Skip to content
Building Shapes & Compactness
Simplified Typology study for common architectural massings
Starting a carbon calculation without geometry can be challenging. Using this typololgy study default values can be determed for any building. Most architectural massings can be represented using one of the simplified massings above: towers, slabs, and courtyards.
Common dimensions have been used to determine the massings. A floorheight of 3.2m has been used to determine the GFA. The study concludes a typical compactness value of 0.5 is reasonable across all typologies, more specific values can be found in the chart below.
Typical compactness by typology
Typology study
Facade texture study with 1.8m x 3.2m voxel loggias on a 120m x 32m x 32m tower
Facades are often a large part of the architectural design process. The texture of the facade by the use of loggias or balconies can seriously impact the amount of facade. Early in the process we may want to include a facade uplift to account for this geometrical change.
In this example loggias are substracted from the existing geometry, meaning additional facade, roof and ceiling area is created at the cost of GFA. Compactness (skin area / GFA) is therefore impacted twice.
Compactness by texturing
MVRDV’s Valley has a facade compactness of 0.4. The same building designed as straight towers with balconies results in a compactness of 0.36 (-9%).
Similarly MVRDV’s The Sax is quite radical in its facade texture which has a facade compactness of 0.53 compared to it’s flush alternative at 0.41 (-28%).
When estimating facade areas for carbon analysis ahead of an architectural massing, texturing is unlikely to dramatically impact the numbers.
When significant texturing is expected you may want to inflate compactness from 0.5 to 0.55 (+10%).
Facade texture study
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.