Cubic or rectangular shape with more building cost?

Comments

3 comments

  • Avatar
    rebekkak (Edited )

    Hi Yuting.

    I don't have access to that particular question, but I am going to say that the answer would be the smallest footprint.  See this question I wrote.  (The answer is C).  

    It would require less excavation, and less concrete.  (The compact form would also be easier to heat, but that isn't mentioned as being an issue in this scenario).

    Hope this helps!!  

    Rebekka O'Melia, B.Arch, M. Ed, Registered Architect, NCARB,  Step Up ARE Prep

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Yuting Song

    Hi, Rebekka, thanks for your illustration, that makes more sense! Very helpful! 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jason Fairbanks

    The ratios you are comparing are not really meaningful because the perimeters of your square and rectangle are different, although the areas are the same! I agree with what Rebekah wrote, nevertheless.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk