Node 1: Evaluate Value per Floor Area Based on Mass Floor Area and Rotation
Sub Function 1 for Node 1: Compute areas and total area for mass floors
Sub Function 2 for Node 1: Compute total value of building based on linear value relation regard height, mass floor areas and rotation angles
- For node 1, I want to evaluate alternatives based on value of the building per mass floor areas which provides the effective of economic value of the building. In the mass floor function, I added an output which compute the summation of the mass floor areas which used for estimating the value per unit mass areas. In the compute value function, I added a factor which account for the cost of the rotation construction.
Height ratio = Level height / Total height of the building
Level rotation ratio = Height ratio * Difference between top and base rotation angle / 180 (Maximum rotation angle)
New value of each floor = value for each floor * (1 + Level rotation ratio)
- Then, I just times the mass floor area and new unit value of each floor to calculate new values of floors for the building. After sum it up and divide by the total mass floor to get the indicator of the value per unit floor area. For evaluating alternatives from choice of module 5, I input two parameters : top height and top rotation of the building. Top height span from 700 to 750ft with 10ft interval, top rotation span from 15 degree to 90 degree with 15 degree intervals.
Data table of alternatives for Node 1:
First Node | |||||
Top Height(ft) | Top Rotation(°) | Gross Floor Area(ft^2) | Gross Surface Area(ft^2) | Gross Volume(ft^3) | Cost per Unit Floor Area($/ft^2) |
700 | 15 | 486911.5218 | 287301.5116 | 7214601.153 | 865.6318667 |
700 | 30 | 486764.9439 | 287308.2612 | 7212242.782 | 876.4488712 |
700 | 45 | 486346.2263 | 287268.1981 | 7205698.045 | 877.2539818 |
700 | 60 | 485411.0146 | 287112.8721 | 7191643.005 | 878.3115646 |
700 | 75 | 483646.0339 | 286748.2114 | 7165198.338 | 879.5618 |
700 | 90 | 480698.1747 | 286072.992 | 7120970.924 | 880.9396111 |
710 | 15 | 496158.2532 | 291094.2235 | 7317666.899 | 885.1126579 |
710 | 30 | 496009.5715 | 291100.3626 | 7315274.95 | 885.6244742 |
710 | 45 | 495585.25 | 291058.5565 | 7308637.116 | 886.4427862 |
710 | 60 | 494636.6563 | 290899.39 | 7294382.367 | 887.5200921 |
710 | 75 | 492846.4823 | 290527.4531 | 7267562.03 | 888.7977672 |
710 | 90 | 489856.997 | 289840.1243 | 7222713.69 | 890.2121351 |
720 | 15 | 498269.536 | 294887.0798 | 7420732.635 | 885.9505226 |
720 | 30 | 498118.1528 | 294892.6185 | 7418307.09 | 882.7763063 |
720 | 45 | 497687.167 | 294849.0861 | 7411576.198 | 883.6029072 |
720 | 60 | 496724.4172 | 294686.0033 | 7397096.653 | 884.6875806 |
720 | 75 | 494909.4477 | 294307.1265 | 7369920.433 | 885.9678626 |
720 | 90 | 491879.6403 | 293607.4585 | 7324449.121 | 887.3756208 |
730 | 15 | 507529.3134 | 298680.0755 | 7523798.378 | 891.3884117 |
730 | 30 | 507376.358 | 298685.022 | 7521339.254 | 888.2679603 |
730 | 45 | 506940.0434 | 298639.779 | 7514515.273 | 889.0998131 |
730 | 60 | 505964.7428 | 298472.7233 | 7499815.348 | 890.1932866 |
730 | 75 | 504123.8039 | 298086.8016 | 7472283.964 | 891.4872117 |
730 | 90 | 501050.3335 | 297375.0362 | 7426184.482 | 892.914976 |
740 | 15 | 516776.4293 | 302473.2051 | 7626864.115 | 896.8242178 |
740 | 30 | 516621.39 | 302477.5679 | 7624371.397 | 897.352506 |
740 | 45 | 516179.1027 | 302430.6284 | 7617454.335 | 898.197448 |
740 | 60 | 515190.4313 | 302259.7905 | 7602554.78 | 899.3104574 |
740 | 75 | 513324.7263 | 301866.6776 | 7574647.443 | 900.6315461 |
740 | 90 | 510208.7575 | 301142.8474 | 7527919.742 | 902.0954871 |
750 | 15 | 518888.3031 | 306266.4621 | 7729929.855 | 897.6528414 |
750 | 30 | 518730.534 | 306270.2502 | 7727403.548 | 894.5867516 |
750 | 45 | 518281.1722 | 306221.628 | 7720393.385 | 895.4400137 |
750 | 60 | 517278.7378 | 306047.0282 | 7705293.446 | 896.5604441 |
750 | 75 | 515388.2327 | 305646.7486 | 7677010.898 | 897.884236 |
750 | 90 | 512232.3359 | 304910.3933 | 7629635.252 | 899.3417234 |
Highest Value per Unit Area = | 902.0954871 | Location of Max = | 30 |
After comparison, the most effective value provider for the building is the alternative with top height of 740 ft and top rotation angle of 90 degree. This choice can provide highest value for about 902 dollar per square foot.
Node 2: Evaluate Directness for Interested Building and Disinterested Building
Sub Function for Node 2: Compute Summation of Directness of Interested and Disinterested Building
- For node 2, I want to evaluate alternatives based on directness of the building to interested and disinterested building at the same time. The indicator can evaluate the building location better for accounting directness to advantageous surroundings(e.g. landmark of the region) and disadvantageous surroundings that people want to evade(e.g. inauspicious building, industry with air pollution) In the subfunction of calculating the directness, I added an input of disinterested building which used to compute the directedness to bad surroundings. For disinterested directness, I times a factor of -1.5 because people usually have stronger emotion for bad stuff compared to good views. Finally, I added up the summation directness from different objects together to get the total directness of the building to the surroundings.
Data table of alternatives for Node 2:
Second Node | |||||
Top Height(ft) | Top Rotation(°) | Gross Floor Area(ft^2) | Gross Surface Area(ft^2) | Gross Volume(ft^3) | Directness to Surrounding Buildings |
700 | 15 | 486911.5218 | 287301.5116 | 7214601.153 | -190.0538305 |
700 | 30 | 486764.9439 | 287308.2612 | 7212242.782 | -192.6563106 |
700 | 45 | 486346.2263 | 287268.1981 | 7205698.045 | -195.2244369 |
700 | 60 | 485411.0146 | 287112.8721 | 7191643.005 | -195.78692 |
700 | 75 | 483646.0339 | 286748.2114 | 7165198.338 | -196.8164678 |
700 | 90 | 480698.1747 | 286072.992 | 7120970.924 | -196.2699448 |
710 | 15 | 496158.2532 | 291094.2235 | 7317666.899 | -190.0453691 |
710 | 30 | 496009.5715 | 291100.3626 | 7315274.95 | -192.6472252 |
710 | 45 | 495585.25 | 291058.5565 | 7308637.116 | -195.2161777 |
710 | 60 | 494636.6563 | 290899.39 | 7294382.367 | -195.7752036 |
710 | 75 | 492846.4823 | 290527.4531 | 7267562.03 | -196.8063797 |
710 | 90 | 489856.997 | 289840.1243 | 7222713.69 | -196.2466872 |
720 | 15 | 498269.536 | 294887.0798 | 7420732.635 | -190.0372541 |
720 | 30 | 498118.1528 | 294892.6185 | 7418307.09 | -192.6385084 |
720 | 45 | 497687.167 | 294849.0861 | 7411576.198 | -195.2082577 |
720 | 60 | 496724.4172 | 294686.0033 | 7397096.653 | -195.763963 |
720 | 75 | 494909.4477 | 294307.1265 | 7369920.433 | -196.7967169 |
720 | 90 | 491879.6403 | 293607.4585 | 7324449.121 | -196.2243985 |
730 | 15 | 507529.3134 | 298680.0755 | 7523798.378 | -190.0294684 |
730 | 30 | 507376.358 | 298685.022 | 7521339.254 | -192.6301553 |
730 | 45 | 506940.0434 | 298639.779 | 7514515.273 | -195.2006579 |
730 | 60 | 505964.7428 | 298472.7233 | 7499815.348 | -195.7531828 |
730 | 75 | 504123.8039 | 298086.8016 | 7472283.964 | -196.7874312 |
730 | 90 | 501050.3335 | 297375.0362 | 7426184.482 | -196.2030106 |
740 | 15 | 516776.4293 | 302473.2051 | 7626864.115 | -190.0219954 |
740 | 30 | 516621.39 | 302477.5679 | 7624371.397 | -192.6221327 |
740 | 45 | 516179.1027 | 302430.6284 | 7617454.335 | -195.1933566 |
740 | 60 | 515190.4313 | 302259.7905 | 7602554.78 | -195.7428323 |
740 | 75 | 513324.7263 | 301866.6776 | 7574647.443 | -196.7785176 |
740 | 90 | 510208.7575 | 301142.8474 | 7527919.742 | -196.1824654 |
750 | 15 | 518888.3031 | 306266.4621 | 7729929.855 | -190.0148182 |
750 | 30 | 518730.534 | 306270.2502 | 7727403.548 | -192.6144272 |
750 | 45 | 518281.1722 | 306221.628 | 7720393.385 | -195.1863585 |
750 | 60 | 517278.7378 | 306047.0282 | 7705293.446 | -195.7328742 |
750 | 75 | 515388.2327 | 305646.7486 | 7677010.898 | -196.7699531 |
750 | 90 | 512232.3359 | 304910.3933 | 7629635.252 | -196.1627171 |
Highest Directness = | -190.0148182 | Location of Min = | 31 |
After comparison, the alternatives provide the best view is the alternative with top height of 750 ft and top rotation angle of 15 degree. This choice can provide highest directness view for interested object and lease directness view for disinterested object.
Point to Ponder:
Do the new evaluation metrics that you’ve designed capture the meaningful differences between the building form alternatives?
Yes. For the defined node 1, the alternative not provide the least floor area or the highest floor area, but it do have the highest unit value for the building which stand for highest efficiency of floor area usage. For the defined node 2, the winner between alternatives not provide the gross surface area, but it still gives the highest gross volumes and most favorable directness of views to the surroundings. What other metrics would be useful to compute to help understand and make the case for which alternatives are truly better than others?
Another metrics pops out of my mind is the alternatives which can provide the best microclimate conditions with largest mass floor areas. This metrics can select the best livable and largest living areas between building alternatives with the microclimate function provided in the Autodesk Forma. We can calculate it by times the value of microclimate in each floor with their respective floor areas and then sum all values together to get the final score for each building alternative.