Glenn KatzImages of 3 Design Proposals
Proposal 1:
Proposal 2:
Proposal 3:
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Analysis Results
Sun Hours:
June 21:
December 21:
Daylight Potential:
Solar Energy:
Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Reason:
The site chosen for the building is Copenhagen, Denmark, which has an oceanic climate. During the warmest month, the average temperature hovers around 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while winters can be as cold as 20 degrees Fahrenheit with limited sun hours. For my design, I aim to maximize sunlight exposure since sunlight is important for both the well-being of occupants and the sustainability of the building. To achieve this goal, I have incorporated open spaces or courtyards in each of my design proposals where people can enjoy the sun.
Proposal 2 has open spaces on the left side of the 3rd and 4th floors and Proposal 3 processes open spaces around the sky bridge. Proposal 2 is abundant with the daylight potential however their exposure to direct sunlight is partially obstructed during winter. Proposal 3 on the other hand receives less sun hours and daylight compared to the other proposals. The limitation in direct sun could affect both the comfort of occupants in these spaces and the building's overall energy efficiency. On the good side, both designs have relatively larger roof areas that’s available for solar panel installing.
Proposal 1 features a rooftop open space on the 5th floor, designed to maximize sun exposure for the outdoor entertainment area. This proposal stands out for its consistent distribution of areas that receive direct sunlight, making it highly efficient in terms of daylight optimization. Although less potential for solar energy, the consistent sun exposure suggests a reduced need for artificial heating during the winter, which aligns well with sustainability goals. Thus, Proposal 1 is considered as the “Best” Design Option of the three.
Trade off:
Proposal 1 has the smallest roof size among the three designs, indicating less area available for installing solar panels. This constraint could reduce the building's capacity to generate renewable energy on-site. However, Proposal 1 benefits from the most consistent direct sunlight exposure, which plays a crucial role in reducing the reliance on artificial lighting, thereby decreasing the building's overall electricity consumption during daylight hours. The abundant direct sunlight can also contribute to natural heating of the building's interior, which may slightly lower the need for artificial heating.