<html>
To add some more comments to the discussion of the architect's role in
the energy simulation process:<br><br>
1. It seems to me that the architect <i>must</i> be the initiator
of energy-conscious design. He/she has the contact with the
building owner and is instrumental in determining what the priorities
will be in allocating the money available for the project. Energy
conservation must be set at a very high priority at the start; there is
never enough money to do everything.<br><br>
2. In commercial buildings, the design is a product of the whole team of
architects, engineers, speciality consultants and contractors. The
team of people with the right skills and experience must be assembled at
the start to meet project design priories. The architect does not
need to do the simulations. Smaller firms would probably not find
it practical to have on staff an energy specialist who can maintain
current knowledge of the field. What is probably more important is
good team communications and early involvement of the energy
specialist(s) before many design decisions are made. What<i> is</i>
important is that the team members are all using compatible
software. Decisions effecting the building are continuously being
made; digital information is flying around via shared web-sites or by
e-mail. The interaction between energy-conservative alternatives
and building organization, exterior appearance, spacial quality,
heating/cooling, lighting, acoustics, structure and construction cost
are, as you know, very complex. Each team member must be able to
rapidly respond in his own area of expertise. For better or worse,
Autocad is the de facto standard. To keep costs down, and accuracy,
speed and efficiency up, energy simulation programs will need to import
files that are initially created in Autocad.<br><br>
3. Although the architecture firm does not need to do in-house
energy consumption simulations, the architectural project leader must be
interested and knowledgeable in energy conservation. He must have
the enthusiasm to sustain a high level of energy-conscious priorities,
and must be able to communicate well with the energy specialists and
direct their efforts toward successful solutions. This issue goes
back to education. I think architects fall into two broad
categories: designers and organizers. Or to put it another way, if
architecture is a combination of art and engineering, some people's
skills are more on the art side, some on the engineering side, (bow ties
versus pocket-protectors) Both categories are needed to create successful
buildings. From my experience, architectural education is currently
pretty one-sided: it favors the bow ties at the expense of the
pocket-protectors. This situation is not good for the architecture
profession; students who have worked 6 years to get a masters only have
half the skills they need, have an unrealistic view of what type of work
they will be doing and still require a lot of on-the job
training. This situation is unnecessary. I participated in a
graduate-level program at MIT in the 1970's that focused on energy
conservation, building simulation and materials research. More
educational focus on the technical aspects of making buildings is
needed.<br><br>
I apologize for writing so much. Thanks for letting me get it off
my chest.<br>
</html>