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.
For this project, I selected a site at 4146 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, with an area of about 33,700 ft². Since the site is located along a major road, I considered daylight, noise, wind, and carbon when developing the three massing options. All three proposals use a mixed-use program, with commercial space at the ground level and residential space above. Proposal 1 is a simple rectangular building with 8 floors. It has the largest building area of the three, at 100,735 ft². This option has the lowest carbon intensity (85 kgCO₂e/ft²) and performs well in terms of daylight. However, its simple massing does not provide as much enclosure for outdoor areas, and the site remains more exposed to traffic noise. Proposal 2 changes the form into an L-shaped building with a central courtyard. It has a slightly smaller GFA of 99,102 ft². The courtyard creates a more defined outdoor space while keeping the building relatively open. This option has the lowest total carbon at 8.53M kgCO₂e. Its wind analysis also showed favorable conditions, with 81% of the area suitable for sitting and 0% classified as uncomfortable. Its daylight performance is slightly below Proposal 1 but remains relatively strong. Proposal 3 uses a U-shaped form to create a more enclosed courtyard. While this creates a stronger sense of enclosure, it also adds more building mass. As a result, Proposal 3 has the highest total carbon at 9.07M kgCO₂e and the highest carbon intensity at 90 kgCO₂e/ft². Its daylight performance is also lower than Proposals 1 and 2. I would choose Proposal 2 because it gives me the best balance between the different results. Proposal 1 performs better in daylight, but Proposal 2 has lower total carbon and better noise performance while still creating a useful courtyard. Proposal 3 provides more enclosure, but the environmental results are less favorable. One thing that surprised me was Proposal 3. I expected the more enclosed courtyard to perform better, but it actually had higher carbon and lower daylight results. It showed me that making the building more enclosed does not necessarily make the overall design better.
Three massing images, one per proposal, from the same viewpoint.
