© 2007 University of Sydney. All rights reserved.
www.arch.usyd.edu.au/asr
Architectural Science Review
Volume 50.2, pp 163-172
How well do New Zealand Architects Understand
Systems and Methods for Re-Directing Natural
Light into the Deep, Windowless Spaces of
Buildings?
Richard Barrett
School of Architectural Studies, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, Christchurch, New Zealand
Tel: +64-3-940-6052; Fax: +64-3-940-6065; E-mail: barrettr@cpit.ac.nz
Received 4 August 2006; accepted 16 February 2007
Abstract: The natural lighting of buildings is conventionally achieved directly through apertures in the external envelope, and in
particular through the walls (windows) and the roof (skylights). There is, however, a growing catalogue of methods and systems which
facilitate daylighting in spaces remote from these exterior openings where conventional methods cannot be used effectively, if at all. This
provision for natural lighting of deep architectural space is referred to in this paper as ‘core-daylighting’. The paper addresses two main
issues: (i) a range of core-daylighting systems, and (ii) the findings from a survey of New Zealand architects (approximately 1 in 3 of
those listed in the Architects Education and Registration Board register). The respondents were canvassed to establish their knowledge
of, and interest in, systems and methods for re-directing natural light into the deep, windowless spaces of buildings.
Keywords: Core daylighting, Natural lighting, Skylights, Windowless spaces, Windows
Introduction
Writing in Architectural Record, American environmental psychologist Winifred Gallagher (1999) emphasised the importance of
access to natural light for health and wellbeing. In her earlier book,
The Power of Place, Gallagher (1994) suggested that the Industrial
Revolution made a significant difference to the way we lived. We
changed from an agrarian, outdoor way of life, to an indoor, urban
environment. She believes we adapted rapidly to this new lifestyle,
in spite of millions of years of evolution, which had seen us respond
to the cycles of the earth and sun. Gallagher states, however, that
environmentally minded scientists are now questioning what we
traded off in order to live indoors, with artificial lighting, heating
and cooling – a new world order structured, as she says, around
economic rather than biological concerns. For the first time in
our history, we were no longer wakened by the dawn, and lulled
to sleep by darkness (Gallagher, 1994).
The availability of daylight and its impact on the health and
wellbeing of building users is generally nowadays acknowledged
as scientific fact, and Gallagher cites winter statistics for the
north of the United States, pointing out the serious nature of the
problem of an illness known as seasonal affective disorder (SAD).
Six percent of New York residents suffer depressive illness during
winter, but as many as 50% of the residents suffer mild symptoms,
including low energy, and disturbed eating and sleeping patterns.
Gallagher believes that this behavioural problem has a specifically
environmental cause, lack of daylight, and she suggests that architects have an important role to play in addressing the problem
(Gallagher, 1999).
The rationale for undertaking a survey of New Zealand architects
is based on the dual-premise firstly that daylight is important for
human wellbeing, and secondly that architects hold some considerable responsibility in the design of their buildings to make best
use of natural light. The cataloguing of a range of daylighting
systems and methods used internationally for the manipulation of
daylight into the deepest, darkest recesses of our buildings sets a
backdrop against which to weigh the survey, in which respondents
could be asked directly if they knew of, or had used, particular
systems. For the purposes of classifying the core-daylighting
systems and methods, this paper suggests categorisation under
two broad headings:
(i) integral systems, in which the geometry and fabric of the
architecture itself facilitates light redirection and the potential
for core illumination
(ii) non-integral systems, in which devices are added to the
building to facilitate enhanced natural lighting
164
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 2, June 2007
Figure 1: Reichstag Building, Berlin (photograph by the author,
2006).
In carrying out research into the manipulation of natural light,
and in doing so in a New Zealand context, it is first necessary to
question the relevance to that context. It is perhaps not surprising
that some of the more densely populated developed parts of the
world take the matter very seriously indeed. In Berlin, for example, the building code is very clear on the issue, and architects in
that city must design their buildings with prescribed minima of
natural lighting to all occupied spaces (with some obvious specialist
room exceptions, such a theatres and certain laboratories). These
requirements can be seen to significantly influence architectural
planning and form, as illustrated dramatically for example, by the
refurbishment of the Reichstag Building in Berlin by Foster and
Partners. In New Zealand, however, we continue to enjoy the
perceived luxury (rightly or wrongly) of abundant space between
and around our buildings, and it might be expected that there is
less of a sense of urgency amongst architects to manipulate daylight
into windowless core spaces. The survey, therefore, set out to test
the ‘state of the art’ amongst practitioners in New Zealand. Both
the idea, and the practice, of daylighting of deep architectural
space (core-daylighting) are investigated, and the underlying hypothesis is tested that neither the concept, nor its application, are
widely embraced through contemporary architectural practice in
New Zealand.
Literature Review
Several prominent 20th century architects used natural light as
a significant part of their armoury, and did so in the design of the
architectural form itself, as much as by using conventional windows
and skylights. This can be seen in the work of architects such as Le
Figure 2: Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, Cross Section (Lee, 1983; reprinted by permission of E.S-H. Lee).
Richard Barrett
Natural Light in Buildings
165
Figure 3: St Mary Axe, Swiss Re HQ, London
(Foster and Partners, 2006 used by permission of Foster and Partners).
Figure 4: St Mary Axe – lens at apex (Foster and Partners; 2006
used by permission of Foster and Partners).
Corbusier (Chapel at Ronchamp), Frank Lloyd Wright (Johnson
Wax Building), and in particular Louis I Khan, as exemplified in
his 1972 design for the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
(Lee, 1983).
These architects were drawing upon earlier examples, such as
St Sophia in Istanbul, St Peters in Rome, and even as far back as
Ancient Egyptian tomb architecture, in which natural light was able
to enter the most inner sanctum of the temple (Wildung, 1997).
Coming more up to date, prominent amongst current practitioners
is the British architect Lord Norman Foster, whose approach in the
design of his buildings is to address the total environmental package,
including the important issue of natural lighting. Foster’s work to
the German Reichstag building in Berlin is possibly the world’s best
known example, the design of which combines both integral and
non-integral core-daylighting systems, with the form of the building
playing as important a role (glazed dome over central public space),
as the technology of the cone shaped reflector element at the centre
of the dome. The cone itself is clad with mirror panels and photovoltaic cells for storing solar energy (Jodidio, 1994).
Other of Foster’s more recent projects develops the idea of architectural geometry as a means of bringing natural light into the
core, as for example in 30 St Mary Axe in London (better known
as ‘the gherkin’). In this building, a huge lens sits on an inverted
lattice cone of glass at the apex, directing light downwards. The
form of the building (a double helix) enables the atrium to wind
its way around the building as it gains height, thus allowing for
maximum daylight penetration throughout its 41 storeys (Foster
and Partners, 2006).
Somewhat more playful (as might be expected from Peter Cook,
a founder member of the anarchic 1960s Archigram group), is a
recently constructed museum in Graz, Austria. The building,
Kunsthaus Graz (also known as Spacelab), was designed by architects
Cook-Fournier, and uses a system of ‘nozzles’ to capture northlight
for gallery display (Cook-Fournier, 2006; Lackner, 2006).
Integral Systems
Figure 5: Spacelab, Kunsthaus Graz, Graz, Austria
(Cook-Fournier, 2006; Lackner, 2006; reprinted with permission
of Peter Cook).
Integral systems include toplighting methods, such as roof
windows and skylights and other of the more commonly used and
understood systems. Although even in this area there has been
some interesting experimentation undertaken to enhance the quality
and quantity of incoming daylight. For example, in the United
Kingdom the Building Research Establishment has developed
what they call an experimental northlight (for which, of course, we
should read southlight in the southern hemisphere, as it captures
diffuse skylight rather than sunlight) (Littlefair, 1996).
As described later in this paper (under Methodology), and
as might be expected, the survey of New Zealand practitioners
brought up the debate about daylight versus artificial light, and the
166
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 2, June 2007
North
Diffuse
sky light
North facing
glazing
Sloping
mirror
This area receives
direct
sky light
This area receives no
direct sky light
but does
receive
reflected light
Figure 6: Experimental northlight (Littlefair, 1996; ©BRE;
fact that the choice should be based on the functions of the spaces
within. This ‘choice’, however, is never fully obvious, as shown
for example in the design of exhibition spaces. In his Kimbell
Art Museum, Louis I Khan uses roof aperture core-daylighting,
in which the light is softly reflected and filtered via curved mesh
screens at ceiling level. Opinions appear to be entirely polarised on
the advisability of lighting art and museum spaces using daylight.
Some argue that this is how art should be viewed and that it was
the traditional method of illumination before electric lighting
came along, others, that the risk from UV and other potentially
damaging components require the use of more controllable artificial
systems. Khan takes a bold stance in using natural light in the
Kimbell, although opinions also vary on his motivation. Some
argue that Khan intended the softly diffused light to be specifically
for viewing the art, others that it was for ambience and atmosphere
only (Sze-Heng Lee, 1983).
Lightwells, internal courts and atria, are amongst the other more
commonly used integral systems, and numerous examples were
constructed in New Zealand, particularly during the 1980/90s,
a period that has been described as “The Age of the Atrium”
(Walker, 1990).
Whilst most integral systems use overhead apertures, or wells,
mention should also be made of a feature known as the light
shelf. This is simply a horizontal baffle which redirects light, via
its reflective upper surface, to the ceiling, and consequently more
from BRE Report BR305
with light
permission).
Figurereproduced
6: Experimental
north
(Littlefair, 1996; used by permission of the publisher).
Figure 7: The principle of lightshelves (Littlefair, 1996; ©BRE;
reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
Figure
8: Lightshelves,
options
for(Littlefair,
reflective
surface (Littl
Figure
8: Lightshelves,
options for reflective
surface
1996;
©BRE; reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
the publisher).
Figure 7: The principle of lightshelves (Littlefair, 1996; used by permission of the publisher).
Richard Barrett
Natural Light in Buildings
167
Rays from
sun
Redirecting mirror
Collecting
mirror
Motorised solar
tracking system
Clear
rooflight
Roof
Back-up
lamp
(metal
halide)
Open
shaft
Ceiling of departure
lounge
Glass rods
Top of solar
chandelier
Mirrors and prisms redirect
light onto chandelier
Figure 9: Manchester Airport (Cross Section) (Littlefair, 1996; ©BRE; reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
Figure 9: Manchester Airport (Cross Section) (Littlefair, 1996;
deeply into the interior space than would otherwise have occurred
(Ander, 1995). Light shelves have the threefold advantages, firstly,
of shading the occupants from directly incoming sunlight, secondly
reducing the effects of glare, and thirdly, because light shelves are
located high on the window wall, the view to the exterior can be
maintained (Littlefair, 1996).
publisher).
Non-Integral Systems
These are perhaps best thought of as ‘clip-on’ systems, in that
they are not strictly part of the architectural fabric and form.
Of particular note in this category is the use of mirror devices,
which generally comprise three parts:
(i) daylight collection – a heliostat (system of mirrors) that
‘captures’ and redirects the daylight. The ‘collector’, which is
positioned on the roof, will be either an active optical system, in
which the sun’s path is tracked, or a passive system that has fixed
orientation and does not track the sun. The advantage of the active system is the degree of certainty it presents, and the control it
allows, although a major drawback is the mechanical complexity
and high cost of such a system. By contrast, passive optical systems
are at best a compromise, with mirrors being set to a fixed part of
the sky, which is predetermined to give an optimal (average) result.
The system has no moving elements, and is therefore less complex
and costly. This lack of sophistication also means, however, that
there is an absence of adjustment or control (Ander, 1995).
(ii) daylight transportation – using either fibre optic cable or
light ducts lined with highly reflective material (Ander, 1995).
(iii) daylight emission – which occurs either at the end point
of the transporter (cables or ducts) or, as in the case of an installation at Manchester Airport in which the light is emitted via ‘solar
chandeliers’ (Littlefair, 1996).
Mirrors can also be used internally in vertical shafts to redirect
light. However a high degree of maintenance is required, in particular
removal of accumulated dust and grime (Littlefair, 1996).
The idea of simply ‘scooping’ light is not a new one, an example
from Edwardian times can be found in Ironmonger Lane in the
City of London. In order to compensate for a reduction in available daylight because of the growing concentration of buildings,
angled scoops were fitted. This enhanced the internal light levels
and doing so more deeply than could be achieved from windows.
On a more scientific level, though with precisely the same aim
in mind, the VALRA (Variable-Area Light-Reflecting Assembly)
system uses a reflective plastic film the angle of which is adjustable
168
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 2, June 2007
Figure 11: Early light scoops, Ironmonger Lane (Littlefair, 1996;
©BRE; reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
using a moving roller. As can be seen in Figure 12, not only the
angle of inclination of the film, but also its reflective surface area,
can be adjusted to suit the sun’s altitude (Littlefair, 1996).
There are numerous other variations on a theme when it comes
to light redirection methods, some of which are highly complex
and require constant checking and maintenance, where others are
very simple. The extremes of the solar tube (equivalents of which
are obtainable through any DIY outlet), through to computerised
sun tracking devices, effectively illustrate the extent of available
options. In concluding, however, some consideration should be
given to the development of specific materials that enhance daylight
transmission and redirection.
One of the major advances relating to both conventional daylighting and core-daylighting over the past thirty years has been in
the development of glazing technologies. This includes not only
the glass, but also such elements as glazing films and coatings, and
also a variety of non-glass products such as acrylics and holographic
coatings. Of particular note, optical switching materials are glazing
materials that are responsive to hourly, daily and seasonal changes.
They are applied as coatings which can control the flow of light
Figure 10: Optically aligned ‘tapping mirrors’ (Littlefair, 1996;
©BRE; reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
Figure 10: Optically aligned ‘tapping mirrors’ (Littlefair, 1996; used by permission of the
publisher).
Rays from low
altitude Winter sun
Reflected rays
Protective
glazing
Reflective plastic film
Rays from high
altitude Summer sun
Tilted
glazing
Roller
Path of roller
View glazing
Reflected rays
30
Roller
Winter and summer operations of the VALRA (Variable-Area Light-Reflecting Assembly)36
Figure 12: VALRA system (Littlefair, 1996; ©BRE; reproduced from BRE Report BR305 with permission).
Figure 12: VALRA system (Littlefair, 1996; used by permission of the publi
Richard Barrett
Natural Light in Buildings
169
(or heat) in and out of the building. They change the optical
properties of the glazing.
Other research into glazing technologies over this period has led
to the development of thermochromic (the optical properties change
with temperature), photochromic (the optical properties change
with light intensity - as used in eyeglasses), and electrochromic
materials (the optical properties change when a voltage is applied
in response to building conditions) (Ruck, 1989).
Methodology
A survey was undertaken of a group of New Zealand architects
to establish the level of knowledge and interest in core-daylighting
methods and systems. The group, which was randomly selected,
equated to approximately 33% of the total number of architects
registered nationally in 2002, thus involving a mailed questionnaire to 493 respondents. The full survey was preceded by a small
pilot survey, in which 12 architects were asked to respond both to
the actual questions in the survey, and also to make comment on
the efficacy of the survey in terms of its aims. This proved to be
a valuable exercise as it resulted in several points of clarification
being incorporated before the final questionnaire was mailed. The
questionnaire comprised six questions as outlined below. There was
a 41% overall response to the survey and many of the respondents
took full advantage of the invitation to make comments in addition
to answering the six questions.
Results
Question 1 – Do you believe the health and wellbeing of a
building’s occupants is influenced by the presence of daylight
within the building?
Respondents were asked to tick along a scale of 1 (‘not at all’)
to 10 (‘significantly’). A very high number (96%) indicated this to
be a very important aspect, although several respondents qualified
their answers by suggesting, for example, that ventilation and outlook
were of equal importance. Considerations such as room use and
duration of occupancy, were mentioned as mitigating considerations
where daylight was absent (a one hour lecture in an artificially lit
auditorium was acceptable, where 8 hours at an office desk with
total lack of daylight, would not be).
Question 2 – When you prepare designs for clients, do you
consult them on which spaces require natural daylight?
Having established that most practitioners believed natural light
to be an important element in the design of their architecture,
the second question related to client consultation on the issue. A
similar scale, 1 (‘never’) to 10 (‘always’) was used for this question.
Around half of those polled indicated they would always consult
with the client on which spaces should be daylit, where others felt
it should be the architect’s call; as one respondent commented, “I
see it primarily as my decision as the designer”. Others stated they
would only consult if the provision of natural light were becoming
difficult to achieve in any given situation, or where the decision
was not obvious.
Question 3 – Which of the following core-daylighting systems
have you (a) used, or are (b) knowledgeable about?
The first two questions were intended as a ‘warm-up’ to the
topic of daylighting in architecture before going on to address
the main issue underlying the research project, to gauge levels of
Figure 13.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Figure
13: Parliament
ParliamentBuildings,
Buildings.
(Published
by
permission
of
Architecture
New Zealand, January/
(Architecture New Zealand, Jan / Feb
February
1995,
p
61),
Warren
&
Mahoney
Architects, and New
1995 p 13).
Zealand Parliamentary Service; ©New Zealand Parliamentary
Service, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.)
knowledge and understanding of the various core-daylighting and
light redirection systems and methods. In question 3, therefore,
the architects were asked to tick those systems they either had used
or were knowledgeable about. The systems were simply listed as follows, with no accompanying illustrations, which might otherwise
have triggered an empirical understanding of the system where no
prior knowledge had formerly existed.
• light pipe (e.g. ‘Solar Tube’)
• built up rooflight • roof window (opening) • skylight (non-opening) • atrium • lightwell • internal courtyard • light reflection from exterior • light shelf • light reflector • louvres • heliostat (solar tracking mirror) • fresnel lenses • anidolic zenithal system • prismatic daylighting system • optical daylighting system • light guiding glass system 170
Architectural Science Review Volume 50, Number 2, June 2007
Figure 14: Winter solstice sun penetrates deeply into this converted warehouse - architect Gus Watt.
(Reprinted with permission from Architecture New Zealand, November/December 1995, p 31.)
•Figure
other daylight
• factory floor
14: redirection systems - please specify
The
list started
with systems
that were ticked
by around
93%converted
• hospital ward
Winter
solstice
sun penetrates
deeply
into this
of respondents (roof lights, light pipes, lightwells, internal courts),
• theatre
warehouse - architect Gus Watt.
through to those where very few of the architects indicated any
• public swimming pool
(Architecture
Newlenses,
Zealand,
November/December
1995,
p 31.)
knowledge
(heliostats, fresnel
fibre optics
for daylight transmis• church
sion, special light guiding glazings and films, optical daylight systems,
• classroom
etc). In spite of this lack of knowledge, it was encouraging to receive
• gymnasium
comments from several respondents indicating their own use of
• art gallery (exhibition room)
innovative light re-direction methods, including the use of pooled
• other non-residential - please specify:
water on flat roofs for reflecting light, photo-electric/polarised light
When referring to residential buildings, rooms such as bathshutters, and glass blocks in floor constructions.
rooms (81% of respondents) and hallways (86%) were acceptable
Question 4 – Imagine a difficult project where you are forced choices for artificial illumination, with living rooms (4%) being at
to use artificial lighting as the sole means of illumination for the other end of the acceptability spectrum. In the non-residential
some of the interior spaces – tick those spaces where this would category, the nominations were somewhat more spread, and there
be acceptable.
were more spaces that respondents felt could be solely artificially
The following list was presented to the respondents:
lit. Areas such as theatres (83%) and art galleries (79%) were
residential
acceptable to the highest numbers, with two areas in particular
• dining area being at the low end of acceptability, namely hospital wards (11%)
• living area
and classrooms (10%).
• bedroom
Question 5 – Do you believe New Zealand architects are as
• bathroom
knowledgeable as they might be in the use of core-daylighting
• kitchen
systems?
• hallway
The remaining two questions required a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’
• other residential - please specify:
response. Although a majority of the architects answered ‘no’ to
non-residential
question 5, it was interesting to note a substantial gender varia• individual office
tion that was far more noticeable than with any of the other five
• open-plan office space
questions. Of the females, 84% felt that their own knowledge was
• restaurant
lacking, with a significantly lower 68% of the male respondents
• wine bar
admitting to a lack of knowledge.
• retail shop
Question 6 – Would you personally like to be more knowl• reception area to company office
edgeable in the use of core-daylighting systems?
• airport terminal
In spite of the fact that question 3 threw up examples of
Richard Barrett
ingenuity on the part of a few architects, the survey fairly much
confirmed the hypothesis that New Zealand practitioners were
largely uninformed on the subject. This, of course, begged the
question (the final one in the survey), in which the architects
indicated their attitude towards gaining knowledge of coredaylighting. In response, around 83% of the group answered
‘yes’, though qualifying statements were made by many of the
respondents. Significantly, a recurring comment was made that
the knowledge would be sought only when needed: “Yes; I will
research when required”, and “Yes, but only if applicable to
specific projects, and I would not research otherwise”.
To close the survey the architects were invited to make general
comments, and to cite examples of their own projects in which
innovative daylighting methods had been used. Fifty-five written
observations were made, and of these, 18 suggested there were
much higher priority issues in the design of architecture, such
as ventilation and view to the exterior. Others felt that the need
for core-daylighting in New Zealand was not as pressing as it
might be in the inner cities of the USA and Europe, where less
natural light was available. It therefore followed, they suggested,
that the need for architects to be skilled in the manipulation of
natural light was less pressing in New Zealand.
Ten of the survey participants cited examples of their own
projects that they felt had either incorporated some form of coredaylighting, or would have benefited from having done so. By far
the most common method was the use of skylights, or other overhead
apertures. One respondent had used solar tubes for lighting ground
floor en-suites in a two-storey rest home, and another, employing
some lateral thinking, suggested fitting solar tubes in prisons, thus
providing daylight without compromising security.
Several of the architects participating in the survey expressed
an interest in seeing drawings and photographs of some of the
less common light redirection systems. Some felt the survey task
was made more difficult because of the lack of visual information,
however, this perhaps served to confirm the theory that New Zealand architects were largely uninformed on the issue.
In spite of this finding, two examples of New Zealand projects
are worthy of mention, as having gone some way towards addressing the issue of core-daylighting. The first example is the
refurbishment and seismic strengthening of Parliament Buildings
in Wellington. Following a limited competition in 1989, the architectural practice of Warren and Mahoney was selected to carry
out the work. The commission proved to be highly exacting, as
might be expected from a heritage building of such importance,
and it is to the architects’ credit that they were able to make major
new structural elements into fine examples of core-daylighting
provision. Reinforced concrete ‘boxes’ were inserted into two of
the building’s existing lightwells, and the resulting spaces were
then roofed over with glass to create both a four-storey ‘galleria’
and ‘conservatory’.
The second example, although on a more modest scale, also
indicates considered use of core-daylighting methods by a New
Zealand architect. In his 1995 conversion of a warehouse in Te
Aro, Wellington, architect Gus Watt has taken a lateral approach
to addressing the limitations posed by changing the use of an industrial building into residential apartments. Not the least of the
problems addressed is how to bring daylight into the deep inner
spaces, and to do this Watt has carved a void through the centre
of the building’s second floor and roof. This void terminates in
Natural Light in Buildings
171
an angled clerestory skylight, and the angle of the clerestory pitch
is precisely that of the winter solstice sun, allowing sunlight to
penetrate to the rear wall of the building. The second floor is
detached from the rear wall by means of a ‘slot’ in the floor slab,
and by using a mirror, sun and daylight are able to penetrate to
the kitchen on the floor level below. Amongst a number of other
devices to optimise natural lighting, the design includes another
open ‘slot’, which in this case connects the first floor laundry to
the bathroom above, thus allowing both spaces to share the same
incoming sun.
Conclusions
The relatively low density of urban development in New
Zealand has been used by some of the survey respondents as
justification for remaining ignorant of core-daylighting, however,
there are other very compelling reasons for gaining a reasonable
understanding of the topic. Global warming, and in particular,
increasing levels of UV in New Zealand, may eventually be
considered sufficient reason to develop appropriate design skills.
Imagine a well-designed core-daylighting solution in a kindergarten, for example, in which young children were protected from
too much exposure to UV during the height of summer, whilst
allowing them good access to daylight. In addition, well-designed
internal windowless spaces could become attractive and multidimensional in mid-winter if light redirection was addressed
more proactively as a design solution.
At first sight, the outcomes of the questionnaire are encouraging. A majority of the architects acknowledge daylight to be very
important in their buildings. However, there is little or no evidence
presented by the respondents that they are applying innovative
techniques such as core-daylighting in their built work.
Possibly somewhat more discouraging, however, was the fact
that so many of the respondents seemed interested in learning
more, but qualified this apparent show of interest with various
get out clauses. This is of concern, given that architects have
such immense and wide-ranging responsibilities towards the users
of their buildings. In making their design decisions, architects
can enhance or detract from the enjoyment of users, and, of
particular significance, the health and wellbeing of those who
occupy their buildings. The ways and means of incorporating
good levels of quality natural light to as much of the building as
possible (whilst avoiding pitfalls such as overheating, or heat loss)
is certainly an area worthy of better understanding and application. This should start at the foundation level of the architect’s
education, with innovative daylight design forming a central part
of the architecture school curriculum. In this way, the ability
to work creatively with natural light would become part of the
architect’s skills package, and practitioners would no longer see
this as being something ‘extra’ and beyond their normal sphere
of design activity.
References
Ander, G., (1995). Daylighting Performance and Design. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold. Architecture New Zealand, Jan/Feb1995 p 61.
Architecture New Zealand, Jan / Feb1995 p 61
Bish, S. (1997). Character restored. Architecture New Zealand, September/October, 76-79.
172
Architectural Science Review Buttiker, U. (1994). Louis I Khan: Light and Space. New York: Whitney
Library of Design.
Cook-Fournier Architects (2006). Spacelab Cook-Fournier, Graz, Austria.
http://www.arcspace.com/architects/cook/, viewed 11 July 2006.
Foster and Partners Architects (2006). Foster and Partners: Projects by Type,
http://www.fosterandpartners.com, viewed 24 July 2006.
Gaitanos, S. (1995). Inner city theatrics. Architecture New Zealand,
November/December, 31.
Gallagher, W. (1994). The Power of Place: How Our Surroundings Shape
Our Thoughts, Emotions and Actions. New York: Harper Perennial
Library.
Gallagher, W. (1999). How places affect people. Architectural Record,
February, 11.
Jodidio, P. (1994). Sir Norman Foster. London: Taschen.
Volume 50, Number 2, June 2007
Lackner, N. (2006). http://www.nikilackner.com, link from Official website
Foster and Partners: Projects by Type, http://www.fosterandpartners.
com, viewed 24 July 2006.
Lee, S.-H.E. (1983). Visual Qualities of Daylight in Art Museums: A
Classification and Comparison of Daylighting Systems in Gallery Spaces.
Unpublished Master of Architecture Thesis, University of California
at Berkeley.
Littlefair, P.J. (1996). Designing With Innovative Daylighting. Garston,
England: Building Research Establishment.
Ruck, N.C. (Ed). (1989). Building Design and Human Performance. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Walker, R. (1990). The 1990s: The age of the atrium. Architecture New
Zealand, January/February, 39.
Wildung, D. (1997). Egypt from Prehistory to the Romans. Koln:
Taschen.