Glenn KatzYour Design Journal entries for this module should highlight:
- the design alternatives that you modeled and tested
- the results of the analyses and how they influenced your thinking about how to move forward
Use text , images, web links, movies... Whatever media works best to express your ideas!
Images of Your 3 Design Proposals
Paste screenshots of your 3 proposed building forms here...
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Paste at least 2 screenshots showing the side-by-side comparisons of the analysis results for your 3 proposed building forms here…
From left to right is Proposal 1, Proposal 2 and Proposal 3.
Sun Hours Comparison on March 21
Sun Hours Comparison on June 21
Sun Hours Comparison on September 21
Sun Hours Comparison on December 21
Solar Energy Comparison
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Create a few paragraphs outlining a brief explanation of why you chose this design option as the “best” after comparing your analyses of the proposals. Explain your reasoning and the tradeoffs that influenced your decision about which design option to move forward with.
After conducting thorough analyses of the three building proposals, including simulations of sun hours for March 21, June 21, September 21, and December 21, as well as solar energy assessments, I have concluded that Proposal 1 is the optimal choice. This decision was based on several key factors and involved a careful consideration of trade-offs.
Primary Reason for Selection: The most compelling advantage of Proposal 1 is its maximized capacity for solar energy generation. This aligns directly with the core objective of increasing sun time hours and maximizing electricity production from solar panels. There are several aspects of Proposal 1 that make it particularly suited for this purpose:
- Largest Roof Area for Solar Panels: Proposal 1 offers the most extensive roof space, which can be fully utilized for solar panel installation. This larger area directly translates into higher potential for energy generation.
- Optimal Facade Orientation: The southwest and east orientations of the building in Proposal 1 receive prolonged sun hours. This makes it ideal for the installation of solar glass facades, which serve the dual purpose of generating power and allowing natural sunlight to penetrate, enhancing energy efficiency and indoor light quality.
- Energy Efficiency in Heating: Given New York's cold winters, heating costs are a significant consideration. Proposal 1's ability to capture maximum sun hours is advantageous for naturally augmenting building warmth, thereby reducing reliance on artificial heating and associated costs.
Trade-offs and Considerations: The decision to choose Proposal 1 did involve weighing certain trade-offs. While the other proposals may have had certain architectural or aesthetic merits, they fell short in terms of solar energy optimization. The prioritization of energy efficiency and sustainability was deemed more critical for the project's success, especially given the emphasis on green building practices.
Furthermore, while the larger roof area in Proposal 1 offers increased solar panel capacity, it also means a larger surface area to maintain. However, the long-term benefits of energy generation and efficiency outweigh the maintenance considerations.
In summary, Proposal 1 presents the best alignment with the project's sustainability goals, particularly in maximizing solar energy generation and optimizing heating efficiency. The choice reflects a strategic compromise between aesthetic elements and the practical, long-term benefits of energy efficiency and sustainability, ultimately guiding the decision toward a design that promises the most significant environmental and economic returns.