Considering Public Health and the Human Impact of the Built Environment
July 31, 2008
The editors of this blog believe the public needs balanced voices in the discussion regarding local and national code development. Officials considering putting their weight behind legislation that restricts lighting should be sure to take a circumspect review and consider the total picture. Energy saving initiatives and dark sky photometry, in this blog’s opinion, don’t combine for a well rounded greater whole. Many appropriate considerations may not be met when the discussion is focused on these two directions.
The truly appropriate lighting solutions are not conveniently tracking energy trends or the political statements associated with them. For example, designing a project in Japan, I was told bright lighting meant wealth because it could be afforded. It represented abundance. So our client was not happy with a lighting scheme that did not produce and exceptionally high level of footcandles (relative to our U.S. projects) at each desk. 100FC at the desk was the target illuminance level.
Now, in the United States, the direction for office lighting is low ambient combined with task lighting. Conveniently it consumes less power. Hmm. Is this really the better lighting solution, or, are we convincing ourselves?
I was just a kid when high pressure sodium lighting was introduced as the street lighting source in New York City. Nobody liked it. We felt we couldn’t see well. We were told by the City of New York that there were more lumens per watt with this light so of course we could see better.
Years later in the early 90′s studies by Sam Berman at Lawrence Berkely Laboratories revealed, infact, that this was not true. Due to the physics of sight at night, an effect named the Purkinje Shift, we could actually see less with more lumens because they weren’t producing enough light in the blue portion of the lighting spectrum. Guess they should have just listened to my mom. She didn’t like it at all. Current research on this topic can be found on the Lighting Research Center’s website.
The public shouldn’t second guess their experiences of what they feel is supportive and effective lighting. Everyone should remember it’s not just the lighting level or the efficiency of sight, it’s the total effect. Somewhere, somehow it was apparently agreed by the public officials debating power consumption; if you can’t directly translate value to a number on a spread sheet it’s not a valid point.
Lighting has had a place in public and private celebration since man’s first use of fire. Anyone whose been at the side of a campfire can tell you there is a unique sense of place created by the quality of light as well as the heat. How many points is that worth?
At LightRightBlog we believe everyone needs to increase their awareness of lighting so they can make fully informed, responsible, effective, and hopefully personal choices about the balance between energy use and lighting use. It may be that we’d be better off giving up that wine chiller and riding our bikes to work once a week instead of trading the incandescent lamps in our living rooms for CFL’s. (Oops did we say that out loud…online!)
In this editor’s near 20 years of experience reviewing and working with energy codes across the nation I’ve seen wattage allowances extended for occupancy sensors and other such devises but never for creating a sense of well being or as a health aid.
Security, safety and effective energy use are likely key considerations in deploying any professional lighting scheme; however, the immeasurable values of public health and the impact of the built environment in their lives must also be considered in developing effective and balanced codes.
How many lighting fixtures are required today?
July 24, 2008
If, how, and where a ceiling plane may be interrupted with lighting fixtures is generally a strong consideration in any lighting design; this is followed by what it might look like if it is.
We think most designers, architects and developers would agree that the sought after goal is to achieve architectural balance; sufficient and effective lighting, and an enjoyable experience in any given space.
Achieving these goals and transitioning from older technology fixtures and bulbs requires some rethinking of lighting layouts which many consumers, designers and architects may have become accustomed to. Developing a realistic picture of how many and what kind of fixtures are needed in a room can be difficult in changing times.
Because lighting installations may be expected to last 15 to 20 years or more, and because construction budgets have many times precluded the newest lighting technologies from being implemented, there are still quite a few spaces that consumers might encounter on a daily basis that are lit with fixtures that were designed decades ago. Successful designs from the past, and variations of them, have had high market penetration. This may give consumers a distorted reference point. Here are a few examples of fixture designs that have been in use for decades from Lightolier’s commemorative book ”The First 100 Years” .
Not only might everyday consumer experiences of lighting be misleading in terms of what today’s designs could be but some consumer’s research efforts in design publications may be confused by digital manipulation of photographs. In our experience designers or architects often want to manipulate a photo to remove a visual of an offending fire alarm devise, sprinkler head or lighting fixture from a photo.
In addition to the photofinishing techniques used to erase fixtures from the ceiling plane, another common practice that leads to misconceptions on lighting spaces are photos that have been lit by photographer fill lighting.
In either case, the consumer could see the light of a fixture that doesn’t appear in the space. We’ll try to find some examples of this and post some pics later.
Beyond understanding possible limitations of some reference points, consumers could gain by building an understanding of some technology changes in fixtures today that affect the approach in lighting fixture selection and layout determination.
Halogen and incandescent bulbs used in residential lighting today generally have more directional control than bulbs of the past. Historically the fixture was used as the beam shaper via reflectors, baffles, lenses etc; today that control can come in a large part from the bulb itself. The 5 inch diameter incandescent R40 bulb has been replaced by PAR technology lamps and MR16 technology lamps that have greater beam control and less spill light.
Older style fixtures with 6 and7″ apertures that contained 150 watt lamps are now largely being replaced by fixtures with 2-3″ apertures and 20-50 watt lamps.
Ceiling Effect: Fixture apertures are smaller because the bulbs are smaller and their presence in the architecture is minimized. Lighting Effect: there tends to be less high angle spill light as beams are more directed. Application/Layout Effect: More fixtures must be used to implement a broad stroke general lighting scheme, however, having more fixtures allows for a more sophisticated lighting composition with multiple scene options.
Many new housing options exist today that were designed to preserve roof integrity and prevent energy loss through ceiling penetrations. These housing construction options have lower maximum wattages due to heat dissipation limitations.
Ceiling Effect: Nothing visible. Lighting Effect: Less light can be generated from a single fixture. Application/Layout Effect: More fixtures must be used to implement a broad stroke general lighting scheme, however, having more fixtures allows for a more sophisticated lighting composition with multiple scene options.
After consumers familiarize themselves with new technologies they can begin to understand what lighting fixtures are capable of and can then ask themselves more specifically what they want their lighting to accomplish and how it should make them feel.
What about the role of architect as regulator?
July 21, 2008
In an Op-Ed on AIA Archiblog Henry A. Kosarzycko, AIA writes “Architects contribution to the building process is not only appreciated but sought after.”
LightRightBlog believes the public needs the strong voices of architects now more than ever. Life safety is assumed to be the base of building code development but the public’s health and the impact of the built environment in their lives must also be weighed in developing effective and balanced codes.
“It is very important for humankind that architecture should move by it’s beauty: if there are many equally valid technical solutions to a problem, the one which offers the user a message of beauty and emotion. That one is architecture.” Luis Barragan
While energy efficient solutions are growing, we should strive to be in a position with energy codes that there is more than one technically valid solution to a problem. That choice enables the creation of architecture as art.
Architects should not assume that the lighting design community alone has the legislative clout or force of numbers to guide a balanced and circumspect approach to lighting and energy codes that is needed.
As a member and contributor to the IALD energy and sustainability committee and a member of the IES, this editor encourages architects to not only participate in code development but to also reach out individually and as a group to the lighting design community through these organizations in leading a collaborative discussion on what will be our code-allowed lighting options.
Rising Swell of Lighting Codes needs more Expert Input
July 17, 2008
The practice, art and experience of lighting design is being limited by an ever increasing list of code requirements. What’s frustrating to the design community is the amount of influence non-lighting experts are having over the work of seasoned professionals.
In his recent post on the development of lighting industry codes “Code Crazy”lighting designer and consultant Jim Benya described in detail a history of “bad code writing”.
According to Jim, the basis of any code change is supposed to meet the folowing critera.
• The proposal must have impact. It is a waste of time and money to regulate something that is too specialized to make any difference.
• The proposal must be technically feasible and available in the marketplace
• The proposal must be cost effective
One additional problem we see is that it does not say technically feasible and available through multiple design approaches and product options. Codes get written with an early adoption zeal. Sometimes there may only be one product solution or one design approach that can achieve the specified result. While it may meet all of the criteria listed above it limits design options that may be applied. Lighting designers become reverse engineers. Designing backwards to the one product solution/spacing that will achieve a needed lighting level in a particular functional area. As codes get increasingly restrictive, the resulting limitations on design options create predictable and ordinary results.
A few projects may shine in the process because they were able to implement a new energy saving technology as a component of their design before the code cinched the wattage belt down further. The successes of these projects are used to promote the next level of lighting limitations. I have personally seen many installations in California, a state that has long lead the charge for lighting energy reduction, that are dreary, or worse glarey because the code restrictions are too tight.
I have yet to see the general public, whose life experiences are directly impacted by these codes, make equivalent reductions in other areas of their lives. Instead lighting savings are though of as something that compensates for other excesses, like a new wine chiller. This is because the lighting industry has not yet effectively demonstrated to consumers the value of quality light.
Is the lighting industry being out-marketed ? Part 2
July 9, 2008
Western Interiors just sent out a Email update regarding their July issue.
One of the articles is about 5 cool urban lofts in the west. Locations include San Francisco, Scottsdale, LA, Dallas and Vancouver. Likely suspects for cool loft properties. Prices ranged from 300,000 to 4.4 million.
Each loft is listed along with a description of the unit amenities:
Steel-framed windows, concrete floors, hardwood floors, exposed brick, Jenn-Air, Bosch, Sub-Zero, GE appliances, Scavolini cabinets, Waterworks fixtures even a mention of a local Green Building Certificate.
No lighting mentioned.
No Lutron control system, no GE Precise MR16 lamps, no recessed 3″ aperture accent or art lighting. No Lucifer, Lightolier, Focal Point, Pure lighting, Flos, Artemide… nothing! Wow.
Who missed the mark more? The lighting manufacturers for not positioning themselves to be mentioned in this article? Or the real estate marketers for clearly missing a premium sales feature?
-
Recent Posts
- The CREE LRP-38
- Don’t want a headache from your LED task lighting? …
- Benya Wins! The GE Edison Award
- Panic-buying of 100 watt bulbs in UK
- US Federal Outdoor Lighting Legislation
- Wanted – Stand-alone Wallbox Dimmer with Astronomical Timer
- SSL Label – Good news for Consumers of SSL Product
- Lightfair 2009 Overview
Lighting Facts Label
Light Up The World Foundation
 |
 |