Design Description
For Part 1 I selected the Twisting Triangular Mass - Constant Taper as the provided Revit conceptual mass to flex. I began by deciding on Top Height as the input parameter to vary. I then set the other parameters to constant values: 60 degrees for Top Rotation and half that for Mid Rotation based on my own preferences, and 150 feet for Base Radius since that was the approximate maximum that would remain within the site limit and maximizing SF close to the ground level helps minimize construction cost. I varied Top Height across a range within the height limitation with specific lower and upper bounds determined through trial and error by executing the testing multiple times to identify bounds that would roughly cover the specified range of SFs to provide. I created a custom node to report the results that is the same as the provided custom node for evaluating a single input but reports three metrics.
For Part 2 I created a hexagonal profile with corners centered around the reference axis and diagonal lines connecting the corners. I initially wanted to create a profile with corners connected by curves but was having trouble generating a corresponding conceptual mass in Revit. I placed three profiles at ascending vertical heights and lofted a surface through them. The controlling parameters are the height of the middle profile, height of the top profile, and lengths and widths for each of the three profiles. The length of each profile is locked to two-thirds the width of each profile (to potentially maximize site coverage), and the dimensions of the middle profile are locked to those of the bottom profile (an aesthetic choice). I decided to vary the Top Height and Top Surface Width since this seemed an effective way to explore a range of values for the three metrics, and the other parameters set to somewhat arbitrary values that would remain within the site and height limits (the bottom profile dimensions were set to leave room for the top profile to be both smaller or larger than the bottom). The bounds of the varied parameters were determined by the same trial and error method as in Part 1, although the lower bound of Top Height was set to exceed Mid Height with a 120-foot (10 floor) cushion to ensure the structure could still be realistically generated. I again created a custom node to report the results that is the same as the provided custom node for evaluating pairs of inputs but reports three metrics.
Figure 1: Provided building form (Twisting Triangular Mass - Constant Taper) with Top Height input parameter set to 432 feet.
Figure 2: Provided building form (Twisting Triangular Mass - Constant Taper) with Top Height input parameter set to 528 feet.
Figure 3: Original building form with Top Height input parameter set to 320 feet and Top Surface Width input parameter set to 260 feet.
Figure 4: Original building form with Top Height input parameter set to 356 feet and Top Surface Width input parameter set to 400 feet.
Figure 5: Dynamo workspace for Part 1 (varying one input parameter for provided building form).
Figure 6: Dynamo workspace for Part 2 (varying two input parameters for original building form).
