Working share link to your Forma project
**both are shared with everyone on the teaching team!
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
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%).
From left to right: Floor 1, Floor 2, Floor 3
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
Massing
I kept the Week 2 U-shaped scheme, with the courtyard opening away from Lincoln Way traffic. The main change was in the plan. I shifted the corner two-bedroom units on every floor to absorb an unneeded corridor segment, then pulled back their Lincoln Way side so the adjacent studios could become one-bedrooms, bringing 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, leaving 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 fall between 400 and 650 ft², with the larger units 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. Option A uses a lower window-to-wall ratio and gives balconies to the first-floor residential units at the center of the courtyard. It uses a separate balcony style for the three-bedroom units and leaves the walls facing the third-floor terrace blank. Option B makes four changes:
- It adds windows to each side of the 20 ft and 30 ft unit configurations, therefore raising the window to wall ratio.
- It adds windows on the walls facing the third-floor terrace.
- It replaces the center courtyard balconies with walkouts to the patio.
- It matches the three-bedroom balconies to the other unit types by replacing a 30’ configuration & wider windows with two 20’ configurations. This provides more balcony space and a larger window to wall ratio.
Daylight Potential shows the terrace-facing windows receive moderate daylight, with about 4–6 hours of direct sun, a clear gain for units that previously had no light from that side.
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 added glass raised carbon, which I considered acceptable for the daylight gained. I would have chosen Option A if Option B’s extra glass had noticeably raised energy use without a measurable daylight gain. This is a situation where quality of life through access to daylight in living areas is a higher priority than mitigating carbon.