Glenn KatzComment:
In this design process, I wanted to be aware of the goals I made: constructibility and energy efficiency. I wanted to be conscious of the space and optimizing the best light and mitigate ways losses through the mass of the building. In addition, I wanted to move away from making a stiff and rectangular building that we commonly see. The three proposals highlight the changes and remarks that made me lean to a better improved proposal.
Images of Your 3 Design Proposals
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
Summer Solstice: Proposal 1 really shows an improved rotation of floors that create shading a better option. Proposal 2 was the first iteration of using floors that were not aligned.
Daylight Potential: In contrary to the improved shading in the Summer Solstice analysis, we reduced the daylight potential. Proposal 3 was leading on the daylight exposure.
Winter Solstice: This analysis did not show an improvement among designs. However, the increase roof area showcases a more efficient area that can be later used in other applications that included solar panels.
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.
The best design was Proposal 1 that combines the best highlights the other two proposals. The cut design in Proposal 3 focuses on including an entrance to the corner of the hill where the building sits on. In addition, there was no negative change to the building because of this design alteration. However, a better improvement was made through Proposal 2 that shifted floor areas to create shading for the building. This met with the energy goal to increase energy efficiency. In addition this creates a unique design that pushes from the rectangular shape. Finally the third design, Proposal 1, created a unique design that combined the previous proposals. The shifted floors were more dramatic and created more shadows. Despite loosing energy effieincy through daylight potential, this can be mitigtaed with a tilted design in the next step. Proposal 1 was the improved proposal out of the previous proposals.