4/4/12 330 Hudson Workflow

8/2/2019 4/4/12 330 Hudson Workflow

1/30

Buildings are almost always designed and built as isolated,individual entities. Te adverse eects on neighboringbuildings and the community at large are rarely consideredoutside o the legally mandated setback requirements.

Buildings as Individual Entities


2/30

Buildings Interact

Te shadow cast by the iconic Empire State on its neighboring buildings. Wind tunnel o okyo build

Blocked window view in Hong Kong high

LIGHT

VIEWS

WIND


3/30

Pedestrian skybridges connecting buildings at 24th Street,NYC

I.M. Peis Hancock ower is skewed to have a minimalimpact on Bostons historic Copley Square

Optimally Designed Building Interaction

Kevin Roches proposed elevated buildingallowing or open public plaza below

Apartment building with solar panels(Bern, Switzerland)

ACCESS PLAZASOLAR SIZE


4/30

Retrot Buildings orPositive Interactions

Altering buildings to interact as a retrot conditioninvolves prohibitve initial costs when considered inisolation

$$


5/30


6/30

Original Condition Cut Out Courtyard Tower Add

Retrot - FAR Example:

Do I want a courtyard to improve environmental conditions?

Yes No

Can I aord a courtyard?

Yes No

Build as Individual Partnership Opportunities Available?

Yes No

Invoking new FAR exception, will the valueo the FAR created by cutting out the court-

yard sell at a high enough price to cover thecost o cutting out the courtyard?

No Yes

Build with money rom sale o FAR

}


7/30

Tower Addition Consider Eects

on Neighbor

Optimize Tower Addition to

Mitigate Adverse Eects

on Neighbor

How Will the Addition Impact Neighbors?

FAR CAVEAT:

Bought to be developed, the extra FAR will inevitably aectits neighbors. Tereore, another condition or using the extraFAR is that the developer must coordinate with the communityto mitigate any adverse eects on neighboring buildings.

FAR Marketplace


8/30

New Addition - Neighbor Interaction Example:

Designed by developer

Neighbor chooses

Designed by developer

Neighbor chooses

Neighbor chooses

Mitigation o developing extra FAR

Design solution

Veto Massing Redesign

Utility / monetary compensation

Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access

Does the redesign solve adverse eects?

Yes No

Aesthetics


9/30

Tis Interaction can be Dened by a Linear Workfow


Mitigate Adverse Eectson Neighbor

Original Condition Cut Out Courtyard Tower Addition


10/30

MAXIMIZE:

MINIMIZE:

MEHOD:

LightAir

New core with atrium (Jenna)

LightAirSquare ootageSouthern exposure

Construction costsAdverse eects on neighbor

Solar collectorGreen wall

Neighbor approval

Neighbors blocked lightingNeighbors bad views

RotateFormal changesOutput rom towers solar collectorView o towers green wallCommunity program

Each Stage has Dierent Goals and Methods


Mitigate Adverse Eectson Neighbor

Original Condition Cut Out Courtyard Tower Addition


11/30


12/30

Typical Floor Plan- Ofce Floor

Women Men


13/30

Parametric Changes- Void Strategy

Women Men Women

Men


14/30

Element Strategy- Jm3544 Element


15/30

- Void Area : 2767 square feet

Output parameter

- Core Area : 2981 square feet

- Length of Void : 70 feet

Input parameter

- Void Area : 3275square feet

Output parameter



Input parameter

- Void Area : 4833 square feet

Output parameter



Input parameter

Input Parameter

Parametric Changes- Void Strategy


16/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

default


17/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

defaul

f.a.r. f.a.r.


18/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

default

f.a.r.f.a.r.

extension

extens


19/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

default

f.a.r.f.a.r.

extension

extens


20/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

default

f.a.r.f.a.r.

extension

extens


21/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

default

f.a.r.f.a.r.

extension

neutralizing strategy

P i l Si Addi i


22/30

Potential Site or Addition

Ad E t N i hb


23/30

Adverse Eects on NeighborCaused by Addition


24/30

}Mitigation o developing extra FAR

Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics


25/30

}


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics


26/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

}


27/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

}


28/30


Design solution



Payo Veto

$$ Energy

Program Access


Yes No

Aesthetics

}


29/30


30/30

Documents

4/4/12 330 Hudson Workflow