Michaella Park Module 6

First, I went back and made a dynamo model of my building in place of the Revit conceptual mass from M5. It looks like the way the profiles get lofted are slightly different, but I will go with the Dynamo model.

(partial screenshot of test tables)

Points to Ponder:

• do the new evaluation metrics that you’ve designed capture the meaningful difference between the building form alternatives?
• Yes I would say the new evaluation metrics capture the differences between the building form elements. For example, scaling up the height of the building yielded a higher occupancy. Something that surprised me (and maybe will have to debug) is that increased mid profile radius (the radius of the middle profile) increased the percentage of the floor with optimal daylighting. I assumed if we kept the offset value the same across bigger floor plates that a smaller portion of the floor area would be in the daylighting zone. I wish there was also a way to export an image of the building generated for each iteration.
• what other metrics would be useful to compute to help understand and make the case for which alternatives are truly better than others?
• Something I may have to go back and debug is the percentage floor area with optimal daylighting — this was a very simplified metric, if I had more time I would try to utilize the dynamo packages available with the sun settings and solar analysis.
• Another constraint / variable I’d introduce may be cost. Right now, there isn’t really a motivating factor to reduce daylit area or occupancy. More daylighting means happier occupants, and more occupants mean more revenue from an operation standpoint. If we introduced cost, it would make for a more interesting optimization problem.