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
proposal1:
proposal 2:
Proposal 3:
Side-By-Side Comparisons of Your Analysis Results
sun hours:
June 21:
Jan. 21:
wind:
daylight potential:
Your Recommendation for the “Best” Design Option
Best design option is proposal 2
- Sun Hours:
Sun hours reflect the amount of solar radiation the building can receive, which is crucial for both passive heating and potential photovoltaic (PV) solar panel installation.
(1) June 21 (Summer Solstice): All proposals receive ample sunlight, especially the first one which is designed to face the sunlight. Along with the second proposal having the most shaded areas at the base due to its shape and its layers of sheltered structure, but its big roof provides huge space for PV installation on these parts.
(2)January 21 (Winter Solstice): Sunlight is less due to the lower angle of the sun. The first design shows more shading compared to the others, which suggests that it might receive less solar gain during winter months. It was blocked by other tall buildings in New York.
- Wind Comfort:
Wind comfort is important for outdoor spaces and can affect the building's heating requirements due to infiltration.
The stepped structure of the first building results in no relatively cooler areas of the overall building, which may result in high indoor temperatures requiring an air conditioning system. The second and third buildings are designed to be comfortable enough at the bottom through the bottom columns and making their bottoms comfortable enough, while the structural design of the second building's layers of shade also results in relatively cool interiors that are not exposed to direct sunlight.
- Daylight Potential:
Daylight potential impacts the building's reliance on artificial lighting and can contribute to heating as well.
The daylight potential images show that all designs allow for a significant amount of natural light, with the first design having more uniform daylight distribution due to its rounded shape. The second and third designs have more varied daylight potential, which might lead to areas with either excessive or insufficient natural light.
Trade-offs and best design:
Design 1: Offers a balanced approach with sun hours and uniform daylight potential, but it has less wind comfort zone, and less sunlight in winter, which could impact solar panel efficiency and heating potential. Also, it may have high temperature during summer which will need more energy for cooling system.
Design 2: Appears to offer the largest space for sun exposure throughout the year, which is excellent for solar energy harvesting. However, it may have more varied daylight potential, requiring careful interior design to manage light levels.
Design 3: Provides a middle ground with reasonable sun exposure and daylight potential, but its larger footprint may affect site utilization and urban context.
In all, Design 2 appears to be the most balanced option, with a huge roof for sun exposure that's beneficial for both passive solar heating and potential PV solar panel installation. And the design offers moderate wind shielding to create comfortable outdoor spaces while possibly avoiding the wind tunnel effect that can happen with tall buildings. According to these benefits, even if the daylight is insufficient, it will not consume too much extra energy. At the same time the overall design can be well adapted to the New York.
As you can see in the actual New York map, the buildings are very modern and the location is on the waterfront, with museums, harbors, parks, and other art-filled architectural venues nearby, so proposal2's design can fit well into the environment. Also due to the proximity to the beach, the sea breeze can be very good to bring coolness to structure 2.
