Reading chapter 11, provokes several thoughts. Why has the Architecture as a profession allowed any building to be built or designed that did not meet the requirements of building for the people? When one considers, what the concentration of pollutants indoors is typically higher than outdoors, sometimes by as much as 10 or even 100 times. The relationship between worker comfort/productivity and building design/operation is complicated. There are thousands of studies, reports and articles on the subject that find significantly reduced illness symptoms, reduced absenteeism and increases in perceived productivity over workers in a group that lacked these features. For example, four of the attributes associated with building design, which includes increased ventilation control, increased temperature control, increased lighting control and increased day lighting, have been positively and significantly correlated with increased productivity. These benefits include cost savings from reduced energy, water, and waste; lower operations and maintenance costs, and enhanced occupant productivity and health. If we concentrated only on advanced ventilating and mechanical systems to increase air flow and reduce occupant contact with air borne microbial agents, selection of building materials and furnishings that have low toxicity, Increased use of daylighting to reduce energy demands and enhance interior lighting quality, Inclusion of high quality, energy efficient lighting to increase visual comfort, Increased contact with the natural environment through more open views to the outdoors, and through the inclusion of plants indoors for psychological reasons and for air quality enhancement. As a profession, Architecture should not allow a building to be built or unless it answers and is design with the environment, climate, and the individual that would be occupying that space. The Building Habitat for the future has 17 strategies laid out...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document