The pressure to increase the levels of light in buildings came from the
utility companies, who saw this as a means of increasing the sale of
electricity, and for the manufacturers the sale of lamps and equipment.
Up to a point this was a benign influence, although the effect in the USA
went too far, with levels of 1000 Lux and above recommended where far
less was sufficient.
By the 1960s the concept had grown that ultimately, if not immediately,
artificial or electric lighting would supplant natural light as the primary
source during the day in the work situation.
Quoting from the author’s own book written in 1964:
‘It is inevitable that artificial light must become the primary light
source where efficiency of vision is combined with an economic
analysis of building function. Natural lighting is becoming a
luxury.’^3.The fact that this was not deemed stupid at the time is a measure of how
far down the road of the controlled environment life had become.
There was in fact substantial evidence to support this view for the
lighting in offices, factories and other buildings where difficult visual
tasks need to be done. Economies of structure had meant that ceiling
heights had been lowered, reducing the penetration of daylight into
buildings. A government ‘low cost energy policy’ determined that the
price of electricity was not a major factor in the running costs of such
buildings, and that therefore an economic case could be made.
By the 1960s a professor of architecture stated that the first decision an
architect had to make when planning a new building was the level of
light and the nature of the electric light source to achieve this.^4 ...
daylight was to be disregarded as a functional source. This led to
windowless factories, and even windowless schools, the ultimate idiocy.
It was even mooted that buildings could be heated by the means of
lighting, leading to artificial lighting being used at all times of day, even
when the heat generated had to be wasted, by dispersal.
This was an ‘engineering-led approach’ and some architects tended to
be carried along with it, although it must be said that the more thoughtful
architects resisted.
It was not until the energy crisis, and the realization that our reliance
on fossil fuels had limitations, that people started to question this high
energy approach, and began to look at ways to reduce the electricity load
in buildings, and one of the more obvious ways was to return to an
understanding of the natural resource of daylight.
Clearly daylight is not cost free, and factors such as the control of
sunlight, heat gain and loss, the association of windows with ventilation
and the question of whether the windows should open or the building be
sealed, are all problems which need to be addressed; but these need to be
equated with the human desire for association with the natural
environment, as well as the possible savings in electricity and cost.
It is useful to state some of the reasons why the association with the
natural environment has been important, seen through the hindsight of
history.
- First there is the question of light for seeing in order to function
within a space. This must vary according to the type of building, whether
History 5(^3) Lighting in Architectural Design. McGraw-Hill. 1964. Pub.USA
(^4) Prof. Alex Hardy.