Glenn KatzImages of Your 3 Design Proposals
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Sun Hour Analysis
- June 21st Result
- December 21st Result
Daylight Potential Analysis
Rapid Wind Analysis
Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Sunlight Analysis Comparison
Proposal 1 features a significant amount of light exposure on the upper surface and outer walls, with the central void receiving less light. This could make for an interesting interplay of light and shadow within the interior space, potentially making it cooler and less exposed to direct sunlight.
Proposal 2 maximizes sunlight exposure on the terraced levels, the top is also well-exposed, which could be beneficial if the intention is to utilize solar energy.
Proposal 3 has an even distribution of sunlight over its entire form, with the top receiving the most consistent exposure, which indicates a more uniform interior temperature, potentially making this design more energy-efficient.
Daylight Potential Analysis Comparison
Proposal 1 varied daylight exposure, with the upper and outer surfaces catching significant sunlight while the inner surfaces and central void receive less, suggesting a natural cooling effect. The design's shape inherently offers a central shaded area, which could be used for activities requiring protection from direct sunlight or for creating a temperate microclimate.
Proposal 2 shows light exposure stratified across its terraces, potentially offering a gradient of light conditions suitable for different times of the day or various activities. The top receives ample sunlight, ideal for uses that benefit from maximum daylight exposure.
Proposal 3 demonstrates an even distribution of light, with the top layers receiving more direct sunlight. This suggests an interior with consistent lighting conditions, which can be advantageous for energy efficiency and maintaining constant ambient light.
Best Design Option
I intend to choose Design 1 as my best option among all three designs. It has several advantages:
- Innovative Aesthetics: Its unique form can serve as a landmark, creating a strong visual statement.
- Shading and Ventilation: The central void can provide natural cooling through shading and airflow, reducing reliance on artificial climate control.
- Versatility: The varying degrees of sunlight exposure allow for multiple uses within the same structure, from sunlit areas on the periphery to shaded spaces inside.
- Natural Light Optimization: The design maximizes the use of natural light on the outer rim while controlling excessive heat gain, offering a sustainable lighting solution.
- Dynamic Experience: The interplay of light and shadow can enhance the spatial experience, changing throughout the day and seasons.
Comparing To Project Goals
Design 1 also matched some of my design goals:
- Sustainability - Carbon Footprint and Renewable Resources.
- Natural Light Maximization
- Passive Cooling: The shaded inner area can contribute to natural cooling, potentially reducing the need for air conditioning and the building's overall energy demand.
- Visitor Engagement and Interaction.
- Central Void as a Gathering Area: The central shaded space can serve as a social hub for visitors to gather, interact, and engage with the building and each other.
Summary
Considering the analysis, Design 1 is not only aesthetically striking but also potentially more energy-efficient and adaptable to varying environmental and functional needs. It allows for flexibility in usage while also offering an inviting space that interacts with natural light in dynamic ways.