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
Red: 3 Bedroom, Yellow: 2 Bedroom, Green: 1 Bedroom, Blue: Studio
This analysis shows the distribution for the entire building.
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 had to alter my massing from Week 2 because I was initially having problems modeling floor plans with a āfloatingā massing, which was supposed to be a bridge connecting 2 sides of my massing. Due to this issue, I pivoted, removed the bridge, and instead extended the bridge side of the building downwards to connect to the ground. I also raised the height of the west side of my building instead of the previous east side for maximum evening shade. After those adjustments, I placed the floor plans and tried out different facade ideas. I created Facade 1 almost entirely on my own and allowed for a mostly automated facade design for Facade 2. I ended up changing the wall-to-window ratios depending on my floor plan layouts and overrode the automations on some floors, especially the ground floor, to place more doors and be more deliberate about the design.
Out of these 2 options, I prefer Facade 1 because it is more tailored to each individual room's spacing, while also looking aesthetically pleasing. I was able to have full control over Facade 1, whereas the automated facades, I believe, did not always fit the layout of my floor plans and were difficult to adjust. The analyses between the 2 options are very similar. However, facade 1 has a 0.5 M kgCO2e larger carbon footprint than facade 2. I do not believe that this is too significant a difference to alter my choice. Sun hours and daylight were very similar between both facades, so those analyses did not affect my choice.