Financial Apprais 4 . 0 D e s i g n E v o l u t i o n a n d F i n a n c i a l Vi a b i l i t y !" #$% & ’ hotel + - $ ! 8 , + ’ " ’1 0 ’ 23 ;& "* 7 6 56 89 1 . %: ’ / =** < 8$ > )!= recreation ’ ?/)( @ ABC 8 #6 / + 1D ! +E F 6 retail G greeneries bars/pubs HI ) J. 7I $! $A9 $ ( % . N EM !0 Q 8 8 RIN% 5 #!K ) C 4A,% GK O K 4A % 5 P F * ’ 8L car parks 4 8* -( $ /! 7I 86 8 "F 1= 2 8 . T ) S ] & > L* (<.( ]< D T# (=. " G = "*V 6 *% "0,! C @8 . 1 G 3 U 6 *0 13* 5< E* $30% "C8 & M 6 A ] X!! 8 I8 8 0% A ! . < :6T6M+bT!&V ’ \" 6 1 S W . <# E # V ’1) ! & & M% .@ . *** ’ * 1(N 6‘2 B* A$ 8 [ 02 $ 70 0 $/!/" 7<. ! /< % % . .< % & $[ * < 2 2Q ’ */‘ 8 8 O 5 _ ’ &M ’. & . N% 2 + $ *[ 0 ] .=G % Stage 5 & [ F c ,A + R 0P T/AK ( * 6 % !K< [ / ’% ( *Q (.. e @ !8 R-5 @ fS 1 \I 4VK9 E @8 5 8@ 8! V$ $ / (.[ E [ + P ’ S + % 6 R !5 M G ’ E E M $ / 8@ P Option 2 Rg@ 0,, 8 !6 SB 5@ 8 5% ) . <% <.% Si [ H I% J .* < <( V [ , ] ) * &>% + 9 ) 8 8 3 1 << ’f A4 M F 8 =@ & [ ,$2M/9 V % 86 I / A 8 [ 5 I (P $# =%< f A AV $ A‘ ! I . K 9$ ,A 6 K I5 8 [/< =.[ +@ c(>< W !78 V<8 *** $ 1 K K h 5 A 8 d -J V ’% ’ ,# /P’ W 7[’/ S # 9* [ < ‘!Y$ 8 !M‘ 6 : ^ @ C8 [ [ $ ’ Option 3 has been reappraised to undergo changes. The changes t have been made to impr the financial viability are cost of building specifica by increasing 10% in ord construct a better quality scheme, the developme density of offices and residential floor space a increased by 20% and th of use has been change offices to bars and pubs make it less profitable. M2 * Y -. \**/ 8 V" L 3 +3 S+ &* < . !I 7 4M & 0% +3+ ’ Option 3 incorporates the both option 1 and 2 designs with modern buildings and landscapes transformed from the high density uses. The design has also considered a central pedestrianized public realm with wider walking paths for greater accessibility and to encourage people walking and cycling. The design has also provided rooftop gardens to maximize green space. Option 3 has also adopted a hotel and more retail shops available for tourists and business workers to the area. Overall, Option 3 complies the desired design element in option 1 and 2. On the other hand, op 3 is more feasible because it lies within range of viability (16.40%), while option and 2 have a lower percentage of profit (13.26%, 11.83%) and means option 3 has a higher possibility to m the project viable thro design changes. [ ) * .% Stage 4 The design option 2 has inherited a similar design as option 1 with high density use of buildings. However, option 2 has adopted more landscapes, rounded plazas and greeneries between buildings to create a friendly atmosphere for users. The design has also adopted a semienclosed courtyard to create privacy for residents with basement carparks to maximize the use of space. ./ 4$ 7 K Land-Use Key ()* apartments Based on Table 1, op 3 will be chosen to develop because it ha the highest developer profit (£3,075,016) in absolute terms in comparison to option (£2,489,553) and opti (£2,275,115). cafes ( The first and second stage on the design are based on the concept of permeability with high density use for possible buildings to be developed in the site. The initial design considers optimal block sizes and walk paths in order to create a friendly environment and to connect main streets for transports. The design in the first two stages have caused the over division of space. Therefore, option 1 design is raised to improve the hidden turning corners which will raise safety issues in the Northern area of the site. offices "* The design of the project will comprise mixeduse buildings of residential use, retail shops, offices and restaurants which generates a sustainable environment for all. There will also be a well-connection of all transport services and effective coordination for people and vehicles to move freely and efficiently. Stage 1-3 >* The appraisal area is redesigned to create a lively and viable district with a proposal which aims for a new urban identity near the City Centre of Sheffield. The site will establish varieties of professional services to attract workers and people to West Bar. The final design for the proposal will be chosen from a preferred option out of three design options. The desired design is considered based on the design quality with an appropriate financial viability and the ability to change and adapt in the future of the schemes. In this proposal, the stages of the design has been developed into a final detailed design. . . Yr2. Urban Design Report: Process "[8 ^# MT   h# A \ ) =. ( ) 1 ) 1 4$ $ #M # # ‘, 62 + 29 8 $M/ =C C8 29 C 4M!#$ # - AM &2 9 )" G / , ’KM 11 Option 3 6 ( = b= After the calculation, the developer’s profit of all th options have been incre Option 3 has achieved a 19.28% of profit under d changes, which fits in th financially viable range. Therefore, option 3 is ch to be the most preferred desired design for the fin proposal.