Working share link to your Forma project
Board
One page facade comparison showing both options with their metrics
Paste your facade comparison here…
Typical floor plan image with unit types or zones labelled, plus the unit mix schedule
Note: Unit mix percentages count dwelling units only. I removed the 18 building-support spaces and 5 unassigned spaces (hallways) from Forma’s total of 109, which leaves 86 units. Each percentage is that type’s count divided by 86: 12 studios (14%), 40 one-bedrooms (46.5%), 24 two-bedrooms (28%), and 10 three-bedrooms (11.5%).
One AI render of the chosen scheme
Paste your AI render here…
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
Massing
I kept the Week 2 U-shaped scheme, with the courtyard opening away from Lincoln Way traffic. The main change was inside the plan. I shifted the corner two-bedroom units on every floor to absorb a corridor segment that served no units. I then pulled back their Lincoln Way side so the adjacent studios could become one-bedrooms, which brought the unit mix closer to target. The building totals 102,311 ft²: 71,165 ft² residential and 31,146 ft² commercial. Retail fills the 15 ft ground floor along Lincoln Way, 9th Ave, and 10th Ave. Above it are two full residential floors at 10 ft floor-to-floor. The third residential floor sits only on the wings, which leaves a walkout terrace on the roof of the center bar. Each wing has an elevator and a stair at its corner, so the two exit stairs are far apart.
Units
The scheme has 86 units: 14% studios, 46.5% one-bedrooms, 28% two-bedrooms, and 11.5% three-bedrooms. Most units fall between 400 and 650 ft², and the larger two- and three-bedroom units sit at the wing corners. A 6 ft corridor serves each floor. Corner units with one or more bedrooms get two balconies, studios get one, and no balconies face the neighboring buildings.
Facade Studies
Both options use triple-pane low-E glazing in an R-38 wood-frame wall at a 50% window-to-wall ratio. Option A gives balconies to the first-floor residential units at the center of the courtyard. It also uses a separate balcony style for the three-bedroom units and leaves the walls facing the rooftop walkout blank. Option B makes three changes:
- It replaces the center courtyard balconies with direct walkouts to the patio.
- It changes the three-bedroom balconies to match the other unit types.
- It adds hand-placed windows on the walkout-facing walls.
Daylight Potential shows these new windows receive moderate daylight, and Sun Hours shows about 4–6 hours of direct sun. That is a clear gain for units that previously had no light from that side. Walls facing the neighboring buildings stay blank in both options. The two options scored identically on carbon and energy. The daylight maps also show that balconies noticeably shade the windows directly below them on the Lincoln Way facade.
Choice
I chose Option B because it gives more units daylight and direct outdoor access, and a single balcony style makes the facade read as one cohesive building. The carbon model shows no measurable penalty, and the real penalty should be small because the added glass is a small share of the facade and is triple-glazed. I would have chosen Option A if the added windows had noticeably raised EUI without a measurable daylight gain.