Critique With Physics

The limitation of the first stage of research by design was that the matrix considered the activities separately, and the spatial arrangements were done without consideration for the internal environment and physics of the space. Critiquing with the physics (thermal, light, and air conditions) enabled us to identify clashes and synergies among the activities.

The thermal conditions desirable for each activity are marked on the plan and sections. We have shown the suitable ambient air temperature, suggested position for passive cooling and solar gain to occur, the sources of radiation and convection heat, and the maximum acceptable u-value for the envelope based on Passivhaus standards. The clashes and synergies between these properties are shown.

The desirable lighting conditions are illustrated by the colour temperature and type of lighting suitable for each activity. We have suggested suitable window and balcony positions which aid in the regulation of the body’s circadian rhythm – through exposure to morning and evening light. Again, areas which clash or synergise are shown.

Finally, the conditions of the air within the apartment are shown in terms of air saturation, and in terms of smells which you would wish to either remove or accentuate. The wettest areas cause unwanted smells to be trapped leading to areas within the apartment which are subject to poor air quality. The suggested positions of natural ventilation are spread across the apartment but the central zone may require additional mechanical ventilation.

See the critique of all the winning typologies here:

Initially designing with the activities allowed us to focus on the spatial convenience but this did not directly result in increased comfort. Upon layering the physical dynamics of space over the activity plans and sections, synergies arise promoting a radicalised design strategy for phase 2.