The main design assignment for this semester’s Pratt students is a cafe. The students selected their own interior design and had to develop a custom lighting fixture that is integrated with that design. Here area few of this semester’s fixtures.
The Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute recently published a short video in which LRC director Mark S. Rea discusses the costs and benefits of lighting. Here it is.
If you set aside the plugs for the LRC, his statements, and those in his book Value Metrics For Better Lighting, are similar to what I’ve said throughout Designing With Light, which is that it’s the quality of the light and lighting design that are of primary significance while the amount of light that is delivered is secondary. Therefore, the true value of the lighting design is found in the design’s success in meeting the multiple requirements of the owner and the occupants of the space, not in the cost of hardware and installation.
Unfortunately, there are several factors that have created resistance to placing value on thoughtful, appropriately designed lighting. The first is that most people simply do not see light (pun intended). For far too many people, if the light is bright enough for them to see what they’re doing it is acceptable and little or no judgment is made regarding the other factors of lighting design, such as color rendering, providing visual interest, overall effect on occupants, etc. I find that if I show clients or students the difference between light that is adequate for vision and light that creates an appropriate atmosphere or environment they can see it and appreciate the difference. It is also a surprise to them that lighting design can make such a difference in a space.
The second factor is that project budgets are set in dollars with no little or no allowance made for the quality of the design. I have often worked on projects where the project budget and the lighting equipment budget have been set, although design work has barely begun. I understand that a client only has so much money to spend and that has to be respected. However, 1) No bean counter in the world can predict what the design team will develop. Budgets are more appropriately set in coordination with the design team after the design team understands the full extent of the client’s needs and desires. Then, if the projected cost exceeds the client’s budget, informed decisions can be made to pull back on certain aspects of the building’s design or to allocate more money to construct the building the client wants. 2) Spending more money up front on efficient lamps and fixtures, and on controls, can more than pay for itself in savings on energy and maintenance.
Another factor is that we value what we can measure. Since the early 1900s the lighting design community has invested a great deal in determining how to measure light and on how much light is required for “visual tasks.” Those two aspects became the criteria for evaluating lighting design, and are still presented as primary in many lighting textbooks. In the 1970s John Flynn and others began to study how light can affect the impressions one forms of a space. Later research examined the relationship between a lighting design and those occupying the lighted space including: the affect on worker productivity, absenteeism, and worker retention; student learning outcomes and test scores; retail sales; a light source’s spectrum and clarity of vision; and light’s affect on sleep cycles and other aspects of health. This research has shown over and over again that intelligent, thoughtful, appropriate lighting design can have a significant effect on the occupants and on the owner’s bottom line, whether that bottom line is to make more money, increase student success, or improve health.
Knowledgeable lighting designers can bring so much more to a building than just illumination, yet illumination and lighting design remain synonymous to most of our colleagues and clients. That is part of the reason only about ten percent of construction projects have a lighting designer on the team. Lighting designers and lighting design professional organizations need to do a much better job of educating design team members and our clients about quality lighting design, what it is, and why it matters.
By some estimates less then 10 percent of construction and renovation projects include a professional lighting designer on the design team. Why? Who’s looking after the lighting design? What can the lighting design community do about it?
The reasons projects go forward without a lighting designer range from the owner’s lack of understanding of what a lighting designer does to the architect’s desire to keep fees low. These are usually coupled with the belief that other team members can take care of the lighting just as well as well as a lighting designer. The “others” who may provide some or all of the lighting design include the architect, interior designer, electrical engineer, electrical contractor, and lighting salesperson. These other professions can act as lighting designers because the practice of lighting is so young and is unlicensed.
Why should architects and building owners hire a lighting designer? My first answer is, “You’re hiring experts in every other aspect of building design and construction, so why would you NOT hire an expert in lighting, too? Don’t you want the building to look as good as you imagine it will?” My other answers are:
What can the lighting industry to do promote the use of lighting designers? It seems to me that our professional organizations, especially the IES and IALD, have to take the lead here because individuals can’t have enough impact. Both organizations do a lot of work within the industry, but I don’t see any outreach to the real decision makers. What could they do? Here are a two thoughts:
What do you think? What can we do to promote lighting design?
The Illuminating Engineering Society has released a new Recommended Practice. RP-31-14 Recommended Practice for the Economic Analysis of Lighting is now available as a PDF download or soft back from the IES Online Store. From the IES:
Good lighting should be responsive to the needs of the user. Among those needs are the aesthetic and the visual, as admitted in the oft-quoted “lighting is both a science and an art.” But the user also has economic needs. In fact, it is the economic needs that often drive the decision making process when lighting systems are designed and purchased.
This recommended practice is written from the point of view that “economic analysis” is not the same as “how to beat the budget.” Rather than considering economic analysis as the antithesis of engineering or artistic analysis, is should be thought of as subsuming these other needs. When a competent lighting professional takes care of economic needs, in conjunction with the artistic, engineering, and other needs, it increases the likelihood a project will have success and longevity. Financial considerations ad demonstrated through an accurate lighting financial analysis are important, but other elements such as aesthetics, human visual performance resulting from a lighting system appropriate to a given task, and other considerations involved in lighting for the human and natural environment are of equal importance.
One of my clients has expressed frustration with the caveats I place at the end of my lighting fixture budget. Why can’t I give the client a simple budget estimate? The answer is that fixture manufacturers don’t have a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for their products, which is something we’ve all come to expect for products ranging from potato chips to cars. We all know that things we want to buy have an MSRP or list price and it’s up to the seller to decide whether or not to sell at a lower price.
However, with lighting equipment the sales representative and the manufacturer collaborate to establish pricing for each project (see chapter 9). Larger projects with more luminaires will usually pay less per luminaire. This can be frustrating for everyone. It’s hard to develop a reliable fixture cost database when fixture costs are variable.
Another issue with pricing from the sales rep is that it is usually dealer net, distributor net, or DN pricing. This means that the luminaire price the sales rep gives to the designer is the price that the electrical distributor will pay the manufacturer. It does not include the electrical distributor’s markup for overhead and profit, nor does it include possible markups by the electrical contractor and/or the general contractor. It is up to the lighting designer to estimate the total markup(s) as well as taxes, shipping and such, and add that amount to the projected lighting fixture budget, but designers have no direct knowledge of what markup these firms will add, nor do we have any control over their markups. The result is that I wind up footnoting my budget with notes like markup percentages are estimated, pricing is based on cost estimates provided by sales representative, and pricing is based on projects of similar size and scope.
Finally, as I explained here, the fixtures that I specify may not be purchased for the project. Once substitutions enter the picture another layer of mystery is added. Yes, it’s complicated. Here’s a flow chart that tries to explain the flow of information (denoted by question marks) and money (denoted by dollar signs) of design and sales relationships. See chapter 9 for a full explanation.
Henry Petroski, engineer and author, has a piece in today’s New York Times about declining quality in construction materials and workmanship. He places a lot of the blame on “the industries whose practices favor the use of inferior products and labor that drive modern construction: the developers, lenders, builders and Realtors who, to make quick money, have created a stock of domestic and commercial infrastructure that is a waste of resources and will not last. “ I don’t disagree, but based on my professional experience, and on that of many of my friends and colleagues, I think there’s room for more blame that creates a circular firing line.
First in line are owners who want what they want but are unwilling to pay for it. (I have many colleagues who blame Wal-mart and their ilk for this attitude but I’m not an economist and this isn’t about that). I’ve been involved in too many projects where, as the design progresses and is refined, the cost estimates go up but the budget doesn’t. Nor is the developing design reigned in. Rather, the owner assumes, or is assured, that in competitive bidding the cost will somehow come back down to the original, early estimate. Rarely does the architect push back, which introduces the second problem.
Architects are supposed to be the leader of the design team and the advocate for the client. Entering into the bidding phase of a project knowing that the design has exceeded the budget doesn’t help anyone and creates a hostile environment for everyone once the low bid is accepted and construction begins. Which brings us to villain number three: contractors.
Often, especially in publicly funded projects, I have to produce a three name specification, meaning that for every light fixture I have to specify three that I deem to be equal. If I don’t I’m in breach of my contract. Astonishingly, contractors are not required to supply the products that the design team has specified! The result is that contractors are often in a race to the bottom, submitting bids that are unrealistically low because they’ve made assumptions about what kind of substitutions they can make. They do it because they know that their competition is doing it and the low bid wins. Swap out 100 lights that cost $300 for a $100 model and you’ve just underbid your competition. Now, multiply that by hundreds of items in a building and you’re looking at a huge set of conflicts. You can imagine the screaming that results when, later in the project, the designer rejects the substitution.
“I think this is a decent alternative, and it’s what I can afford.” says the contractor.
“This is nothing like the fixture in the specifications. It won’t do the job and I won’t approve it.” replies the designer.
“Well, it’s what I bid.”
“Well then you didn’t bid on this building. What building did you bid on?”
The solution, as I see it, is stricter contracts with builders. I’d love to see the American Institute for Architects (AIA), the International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD), the International Interior Design Association (IIDA), American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and others work together to draft model bidding instructions and contracts for owners that set clear limits on substitutions. If the contractor can’t substitute inferior materials we’ve made a HUGE difference in the quality of the building.
I’ve worked with plenty of owners, architects, and builders who aren’t as I’ve just described. However, they aren’t the strong majority. Everyone involved can do better. Owners can accept that sometimes you get what you pay for, and that the lowest bid isn’t necessarily the best bid. Architects can take a stronger stand with their clients to prevent issuing drawings for a $10 million building with an $8 million budget. Contractors can construct the building shown in the drawings, not a cheaper alternative. Contractors and unions have no reason to change, and owners don’t have a real organization that can play a role. It’s entirely possible, but I think that the design organizations will have to lead the way.
I was at the dress rehearsal of the Tony Awards at Radio City Music Hall this morning. It’s going to be a good show. Hugh Jackman has returned as the host. It’s tonight at 8 on CBS. Watch it, then get tickets to the theatre instead of watching more tv. 
Earlier this week I had a disagreement with a contractor about my specifications and fixture schedule. The client, who had never been involved in a construction project of this type, didn’t know which one of us to believe. It went like this: We are coming up on the end of construction and the contractor is slightly over budget. In order to save money he wants to start to substitute less expensive products for those that have not yet been purchased which, in this case, includes the lighting fixtures and control system. His problem is that my specification and fixture schedule are so clear and precise (also referred to as “tight”) that he is having a hard time finding acceptable alternates. He told that owner that my tight specification is unfair because of this, and that I’ve essentially “given” the project to certain manufacturers “regardless of price.” I explained that a tight specification protects the integrity of the design, and thus protects the owner, by guaranteeing that the expected design is the one that is installed. Who is a client to believe? Let’s go through this.
As a lighting designer I have one source of income – my fee. I don’t get a royalty or commission from manufacturers that I specify*, I don’t sell fixtures to the project, and I don’t set pricing for fixtures. As a result, my only incentive to specify one manufacturer over another is appropriateness for the project. I talk to the owner about their needs and desires, budget, and timeline. I evaluate fixtures based on performance, options, accessories, quality, and price. I run calculations to make sure that the appropriate amount of light is being delivered and that the lighting system’s power consumption is within code limits. In some cases I’m contractually required to identify three equal fixtures for each type. That’s a lot of work and I want to make sure that it isn’t lost or undermined, so I write a tight specification.
After all of that work, though, most projects don’t require the contractor to provide only those items that the designers have specified. The rationale is that this gives contractors more flexibility in getting the best price, especially for public projects being paid for with tax dollars. In practice, however, this is often not the case. The contractor wasn’t present during the design process and doesn’t understand the criteria that went into selecting each fixture. He (or she) is primarily concerned with price, not performance. It’s common for the first round of substitutions offered by the contractor contain a large number of fixtures that are inappropriate for one reason or another. If a substitute fixture will do the job I usually accept it, but I won’t accept a fixture just because it’s offered. A tight specification sets the requirements for the fixtures and provides the basis for rejecting inappropriate substitutions. Yes, this can constrain the contractor’s choice of substitutions but for a good reason. There are huge variations in fixture performance, even when fixtures look the same. I’ve had contractors (and architects) say that a downlight is a downlight is a downlight. Take a look at the photometrics and it quickly becomes obvious that this just isn’t so.
From a designer’s perspective we protect the client by protecting the design, accepting substitutions that work but rejecting those that don’t. A tight specification can limit the amount of back and forth with substitutions by setting strict criteria that substitutions must meet. That’s part of the professional expertise we bring to the project.
*I admit I do sometimes get a nice box of chocolates during the holidays.
Yesterday my students at Pratt presented custom built lighting fixtures inspired buy the work of a fashion designer. Here are some of them.
The Low Vision Design Committee of the New Buildings Institute has release a draft of its new “Design Guidelines for the Visual Environment” for public review and comment. The intent of the guidelines is to offer assistance to design professionals and others in accommodating those with a variety of vision disorders. Click here to visit the NBI site to download the draft.