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
(when not accounting for the unassigned spaces (hallways, utility closets, etc., this results in the right percentages)
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 expanded my massing onto the adjacent lot to the north to gain more space, since the actual development planned for this site includes that area (the site is now 35,941 ft^2). I also adjusted the stepping to let in more sun from the east and west, and added an opening at the front of the building that leads to the interior courtyard. The building now has a GFA of 99,233 sq ft, which is within the target range of 100,000 ± 10%. The hallways run along the street side, buffering the apartments from Oak and Divisadero traffic noise, so the exterior glazing mainly lights circulation while the apartments face the courtyard.
For Facade 1, I used automated ribbon windows with a 55% window-to-wall ratio on the exterior. On the courtyard side, I designed modules with balconies, but had to place many of them by hand, because the building’s irregular shape gives some apartments uneven widths that the automation couldn’t handle. The result was a varied courtyard facade and a very uniform exterior.
For Facade 2, I again started with the exterior, but this time designed a custom window module for the whole exterior, with an irregular pattern of large and small windows to give the building character and residents more privacy with a window-to-wall ratio of 38.6%. I also had fewer balconies, with the hopes of increasing daylight and sun hour scores. On the courtyard side, I designed a larger balcony and window module and relied more on the automation, correcting it by hand for the smaller rooms.
Ultimately, both options had the same total carbon score, 3.08 million kg CO₂e, since they share the same massing and window changes have little effect on total carbon. Similarly, in a sun study on March 21, both received 5–10 sun hours on nearly every surface except the north-facing side, which received 1–2 hours. Their daylight scores were also similar, with very little of the facade below the threshold (because the daylight analysis measures how much sky reaches each wall, the I would guess that the score depends more on the massing more than the window size). Facade 2’s smaller exterior windows will lose less heat in winter, which should lower the heating load.
Overall, I prefer Facade 2. Its street facade is more visually interesting, its courtyard facade is more consistent, and its smaller exterior windows should make the building more energy-efficient.