3

C H A P T E R 1Design Process

IN MARCH 1971 VISIONARY ARCHITECT MALCOLM

WELLS published a watershed article in ProgressiveArchitecture. It was rather intriguingly and challeng-ingly titled “The Absolutely Constant IncontestablyStable Architectural Value Scale.” In essence, Wellsargued that buildings should be benchmarked (to usea current term) against the environmentally regen-erative capabilities of wilderness (Fig. 1.1). Thisseemed a radical idea then—and remains so evennow, over 30 years later. Such a set of values, how-ever, may be just what is called for as the design pro-fessions inevitably move from energy-efficient to greento sustainable design in the coming decades. Themain problem with Wells’ “Incontestably Stable”benchmark is that most buildings fare poorly (if notdismally) against the environment-enhancing char-acteristics of wilderness. But perhaps this is more ofa wakeup call than a problem.

As we enter the twenty-first century, Progres-sive Architecture is no longer in business, MalcolmWells is in semiretirement, mechanical and electri-cal equipment has improved, simulation techniqueshave radically advanced, and information exchangehas been revolutionized. In broad terms, however,the design process has changed little since the early1970s. This should not be unexpected, as the designprocess is simply a structure within which to

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.1 Evaluation of a typical project using Malcolm Well’s“absolutely constant incontestably stable architectural valuescale.” The value focus was wilderness; today it might well besustainability. (© Malcolm Wells. Used with permission from Mal-colm Wells. 1981. Gentle Architecture. McGraw-Hill, New York.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:22 PM Page 3

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

develop a solution to a problem. What absolutelymust change in the coming decades are the valuesand philosophy that underlie the design process.The beauty of Wells’ Value Scale was its crystal-clear focus upon the values that accompanied hisdesign solutions—and the explicit stating of thosevalues. To meet the challenges of the comingdecades, it is critical that designers consider andadopt values appropriate to the nature of the prob-lems being confronted—both at the individual pro-ject scale and globally. Nothing less makes sense.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The design process is an integral part of the largerand more complex building procurement processthrough which an owner defines facility needs, con-siders architectural possibilities, contracts fordesign and construction services, and uses theresulting facility. Numerous decisions (literallythousands) made during the design process willdetermine the need for specific mechanical andelectrical systems and equipment and very oftenwill determine eventual owner and occupant satis-faction. Discussing selected aspects of the designprocess seems a good way to start this book.

A building project typically begins with pre-design activities that establish the need for, feasibil-ity of, and proposed scope for a facility. If a project isdeemed feasible and can be funded, a multiphasedesign process follows. The design phases are typi-cally described as conceptual design, schematicdesign, and design development. If a project re-mains feasible as it progresses, the design process isfollowed by the construction and occupancy phasesof a project. In fast-track approaches (such asdesign-build), design efforts and construction activ-ities may substantially overlap.

Predesign activities may be conducted by thedesign team (often under a separate contract), by theowner, or by a specialized consultant. The product ofpredesign activities should be a clearly defined scopeof work for the design team to act upon. This prod-uct is variously called a program, a project brief, or theowner’s project requirements. The design process con-verts this statement of the owner’s requirementsinto drawings and specifications that permit a con-tractor to convert the owner’s (and designer’s)wishes into a physical reality.

The various design phases are the primary

arena of concern to the design team. The designprocess may span weeks (for a simple building orsystem) or years (for a large, complex project). Thedesign team may consist of a sole practitioner for aresidential project or 100 or more people located indifferent offices, cities, or even countries for a largeproject. Decisions made during the design process,especially during the early stages, will affect the project owner and occupants for many years—influencing operating costs, maintenance needs,comfort, enjoyment, and productivity.

The scope of work accomplished during each ofthe various design phases varies from firm to firmand project to project. In many cases, explicit expec-tations for the phases are described in professionalservice contracts between the design team and theowner. A series of images illustrating the develop-ment of the Real Goods Solar Living Center (Figs.1.2 and 1.3) is used to illustrate the various phases

4 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.2 The Real Goods Solar Living Center, Hopland, California;exterior view. (Photo © Bruce Haglund; used with permission)

Fig. 1.3 Initial concept sketch for the Real Goods Solar LivingCenter, a site analysis. (Drawing by Sim Van der Ryn; reprintedfrom A Place in the Sun with permission of Real Goods TradingCorporation.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:22 PM Page 4

of a building project. (The story of this remarkableproject, and its design process, is chronicled in Scha-effer et al., 1997.) Generally, the purpose of concep-tual design (Fig. 1.4) is to outline a general solutionto the owner’s program that meets the budget and

captures the owner’s imagination so that designcan continue. All fundamental decisions about theproposed building should be made during concep-tual design (not that things can’t or won’t change).During schematic design (Figs. 1.5 and 1.6), the

INTRODUCTION 5

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.4 Conceptual design proposal for the Real Goods Solar Living Center. The general direction of design efforts is suggested in fairlystrong terms (the “first, best moves”), yet details are left to be developed in later design phases. There is a clear focus on rich sitedevelopment even at this stage—a focus that was carried throughout the project. (Drawing by Sim Van der Ryn; reprinted from A Placein the Sun with permission of Real Goods Trading Corporation.)

Fig. 1.5 Schematic design proposal for the Real Good Solar Living Center. As design thinking and analysis evolves, so does the speci-ficity of a proposed design. Compare the level of detail provided at this phase with that shown in Fig. 1.4. Site development has pro-gressed, and the building elements begin to take shape. The essence of the final solution is pretty well locked into place. (Drawing byDavid Arkin; reprinted from A Place in the Sun with permission of Real Goods Trading Corporation.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:22 PM Page 5

conceptual solution is further developed andrefined. During design development (Fig. 1.7), alldecisions regarding a design solution are finalized,and construction drawings and specificationsdetailing those innumerable decisions are prepared.

The construction phase (Fig. 1.8) is primarily inthe hands of the contractor, although design deci-sions determine what will be built and may dramati-cally affect constructability. The building owner andoccupants are the key players during the occupancyphase (Fig. 1.9). Their experiences with the buildingwill clearly be influenced by design decisions andconstruction quality, as well as by maintenance andoperation practices. A feedback loop that allows con-struction and occupancy experiences (lessons—both good and bad) to be used by the design team isessential to good design practice.

6 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.6 Scale model analysis of shading devices for the RealGoods Solar Living Center. This is the sort of detailed analysisthat would likely occur during design development. (Photo,model, and analysis by Adam Jackaway; reprinted from A Placein the Sun with permission of Real Goods Trading Corporation.)

Fig. 1.7 During design development the details that convert an idea into a building evolve. This drawing illustrates the development ofworking details for the straw bale wall system used in the Real Goods Solar Living Center. Material usage and dimensions are refinedand necessary design analyses (thermal, structural, economic) completed. (Drawing by David Arkin; reprinted from A Place in the Sunwith permission of Real Goods Trading Corporation. Redrawn by Erik Winter.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:22 PM Page 6

1.2 DESIGN INTENT

Design efforts should generally focus upon achiev-ing a solution that will meet the expectations of awell-thought-out and explicitly defined design in-tent. Design intent is simply a statement that out-lines the expected high-level outcomes of the designprocess. Making such a fundamental statement iscritical to the success of a design, as it points to thegeneral direction(s) that the design process musttake to achieve success. Design intent should not tryto capture the totality of a building’s character; thiswill come only with the completion of the design. Itshould, however, adequately express the definingcharacteristics of a proposed building solution.Example design intents (from among thousands ofpossibilities) might include the following:

DESIGN INTENT 7

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.8 Construction phase photo of Real Goods Solar LivingCenter straw bale walls. Design intent becomes reality duringthis phase. (Reprinted from A Place in the Sun with permission ofReal Goods Trading Corporation.)

Fig. 1.9 The Real Goods Solar Living Center during its occupancy and operations phase. Formal and informal evaluation of the successof the design solution may (and should) occur. Lessons learned from these evaluations can inform future projects. This photo wastaken during a Vital Signs case study training session held at the Solar Living Center. (© Cris Benton, kite aerial photographer and Professor, University of California–Berkeley; used with permission.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 7

• The building will provide outstanding comfortfor its occupants.

• The building will use the latest in informationtechnology.

• The building will be green, with a focus on indoorenvironmental quality.

• The building will use primarily passive systems.• The building will provide a high degree of flexi-

bility for its occupants.

Clear design intents are important becausethey set the tone for design efforts, allow all mem-bers of the design team to understand what is trulycritical to success, provide a general direction forearly design efforts, and put key or unusual designconcerns on the table. Prof. Larry Peterson, formerdirector of the Florida Sustainable CommunitiesCenter, has described the earliest decisions in thedesign process as an attempt to make the “first, bestmoves.” Strong design intent will inform suchmoves. Weak intent will result in a weak building.Great moves too late will be futile. The specificity ofthe design intent will evolve throughout the designprocess. Outstanding comfort during conceptual de-sign may become outstanding thermal, visual, andacoustic comfort during schematic design.

1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

Design criteria are the benchmarks against whichsuccess or failure in meeting design intent is mea-sured. In addition to providing a basis against whichto evaluate success, design criteria will ensure thatall involved parties seriously address the technicaland philosophical issues underlying the designintent. Setting design criteria demands the clarifica-tion and definition of many intentionally broadterms used in design intent statements. For exam-ple, what is really meant by green, by flexibility, bycomfort? If such terms cannot be benchmarked,then there is no way for the success of a design to beevaluated—essentially anything goes, and all solu-tions are potentially equally valid. Fixing design cri-teria for qualitative issues (such as exciting, relaxing,or spacious) can be especially challenging butequally important. Design criteria should be estab-lished as early in the design process as possible—certainly no later than the schematic design phase.As design criteria will define success or failure in a

specific area of the building design process, theyshould be realistic and not subject to whimsicalchange. In many cases, design criteria will be usedboth to evaluate the success of a design approach orstrategy and to evaluate the performance of a sys-tem or component in a completed building. Designcriteria might include the following:

• Thermal conditions will meet the requirementsof ASHRAE Standard 55-2004.

• The power density of the lighting system will beno greater than 0.7 W/ft2.

• The building will achieve a Silver LEED® rating.• Fifty percent of building water consumption will

be provided by rainwater capture.• Background sound levels in classrooms will not

exceed RC 35.

1.4 METHODS AND TOOLS

Methods and tools are the means through whichdesign intent is accomplished. They include designmethods and tools, such as a heat loss calculationprocedure or a sun angle calculator. They alsoinclude the components, equipment, and systemsthat comprise a building. It is important that theright method or tool be used for a particular purpose.It is also critical that methods and tools (as means toan end) never be confused with either design intent(a desired end) or design criteria (benchmarks).

For any given design situation there are typi-cally many valid and viable solutions available tothe design team. It is important that none of thesesolutions be overlooked or ruled out due to designprocess short-circuits. Although this may seemunlikely, methods (such as fire sprinklers, electriclighting, and sound absorption) are surprisinglyoften included as part of a design intent statement.Should this occur, all other possible (and perhapsdesirable) solutions are ruled out by direct exclu-sion. This does not serve a client or occupants welland is also a disservice to the design team.

This book is a veritable catalog of design guide-lines, methods, equipment, and systems that serveas means and methods to desired design ends. Sort-ing through this extensive information will be easierwith specific design intent and criteria in mind.Owner expectations and designer experiences willtypically inform design intent. Sections of the bookthat address fundamental principles will provide

8 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 8

assistance with establishment of appropriate designcriteria. Table 1.1 provides examples of the relation-ship between design intent, design criteria, andtools/methods.

1.5 VALIDATION AND EVALUATION

To function as a knowledge-based profession, de-sign (architecture and engineering) must reflectupon previous efforts and learn from existing build-ings. Except in surprisingly rare situations, mostbuilding designs are generally unique—comprisinga collection of elements not previously assembled inprecisely the same way. Most buildings are essen-tially a design team hypothesis—“We believe thatthis solution will work for the given situation.”Unfortunately, the vast majority of buildings existas untested hypotheses. Little in the way of perfor-mance evaluation or structured feedback from theowner and occupants is typically sought. This is notto suggest that designers do not learn from theirprojects, but rather that little research-quality, pub-licly shared information is captured for use on other

projects. This is clearly not an ideal model for profes-sional practice.

(a) Conventional Validation/EvaluationApproaches

Design validation is very common, although perhapsmore so when dealing with quantitative concernsthan with qualitative issues. Many design validationapproaches are employed, including hand calcula-tions, computer simulations and modeling, physicalmodels (of various scales and complexity), and opin-ion surveys. Numerous design validation methodsare presented in this book. Simple design validationmethods (such as broad approximations, lookuptables, or nomographs) requiring few decisions andlittle input data are typically used early in the designprocess. Later stages of design see the introduction ofmore complex methods (such as computer simula-tions or multistep hand calculations) requiring sub-stantial and detailed input.

Building validation is much less common thandesign validation. Structured evaluations of occu-pied buildings are rarely carried out. Historically, the

VALIDATION AND EVALUATION 9

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

TABLE 1.1 Relationships Between Design Intent, Design Criteria, and Design Tools/Methods

PotentialPossible Design Potential Design Implementation

Issue Design Intent Criterion Tools Method

Thermal Acceptable Compliance with Standard 55 Passive climatecomfort thermal comfort ASHRAE Standard graphs/tables control

55 or comfort software and/oractive climatecontrol

Lighting level Acceptable Compliance with Hand calculations Daylighting(illuminance) illuminance recommendations or computer and/or

levels in the IESNA simulations electric lightingLighting Handbook

Energy Minimal energy Compliance with Handbooks, Envelopeefficiency efficiency ASHRAE Standard simulation strategies

90.1 software, and/ormanufacturer’s equipmentdata, experience strategies

Energy Outstanding Exceed the Handbooks, Envelopeefficiency energy minimum simulation strategies

efficiency requirements of software, and/orASHRAE Standard manufacturer’s equipment90.1 by 25% data, experience strategies

Green design Obtain green Meet the LEED materials, Anybuilding requirements for a handbooks, combination ofcertification LEED gold rating experience approved

strategies toobtain sufficientrating points

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 9

most commonly encountered means of validatingbuilding performance is the post-occupancy evalua-tion (POE). Published POEs have typically focusedupon some specific (and often nontechnical) aspectof building performance, such as way-finding orproductivity. Building commissioning and case stud-ies are finding more application as building valida-tion approaches. Third-party validations, such asthe LEED rating system, are also emerging.

(b) Commissioning

Building commissioning is an emerging approachto quality assurance. An independent commission-ing authority (an individual or, more commonly, ateam) verifies that equipment, systems, and designdecisions can meet the owner’s project require-ments (design intent and criteria). Verification isaccomplished through review of design documentsand detailed testing of equipment and systemsunder conditions expected to be encountered withbuilding use. Historically focused upon mechanicaland electrical systems, commissioning is currentlybeing applied to numerous building systems—including envelope, security, fire protection, andinformation systems. Active involvement of thedesign team is critical to the success of the commis-sioning process (ASHRAE, 2005).

(c) Case Studies

Case studies represent another emerging approachto design/construction validation and evaluation.The underlying philosophy of a case study is to cap-ture information from a particular situation andconvey the information in a way that makes it use-ful to a broader range of situations. A building casestudy attempts to present the lessons learned fromone case in a manner that can benefit other cases(future designs). In North America, the Vital Signsand Agents of Change projects have focused upondisseminating a building performance case studymethodology for design professionals and stu-dents—with an intentional focus upon occupiedbuildings (à la POEs). The American Institute ofArchitects has developed a series of case studiesdealing with design process/practice. In the UnitedKingdom, numerous case studies have been con-ducted under the auspices of the PROBE (post-occupancy review of building engineering) project.

1.6 INFLUENCES ON THE DESIGN PROCESS

The design process often appears to revolve primar-ily around the needs of a client and the capabilitiesof the design team—as exemplified by the establish-ment of design intent and criteria. There are severalother notable influences, however, that affect theconduct and outcome of the building designprocess. Some of these influences are historic andaffect virtually every building project; others repre-sent emerging trends and affect only selected pro-jects. Several of these design-influencing factors arediscussed below.

(a) Codes and Standards

The design of virtually every building in NorthAmerica will be influenced by codes and standards.Codes are government-mandated and -enforced doc-uments that stipulate minimum acceptable buildingpractices. Designers usually interface with codesthrough an entity known as the authority havingjurisdiction. There may be several such authoritiesfor any given locale or project (fire protectionrequirements, for example, may be enforced sepa-rately from general building construction require-ments or energy performance requirements). Codesessentially define the minimum that society deemsacceptable. In no way is code compliance by itselflikely to be adequate to meet the needs of a client. Onthe other hand, code compliance is undisputedlynecessary.

Codes may be written in prescriptive languageor in performance terms. A prescriptive approachmandates that something be done in a certain way.Examples of prescriptive code requirements includeminimum R-values for roof insulation, minimumpipe sizes for a roof drainage system, and a mini-mum number of hurricane clips per length of roof.The majority of codes in the United States are funda-mentally prescriptive in nature. A prescriptive codedefines means and methods. By contrast, a perfor-mance code defines intent. A performance approachstates an objective that must be met. Examples ofperformance approaches to code requirementsinclude a maximum permissible design heat flowthrough a building envelope, a minimum designrainfall that can be safely drained from a buildingroof, and a defined wind speed that will not damage

10 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 10

a roof construction. Some primarily prescriptivecodes offer performance “options” for compliance.This is especially true of energy codes and smokecontrol requirements in fire protection codes.

Codes in the United States are in transition.Each jurisdiction (city, county, and/or state, depend-ing upon legislation) is generally free to adoptwhichever model code it deems most appropriate.Some jurisdictions (typically large cities) use home-grown codes instead of a model code. Historically,there were four model codes (the Uniform BuildingCode, the Standard Building Code, the Basic BuildingCode, and the National Building Code) that were usedin various regions of the country. There is ongoingmovement to development and use of a singlemodel International Building Code to provide a moreuniform and standardized set of code requirements.Canada recently adopted a major revision to itsNational Building Code. Knowledge of the currentcode requirements for a project is a critical elementof the design process.

Standards are documents that present a set ofminimum requirements for some aspect of buildingdesign that have been developed by a recognizedauthority (such as Underwriters Laboratories, theNational Fire Protection Association, or the Ameri-can Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). Standards do not carrythe weight of government enforcement that codesdo, but they are often incorporated into codes viareference. Standards play an important role inbuilding design and are often used by legal authori-ties to define the level of care expected of design pro-fessionals. Typically, standards have been developedunder a consensus process with substantial oppor-tunity for external review and input. Guidelines andhandbooks are less formal than standards, usuallywith less review and/or consensus. General practice,the least formalized basis for design, captures thenorm for a given locale or discipline. Table 1.2 pro-vides examples of codes, standards, and relateddesign guidance documents.

(b) Costs

Costs are an historic influence on the design processand are just as pervasive as codes. Typically, one ofthe earliest and strictest limits on design flexibility isthe maximum construction budget imposed by theclient. First cost (the cost for an owner to acquire the

keys to a completed building) is the most commonlyused cost factor. First cost is usually expressed as amaximum allowable construction cost or as a costper unit area. Life-cycle cost (the cost for an owner toacquire and use a building for some defined period oftime) is generally equally or more important thanfirst cost, but is often ignored by owners and usuallynot well understood by designers.

Over the life of a building, operating and main-tenance costs can far exceed the cost to constructor acquire a building. Thus, whenever feasible,design decisions should be based upon life-cyclecost implications and not simply first cost. Themath of life-cycle costing is not difficult. The pri-mary difficulties in implementing life-cycle costanalysis are estimating future expenses and theuncertainty naturally associated with projectingfuture conditions. These are not as difficult as theymight seem, however, and a number of well-developed life-cycle cost methodologies have beendeveloped. Appendix I provides basic informationon life-cycle cost factors and procedures. Thedesign team may find life-cycle costing a persuasiveally in the quest to convince an owner to makeimportant, but apparently expensive, decisions.

(c) Passive and Active Approaches

The distinction between passive and active systemsmay mean little to the average building owner butcan be critical to the building designer and occu-pant. Development of passive systems must beginearly in the design process, and requires early and continuous attention from the architecturaldesigner. Passive system operation will often requirethe earnest cooperation and involvement of build-ing occupants and users. Table 1.3 summarizes theidentifying characteristics of passive and active sys-tems approaches. These approaches are conceptu-ally opposite in nature. Individual systems thatembody both active and passive characteristics areoften called hybrid systems. Hybrid systems arecommonly employed as a means of tapping into thebest aspects of both approaches.

The typical building will usually consist of bothpassive and active systems. Passive systems may beused for climate control, fire protection, lighting,acoustics, circulation, and/or sanitation. Activesystems may also be used for the same purposes andfor electrical distribution.

INFLUENCES ON THE DESIGN PROCESS 11

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 11

(d) Energy Efficiency

Some level of energy efficiency is a societally man-dated element of the design process in most developedcountries. Code requirements for energy-efficientbuilding solutions were generally instituted as a re-sult of the energy crises of the 1970s and have beenupdated on a periodic basis since then. As with allcode requirements, mandated energy efficiency levelsrepresent a minimum performance level that is con-sidered acceptable—not an optimal performancelevel. Such acceptable minimum performance hasevolved over time in response to changes in energycosts and availability and also in response to changesin the costs and availability of building technology.

In the United States, ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNAStandard 90.1 (published by the American Societyof Heating, Refrigerating and Air-ConditioningEngineers, cosponsored by the Illuminating Engi-neering Society of North America, and approved bythe American National Standards Institute) is themost commonly encountered energy efficiencybenchmark for commercial/institutional buildings.Some states (such as California and Florida) utilizestate-specific energy codes. Residential energy effi-ciency requirements are addressed by several modelcodes and standards (including the InternationalEnergy Code, the Model Energy Code, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2). Appendix G provides a

12 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

TABLE 1.2 Codes, Standards, and Other Design Guidance Documents

Document Type Characteristics Examples

Code Government-mandated and Florida Building Code;government-enforced California Title 24;(typically via the building Chicago Building Code;and occupancy permit International Building Codeprocess); may be a (when adopted by alegislatively adopted jurisdiction)standard

Standard Usually a consensus ASHRAE Standard 90.1document developed by a (Energy Standard forprofessional organization Buildings Except Low-Riseunder established Residential Buildings);procedures with ASTM E413-87opportunities for public (Classification for Ratingreview and input Sound Insulation);

ASME A17.1—2000 (SafetyCode for Elevators andEscalators)

Guideline Development is typically by ASHRAE Guideline 0 (Thea professional organization, Commissioning Process);but within a looser structure IESNA Advanced Lightingand with less public Guidelines:involvement NEMA LSD 12-2000 (Best

Practices for Metal HalideLighting Systems)

Handbook, design guide Development can vary IESNA Lighting Handbook;widely—involving formal ASHRAE Handbook—committees and peer review Fundamentals;or multiple authors without NFPA Fire Protectionexternal review Handbook

General practice The prevailing norm for System sizingdesign within a given approximations;community or discipline; generally accepted flashingleast formal of all modes of detailsguidance

Image Sources: code—used with permission of the International Code Council; standard—used with permission of the American Societyof Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; guideline and handbook—used with permission of the Illuminating EngineeringSociety of North America; general practice—used with permission of John Wiley & Sons.

Acronyms: ASHRAE = American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; ASME = American Society of Mechani-cal Engineers; ASTM = ASTM International (previously American Society for Testing and Materials); IESNA = Illuminating Engineering Soci-ety of North America; NEMA = National Electrical Manufacturers Association; NFPA = National Fire Protection Association.

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 12

sample of energy efficiency requirements fromStandard 90.1 and Standard 90.2.

Energy efficiency requirements for residentialbuildings tend to focus upon minimum envelope(walls, floors, roofs, doors, windows) and mechanicalequipment (heating, cooling, domestic hot water)performance. Energy efficiency requirements forcommercial/institutional buildings address virtuallyevery building system (including lighting and electri-cal distribution). Most energy codes present a set ofprescriptive minimum requirements for individualbuilding elements, with an option for an alternativemeans of compliance to permit innovation and/or asystems-based design approach.

Technically speaking, efficiency is simply theratio of system output to system input. The greaterthe output for any given input, the higher the effi-ciency. This concept plays a large role in energy efficiency standards through the specification ofminimum efficiencies for many items of mechanicaland electrical equipment for buildings. Energy conser-vation implies saving energy by using less. This is con-ceptually different from efficiency but is an integralpart of everyday usage of the term. Energy efficiencycodes and standards include elements of conserva-tion embodied in equipment control requirements orinsulation levels. Because of negative connotationssome associate with “conservation” (doing without),the term energy efficiency is generally used to describeboth conservation and efficiency efforts.

Passive design solutions usually employ renew-able energy resources. Several active design solu-tions, however, also utilize renewable energy forms.Energy conservation and efficiency concerns aretypically focused upon minimizing depletion of non-renewable energy resources. The use of renewableenergy sources (such as solar radiation and wind)changes the perspective of the design team and howcompliance with energy efficiency codes/standardsis evaluated. The majority of energy efficiency stan-dards deal solely with on-site energy usage. Off-siteenergy consumption (for example, that required totransport fuel oil or natural gas, or the losses fromelectrical generation) is not addressed. This site-based focus can seriously skew thinking aboutenergy efficiency design strategies.

(e) Green Building Design Strategies

Green design considerations are increasingly becom-ing a part of the design process for many buildings.Green design goes well beyond energy-efficientdesign in order to address both the local and globalimpacts of building energy, water, and materialsusage. Energy efficiency is a key, but not self-sufficient, element of green design. The concept,broadly called “green design,” arose from concernsabout the wide-ranging environmental impacts ofdesign decisions. Although there is no generallyaccepted concise definition of green, the term is

INFLUENCES ON THE DESIGN PROCESS 13

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

TABLE 1.3 Defining the Characteristics of Passive and Active Systems

Characteristic Passive System Active System

Energy source Uses no purchased energy Uses primarily purchased(electricity, natural gas, fuel (and nonrenewable) energyoil, etc.)—example: —example: electric lightingdaylighting system system

System components Components play multiple Components are commonlyroles in system and in larger single-purpose elements—building—example: example: gas furnaceconcrete floor slab that isstructure, walking surface,and solar collector/storage

System integration System is usually tightly System is usually not wellintegrated (often integrated with the overallinseparably) with the building design, oftenoverall building design— seeming an add-on—example: natural ventilation example: window air-system using windows conditioning unit

Passive and active systems represent opposing philosophical concepts. Design is seldom so straightforward as to permit theexclusive use of one philosophy. Thus, the hybrid system. Hybrid systems are a composite of active and passive approaches,typically leaning more toward the passive. For example, single purpose, electricity-consuming (active) ceiling fans might beadded to a natural ventilation (passive) cooling system to extend the performance of the system and thus reduce energy usagethat would otherwise occur if a fully active air-conditioning system were turned on instead of the fans.

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 13

typically understood to incorporate concern for thehealth and well-being of building occupants/usersand respect for the larger global environment. Agreen building should maximize beneficial impactson its direct beneficiaries while minimizing negativeimpacts on the site, local, regional, national, andglobal environments.

Several green-design rating systems have foundwide acceptance as benchmarks for design. Theseinclude the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED sys-tem (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)and an international evaluation methodology enti-tled GBTool. Somewhat similar rating systems are inuse in the United Kingdom and Canada. The LEEDsystem (Fig. 1.10) presents a palette of designoptions from which the design team can selectstrategies appropriate for a particular building andits context. Amassing points for selected strategiesprovides a means of attaining green building sta-tus—at one of several levels of achievement, via aformal certification procedure. Prerequisite designstrategies (including baseline energy efficiency andacceptable indoor air quality) provide an underpin-ning for the optional strategies.

The emergence of green building rating sys-tems has greatly rationalized design intent anddesign criteria in this particular area of architec-ture. Prior to the advent of LEED (or GBTool), any-one could claim greenness for his/her designs.Although green design is entered into voluntarily(no codes currently require it, although a number ofmunicipalities require new public buildings to begreen), there are now generally accepted standards

against which performance can be measured.Appendix G provides an excerpt from the LEEDgreen building rating system.

(f) Design Strategies for Sustainability

Unlike green design, the meaning of “sustainability”in architecture has not yet been rationalized. Theterm sustainable is used freely—and often mistak-enly—to describe a broad range of intents and per-formances. This is unfortunate, as it tends to makesustainability a meaningless term—and sustainabil-ity is far too important a concern to be meaningless.For the purposes of this book, sustainability will bedefined as follows (paraphrasing the BrundtlandCommission): Sustainability involves meeting the needsof today’s generation without detracting from the abilityof future generations to meet their needs.

Sustainability is essentially long-term survival.In architectural terms, sustainability involves thesurvival of an existing standard of living into futuregenerations. From an energy, water, and materialsstandpoint, sustainability can be argued to requirezero net use of nonrenewable resources. Any long-term removal of nonrenewable resources from theenvironment will surely impair the ability of futuregenerations to meet their needs (with fewerresources available as a result of our actions).Because sustainability is so important a conceptand objective, the term should not be used lightly. Itis highly unlikely that any single building built intoday’s economic environment can be sustainable(yielding no net resource depletion). Sustainability

14 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.10 (a) The Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center, Portland, Oregon. A warehouse from the industrial era was rehabilitated by Ecotrustto serve as a center for the conservation era. (b) LEED plaque on the front façade of the Vollum Center. The plaque announces the suc-cess of the design team (and owner) in achieving a key element of their design intent. (Photos © 2004 Alison Kwok; all rights reserved.)

(a) (b)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 14

at the community scale is more probable; examples,however, are rare.

(g) Regenerative Design Strategies

Energy efficiency is an attempt to use less energy toaccomplish a given design objective (such as ther-mal comfort or adequate lighting). Green design isan attempt to maximize the positive effects of designwhile minimizing the negative ones—with respect toenergy, water, and material resources. Sustainabledesign is an attempt to solve today’s problems whilereserving adequate resources to permit future gen-erations to solve their problems. Energy efficiency isa constituent of green design. Green design is a con-stituent of sustainable design. Regenerative designsteps out beyond sustainability.

The goal of energy efficiency is to reduce netnegative energy impacts. The goal of green design isto reduce net negative environmental impacts. Thegoal of sustainability is to produce no net negativeenvironmental impacts. The goal of regenerativedesign is to produce a net positive environmentalimpact—to leave the world better off with respect toenergy, water, and materials. Obviously, if design forsustainability is difficult, then regenerative design iseven more difficult. Nevertheless, there are someinteresting examples of regenerative design pro-jects, including the Eden Project in the United King-dom and the Center for Regenerative Studies (Fig.1.11) in the United States. Both projects involvesubstantial site remediation and innovative designsolutions.

1.7 A PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN

From a design process perspective, the operating phi-losophy of this book is that development of appropri-ate design intent and criteria is critical to thesuccessful design of buildings and their mechanicaland electrical systems. Passive systems should gen-erally be used before active systems (this in no waydenigrates active systems, which will be necessaryfeatures of almost any building); life-cycle costsshould be considered instead of simply first cost; andgreen design is a desirable intent that will ensureenergy efficiency and provide a pathway toward sus-tainability. Design validation, commissioning, andpost-occupancy evaluation should be aggressivelypursued.

John Lyle presented an interesting approach todesign (that elaborates upon this general philosophy)in his book Regenerative Design for Sustainable Develop-ment. The following discussion presents an overviewof his approach. The strategies provide design teamswith varied opportunities to integrate site and build-ing design with components and processes. Thosestrategies most applicable to the design of mechani-cal and electrical systems are presented here. Thisapproach guided the design of the Center for Regen-erative Studies at the California Polytechnic StateUniversity at Pomona, California (Fig. 1.11).

(a) Let Nature Do the Work

This principle expresses a preference for natural/passive processes over mechanical/active processes.

A PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN 15

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.11 (a) The Center for Regenerative Studies (CRS), California Polytechnic State University–Pomona. (b) Site plan for the CRS. It’snot easy being regenerative—the highlighted elements relate only to the water reclamation aspects of the project. (Photo © 2004 Ali-son Kwok; drawing from Lyle, John Tillman. 1994. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.)

(a) (b)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 15

Designers can usually find ways to use naturalprocesses on site (Fig. 1.12), where they occur, inplace of dependence upon services from remote/nonrenewable sources. Smaller buildings on largersites are particularly good candidates for this strategy.

(b) Consider Nature as Both Model and Context

A look at this book reveals a strong reliance uponphysical laws as a basis for design. Heat flow, waterflow, electricity, light, and sound follow rules de-scribed by physics. This principle, however, suggestslooking at nature (Fig. 1.13) for biological, in addi-tion to the classical physical, models for design. Theuse of a Living Machine to process building wastesas opposed to a conventional sewage treatmentplant is an example of where this strategy mightlead.

(c) Aggregate Rather Than Isolate

This strategy recommends that designs focus uponsystems and not just upon the parts that make up a

system—in essence, seeing the forest through thetrees. The components of a system should be highlyintegrated to ensure workable linkages among theparts and the success of the whole. An examplewould be optimizing the solar heating performanceof a direct gain system comprised of glazing, floorslab, insulation, and shading while perhaps reduc-ing the performance of one or more constituentparts (Fig. 1.14).

(d) Match Technology to the Need

This strategy seeks to avoid using high-graderesources for low-grade tasks. For example, it isobviously wasteful to flush toilets with purifiedwater, but perhaps less obviously wasteful (butequally a mismatch) to use electricity (a very-high-grade energy form) to heat water for bathing. Thecorollary to this strategy is to think small, think sim-ple, and think locally (Fig. 1.15).

(e) Seek Common Solutions to Disparate Problems

This approach requires breaking out of the box ofcategories and classifications. An understanding of systems should lead to an increased awareness ofsystems capabilities—which will often prove to bemultidisciplinary and multifunctional. Making adesign feature (Fig. 1.16) serve multiple tasks (per-haps mechanical, electrical, and architectural innature) is one way to counteract the potential prob-lem of a higher first cost for green or sustainabledesign features. Solutions can be as simple and

16 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.12 Letting nature do the work—via daylighting. Mt. AngelAbbey Library, Oregon, designed by Alvar Aalto. (Photo byAmanda Clegg.)

Fig. 1.13 Consider nature as a model. Plants provide water treat-ment and generate biomass in an aquacultrural pond at the Cen-ter for Regenerative Studies, Cal Poly–Pomona. (Photo © 2004Alison Kwok; all rights reserved.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 16

A PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN 17

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.14 Aggregating, not isolating. (a) The Cottage Restaurant, Cottage Grove, Oregon. (b) This section through the restaurant illus-trates the substantial integration and coordination (aggregation) of elements typical of passive design solutions. (Photo by G.Z. Brown;drawing by Michael Cockram; © 1998 by John S. Reynolds, A.I.A., all rights reserved.)

(a) (b)

Fig. 1.15 Match technology to the need. Sometimes it’s the simple things that count. (Photo © 2004 Alison Kwok; all rightsreserved.)

Fig. 1.16 Seek common solutions. The “atrium” of the Hood RiverCounty Library, Hood River, Oregon, provides a central hub forthe library, daylighting, views (spectacular), and stack ventilation.(Photo © 2004 Alison Kwok; all rights reserved.)

low-tech as using heat from garden composting tohelp warm a greenhouse.

(f) Shape the Form to Guide the Flow

The most obvious examples of this strategy aresolar-heated buildings that are shaped (Fig. 1.17) togather winter sun or naturally ventilated buildingsshaped to collect and channel prevailing winds.Daylighting is another obvious place to apply the“form follows flow” strategy, which can have a dramatic impact upon building design efforts andoutcomes.

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 17

(g) Shape the Form to Manifest the Process

This is more than a variation on the adage “If you’vegot it, flaunt it.” This strategy asks that a buildinginform its users and visitors about how it works bothinside and out (Fig. 1.18). In passive solar-heated

and passively cooled buildings, much of the thermalperformance is evident in the form of the exteriorenvelope and the interior space, rather than hiddenin a closet or mechanical penthouse. Prof. David Orrof Oberlin College addresses this issue succinctly byasking “What can a building teach?”

(h) Use Information to Replace Power

This strategy addresses both the design process andbuilding operations. Knowledge is suggested as a sub-stitute for brute force (and associated energy waste).Designs informed by an understanding of resources,needs, and systems capabilities will tend to be moreeffective (successfully meeting intent) and efficient(meeting intent using less energy) than uninformeddesigns. Building operations informed by feedbackand learning (Fig. 1.19) will tend to be more effectiveand efficient than static, unchangeable operatingmodes. Users of buildings can play a leading role inthis approach by being allowed to make decisionsabout when to do what in order to maintain desiredconditions. Reliance on a building’s users is not somuch a direct energy saver—most controls use verylittle power—as it is an education. A user who under-stands how a building receives and conserves heat in

18 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.17 Shaping the form to the flow. Using a “band of sun”analysis as a solar form giver (see Chapter 3 for further details).(Redrawn by Jonathan Meendering.)

Fig. 1.18 Shaping the form to the process. Stack effect ventilation is augmented by the building form in this proposal for the EPICenterproject, Bozeman, Montana. (Courtesy of Place Architecture LLC, Bozeman, Montana, and Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell,Architects, Kansas City, Missouri. Redrawn by Jonathan Meendering.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 18

cold weather is likely to respond by lowering theindoor temperature and reducing heat leaks. Fur-thermore, some studies of worker comfort indicatethat with more personal control (such as operablewindows), workers express feelings of comfort acrossa wider range of temperatures than with centrallycontrolled air conditioning.

(i) Provide Multiple Pathways

This strategy celebrates functional redundancy as avirtue—for example, providing multiple and sepa-rate fire stairs for emergency egress. There aremany other examples, from backup heating andcooling systems, to multiple water reservoirs andpiping pathways for fire sprinklers, to emergencyelectrical and lighting systems. This strategy alsoapplies to climate–site–building interactions inwhich one site-based resource may temporarilyweaken and can be replaced by another (Fig. 1.20).

(j) Manage Storage

Storage is used to help balance needs and resourcesacross time. Storage appears as an issue throughoutthis book. The greater the variations in the resource

supply cycle, the more critical storage managementbecomes. Rainwater can be stored in cisterns, bal-ancing normal daily demands for water againstvariable monthly supplies. The high variability ofwind-generated electricity output can be managedwith hydrogen storage, providing a combustible fuel

A PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN 19

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.19 Use information to replace power. Section showing intelligent control system components for the proposed EPICenter pro-ject, Bozeman, Montana. (Courtesy of Place Architecture LLC, Bozeman, Montana, and Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell,Architects, Kansas City, Missouri. Redrawn by Jonathan Meendering.)

Fig. 1.20 Providing multiple pathways. Three distinct sources ofelectricity are projected in this conceptual diagram for the pro-posed EPICenter project, Bozeman, Montana. (Courtesy of PlaceArchitecture LLC, Bozeman, Montana, and Berkebile NelsonImmenschuh McDowell, Architects, Kansas City, Missouri.Redrawn by Jonathan Meendering.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 19

that can be drawn on at a rate and time indepen-dent of wind speed.

On sunny winter days, a room’s excess solarenergy can be stored in its thermally massive sur-faces (Fig. 1.21), to be released at night. On coolsummer nights, coolth (the conceptual opposite ofheat) can be stored in these same surfaces and usedto condition the room by day. Most storage solutionswill strongly impact building architecture.

PROJECT BASICS

• Location: Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA• Latitude: 41.3 N; longitude: 70.4 W; elevation:

near sea level• Heating degree days: 6296 base 65°F (3498

base 18.3°C); cooling degree days: 425 base65°F (236 base 18.3°C); annual precipitation:45.5 in. (1156 mm) (degree day data are forEast Wareham; rainfall is for Woods Hole)

• Building type: remodeled and new construc-tion; commercial offices and laboratory

• Building area: 19,200 ft2 (1784 m2); four occu-pied stories

• Completed February 2003• Client: Woods Hole Research Center• Design team: William McDonough + Partners

(and consultants)

Background. The Gilman Ordway Campus of theWoods Hole Research Center includes both newconstruction and extensive remodeling of a vener-able old house to provide office and laboratoryfacilities. This recently opened building has gener-ated a lot of interest. The clients are quite pleasedwith the facility and are using it as a vehicle to pro-mote awareness of the environment and greendesign. The Research Center won an American

20 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.21 Manage storage. A concrete floor and barrels locatedhigh along the north wall provide thermal storage (for both heat-ing and cooling) in the Cottage Restaurant, Cottage Grove, Ore-gon. (Photo by G.Z. Brown.)

1.8 CASE STUDY—DESIGN PROCESS

Gilman Ordway Campus of the Woods Hole Research Center

Institute of Architects/Committee on the Environ-ment (AIA/COTE) Top Ten Green Project award andwas recently the site of an Agents of Change POEtraining session. (The discussion that follows wasextracted from information provided by WilliamMcDonough + Partners and the Woods HoleResearch Center.)

Context. The work of the Woods Hole ResearchCenter is focused upon the related issues of cli-mate change and defending the world’s greatforests. When a new headquarters was consid-ered, it was decided that the facility should reflectthe Research Center’s core values, support itsresearch and education mission, and provide a healthy environment for building occupants andthe outside world. Fund-raising was a major issuefor this project and substantially impacted thedesign process and scheduling. Perhaps the mostvaluable lesson to be learned from this project isthe inestimable value of perseverance and thebenefit that a clearly enunciated set of objectives(design intent and criteria) can provide in seeing adonor-supported project through to completion.

Design Intent. The Woods Hole Research Center pro-ject sought to demonstrate that a modern building

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 20

can “harmonize with a habitable earth” whileproviding a healthy, comfortable, and enjoyableworkplace. Enhanced productivity and job satisfac-tion for employees was a key intent, as was far-beyond-code-minimum energy performance. Inaddition, the building was to serve as a teaching tool,providing an exemplar of a thoughtful approach toenergy production and use, water quality and con-servation, site design, and materials selection.

Design Criteria and Validation. The aggressiveenergy performance criteria set by the client anddesign team required the use of ENERGY 10 com-puter simulations and the ongoing services of anenergy systems consultant. Interestingly, this samestrong energy-related design intent allowed theretention of critical mechanical system elementsduring an extensive value engineering phase thatcut approximately 15% from the constructionbudget. The owner retained an independent au-thority for building commissioning.

Key Design Features• Extensive daylighting throughout the building• Operable windows throughout the building• An exceptionally tight and carefully detailed

building envelope featuring triple-glazed win-dows and Icynene foam insulation (also an airbarrier)

CASE STUDY—DESIGN PROCESS 21

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.23 Schematic design phase section through WHGC showing spatial organization and photovoltaic array locations. (© WilliamMcDonough + Partners; used with permission.)

Fig. 1.22 Initial concept sketch for the Woods Hole ResearchCenter (WHCR)—the “leaf.” This is an exceptional example of aconceptual design phase product. (© William McDonough + Part-ners; used with permission.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 21

22 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.24 The site/floor plan of WHRC is representative of the evolution of a project as it moves into and through the design develop-ment phase. (© William McDonough + Partners; used with permission.)

Fig. 1.25 Construction phase photos of WHRC; (a) showing the structure for the new addition and the existing house being remodeled;(b) showing the merger of new and remodeled parts of the building as the envelope enclosure is finalized. (© William McDonough +Partners; used with permission.)

(a) (b)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 22

• A Ruck wastewater system, 95% on-site reten-tion of stormwater, and collection of rainwaterfor site irrigation

• A ground source heat pump system for heat-ing and cooling (coupled with a valence deliv-ery system in office spaces)

• A rooftop, net-metered, photovoltaic array

Post-Occupancy Validation Methods. The client hasinstalled an extensive energy monitoring andreporting system. Data collected by this system areavailable to the public via the World Wide Web (seebelow) and are also being used internally to opti-mize systems operations. Soils scientists from theCenter are studying the effectiveness of the innov-ative septic system. In addition, the client has a veryopen and reflective attitude toward evaluation ofthe building and its systems. With a relatively smallnumber of occupants, informal exchanges amongResearch Center users appear to be proving aneffective means of POE.

CASE STUDY—DESIGN PROCESS 23

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

Fig. 1.26 Exterior photo of the completed and occupied WHRC.(Photo © Alison Kwok; all rights reserved.)

Fig. 1.27 Bird’s-eye view of the occupied WHRC building and site. Photovoltaic panels are a prominent feature on the roof. (© Cris Ben-ton, kite aerial photographer and Professor, University of California–Berkeley; used with permission.)

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 23

Performance Data. As this is a case study of designprocess as much as of a building, much of the fol-lowing performance information relates to processoutcomes.

• The building design received an AIA/COTE TopTen Green Projects Award (2004).

• Measured data from the first year of occu-pancy show an energy consumption of about20,000 Btu/ft2 (227,200 kJ/m2) per year; this isroughly 25% of the consumption of a typicaloffice building and a 75% reduction from theenergy density of the Research Center’s previ-ous facility.

• A grant from the Massachusetts RenewableEnergy Trust allowed installation of a photo-voltaic array consisting of 88 panels (each at25 ft2 [2.3 m2]) that is expected to provide37,000 kWh annually (about 40% of thebuilding’s power needs).

• All of the interior finish woodwork is a ForestStewardship Council (FSC) certified sustain-ably harvested product; exterior wood finishesare also FSC certified, including cedar shinglesand siding and Brazilian ipé wood for theextensive porch, deck, and entrance stairway.

• Paints and coatings meet low volatile organiccompound (VOC) criteria; no carpet is used inthe building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Summary and real-time energy performance datafor the Woods Hole Research Center building can be accessed at: http://www.whrc.org/building/education/performance.htm

A description of the building and design processcan be found at http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=257

24 CHAPTER 1 DESIGN PROCESS

DESI

GN C

ONTE

XT

References

Agents of Change. Department of Architecture, Uni-versity of Oregon. http://aoc.uoregon.edu/

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA. 2004. Standard 90.1: EnergyStandard for Buildings Except Low-Rise ResidentialBuildings. American Society of Heating, Refriger-ating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.Atlanta, GA.

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2004. Standard 55: Thermal Envi-ronmental Conditions for Human Occupancy.American Society of Heating, Refrigerating andAir-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE. 2005. Guideline 0: The CommissioningProcess. American Society of Heating, Refrigerat-ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, GA.

Fuller, S.K. and S.R. Peterson. 1995. Life-Cycle CostingManual for the Federal Energy Management Pro-gram. National Institute of Standards and Tech-nology. Gaithersburg, MD.http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/

ICC. 2003. International Building Code. InternationalCode Council. Falls Church, VA.

ICC. 2003. International Energy Conservation Code.International Code Council. Falls Church, VA.

Lyle, J.T. 1996. Regenerative Design for SustainableDevelopment. John Wiley & Sons. New York.

McLennan, J.R. 2004. The Philosophy of SustainableDesign. ECOTone Publishing Company, LLC.Kansas City, MO.

NRC. 1995. National Building Code of Canada. NationalResearch Council Canada, Institute for Researchin Construction. Ottawa, ON.

Preiser, W.F.E. (ed.). 1989. Building Evaluation.Plenum Press. New York.

Schaeffer, J., et al. 1997. A Place in the Sun: The Evolu-tion of the Real Goods Solar Living Center. ChelseaGreen Publishing Company. White River Junction, VT.

USGBC. 2003. LEED-NC 2.1: Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (New Construction and MajorRenovations). U.S. Green Building Council. Wash-ington, DC. Available online fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/

Vital Signs. Center for Environmental DesignResearch, University of California–Berkeley.http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/vitalsigns/

World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment. 1987. Our Common Future (the BrundtlandReport). Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.

c01.qxd 9/12/05 1:23 PM Page 24