Commercial Sector Initiative Baseline Study: Architects

Commercial Sector Initiative Baseline Study: Architects M arket Baseline Evaluation Report prepared by Research Into Action, Inc. report #E04-134 November 4, 2004 529 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204 telephone: 503.827.8416 fax: 503.827.8437

arket Potential 72% Consumer Confidence 46% Brand Recognition 82% Energy Savings 69% 3% Energy Efficiency i 27% Product Awareness 57% Customer Satisfaction 74% Market Share Final Report COMMERCIAL SECTOR INITIATIVE BASELINE STUDY: ARCHITECTS Funded By: Submitted To: David Cohan Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Prepared By: Jane S. Peters, Ph.D. Michael Burdick Robert Scholl Research Into Action, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that have been key advisors and contributors to this study. For the NW Alliance, David Cohan, Dave Hewitt and John Jennings provided support and critical eyes throughout the development of the survey instrument. Joel Loveland and Charlie Brown, directors of two of the BetterBricks daylighting labs, reviewed the questions at different points of the instrument design process and provided valuable feedback that we hope made the instrument friendlier to architects. Research Into Action staff Dulane Moran, Robert Scholl and Michael Burdick conducted all of the interviews and Michael Burdick and Robert Scholl conducted the analyses. Finally, we are very appreciative of the architects throughout the Pacific Northwest who gave their time willingly to respond to the questions and thus enable the NW Alliance and the NW Alliance Partners to improve their services to these professionals.

Acknowledgements

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 METHODOLOGY... 2 Development of Sample... 2 Development of Instrument... 3 DISPOSITION... 4 Report Contents...7 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF ARCHITECTS... 9 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION, TYPE AND AMOUNT OF SPACE DESIGNED... 9 FIRM SIZE, YEARS OF PRACTICE, TITLES AND ROLES... 12 SUSTAINABLE BUILDING MOVEMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN... 15 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED)... 20 SOURCES OF DESIGN INFORMATION... 22 BETTERBRICKS... 23 3. ARCHITECTS CLIENTS AND INITIAL DESIGN DECISIONS... 27 THE ARCHITECTS AND THEIR CLIENTS... 27 INITIAL LIGHTING AND HVAC CONCEPTS... 31 FINAL DESIGN DECISIONS... 35 4. DAYLIGHTING AND WINDOWS... 37 DAYLIGHTING... 37 WINDOWS... 44 5. SPACE CONDITIONING AND VENTILATION... 47 HVAC SYSTEMS... 47 COMMISSIONING... 52 VENTILATION STRATEGIES... 54 6. ELECTRIC LIGHTING... 61 PAGE I

Table of Contents 7. CONCLUSIONS AND PROGRESS INDICATORS... 69 METHODOLOGY... 69 FINDINGS... 70 Interest in Sustainability and Energy Efficiency... 70 Integrated Design Related Activities... 70 Design Practices... 71 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TARGETED ARCHITECTS... 72 Schools... 72 Hospitals... 73 Grocery Stores... 73 Office Buildings... 74 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST STATES... 74 PROGRESS INDICATORS... 75 Architects, Clients Orientation Toward Energy Efficiency... 75 Utilization of Energy Efficiency Resources, Energy Efficient Technologies... 76 Addressing Efficiency at Critical Phases... 78 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ASSUMPTIONS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS: ARCHITECTS BASELINE SURVEY DESIGN CRITERIA... A-1 Screening Issues... A-1 Program Assumptions... A-1 Progress Indicators... A-3 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT CORE QUESTIONS FOR QUALIFIED ARCHITECTS... B-1 APPENDIX C: TITLES OF SAMPLED ARCHITECTS... C-1 APPENDIX D: SOURCES OF EXPERT INFORMATION ON GOOD DESIGN... D-1 APPENDIX E: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON POSITIVE EFFECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN... E-1 Periodicals... E-1 Organizations... E-1 Other... E-2 PAGE II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (the Alliance) is a non-profit corporation supported by electric utilities, public benefits administrators, state governments, public interest groups and energy efficiency industry representatives. These entities work together to make affordable, energy-efficient products and services available in the marketplace. 1 This study of architects is one of several baseline studies being conducted in 2003-2004 for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance s Commercial Sector Initiative (CSI), which comprises all of the Alliance s commercial programs. The information derived from these studies will be used to verify and inform program assumptions and direct program activities. This baseline research was conducted with 174 architects located in the four Pacific Northwest states serviced by the Alliance. Along with the practices of general commercial architects, this study examines those whose practice consists predominantly of schools, hospitals, grocery stores and non-medical offices. The architects as a whole had substantial experience and provided estimates of the square footage affected by their design practices for the buildings they planned during 2003. Architects in the Pacific Northwest report being interested in sustainability and energy efficiency. Yet most report that they have had less opportunity to work on such projects, both because owners do not make energy efficiency a priority and because sustainability and energy efficiency are lower priorities for their firms than for them as individuals. As an example, we found that while 97% of the architects had heard of LEED certification, only 12% were LEED accredited and just 15% reported having worked on a LEED-certified project. The BetterBricks.com website has made substantial inroads into the architecture community, with 74% familiar with BetterBricks. Half of the architects (51%) have visited BetterBricks.com and one third (34%) have visited that website more than once. This is a marked improvement over the 2001 findings in the Efficient 1 See website at www.nwalliance.org. PAGE I

Executive Summary Buildings Practices Initiative MPER #2, which showed that only 10% of the architects were aware of, and only 8% had visited, BetterBricks.com. There appear to be opportunities for stimulating integrated design, as most architects report participating in team meetings throughout the course of a project. However, these team meetings occur less frequently at the conceptual design stage and the bidding and bid review stages. Only one of the barriers to energy-efficient design that we asked about was reported as important by more than 51% of the architects: a perceived difficulty in achieving occupant comfort with energy-efficient HVAC systems. Sixty percent of the architects reported this was an important barrier. Architects are more likely to be involved in specifying lighting than HVAC equipment. Electrical engineers, however, actively participate in much of the lighting design and nearly always are responsible for the development of lighting control strategies. Mechanical engineers are the ones responsible for HVAC design, with only a few architects reporting that they have role. While architects report that early design discussions for lighting frequently address daylighting, early design discussions for mechanical systems rarely do. Daylighting has become familiar to most architects and we found that 45% report using the four design approaches and tools we asked about in at least one project a year, though software and physical modeling are least used. Passive heating, cooling and ventilation systems are much less commonly used than other energy-efficient solutions. Commissioning is conducted for 33% of the square footage designed by these architects in 2003, and is used by most. Looking specifically at the target markets, schools appear to lead in daylighting and in energy efficiency discussions during the early schematic design stage. Schools also lead in the use of commissioning, with 47% of floor space commissioned in 2003. Hospital architects are more involved in lighting specification than those in any other sector except for grocery stores, yet are the least involved in HVAC discussions. Hospital architects report the lowest rates of building commissioning, at 20% of the 2003 floor space. Grocery store architects are the least common specialty group and report the least interest in energy efficiency by their clients, while at the same time they report the highest rate of including energy efficiency goals or performance benchmarks in their projects. They are the most involved of all architect groups in specifying lighting and include daylighting the least. PAGE II

Executive Summary Architects who specialize in office buildings have the highest amount of floor space for which they claim to have included a daylighting strategy in 2003. They also report having more discussions about energy efficiency in early schematic discussions of lighting, yet they also report specifying lighting in the smallest amount of floor space. Page III

Executive Summary PAGE IV

1. INTRODUCTION The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (the Alliance) is a non-profit corporation supported by electric utilities, public benefits administrators, state governments, public interest groups and energy efficiency industry representatives. These entities work together to make affordable, energy-efficient products and services available in the marketplace. 2 This baseline survey on architects is one of several baseline studies being conducted in 2003-04 for the Alliance s Commercial Sector Initiative (CSI), which comprises all of its commercial programs. Other CSI baseline studies planned or concluded focus on lighting designers, engineers, hospital facility managers and executives, and school and grocery store decision-makers. The information derived from these studies is used to verify and inform program assumptions and direct program activities. Each baseline also establishes progress indicators for the target audience. These are discussed in the final section of this report. It is expected that some or all of the baselines will be repeated in future years to determine the extent of change that has occurred for each progress indicator identified. This study is focused on architects who designed commercial buildings within the Alliance service area in 2003 and examines their role in design decisions relevant to the energy-efficiency of the finished building, the extent to which they consider energy-use implications when making relevant design decisions, and the extent to which they are aware of and report using various specific energy-efficiency technologies and resources. This research was conducted entirely through telephone interviews with architects. It should be borne in mind that the information regarding the amount of floor space affected by various design elements or techniques are estimates made by the sampled architects and are not based on measured data. 2 See website at www.nwalliance.org. PAGE 1

1. Introduction METHODOLOGY Development of Sample To identify the population of architects located in the Pacific Northwest, the Alliance contracted with Energy Market Innovations (EMI) to develop a sample list. EMI first attempted to purchase lists of registered architects, either from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) or from state agencies in the region. EMI found that the AIA was not releasing their membership list for research purposes. Moreover, such a list would be limited to AIA members, and not all architects belong to the organization. Additionally, information available from state agencies neither distinguishes between architects who specialize in commercial versus residential construction, nor provides telephone contact information. EMI and the Alliance therefore decided to compile a list using a combination of in-house and purchased resources. A three-step process was undertaken to develop a list specifically for this project. The first step was to identify the leading firms in the region. Based upon an earlier analysis conducted for the Alliance, EMI had identified 110 top architecture firms in the Northwest. This list was compiled from regional Book of Lists publications for Seattle, Portland, Boise and Spokane: the 2002 Puget Sound Business Journal Book of Lists, the Spokane Journal of Business Book of Lists 2002, the Portland Business Journal Book of Lists 2002 and the Idaho Business Review Top List 2002. Using these lists, EMI selected the top ten organizations in each of the Seattle and Portland markets, and the top five in Boise and Spokane, for a total of 30 firms. To this list, EMI added the affiliate offices that any of these companies had within the region, bringing the total to 34 firms. Step two was the development of lists of key staff at these leading firms. EMI compiled a list of 495 architects practicing within the organizations. A variety of sources were used to identify these individuals including: 1. The Lighting Design Lab database; 2. An earlier AIA list used for an evaluation of the Alliance s Architecture + Energy program; 3. Alliance supplied lists of Architecture + Energy program participants; and 4. Websites for the firms. The third and final step was to overlay these data with purchased lists of architects. A comprehensive listing was purchased from Reed Construction Data. The primary PAGE 2

1. Introduction benefit of the Reed Construction Data list is that it may be easily replicated. These data, purchased in a proprietary database format, were then entered into an electronic data set that could be used in this sample. The Reed list contained information on approximately 120 architects in the region who work on commercial projects. However, in a comparison of the Reed list with the list of individuals at the top firms identified earlier, EMI found the Reed list identified 251 individuals at the top 34 firms, whereas earlier efforts had identified 451 individuals at these same organizations. Of these, only 84 individuals appeared on both lists. In one case, one of the largest firms in Seattle (Callison) listed only two individuals, the CEO and the president, in the Reed Database. Conversely, NBBJ listed 43 individuals, nine of whom were also included on the compiled list. Therefore, in order to ensure that the population had adequate coverage of individuals among the most active firms, EMI merged the two data sets for these top 34 companies, resulting in a list of 621 unique individuals at these firms. For the remaining firms below the top 34, the data were drawn entirely from the Reed Construction Data list. The resulting data set, which consists of 1,666 individual architects, is both replicable and comprehensive. Development of Instrument Research Into Action, Inc. worked with the Alliance to develop a data collection instrument. We began by conducting interviews with Alliance staff involved with the BetterBricks program, part of which comprises Alliance efforts to reach architects. These discussions identified a set of program assumptions and associated research inquiries that pertain to architects. These were compiled and approved by Alliance staff prior to designing the survey questions. (See Appendix A.) We developed a set of screening questions to ensure that sampled architects provided architectural design for commercial construction in at least one of the four states in the Alliance service area in 2003. The screening questions also ensured that sampled architects do at least 50% of their work in commercial construction projects and that they work mostly in new construction or major remodeling projects. The survey questions were designed both to inform the Alliance about the market and to provide baseline measures of current practices regarding program-targeted energy efficiency measures. To that end, we inquired about various aspects of the typical architectural design process. Additionally, we explored with each architect his or her attitudes about issues related to energy efficiency, and his or her Page 3

1. Introduction awareness of certain energy-efficient technologies and organizations. (For more detail about the survey instrument, see Appendix B.) We used SPSS Data Entry Builder, a computer-assisted telephone interview tool, to administer the survey. DISPOSITION From the list of 1,666 architects, calls were made during business hours to 988 between April 8 and May 13, 2004. Full interviews lasted between 35 and 90 minutes, averaging just under one hour; we completed full interviews with 166 architects. Abridged interviews, lasting about 5 minutes, were conducted with eight architects, for a total of 174 completed interviews (Table 1.1). Table 1.1 DISPOSITION (CALLED) FINAL DISPOSITION COUNT PERCENT (N=988) Completed Interviews 174 18% Left Company 226 23% Disconnected Number 32 4% Wrong Number 30 3% Busy Signal 3 <1% Unavailable During Survey 6 1% Not Qualified 108 11% Initial Refusal - Hard 52 6% Initial Refusal - Soft 10 1% Mid-Survey Refusal 3 <1% Incomplete Interview 18 2% Left Message - Call Not Returned 265 27% Connected - Not Called Back 18 2% PAGE 4

1. Introduction Total Called 988 100% Of the remaining names and numbers called, 291 were no longer with the firm listed for them, were wrong or disconnected numbers, or always had a busy signal. Another 108 did not meet the interview criteria, and 65 others gave hard, soft or mid-survey interview refusals. Of the listed names, 678 were not called (Table 1.2). Table 1.2 DISPOSITION (NOT CALLED) FINAL DISPOSITION COUNT PERCENT (N=678) No Contact Name On List 40 6% Name On A Conflicting List 20 3% Duplicate Name 17 2% Company Refusal 11 2% Remainder of List 590 87% Total Not Called 678 100% Initial questions were designed to identify architects who did most of their work in 2003 for one of the specific building types the Alliance has targeted with current or planned program efforts. Those specific building types are schools, hospitals and grocery stores. During the interviews, we also distinguished architects whose work during 2003 was predominantly for an additional specific building type, namely, non-medical office buildings. The responses of those architects are included in this report as well. There are a variety of ways to define what constitutes doing most of one s work on a particular type of building. For example, an architect could do many small projects on schools, but spend most of his time working on one large project of another building type. Because architectural design projects vary widely in scope, we asked architects to think about the total amount of floor space in their designs in order to report how much work they did on certain building types. Initial questions asked architects to estimate the percentage of that floor space that was schools, hospitals, grocery stores and non-medical office buildings. Page 5

1. Introduction For the purposes of our analysis, architects were defined as school, hospital, grocery or office architects if they reported that 50% or more of the total floor space they designed in 2003 corresponded to one of those respective building types. We attempted to interview as many architects of each of those types as possible to ensure our analysis would be sensitive to any differences between types. The interviews identified 25 school architects, 29 hospital architects, 5 grocery-store architects, and 19 office-building architects (Table 1.3). At least 50% of the work of the remaining 96 architects was for other commercial, institutional or multifamily facilities. Throughout this report, these 96 are referred to as general architects, even though they may have specialties not accounted for here. Table 1.3 ARCHITECT TYPES ARCHITECT TYPE COUNT PERCENT (N=174) General 96 55% Office Buildings (Non-medical) 19 11% K-12 Schools 25 14% Hospitals and Healthcare 29 17% Grocery Stores 5 3% Even though the number of grocery store architects is small, we believe it represents a major portion of the population in the Pacific Northwest. We believe this, in part, simply because of the infrequency with which we encountered this type from the randomized list of Northwest architects. Further, the grocery store space these few architects reported designing amounted to almost nine tenths (88%) of all the grocery store space reported by sampled architects. School, hospital, grocery and office architects each represent a small portion of the overall sampled population. Therefore, we were able to obtain interviews with general architects in greater numbers than we could with architects of the first four types. After a sufficient number of general architects were interviewed, when our initial questions revealed an architect did not belong in one of the four smaller groups, the interviewer conducted an abridged interview, asking just a few PAGE 6

1. Introduction questions about the architect s views on sustainability. This occurred eight times. Seven of the eight abridged interviews were conducted with general architects. The eighth abridged interview was inadvertently conducted with one of the architects who fell into the category of non-medical office buildings. Report Contents In the following discussion, Chapter 2 describes the characteristics of the sampled architects. Chapter 3 looks at the interaction of the architects with their clients and the roles architects, clients and others play in certain design decisions. Chapter 4 discusses the practices of the sampled architects in regard to daylighting strategies and window specifications. Space conditioning and ventilation issues are addressed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 describes the experiences of the sampled architects with the design of electric lighting. The report is summarized and conclusions and progress indicators are set forth in Chapter 7. Page 7

1. Introduction PAGE 8

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF ARCHITECTS This chapter describes the locations by state of the sampled architects, and the amount and type of floor space they reported designing in 2003. It also describes the architects firm sizes, their years of experience as an architect, and their titles and roles in their firms. It relates the architects feelings about sustainable building and energy-efficient design, and their experiences with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) accreditation and certification. The chapter also discusses architects who are viewed by the sample as role models in the use of good design practices, and the sources of information the sample relies upon for expert design information. It closes with a description of the architects awareness of the BetterBricks program and website. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION, TYPE AND AMOUNT OF SPACE DESIGNED The 174 completed interviews were roughly in proportion to the populations of their respective states (Table 2.1). Seventy-two Washington architects, 48 Oregon architects, 29 Idaho architects, and 25 architects from Montana were interviewed. Table 2.1 ARCHITECTS BY STATE STATE ARCHITECTS INTERVIEWED PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=174) STATE POPULATION PERCENT OF REGIONAL POPULATION (N=11,206,994) Idaho 29 17% 1,251,700 11% Montana 25 14% 882,779 8% Oregon 48 28% 3,316,154 30% Washington 72 41% 5,756,361 51% Total 174 100% 11,206,994 100% PAGE 9

2. Characteristics of Architects Like the entire sample, the geographic distribution of the architect types also roughly mirrors the populations of the four states (Table 2.2). Designers of grocery stores were an exception to this, probably because of the infrequency with which they were encountered. Table 2.2 ARCHITECT TYPE BY STATE ARCHITECT TYPE IDAHO MONTANA OREGON WASHINGTON COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT General 14 48% 18 72% 28 58% 36 50% Office 5 17% 3 12% 2 4% 9 13% Schools 5 17% 2 8% 7 15% 11 15% Hospitals 3 10% 2 8% 9 19% 15 21% Grocery 2 7% 0 0% 2 4% 1 1% Total 29 99% 25 100% 48 100% 72 100% Three quarters (76%) of the interviewed architects said at least half of their work in 2003 was for new construction (Table 2.3). Almost all of the rest of their work was major remodeling. Only one percent of the reported work was for minor remodeling such as tenant improvements. Table 2.3 NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS REMODEL (MULTIPLE RESPONSES POSSIBLE) CONSTRUCTION TYPE COUNT PERCENT (N=174) New Construction 133 76% Major Remodel (50% or more of building) 48 28% Minor Remodel/Tenant Improvements 2 1% PAGE 10

2. Characteristics of Architects One of the goals of this research was to understand the current state of architectural design practices with regard to energy efficiency that is, to explore the frequency with which various techniques and practices that affect the energy footprint of a building are currently being used by architects. It is reasonable to infer that the more space an architect designed in 2003, the more impact that architect s decisions had on the overall character of the construction that took place regionally in 2003. To allow our analysis to account for this difference, we asked all architects to estimate the total amount of space, in square feet, they designed in 2003. More than one half (54%) of the architects said they provided design services for from 100,000 to 500,000 square feet of conditioned building space in 2003 (Table 2.4). Nearly one third (31%) said they worked on more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. Table 2.4 ESTIMATED FLOOR AREA DESIGNED FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FEET) ARCHITECTS (N=112) Less Than 100,000 14% 100,000 To 499,999 54% 500,000 Or More 31% The architects whose practice met the threshold for schools reported designing a total of more than eight million square feet of space in 2003, of which almost five and one-half million square feet (68%) were for schools (Table 2.5). Those who met the hospitals criterion reported designing more than nine million square feet of space, of which more than seven million (78%) were for hospitals and healthcare facilities. Grocery store architects reported designing more than seven million square feet, of which almost five million (67%) were for grocery stores. The office building architects reported designing more than ten million square feet, of which over seven million (69%) were for office buildings. Table 2.5 also shows the percent of the total reported floor space of schools, hospitals, grocery stores and offices buildings designed by each architect type. For example, school architects, who comprised 14% of the sample, accounted for 56% of Page 11

2. Characteristics of Architects all K-12 school building floor space designed by the entire sample. Hospital architects, who were 17% of the sample, designed 62% of the hospital and healthcare space. Grocery architects, who were only 3% of the sample, designed roughly nine-tenths (88%) of the grocery space. Office architects, who were 11% of the sample, designed 46% of the non-medical office space designed by the entire sample. Table 2.5 PERCENT OF REPORTED WORK BY ARCHITECT & BUILDING TYPE ARCHITECT TYPE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=174) OF ALL WORK DONE BY ARCHITECT TYPE OF ALL WORK ON THAT BUILDING TYPE IN SAMPLE General Architects 55% 69% was done on general buildings (sample = 53,672,470 sq ft) 85% was done by general architects (sample = 43,645,494 sq ft) Office Architects 11% 69% was done on offices (sample = 10,366,210 sq ft) School Architects 14% 68% was done on schools (sample = 8,013,288 sq ft) 46% was done by office architects (sample = 15,720,601 sq ft) 56% was done by school architects (sample = 9,748,921 sq ft) Hospital Architects Grocery Architects 17% 78% was done on hospitals (sample = 9,355,000 sq ft) 3% 67% was done on grocery stores (sample = 7,250,000 sq ft) 62% was done by hospital architects (sample = 11,750,832 sq ft) 88% was done by grocery architects (sample = 5,561,250 sq ft) FIRM SIZE, YEARS OF PRACTICE, TITLES AND ROLES The numbers of architects in the firms of the sample varied from fewer than five to more than 600. However, 40% of them were in firms with fewer than ten architectural designers and, cumulatively, 56% of them were with firms of fewer than 20 architects (Table 2.6). PAGE 12

2. Characteristics of Architects Table 2.6 NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS IN FIRM NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS IN FIRM PERCENT OF ARCHITECTS IN SUCH FIRMS (N=162)* Fewer Than 5 18% 5 To 9 22% 10 To 19 16% 20 To 49 17% 50 To 99 15% 100 Or More 13% * The abridged interviews did not include a question regarding the respondent s firm size. As shown in Table 2.7, firm size is related to work on K-12 schools, healthcare facilities and grocery stores. Table 2.7 ARCHITECT TYPE BY FIRM SIZE FIRM SIZE ARCHITECT TYPE GENERAL N=86 OFFICE N=18 SCHOOL N=25 HOSPITAL N=28 GROCERY N=5 TOTAL N=162* Fewer Than Five 22% 33% 8% 7% 0% 18% 5 to 9 26% 22% 16% 11% 40% 22% 10 To 19 15% 6% 24% 18% 20% 16% 20 To 49 13% 11% 32% 18% 20% 17% 50 To 99 14% 11% 16% 21% 0% 15% 100 Or More 11% 17% 4% 25% 20% 13% * The abridged interviews did not include a question regarding the respondent s firm size. Page 13

2. Characteristics of Architects Architects with larger firms are more likely to have worked on these buildings types (χ 2, p < 0.10). Firms with ten or more architects designed 60% or more of the K-12 schools (76%), healthcare facilities (82%) and grocery stores (60%). However, firm size is not statistically related to work on office buildings (χ 2, p > 0.40). Therefore, that architect type has been omitted from Table 2.7. Those interviewed were for the most part, highly experienced architects. Two-thirds (68%) of them had been practicing their profession for twenty years or more (Table 2.8). Only seven percent had been practicing for fewer than ten years. Table 2.8 YEARS PRACTICING ARCHITECTURE YEARS PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=164)* Fewer Than 10 7% 10 To 19 26% 20 To 29 34% 30 To 39 30% 40 Or More 4% * The abridged interviews did not include a question regarding the number of years of practice. Forty-six different titles were given by the 164 architects who provided one. The most common title was principal, given by 34% of the respondents. The other most commonly given titles were owner (12%), architect (12%), associate (11%), partner (10%) and project manager (6%). A complete list of these titles may be found in Appendix C. The architects often ascribed multiple roles to themselves. For example, an architect might describe himself as an administrative principal and a project manager, or as a designer and an information technology (IT) manager. These roles fall into six categories (Table 2.9). Not surprisingly, the most commonly cited role was simply architectural designer, a description fitting 130 of those interviewed. In addition to designing, other roles reported by the respondents included PAGE 14

2. Characteristics of Architects organizational administration and management, project management, electrical or mechanical design, construction management, and IT management. Table 2.9 ARCHITECTS ROLES (MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED) ROLE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=164)* Architectural Designer 79% Administration/Management 29% Project Management 21% Electrical/Mechanical Design 5% Construction Management 1% IT Management 1% * The abridged interviews did not include a question regarding the architects roles. SUSTAINABLE BUILDING MOVEMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN Reported interest in the sustainable building movement was high among the interviewed architects. More than three-quarters (78%) of them ranked themselves a 4 or a 5 on a one-to-five scale of interest in the movement (Table 2.10); only one of the interviewed architects said he was not at all interested ( 1 ). Generally speaking, the architects characterized their firms as being slightly less interested in the movement than themselves, with two percent saying their firms were not at all interested in sustainable building. Hospital architects had the greatest number reporting low interest in the sustainable building movement, but differences in interest among architect types were not significant. Page 15

2. Characteristics of Architects Table 2.10 INTEREST IN SUSTAINABLE BUILDING MOVEMENT INTEREST LEVEL LOW ( 1 OR 2 ) MODERATE ( 3) HIGH ( 4 OR 5 ) ARCHITECTS OWN INTEREST General (n=92) 4% 15% 80% Office Buildings (n=19) 0% 16% 84% Schools (n=25) 4% 20% 76% Hospitals (n=28) 14% 18% 68% Grocery Stores (n=5) 0% 0% 100% Total (n=169) 5% 16% 79% ARCHITECTS FIRMS INTEREST General (n=92) 5% 25% 70% Office Buildings (n=19) 11% 21% 68% Schools (n=25) 8% 40% 52% Hospitals (n=28) 7% 11% 82% Grocery Stores (n=5) 20% 0% 80% Total (n=169) 7% 24% 69% Although interest in the sustainable building movement was high among the interviewed architects, about three-fifths (59%) of them said they have rarely or never had an opportunity to work on a sustainable building (Table 2.11). Seven percent said they always ( 5 ) had such opportunities. School architects had the highest number reporting they often ( 4 or 5 ) have such opportunities, but the reported frequency of getting opportunities to work on sustainable buildings was similar among architect types; differences were not statistically significant. Data were analyzed for relationships between interest in the sustainable building movement and both the respondent s firm size and years of practice; no statistically significant relationship was found. Similarly, no statistically significant relationship was found between a respondent s length of time practicing architecture and their number of opportunities to work on sustainable building projects. PAGE 16

2. Characteristics of Architects Table 2.11 FREQUENCY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PROJECTS BUILDING TYPE LOW ( 1 OR 2 ) MODERATE ( 3) HIGH ( 4 OR 5 ) General (n=91) 58% 22% 20% Office Buildings (n=19) 53% 26% 21% Schools (n=24) 58% 17% 25% Hospitals (n=28) 64% 18% 18% Grocery Stores (n=5) 60% 40% 0% Total (n=169) 58% 22% 20% However, there does appear to be a relationship between the size of a firm and opportunities to work on sustainable building projects (χ 2, p < 0.10, Table 2.12). Table 2.12 FREQUENCY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS, BY FIRM SIZE NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS IN FIRM RARELY ( 1 OR 2 ) 3 OFTEN ( 4 OR 5 ) Fewer Than 5 (N=29) 79% 17% 3% 5 To 9 (N=34) 71% 15% 15% 10 To 19 (N=25) 64% 24% 12% 20 To 49 (N=26) 50% 23% 27% 50 To 99 (N=23) 52% 17% 30% 100 Or More (N=21) 33% 33% 33% Total (N=158)* 60% 21% 19% * The abridged interviews did not include a question regarding the respondent s firm size. Page 17

2. Characteristics of Architects About three-quarters of the architects in firms with fewer than ten architects said they rarely or never have opportunities to work on sustainable buildings, while only one-third of their colleagues in firms with 100 or more architectural designers said this. Over three fourths (77%) of all architects reported that their firm s marketing materials discuss their capabilities in energy-efficient design. Whether or not this occurs is related to the size of the firm (χ 2, p < 0.001, Table 2.13). We did not ask whether firms had marketing materials: smaller firms may be less likely to have such materials in the first place, which may account for this result. Almost threefifths (57%) of the firms with fewer than five architectural designers do not mention energy-efficient design practices in their marketing materials. By contrast, almost all of the firms with twenty or more architects include a discussion of their capabilities in this area. Table 2.13 ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN MARKETING, BY FIRM SIZE NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS IN FIRM ENERGY-EFFICIENT DESIGN CAPABILITIES MENTIONED IN MARKETING MATERIALS Fewer than 5 (N=28) 43% 5 to 9 (N=35) 69% 10 to 19 (N=26) 69% 20 To 49 (N=26) 96% 50 to 99 (N=23) 100% 100 or More (N=21) 95% Total (N=159) 77% When asked whether they consider sustainable building design and energy-efficient design to be the same, similar, somewhat different yet related, or very different, slightly more than one-half (51%) of the respondents said they consider these two approaches to design to be somewhat different yet related (Table 2.14). Roughly one third (30%) said they believe the terms are similar. Two percent of the respondents said the two concepts are very different. Hospital architects had the PAGE 18

2. Characteristics of Architects highest number (29%) among architect types saying the two approaches are the same, though differences by architect type were not statistically significant. Table 2.14 COMPARING SUSTAINABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN, BY BUILDING TYPE BUILDING TYPE SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN ARE THE SAME SIMILAR SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT YET RELATED VERY DIFFERENT General (n=85) 13% 33% 54% 0% Office Buildings (n=18) 17% 17% 67% 0% Schools (n=25) 20% 24% 52% 4% Hospitals (n=28) 29% 29% 36% 7% Grocery Stores (n=5) 20% 60% 20% 0% Total (n=161) 17% 30% 51% 2% About one-third of the respondents (30%) had never attended a design charette focused on the energy aspects of a building design (Table 2.15). Table 2.15 ENERGY FOCUSED DESIGN CHARETTE EXPERIENCE NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES IN CAREER ATTENDED (N=160) CLIENT REQUESTED (N=158) None 30% 56% One to Four 32% 27% Five to Nine 13% 8% Ten to Nineteen 11% 6% Twenty or More 14% 4% Page 19

2. Characteristics of Architects About two-fifths (38%) of them had attended more than four such design charettes during their careers. More than one-half (56%) had never had a client request such a design charette, and about one-fifth (18%) had had clients request energy-focused design charettes more than four times during their careers. LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) Almost all (97%) of the architects had heard of LEED certification (Table 2.16). However, only about one tenth (12%) of them were LEED accredited; slightly more than that (14%) had ever worked on a building that received LEED certification. Table 2.16 LEED AWARENESS (N=163) LEED ACTIVITY PERCENT OF SAMPLE Heard of LEED Certification 97% LEED Accredited 12% Worked on LEED Certified Building 14% The 24 architects who had worked on LEED certified buildings had worked on a combined total of 36 such buildings (Table 2.17). 3 More than half (53%) of those buildings had received or were on track to receive LEED silver certification, about one-third (31%) of them had received gold certification, and the rest had received the basic certification. 3 These may represent duplicates, as did not attempt to identify specific details of the buildings. PAGE 20

2. Characteristics of Architects Table 2.17 CERTIFICATION LEVEL OF LEED BUILDINGS WORKED ON LEED CERTIFICATION LEVEL PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=36) Basic 14% Silver 53% Gold 31% Platinum 0% Unknown 3% Architects who said they had heard of LEED certification were asked what they see as its value. The value of LEED was most commonly reported to be its promotion of sustainability, the environment or energy efficiency (Table 2.18). Table 2.18 VALUE OF LEED CERTIFICATION (MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED) VALUE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=163) Sustainability/Environment/Energy Efficiency 40% Benchmark/Accountability/Verification 29% Marketing/Owner Kudos 25% Promotes Awareness 10% Better Building Design 4% Other 12% Mixed Feelings 3% No Value 6% Unresponsive 8% Page 21

2. Characteristics of Architects Two-fifths (40%) of those aware of LEED certification cited one of these values. Over one-fourth (29%) mentioned that the certification provides a well-defined benchmark or level of accountability and verification assuring that certain standards have been met. One-fourth (25%) of them believe the value of LEED certification is how it helps building owners market their space or helps architects market their services. Other cited benefits of LEED certification were a generalized promotion of awareness, better building design, continuing education, long-term savings and tax credits. Six percent of the respondents believe LEED certification has no value. One or more architects of each type, except the few grocery-store architects interviewed, said this. Nearly one-quarter (22%) of office architects said LEED certification has no value, while for each of the other architect types, less than 10% said the certification has no value. SOURCES OF DESIGN INFORMATION The sampled architects depend upon an array of reference materials for expert information on good design practice. Without prompting of specific source names, they mentioned 68 specific publications, websites, or organizations, as well as generically referencing manufacturers or distributors product information, and other unspecified publications and websites. The most commonly mentioned reference source was Architecture Magazine, cited 19 times. The next most commonly named reference source was the US Green Building Council, mentioned nine times. Unnamed manufacturers or distributors product information was mentioned as a source of expert information on good design practice 18 times. Appendix D contains a complete list of the reference sources mentioned by the sampled architects. Nearly all (96%) of the architects said they had heard or read something during the past two years about the positive effect building design can have upon worker productivity, patient well being, retail sales, or academic performance in schools. One-fifth (19%) of those who said they had heard or read such information specified that they had read or heard that daylighting has these beneficial effects. One-half (50%) of the architects who had encountered this information said it came to them via periodicals (Table 2.19). One fifth (21%) said they heard it in meetings, conferences, or seminars. Other means of exposure to this information were from named organizations, from the Internet, from studies, or from their staff or television. One-third (34%) of those who were aware of those ideas did not know, or did not say, where they had learned of them. PAGE 22

2. Characteristics of Architects Table 2.19 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON DESIGN BENEFITS - GENERAL (MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED) SOURCE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=149) Periodicals 50% Seminar/Conference/Meeting 21% Organization 10% Internet/Website 9% Studies 6% Other 2% Unknown/Unspecified 34% Ninety-nine architects cited a specific source for their information about the positive effects of building design. One half (49%) of these named the Lighting Design Lab, BetterBricks, or a source that was likely to have been distributing information from BetterBricks. Such sources included Architectural Record, Architecture Magazine, the AIA, the US Green Building Council, and others. A complete list of the sources of this information given by the sampled architects is set forth in Appendix E. BETTERBRICKS The BetterBricks.com website is intended to increase demand by employees, decision makers, and influential staff for quality commercial buildings that are energy efficient. In addition to asking the architects to tell us, without being prompted, the sources of information they rely upon, we asked specifically whether they had heard of the BetterBricks program or website. Three quarters (74%) of the architects had heard of the BetterBricks program or website. The significance of this level of awareness of BetterBricks is clearer when contrasted with historical data. In surveying architects for the Alliance s Baseline Page 23

2. Characteristics of Architects Evaluation Report: Efficient Building Practices Initiative (EBPI MPER #1), 4 it was found that no Northwest architects had heard of BetterBricks.com, and none remembered the advertising associated with the website (p. 52). A few months later, the Alliance s Market Progress Evaluation Report: Efficient Building Practices Initiative, No. 2 (EBPI MPER #2) 5 found that just under 10% (9.9%) of architects were aware of Better Bricks (p. 45). Of those who had heard of BetterBricks, 94 mentioned how they had heard of it. The most common means by which architects said they heard about BetterBricks was in a seminar, presentation or charette. About one-quarter (26%) said they heard of BetterBricks this way (Table 2.20). Table 2.20 SOURCE OF BETTERBRICKS AWARENESS (MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED) SOURCE PERCENT OF ARCHITECTS AWARE OF BETTERBRICKS (N=94) Seminars/Presentations/Charettes 26% Colleague/Co-worker 14% Email 13% Mail 11% Periodical/Advertisement 11% Lighting Design Lab 9% Brochure 4% Website 4% Other 12% Don t Know/Unresponsive 19% 4 Dethman, Peters and McRae. March 2001. http://www.nwalliance.org/resources/reportdetail.asp?rid=22. 5 Dethman, Peters and McRae. July 2001. http://www.nwalliance.org/resources/reportdetail.asp?rid=21. PAGE 24

2. Characteristics of Architects Other sources of information about BetterBricks included a colleague or co-worker, email, regular mail, periodicals or advertisements, the Lighting Design Lab, brochures, websites, professional organizations, consultants and studies. While few of the architects had learned of BetterBricks from the BetterBricks.com website, just over half (51%) of the sample reported having visited the website (Table 2.21). Again, this result contrasts strikingly with findings of the 2001 EBPI MPER #2: at that time 8% of sampled architects had visited the BetterBricks website (p. 45). One-third (34%) of the current sample reported having visited the website on more than one occasion. Table 2.21 USAGE OF BETTERBRICKS.COM ACTIVITY PERCENT N=150 Visited BetterBricks.com 51% Visited More Than Once 34% Those who reported having visited the website once, but never having returned to it, were asked why they never visited the site again. Some could not give a reason, but the most common response (43%) among those who could give an answer was that they had no reason to return to the site. Another one-third (36%) said they had not had the time to return to the site. The others said they had forgotten about the website, had just learned about the website, or had forwarded it to others in their firm. Page 25

2. Characteristics of Architects PAGE 26

3. ARCHITECTS CLIENTS AND INITIAL DESIGN DECISIONS In this chapter, we look at the interaction of the architects with their clients and the roles architects, clients and others play in initial and final design decisions. THE ARCHITECTS AND THEIR CLIENTS Energy efficiency experts theorize that energy-efficient options are more likely to be implemented in new buildings when all or most of the design and construction team meet to discuss the project at certain critical phases. Architects report that in 2003 it was not unusual for them to participate in this kind of team meeting at one or more points during the design and construction process. Not surprisingly, nine in ten (90%) sampled architects reported participating in such meetings for at least one of their projects. Two-fifths (39%) of the architects said project team meetings were associated with all of their projects in 2003. To explore the timing of these meetings, interviewers asked architects to say for each phase whether it was typical for all or most of the design and construction team to meet. Ideally, we would have asked architects to say specifically how much of their 2003 floor space was subject to such team meetings at each phase; however, the line of questioning was simplified to keep the full interviews under one hour in length. Overall, the most common phase during which the architects reported typically participating in project team meetings was schematic design, with 89% of them reporting such meetings typically occur at that stage (Table 3.1). The design development phase was a close second in terms of participation in such team meetings, with 87% of the architects reporting they typically occur during that phase of projects. One-third of architects reported having participated in project meetings with all or most of the design and construction team during tenant occupancy. It is unclear why all or most of the team would attend such a meeting, which raises the concern that architects may have had an overly liberal interpretation of what constitutes all or most of the design and construction team. Consequently these findings may imply a larger amount of team members attending meetings than actually occurs. PAGE 27

3. Architects Clients and Initial Design Decisions Table 3.1 PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM MEETINGS (MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED) PROJECT PHASE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=165) Programming 64% Conceptual Design 76% Schematic Design 89% Design Development 87% Construction Drawings 82% Bidding and Bid Review 45% Construction 70% Occupancy 33% Energy efficiency experts consider conceptual design to be a critical phase for energy-efficient options to be considered, because then energy-efficient solutions can be integrated without much effect on other considerations. It is notable that this phase ranks somewhat lower than others in terms of participation in team meetings. The bidding and bid review phase is also seen as critical by energy efficiency experts because as decision-makers seek the lowest bid, the focus on cost-cutting can motivate the sacrifice of previously-agreed-upon design elements, including energy-efficient design characteristics. Again, it is notable that, at 45%, this phase ranked near the bottom in terms of participation in team meetings. We found no significant differences by architect type in rates of participation in these meetings. The sampled architects indicated that energy efficiency was important to their clients in 2003. Specifically, more than half (52%) said energy efficiency was important (a rating of 4 or 5 on a five-point scale) to their clients (Table 3.2). Nonetheless, 14% of the sample said energy efficiency was unimportant to their clients ( 1 or 2 ). PAGE 28

3. Architects Clients and Initial Design Decisions Table 3.2 IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY TO CLIENTS IMPORTANCE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=166) Not Important ( 1 or 2 ) 14% 3 34% Important ( 4 or 5 ) 52% When asked to estimate the amount of floor space they designed in 2003 that was associated with clients who made energy efficiency a priority, a different picture emerges. The majority (56%) of the architects reported that energy efficiency was a priority for clients on less than half of the floor space they designed in 2003 (Table 3.3). Nearly one-third (29%) said energy efficiency was a priority for none of their clients in 2003. Thirteen percent of the architects said all of their design work in 2003 was for clients who made energy efficiency a priority. Table 3.3 PERCENT OF FLOOR SPACE DESIGNED FOR A CLIENT WHO MADE ENERGY EFFICIENCY A PRIORITY PERCENT OF FLOOR SPACE PERCENT OF SAMPLE (N=165) 0% 29% 1% to 24% 12% 25% to 49% 15% 50% to 74% 19% 75% to 99% 12% 100% 13% Page 29