The groupings of buildings can be made in different regular geometric patterns or in more irregulararrangements. In the PLEA-study “Urban Form, Density and Solar Potential” Cheng et al. (2006)tested some alternatives with uniform/random heights and patterns. The research team concludedwith pointing out the advantages of randomly positioned buildings compared to repetitive patternswith respect to daylight access and solar potential. In our opinion the conclusions about randomlayouts should be interpreted in terms of specific variations. This suggests that there may bestrategies for patterns and heights - not simply random arrangements - which this new study clearlyconfirms. Although the authors of the 2006 study underlined the need for further studies, as far aswe know, no research of building groupings has been done.In this research a series of geometrical patterns of tower blocks was developed to examine daylightconditions. Some are already used in practice while others seemed to be very promising. The choiceof evaluation criteria was based on the discourse in the scientific community on daylighting and onpractical experience in urban planning. The view was also included as in the new EU standard. Thestudy is carried out for an assumed FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1,12 with buildings of seven floors.Advanced computer based daylighting simulations and calculations of view parameters have beendone for seven different designs of building groupings of equal density.All seven groupings have good daylight conditions with Vertical Sky Components over 40%. Thesix alternatives to the quadratic reference model have higher sunlight radiation on façades,especially on lower floors, due to their less perpendicular orientation to the surrounding blocks. Thesame alternatives have sightlines up to 3-7 times longer than in the reference model. Theseadvantages depend on the oblique, triangular and scattered configurations as well as the differentshapes of the ground floor area.The quadratic group is the most common pattern for tower blocks. Unfortunately it also has theworst possibilities for view with a perpendicular view of 30 meters compared to 50,7 to 93,3 metersfor the alternatives. Local conditions as well as technical requirements must – as always – influencelayouts. However, the six alternatives can still produce tangible consequences thanks toconsiderations of daylight and view.