Altomonte, S (2005) CH2: lighting and physiology. Construction Economics and Building, 5(2), pp. 40-46. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This paper explains the designed performances of the new CH2 building in Melbourne, Australia. CH2 is an environmentally significant project that involves biomimicry of natural systems to produce indoor conditions that are conducive to user comfort, health and productivity. This paper focuses on lighting and physiology and examines the solutions chosen for artificial and natural lighting and the likely effects these will have on building occupants. The purpose of the paper is to critically comment on the adopted strategy and, cognisance of contemporary thinking in lighting design, to judge the effectiveness of this aspect of the project with a view to later verification and post-occupancy review. The paper concludes that CH2 is an exemplar of lighting innovation that provides valuable lessons to designers of office buildings, particularly in the Melbourne CSD.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | expected performance; human physiology; lighting design; productivity |
| Index terms: | productivity, strategy, designer, biomimetic, Australia, office building, effectiveness, comfort |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, construction type, design theory, profession, management, performance management, Geography |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here