Working share link to your Forma project
https://app.autodeskforma.com/board/up_b1ucsl7wxr/board_998f3a37-a7d9-4f84-b75b-12a3de7a1808
One page facade comparison showing both options with their metrics
Typical floor plan image with unit types or zones labelled, plus the unit mix schedule
One AI render of the chosen scheme
Design memo of 300 to 500 words: how the massing changed from Week 2 and why, what the facade studies showed, what you chose, and where you overrode the automation
For module 3, I have decided to create a new building that was not analyzed in module 2. The massing selected during module two featured a square-shaped building with different floorplans on each story. When laying out the floorplan, the square-shape led to an excess of open space in the center that could not be used for apartments because there would not be any windows. To maximize rentable space, the new massing is an L-shaped building of similar square-footage that has a consistent floorplan for floors 2-7. The L-shape allows for a double-loaded corridor, maximizing the units’ access to daylight. The L-shape sits atop the square commercial ground level from the module 2 design. While the building from module 2 provided the maximum daylight potential, that is not necessarily ideal in California. The climate can be very warm and too much sunlight in the building can strain the cooling system and cause discomfort amongst the occupants. The first façade option is continuous for all residential stories. It features balconies along the east and south sides of the building and windows only on the north and west sides. The balconies were placed along the south and east to maximize their sun exposure and provide the clearest views. The second façade option staggers the balconies, to maximize the sunlight on each balcony. It also provides balconies on the north and west sides, which do not get much sun. The north side of the building directly faces a neighboring structure, so the views from those balconies would not be ideal. The exterior appearance of this option appears discontinuous, so the uniformity offered by option 1 would be preferable to provide the best curb-appeal. Option 2 did not provide significant improvements in the daylight access to the units. The total carbon of option 2 was slightly lower, but not low enough in my opinion to warrant the aesthetic sacrifice. A potential third option could be explored where the balconies are placed consistently on every other floor. This would provide the uniform aesthetic while also lowering embodied carbon. When placing the façade, the automation had to be overridden to properly center some of the modules in the units. Additionally, the automation is unable to detect where there are interior walls, so it had to be overridden to avoid intersecting with the walls.