Generated page
Conflicts between metrics found in the student projects. Rebuilt automatically from the properties of all notes — edit the notes, not this page.
Design decisions are trade-offs between metrics. These are the ones the students identified.
Adam Večeřa
- Adding green facades and roof (green roof/wall coverage, biodiversity) increases structural weight and therefore initial cost (CapEx) and may affect building operation (questionnaire).
- Higher CapEx share (50% vs 40%) is accepted to reduce OpEx by 60% over 30 years, with a 12-year payback (life-cycle cost KPI).
- Going vertical frees ~120,000 m² of ground for park and ecology but requires deep underground storage and parking (−24 m), which conflicts with the embodied-carbon strategy ‘no underground / avoid deep foundations’ listed under KPI 2.3.
Adéla Berkovitz
- Splitting the mass into separate buildings is less financially efficient (cost) but gives human scale, better neighbourhood integration and passage for small animals (biodiversity / visual impact).
- A linear logistics flow (processing efficiency, less forklift travel) blocks a bio-corridor through the plot, so ecological elements move to the perimeter (questionnaire).
- Green roof coverage conflicts with hazard safety: the hazardous storage building cannot have a green roof.
- Rooftop car parking would save land but needs heavier columns for the larger loads (structural material/embodied carbon), so parking stays on the ground (consultation).
Amy Naprstek
- Low thermal insulation of the lightweight relocatable blocks (thermal comfort, ability to store climate-sensitive goods) is traded against lower operational cost and lower embodied/operational carbon (questionnaire).
- Relocatability and low site impact (area covered, biodiversity gain) come at the cost of truck transport emissions for moving the blocks, which the student has not yet quantified (questionnaire 4.4).
Aycha Chambashala
- Alternative 1 (two large blocks) gave clear visual and operational movement but scored low on residential view preservation and environmental performance (tunnel effect, ‘wall’ to neighbours).
- Alternative 2 (dispersed blocks) gave variety but lowered internal traffic circulation efficiency and created unused ‘dead zones’ between masses.
Ece Yasar
- Improved truck flow and dock capacity (logistics efficiency) reduces permeable area (stormwater), which the student proposes to mitigate with added green infrastructure (questionnaire).
- Material biodiversity stress from the building (7,920 PDF/m²/yr) is set against on-site habitat creation, but the offset is only claimed qualitatively.
Elsa Hauksdottir
- Maximising green roof coverage conflicts with minimising structural cost and embodied carbon (questionnaire).
- An open façade for public permeability and daylight conflicts with the thermal performance needed in compact, closed logistics mode, so the façade switches between the two modes.
- Robotic partitions reconfigure much faster (5–15 min vs 2–4 h) and need less labour, but cost more to operate and have higher environmental impact than manual partitions.
- A fully pneumatic envelope gives the most spatial flexibility, while a hybrid with only the roof inflatable trades some of that for structural stability.
Eva Kažukolovaitė
- Better long-term energy performance of the hub requires higher upfront costs and takes space, reducing space efficiency (operational energy vs. CapEx and space efficiency) (questionnaire).
- Bringing public functions to the hub may add occasional noise and foot traffic for residents (social integration vs. residential comfort) (questionnaire 4.4).
Hynek Hrabík
- Adding conveyor belts and automation (needed for cargo continuity under the bays) raises energy consumption, conflicting with operational energy and carbon (questionnaire).
- CapEx rises for extra corridor structures and conveyor technology, possibly offset by less paved area and lower embodied carbon in floors (questionnaire).
- Removing docks cuts paved surface, but in a conventional layout it reduces throughput (40 classic docks bottleneck at about 245 vs about 250). Only the flow-through layout keeps throughput with fewer docks.
- Bays without buffer zones and visual guides demand more precise truck manoeuvring and reduce flexibility, an operational risk traded against footprint (questionnaire 4.4).
Ilinca Maria Baciu
- Adding public and green layers improves urban integration and biodiversity but lowers logistics efficiency and raises construction cost (questionnaire; also listed as unintended consequences).
- Heavy truck areas must stay hard and durable, limiting the permeable surface ratio; water there is routed to planted channels and retention instead.
Johannes Berger
- Increasing warehouse height reduces area footprint (land use) but increases embodied carbon and CapEx (questionnaire; student says both extremes are developed).
- A drone network needs very high upfront CapEx for new infrastructure but promises lower OpEx, especially for last-mile delivery (questionnaire Economy 1).
- Building vertically lowers land use but raises operational energy cost (questionnaire Energy 2).
Julia Godard Lombard
- Raising the data-centre share increases heat production, recoverable heat and heat-recovery radius, but lowers the jobs created (social impact) as sauna and dry-food production are removed by P3.
- More servers raise recoverable heat but also raise energy consumption and water consumption, which grow with the data-centre share.
- Maximising solar panels improves energy supply but adds structural load and lowers biodiversity net gain (questionnaire).
Julia Kopác
- Cost to build roughly doubles (600 to 1,220 EUR/m²) in exchange for large gains in uninterrupted greenery, walkability, noise reduction and lower sealed-surface share.
- Higher automation level (lower labour cost) increases electricity use, i.e. operating energy demand (questionnaire).
- Choosing a vertical, above-ground scheme over an underground road option was driven by the embodied-carbon KPI, at the expense of a more complex long-span structure.
Katrin Rybinskiy
- Building underground would maximise green space and hide the volume but needs energy-intensive retaining walls, raising embodied CO2 and cost; building above ground is lower carbon but obstructs residents’ views (questionnaire).
- Using the roof of data centre C for PV raises renewable energy generation but leaves no roof area for green roofs, so green and blue area must come from the ground plane.
Khrystyna Verbitska
- Prioritising cargo-bike deliveries lowers CO2 emissions and urban traffic impact but reduces throughput and scalability, especially at peak demand (emissions vs. logistics capacity).
- Mixing public programmes with logistics increases community space and social integration but creates operational conflicts, congestion and noise at peak dispatch times (public accessibility vs. operational efficiency); addressed by comparing a hybrid layout with a floor-separated layout.
Lindsay Daphne Macuja
- Breaking the warehouse into smaller human-scale modules improves daylight and safety but increases façade area by about 30%, raising embodied carbon and construction cost (questionnaire).
- More building edges and public-facing modules improve street activity but increase maintenance and long-term operational cost (questionnaire).
Marek Nový
- Implied by the KPI table, not discussed by the student: solar exposure falls from 92% to 77% as tree count (46 → 257) and shaded public space (8% → 23%) rise, so more shade and canopy cost sun access (and possibly PV/daylight potential).
Natalie Žižková
- Not stated explicitly; the geometry optimiser balances façade perimeter (cost, heat loss) against the fixed usable-area target of 5,000 m².
Robin Jesenský
- Reducing cooling water use and cooling operating cost brings no biodiversity or ecological benefit to the site (questionnaire).
- A thicker copper shell (10 mm vs 5 mm) doubles copper mass and its embodied GWP, a choice the student lists without resolving.
- Wind speed drives site choice, but the windiest candidate sites were protected or hard to reach for heavy construction vehicles (questionnaire, location alternatives).
Roshni Basu
- Social and ecological activation of courtyards (social interaction, green space activation) conflicts with logistics presence, which brings noise, visual impact and perceived intrusion; mitigated by keeping units compact and partly underground (questionnaire).
- The courtyard/historic-centre concept gives deeper integration and social value but higher embodied carbon and CapEx because of underground construction, while the panelák concept is cheaper and has higher solar share (40–70% vs 20–40%) (questionnaire).
- Green space preservation (% kept green) competes with the footprint of inserted hub units and market functions.
Sara Gani
- More windows and open areas raise daylight comfort for workers but take wall space from shelving, reducing storage capacity (daylight comfort vs. storage capacity).
- Splitting the programme into two separate buildings improved traffic separation but used too much site area and isolated workers (traffic separation vs. space utilisation / worker cohesion).
- The campus layout gave more public space for residents but lowered storage and was inefficient for truck circulation (accessible green/public space vs. storage capacity and logistics efficiency).
Sara Sulollari
- Green planted area competes with usable public space; resolved by combining planting with social courtyards (questionnaire).
- The Borgartún location alternative gave better access but lost the waterfront connection and industrial identity; the waterfront site was chosen despite worse wind exposure (questionnaire).
- Public uses on the waterfront may conflict with port logistics operations and could lead to gentrification (questionnaire).
Thomas Olsen
- Maximising green roof area improves stormwater retention, biodiversity and thermal performance but reduces roof area for PV and therefore renewable energy production (green roof coverage vs. solar energy yield); resolved with a combined biosolar roof (questionnaire).
- Opening the site to the public and adding ecological features raises social value and biodiversity but may increase maintenance, wildlife disturbance and conflicts with logistics operations (public accessibility vs. operational efficiency) (questionnaire 4.4).
Vladi Kostecki
- More green space on the property means less storage space (green space area vs. storage capacity) (questionnaire).
- Reuse with an upgraded envelope and adaptive façade raises upfront cost and embodied carbon of the renovation but lowers operational energy and running costs (CapEx/embodied carbon vs. operational energy) (questionnaire 4.4).