Previous post:

Next post:

Who needs hindsight?

by mel starrs on May 23, 2008

in Part L

I was just perusing through the archives of BSJ looking for something else entirely, when I came across this debate from 2000 on the then proposed Part L. I found this paragraph to be particularly enlightening:

The clauses covering overheating criteria for naturally ventilated buildings puzzled more than one delegate. Oscar Faber’s Ant Wilson queried if it was wise to set a limit of 28°C for ten days over ten years at a solar gain of 15 W/m2. “What weather data is that based on, and what datasets should designers be using in future given that climate change may affect our ability to meet the criteria?,” he queried.

“My reaction is that it will make people put air conditioning in their buildings, which is much easier than doing the calculation,” predicted Ove Arup’s Chris Twinn.

Crystal ball gazing indeed. It’s a good read, especially with the hindsight of the past 8 years.  On a different topic (the NEF building in Milton Keynes), but from the same year, Chris Twinn advises the following with regards to BREEAM:

“there is no real payback on a BREEAM assessment for an owner-occupied building – the real benefit is for a landlord to attract tenants.”

Times have changed slightly there, I would say.

It was fun delving into the not so distant past, but not awfully conducive to actually doing what I was supposed to be doing.  At least I got a blog post out of it…