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.
Out of my three proposals, my recommendation is Proposal 3. To begin with, Proposal 3 performed much better in most of the tests compared to the other proposals. For instance, the vast majority of the building’s surface area will receive more direct sun during the day compared to Proposal 2, according to the Sun Hours analysis. Using June 21 as my reference date, Proposal 1 and 3 receive about 29% more direct sun for at least 3 hours compared to Proposal 2. However, because Proposal 1’s design is more enclosed, it is harder for the crevices on the inner sides of the building to receive direct sun. Therefore, because Proposal 3 receives more direct sunlight, the building can reduce its electricity demand.
In addition, Proposal 3 performs much better in the daylight analysis, which is a surprise I found in this exercise. I expected this design to have dark blue spots on the interior side, implying that it will be impossible for daylight to reach these areas. Since my previous two designs had dark blue spots, especially in the inner corners, I assumed the same would apply for Proposal 3. I expected to see blue spots form where the L-shape of this design connects. However, there were no dark spots, and, in fact, there was very little blue area overall, meaning that Proposal 3 will receive adequate daylight. Because of this, Proposal 3 will, once again, minimize the electricity demand.
Furthermore, I was also surprised by the results from the noise analysis. Originally, I had designed Proposal 3 to be an L-shaped building, with its sides being parallel to the nearby streets. In other words, it was where the green space is. However, taking noise levels into account, I moved the L-shape’s position, placing it more inside the block. I expected lots of green areas, which would tell me that the noise level is very low. To my surprise, Proposal 3 has the least amount of green area. This may have to do with the fact that it is the least-enclosed design. Still, there are minimal red areas (high noise-level areas), so Proposal 3 performed well.
Lastly, Proposal 3 has the least amount of operational carbon compared to the other designs, meaning it is more environmentally friendly. Proposal 3 uses 221.08K kg of CO2 less than Proposal 1, and 110.3K kg of CO2 less than Proposal 2. This may have to do with the fact that Proposal 3 uses less concrete compared to the other two proposals.
Overall, the design for Proposal 3 is more aesthetically pleasing and realistic to me, compared with the other designs.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
