Chloe Leung - Module 6

2 Unit:

Evaluation Node 1: Cost Performance

The first evaluation metric calculates the construction cost of the building using the provided project economics, where the cost per square foot increases linearly from $500/sf at ground level to $1000/SF at 750 feet. To provide additional insight, the average cost per square foot for the entire design was also computed. Average rental values for Dubai high-rise buildings were used to estimate the potential real estate value of the structure, with the top floor referencing a value of $1450/SF and the bottom floor referencing a value of $400/SF. These inputs can be manually adjusted to explore different rental pricing scenarios and identify an optimal strategy. A profitability index was then determined using the formula: (Real Estate Value − Construction Cost) / Construction Cost.

Evaluation Node 2: Visibility Index

The second evaluation metric assesses visibility, with a higher index (maximum = 1) indicating better overall views from the building facade. Higher floors are weighted more heavily, as they typically offer more desirable views. To simulate realistic viewing conditions, a fictitious surrounding environment was modeled to include potential visual obstructions. For each panel on the building facade, visibility was evaluated by casting multiple outward rays and checking whether they intersect any surrounding geometry. The percentage of unobstructed rays was averaged for each panel, and the final visibility index was computed as a weighted average, giving greater importance to panels at higher elevations. Currently, the visibility index values do not fluctuate significantly between design alternatives, largely because the artificial context has limited obstructions and most rays remain unobstructed. Incorporating a more realistic urban environment with taller adjacent structures or varied topography would likely reduce visibility for certain facades and produce a wider range of index values—providing more useful differentiation between design options.

Points to Ponder: The cost evaluation metrics successfully capture meaningful differences between the building form alternatives, as they highlight how changes in height, surface area, and massing impact overall construction cost and profitability. By incorporating variable construction costs and potential real estate value across the height of the building, the metrics provide insight into the economic efficiency of each form. Meanwhile, the visibility index score does not really capture meaningful differences between the building form alternatives as it is seen that the scores are all extremely similar. This limited variation likely stems from the simplicity of the modeled environment and the overall similarity in form geometry.

Other useful metrics that could strengthen the evaluation include a solar exposure index to measure passive performance, a self-shading score to identify how much the building blocks its own facade, or a daylight access metric to assess interior environmental quality. These additional measures would help further differentiate the alternatives in terms of sustainability and design performance.

3 Unit:

Points to Ponder: The strategy behind creating the single-objective optimization scheme was to develop a weighted scoring system that reflects the relative importance of each evaluation metric in determining the overall quality and feasibility of a building form. The most critical factor in real-world building design is the cost per square foot, rather than total construction cost, because it directly relates to affordability, efficiency, and long-term financial viability on a per-unit basis. For this reason, cost efficiency ($/SF) was assigned a weight of 50% in the overall score and normalized using a reverse scale—so lower values yield higher scores.

Another key consideration is area efficiency, which indicates how much usable space is gained relative to the building envelope—an essential metric for both functional design and return on investment. Area efficiency was weighted at 30% and normalized on a 0 to 1 scale using direct proportionality. Profitability, calculated as (Real Estate Value − Construction Cost) / Construction Cost, serves as a proxy for long-term financial performance. While real estate values were estimated based on average rental assumptions and may not perfectly reflect market dynamics, this index still offers important insight and was assigned a 15% weight in the final score.

Finally, the visibility index was given a 5% weight. Though it does not fluctuate significantly across current design alternatives or directly impact cost, it captures qualitative aspects of the visual experience from within the building and may influence perceived value or design refinement.

To compute the final evaluation index (maximum = 1), each metric was first normalized to a common 0–1 scale across all design alternatives. This was done using either direct normalization (for area efficiency, profitability, and visibility) or reverse normalization (for cost efficiency). These normalized values were then multiplied by their assigned weights and summed to produce a single composite score. This strategy balances performance-driven metrics with experiential qualities, enabling a clear and quantifiable comparison between building form alternatives.

Based on the results, the most optimal building design is the form with a mid-height radius of 200 ft and a top height of 710 ft, as it achieves the highest weighted performance score of 0.68.

Points to Ponder: The recommended alternative—the building with a mid-height radius of 200 feet and a top height of 710 feet—rose to the top of the list due to its strong performance in the most heavily weighted categories: cost efficiency and area efficiency. This form achieves a favorable balance between construction cost and usable floor area, resulting in the highest overall weighted score of 0.68. Its high area efficiency suggests that the building form makes excellent use of its envelope, while its relatively low cost per square foot enhances financial feasibility—both of which were prioritized in the weighting scheme.

However, some tradeoffs are obscured by the single-objective evaluation. For example, while this design ranks highest overall, it does not have the best profitability or visibility index values. Some taller alternatives yield slightly higher long-term profits or outward view quality but are penalized due to increased construction cost or reduced spatial efficiency. As a result, the single score may underrepresent alternatives that perform well in more experiential or value-driven categories. A multi-objective approach or scenario-specific weighting could help uncover those nuanced strengths for different stakeholder priorities.

4 Units:

Using the visibility index custom node, the weighted visibility score for each individual panel was used to dynamically adjust the size of the adaptive panel openings. Panels with higher visibility scores—indicating better views of the surrounding environment—were assigned larger openings to emphasize their unobstructed outlook. In contrast, panels with lower scores had smaller openings, reflecting their limited or obstructed views. This effect is visible in the images below, with the second image clearly illustrating how panels facing obstructions are more enclosed, while those with “better” views are more open.