Module 3 Template

Working share link to your Forma project

Link to board

Link to Project

One page facade comparison showing both options with their metrics

The following image shows the key considerations for this facade analysis:

Typical floor plan image with unit types or zones labelled, plus the unit mix schedule

Floor plan size changes per floor and therefore so does distribution. The complex is also split into two buildings. The image below shows the unit distribution for the second floor on one side of the building.

The total unit distribution can be found below:

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

The massing remained generally consistent with Week 2, with targeted changes to make the building more approachable and improve connectivity. These changes were concentrated at the entrance towers. First, the towers were revised into receding steps to create a more gradual transition in height and reduce the building’s perceived scale. The more significant change was the addition of a sky bridge connecting the towers for occupant access. However, this connection also introduces additional obstruction to daylight, particularly at the courtyard corner beneath the bridge.

Because the overall massing remained similar, the two facade options showed similar sun-hour and external daylight-potential results. However, the studies revealed differences in how each facade arrangement used the available daylight in specific areas. The comparison was organized around four considerations: residential window placement, balcony distribution, hallway glazing, and glazing for the ground-floor commercial spaces. The decision matrix and summary is presented below:

• Residential Window Placement: Facade 1 places more windows in areas with good daylight potential, making better use of the available light.
• Balcony Distribution: Facade 2’s staggered balconies leave some windows less obstructed. This is helpful at the already dark courtyard corner.
• Hallway Glazing: Facade 1’s long windows bring daylight in along the hallway instead of mainly at one spot.
• Ground-Floor Commercial Glazing: Facade 1’s larger glazed areas offer more daylight opportunities and a stronger connection to the courtyard

Final Choice: Facade 1, with more glazing, was selected. However, the balcony arrangement at the shaded corner remains an important consideration, and adopting Facade 2’s staggering balconies, especially at that corner, may be a good decision

The facade automation was useful for the seen repeating patterns in Facade 1, but I had to make changes where the floor layouts differed. My building has different floor lengths, stepped levels, and a mirrored layout in the opposite building, so I needed several modules and manual adjustments. I also adjusted the pattern where circulation interrupted it, making sure windows and balconies matched actual spaces behind them rather than simply checking that they did not align with interior walls.