Working share link to your Forma project
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
Living units make up 57% of the floor space. Other spaces are used for corridors, stairs, or commercial spaces. Of the living units, 15% are studios, 48% are single bedrooms, 26% are double bedrooms, and 11% are triple bedrooms.
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
I adjusted the massing to remove the structural openings in the building since recessed open corridors, open loggias, and pass-throughs with no glazing are not supported by the software. It also helps keep floor layouts more typical. I modified the massing to provide a realistic amount of space for living units, and added a front lawn to create a more distinct entrance. The GFA decreased by about 10,000 sqft, so it sits around 100,000 sqft now. Floor heights were adjusted from 10 ft at every level to 14 ft on the first floor and 12 ft on all other floors. This is to follow the design program and ensure space for nonstructural components at the ceiling. A terrain pad was added due to a minor slope at ground level.
I adjusted the massing to remove the structural openings in the building since recessed open corridors, open loggias, and pass-throughs with no glazing are not supported by the software. It also helps keep floor layouts more typical. I modified the massing to provide a realistic amount of space for living units, and added a front lawn to create a more distinct entrance. The GFA decreased by about 10,000 sqft, so it sits around 100,000 sqft now. Floor heights were adjusted from 10 ft at every level to 14 ft on the first floor and 12 ft on all other floors. This is to follow the design program and ensure space for nonstructural components at the ceiling. A terrain pad was added due to a minor slope at ground level.
The facade studies showed the same results for daylight potential and sun hours even at different times of the year. However proposal 1 has a smaller total carbon footprint by about 3.5%, or 0.14 million carbon. But we can see it has a higher operational carbon footprint and has much less embodied carbon which is why it has the smaller total footprint. It likely has a higher operational footprint because although the sun hours look the same, more of the sun is going through windows and heating the interior. Therefore more AC will likely need to be used. It likely has a smaller embodied footprint because there is less concrete being used. The embodied carbon makes a big difference, so unless the building is expected to last many decades, proposal 1 wins. It's hard to predict the future that many years away, so I will choose the shorter term benefits. Essentially, the facade with more windows is better for this building and site.
I overrode the automation wherever there was a balcony. When automating the windows, the balcony doors would always be deleted, so windows had to be placed manually. Additionally, I had to use modules and manually input a shift distance for some walls that were physically blocked by another wall.