Cuts
Proposal 3: Internal Central Courtyard
