Working share link to your Forma project, view access for the teaching team.
Module2_Project - Fall 26 - CEE 120A_220A - Adelekan - Autodesk Forma Board
Comparison matrix, one page.
Paste your comparison matrix here…
Proposed Building - Proposal 2
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.
My site is a 46,688 ft² block at 1790 Soscol Avenue near the Napa River in Napa, California. It is surrounded by industrial parks so has parking nearby. The undeveloped parcel has very good access to sun with 100% of the parcel receiving more than 3 hours of sunlight in the summer and winter. The site was also barely windy. The area is also quite noisy due to being next to a minor atelier road and being next to an industrial park which often has trucks.
I tested three building strategies and compared their sun access, wind, noise level, carbon impact and perceived temperature. Option 1 was an L - shaped building on top of a rectangular commercial building. It had amazing sun access and daylight potential with 99% and 70% of the facade receiving more than 3 hours of sunlight in the summer and winter respectively. The lack of 100% was due to the inner corners of the building. Option 1 also had a great perceived temperature (microclimate) and the mildest wind flow. However, option 1 had the joint highest carbon impact (2.13M kg CO2). Additionally, option 1 had an extremely high noise level with all of the facade being in the orange (75%) and red zones (25%). Therefore, I aimed to reduce the noise level in future designs by moving the building to a less noisy area of the parcel.
Option 3 was a T-shaped building on top of a rectangular commercial building. It had good sun access in the summer but greatly reduced access in the winters ( 56%) probably due to more inner corners in the design. It had a lot of open space but had the worst noise level across the three designs with its facade being exposed more to the highest noise level - red (36%). Additionally, it had the joint highest carbon impact (2.13M kg CO2)
Option 2 was a 3-layer building with the office building on the ground floor and residential floors above. The positioning of the building was meant to reduce noise whilst the three layers were to prevent an increase in the wind speed. Option 2 had the most usable floor area (104,817 ft²) and the best sunlight access and daylight potential of the three buildings.100% and 79% of the facade receiving more than 3 hours of sunlight in the summer and winter respectively. Option 2 had a reduced noise level with its facade having less areas in the red zone (22%). Option 2 also had the least carbon footprint (1.71M kg CO2). Option 2 did have a slightly more turbulent wind as expected but it was minimal.
Therefore, I recommend Option 2 due to its ability to maximise sun access, reduce noise intensity all while maintaining a lower carbon impact.
My biggest surprise was that shifting the buildings to the quieter sections of the parcel did not dramatically reduce the noise level experienced by the building. The noise level either slightly decreased (Option 2) or even increased (Option 3). It makes me keen to explore more ways to reduce the noise level in the design phase
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
