I had to answer the phone and missed question 2. Which is the right location?
3 Likes
Correct to a certain extent. I believe partition walls count as net square footage, but structural walls, shafts, and stairways are not counted.
4 Likes
Location c. The upper, lefthand option. Above the water drainage swale and unobstructed views to the northeast.
4 Likes
From a leasing perspective, correct.
3 Likes
Good question, youâre right that âefficiencyâ relates to a variety of topics. In the case of Mikeâs question it relates to âbuilding layoutâ efficiency, ie how much of the space is usable for the buildingâs intended purpose, like space for desks in an office, or classrooms in a schoolâŚ
M
4 Likes
Thanks!
4 Likes
Ah, so in this case, efficiency is referring to both?
2 Likes
Hey Jamie, interior walls can affect efficiency of a building, especially if there are core hallways or public areas that are not rentable. (I work in real estate and I believe this is true, please feel free to correct me or elaborate if I am incorrect, or if the ARE Exam âseesâ it differently.)
4 Likes
Hey @cat.heard9 ! Can we possibly find a couple of resources learning about solar azimuth for @heather & @drewd
2 Likes
Check Problem Seeking pages 98 and 99. Its a little different.
3 Likes
To start, check out Building Construction Illustrated (5th edition), chapter 1.14
Iâll keep looking and post some additional references after the webinar
4 Likes
For question 2, I still feel like D would be the best location for the restaurant. Could you explain more why C is the best spot?
4 Likes
C is the better option because the view to the northeast from location âdâ is partially obstructed by the slope on the eastern side of the site plan.
Oops, Iâm realizing I was mixing up locations. Let me refer to the site plan again and Iâll update my response.
Okay, after consulting the site plan, the answer still stands. Location âdâ would have a partially obstructed view due to the slope it sits on. Location d is at roughly 625â in elevation. The slop to the northeast continues increasing, up to 640â. This would mean the restaurant views would be impeded by about 15â of elevation above the restaurant.
4 Likes
For the question regarding gross and net area, is 72% the answer because 55% is wasting too much usable area? Sorry if this seems to be similar to my last question, just want to make sure.
3 Likes
Yes thatâs correct. To translate those numbers into architecture, 72% of the space us usable for the intended purpose vs 55% being usable. So yes, more usable space is better than lessâŚ
M
3 Likes
thank you!
3 Likes
Thank you
4 Likes
Correct. An office building having only 55% net area would imply a poorly designed building. 55% is low for net square footage for typical office spaces.
3 Likes
So 96% is too high- meaning itâs unrealistic for such as tallish building, correct? (Not enough core, structure etc?) Because I chose this one without thinking too hard- I was thinking higher the better LOL . 
3 Likes
Correct. 96% is too high and would imply poor design as well (this might mean stairs, elevators, and other mechanical spaces are not included in the building â yikes!)
4 Likes