The question is after SD the owner would like to add a pool to the hotel project and what the architect should inform the owner will affect this addition. One of the choice is building height. Without knowing or indicting the location, not only the public space plan, but assume the building height might need to change considering the depth of the pool. If pool is place above the double height lobby and able to reduce the ceiling height, the building height will not change, but not enough information. Please let me know the reason the building height is not as good answer comparing to public space layout. The public space layout will not change if placed outside the existing plan area. Both choice need some assumption and having hard time to consider which one is better answer.
Hi @smoriny ,
My apologies for the slow response! I was travelling this week.
You are absolutely not wrong. The addition of the pool might change the building height.
Typically, in hospitality design the lobby is a double-height space. A pool on the first floor likely wouldn’t adjust the building height as the floor-to-floor is already appropriate. This might require the underground parking to be lower than before to accommodate the pool, but increasing the depth of the parking won’t affect building height. Most likely, this is the scenario in which the pool would be added.
However, there’s an infinite amount of possibilities out there. What if the pool is on the second level for some reason, would it affect the height? Maybe.
It’s important to keep in mind that these questions are asking for the ‘most correct’ answers. Which in this case, were: project schedule, cost of work, public space layout (the pool is a part of the public space of the hotel, so it will be affected if in no other way than the pool was added) and building area. These items will all be affected by the addition of a pool with certainty, where as the building height was more of a probably not, but maybe. Since the prompt only asked for the 4 answers which applied, you can omit the building height. This question was absolutely meant to be tricky.
Hope this helps!
-Darion
I had issues with this question as well! I chose that the use of the building (occupancy) could change, but did not select buidling area. My argument is that: yes, there is a fitness center in the current program, but chances are that the fitness is not large neough to constitute a mixed-use occupancy that includes A-3. But the addition of a pool would most likely bump this to mixed use. There is no indication that the pool could not fit within the current building footprint, and thus building area cannot be justified. This question needs more information.