> it's not a problem to have a higher surface area to volume ratio Apparently the original article included only 1/8th of the building's floor plan. Another c

> it's not a problem to have a higher surface area to volume ratio Apparently the original article included only 1/8th of the building's floor plan. Another commenter linked me this floor plan: https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/02/architect-resigns-grotesque-design-university-california-munger-hall/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/11/02/architect-resigns-grotesqu... As you can see, the surface area problem even worse! Each bedroom is 8x10 feet, but the building is only 87 * 4 by 200 * 2 feet. That's 1496 linear feet of exterior wall. That's only enough for 187 exterior rooms per floor, while the design calls for approximately 512 (8 rooms per suite * 8 suites per house * 8 housed per floor). > It would be trivial to have a slightly higher aspect ratio, maybe one or two more floors You'd need to add not just "one or two" more floors, but increase the residential part of the building from 9 floors to 24!. Even if you made very narrow (6 foot) rooms, it would still require 18 floors. > You can make a not so tall building with a budget of 330 000$ per room And they're paying over $1 million per bathroom! I consider this a fairly disingenuous comment because the article is clear that the building includes space for other things like convertible classrooms and rec areas.