Design Journal Entry - Module 4

Images of Your 3 Design Proposals

Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results

Sun Hour

Solar Energy

Daylight Potential

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.

Unlike privately owned residences, which prioritize building privacy, an exhibition center is inherently a public structure. Consequently, I consider it crucial for an exhibition center to interact with and be open to the surrounding environment. Moreover, an open area on the building's surface indicates a higher potential for solar energy. In these three proposals, I tried to design spaces that encourage people to connect with the environment and facilitate communication among visitors.

I believe Proposal 2 is the most favorable design option among the three. Firstly, each level in Proposal 2 is intentionally staggered, creating significant open spaces that can serve as balconies for entertainment or be utilized for installing solar panels to generate cleaner energy. Additionally, the reduced space on upper levels makes it easier to install rainwater collection systems. Given Sao Paulo's recent vulnerability to drought, having an efficient water collection method becomes particularly advantageous.

The construction site was located on a hill, and the ground was somewhat uneven. Proposal 2 took this into account by adapting the design to the existing conditions. A semi-open space was incorporated into the lower area to enhance interaction with the surrounding environment.

However, a potential drawback of this design lies in the structural stability. The utilization of multiple hanging structures in Proposal 2 may pose challenges during construction and raise concerns about future safety. While it's worth noting that the earthquake risk in Sao Paulo is very low, a carefully planned Proposal 2 could still be feasible.

Furthermore, the sun hour analysis indicates that the tall building situated behind my exhibition center might cast shadows, resulting in a slightly darker area than the average. Therefore, I've opted to position the sections of the building with more open spaces towards the sunlight. This decision aims to enhance the experience for individuals engaging in activities outside by maximizing exposure to natural light.

For Proposal 1, the building comprises six levels. The first four levels are regular square floors, while the top two levels have two distinct narrower cuboid shapes, which creates a semi-open space within the building structure. Additionally, a portion of the top-level structure would be built with glass elements to allow more sunlight for the lower levels. Comparing to Proposal 2, Proposal 1 has more sun hours for the majority of its surface area. However, it does not have enough open space and does not provide the same level of interaction with the surrounding environment as Proposal 2.

To adapt the hilly geography of the construction area, Proposal 3 divided the building into two structures. The design primarily consists of simple combinations of several levels in rectangular shapes. This approach results in a significant portion of the structure being enclosed within the building, which lacks direct contact with the external environment. As a result, the building requires additional energy consumption to illuminate its interior because of limited access to natural lighting.