2 Units
Results Table
Image Showing Building (730ft) Next to Burj Khalifa (2717 ft)
Parameter 1 - “View Score” comparing normal of panels outward to viewing the burj khalifa
Parameter 2 - “Revenue” based on building costs, dependent on floor, and rented value accrued over set time period
For Stage 1, the two parameters chosen were meant to illustrate the cost to developer and possible return given increased rentability or rental rate of units at higher floors. The direct view parameter was a considered metric because it may give added appeal to units, and increase rentability and revenue streams. Both of these were added as custom nodes in the original node meant to evaluate the building form for all test cases. They each had minimal inputs given the relatively strict project constraints, but for the revenue, building rental lifespan is changeable to see assess the payback period of the building, and the directness of view could be changed to account for another object of interest or landmark, though in this case a mock of the 2717’ burj khalifa, a focal point of the Dubai skyline, was chosen to illustrate a desirable view feature.
Point to Ponder:
Do the new evaluation metrics that you’ve designed capture the meaningful differences between the building form alternatives? What other metrics would be useful to compute to help understand and make the case for which alternatives are truly better than others?
They do capture meaningful difference between building form alternatives, as revenue is seen to significantly decrease through the designs in the data table, which may be an immense sticking point for developers. The view score may be less impactful in both its differences and associated meaning. Providing a metric to better estimate solar insolation may be a more beneficial input in the future, as that was a design constraint set by the owners.
3 Units
Optimization Scheme:
5 factors were considered when assessing optimum building form: net revenue, view directness, spatial efficiency, gross surface area, and gross floor area. They were ordered in that level of importance to account for the perceived ownership priorities. Revenue first and foremost dictates the feasibility of a project and likelihood of getting built. Views may indicate rentability of units and overall occupancy, another essential in ensuring development success. Spatial efficiency is another way to ensure optimization of construction and material costs. Surface area was deemed an important factor in the project summary, and was scaled negatively to reward designs that had lower surface area. Floor area was also a metric illustrated as important, but is considered in other evaluated components to a more meaningful extent. The weighting factors were multiplied by the situational results, and then summed and divided to create a normalized measure of optimized characteristics, ranging from 1 (most ideal) to 0 (least ideal).
Results Table
Discussion of “Best Option”:
The “best option” as determined by the single objective optimized score was the building highlighted in green above, with mid height of 120ft and top rotation angle of 90 degrees. This can be seen to be a relatively optimum design because of both the high revenue and high view score, indicating good investment return and high rental rates. The gross floor area is also relatively large compared to building volume, meaning that this design uses space and material efficiently.
Point to Ponder:
What overall strategy do you feel best captures the relationship between the evaluation metrics?
I think creating a normalized evaluation of all desired categories, from 0 to 1, makes results very digestible and easy to process. If the metrics are simply added up, it may be unclear to frame the solutions within a broader ideal context, for example if they are all close to 1 or 0 in this case, it is easy to see that perhaps any design may be acceptable or prefered, or none are close to the achieving the outlined metrics.
Point to Ponder: What propelled the recommended alternative to the top of the list? Explain your reasoning -- include a brief analysis of why this alternative rose to the top of the list and why you consider it to be the best option. Are there important nuances or tradeoffs that got lost is the single evaluation?
While this is a beneficial alternative across the board, with no clear categories in which it significantly underperforms in regards to other options, this design also does not champion any category. Given the rather arbitrary assignment of weighting based on the owner’s perceived desires, this “optimum” may not be a true representation of the absolute project requirements or desires. Getting feedback from the ownership team on their reactions or narrowing of desired qualities may be beneficial given the relatively close optimization scores of several options.
4 Units
Images Based on Analysis:
Discussion of Stage 3:
To construct Stage 3, the optimum case was selected from Stage 2 and the building was reformed. Unlike in the examples, this had to be done in a separate window rather than within the broader optimization file due to an extremely long run time if performed concurrently.
After the building was constructing, the wall surfaces were extracted and panelized as 5 surfaces. Using the view directness node, the angle between each panel’s normal and the burj khalifa was then calculated. Panels with more direct views were then altered to appear in a more red tone, indicating a hotspot for rentals or desirable units, whereas those facing away or with less direct/no view are shown in a cooler blue.