Evaluation Metirc1: Pay Back Period
To calculate the payback period, two factors are considered: construction cost and rent. Each factor is determined based on floor levels, with costs distributed linearly. The lowest cost is set at $700, and the highest cost is set at $1500, corresponding to a maximum height of 750 feet. The rent follows a similar pattern, with the lowest level priced at the average rent for a Class C office space, $50 per square foot per year, and the highest level priced at $100 per square foot per year, adhering to the same height limitation.
Reference for Average Rent of the Office in San Francisco
The average rent cost data for each floor are referred to the above reference.
Evaluation Metirc2: View Score
By Using the given custom nodes, I filtered the surfaces walls excluding the ground and roof surfaces.
Based on the Google Maps direction, I input the structure which represent the Golden Gate Bridge to analyze the view score of the building.
Calculating Vector Dot Product between the building and the Golden Gate Bridge.
To analyze the view score of the building, the surfaces vector value has been calculated and the Golden Gate Bridge’s vector value has been created.
Vector Dot Equation
For the efficient analysis, a vector.dot equation is utilized to assess the visibility of the Golden Gate Bridge from various panels of a building. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, negative values, which indicate that the corresponding panels have no visibility of the bridge, are excluded from the calculation. This step allows for a focus on panels that offer a view of the Golden Gate Bridge.
After filtering out the negative values, the remaining scores are aggregated by summing them up. This summation provides a measure of the overall view score for the building. During the initial trial, the view score for the original building was found to be approximately 23.12.
The evaluation logic for calculating the payback period is encapsulated within a custom node, which facilitates the generation of comprehensive results in a single Excel sheet.
The custom node incorporates the necessary calculations and formulas to determine the payback period based on construction costs and rental income. It takes into account factors such as floor levels, linear cost distribution, and corresponding rent rates for each level. By inputting the required data, the custom node performs the necessary computations to determine the payback period.
Specifically, four main input parameters are introduced to calculate the simplified pay back period: rent at lowest level, rent at highest level, construction cost at lowest level, and construction cost at highest level.
In the view score analysis, users have the ability to input the object of interest by selecting it from the Revit model. This functionality allows for precise evaluation of the visibility of the desired object, such as the Golden Gate Bridge, from different perspectives within the building.
Furthermore, users can adjust the number of "U" and "V" panels to obtain more accurate results. This flexibility enables a finer-grained assessment of the view score, allowing for a more detailed analysis of the building's view quality.
All calculated and imported values are connected to the allResultsData Output to make a excel sheet for the final report. Below is list of values.
Item0: Trial No.
Item1: Gross Floor Area
Item2: Gross Surface Area
Item3: Gross Volume
Item4: Pay Back Period
Item5: View Score
Table for the Evaluation
The final evaluation reveals no significant differences between the options due to the minimal impact of the twist degree on floor area. As the payback period calculation is based on floor area, variations resulting from the twist degree are minor. To introduce more flexibility, an additional input parameter, such as a constraint on the difference in area between the bottom and top floors, could provide optimized options within design constraints.
In terms of the view score evaluation, the twist degree shapes the building but generates similar wall areas facing the Golden Gate Bridge. While the differences may not be substantial, they can still assist users in selecting the optimal option given their specific design constraints. Professional evaluation ensures informed decision-making, even if the differences are not significant in magnitude.