Working share link to your Forma project
Design - 300 S Mathilda Ave, Sunnyvale, CA, 94086, United States
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
Floor 1:
Floors 2 - 7:
Unit mix schedule for Floors 2 - 7:
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
To get closer to the target gross floor area, the original massing from Week 2 was altered slightly by decreasing the floor area of the L-shaped podium (current GFA: 100,492 sq ft). Additionally, the podium and tower were shifted so that they were in alignment. A terrain pad was also added, as it was noted that the building was placed on an uneven slope. From the faƧade studies, my initial design had a relatively even distribution of windows across the floors 2 to 7 (office building component) and larger windows on the retail floor. However, this resulted in a significant number of sun hours on all facades, which is not ideal for a building located in the Bay Area, since cooling loads are more dominant than heating loads due to the regional climate conditions.
To account for this, the second faƧade proposal placed more consideration on the orientation of each faƧade. More windows were placed on the south-facing faƧade (higher WWR through use of long horizontal windows that spanned the entire faƧade) to maximize daylighting whereas smaller (and fewer) windows were placed on the north-facing faƧade to reduce unwanted solar heat gains. The east and west facing windows used taller, narrower windows to allow for daylighting but also reduce glare during sunrise and sunset. Additionally, windows were omitted from storage room units and some of the restrooms to better control some of the unwanted heat gains into the space, and reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling. In these cases, and in cases where the automated faƧade generated windows in places that were not feasible (i.e. at the intersection of an interior wall and the exterior faƧade, or in front of the dividing wall between units), the automation was overridden and position of the windows were shifted slightly. The automation was also overridden when windows werenāt centered for the different units, to improve the aesthetic appeal of the interior spaces.
Due to these reasons, the second faƧade design was selected; although overall, the sun hours analysis and daylight potential analysis showed similar results, one major difference is that the second faƧade design as able to achieve more shading in the corner of the L-shaped podium, significantly reducing sun hours in this area, while having minimal impact on the expected daylight potential of the same area.