4.0 Survey of Designers and Users
Short checklists and questionnaires were used as
the basis for determining the various ways in which daylighting was
designed and used. The blank checklists and questionnaires can be found
in Appendix E and include:
• Architect:
phone call checklist;
• Engineer:
phone call checklist;
• Quantity
Surveyor (QS): phone call checklist;
• Owner/Operator:
checklist for ‘live’ questioning during field study;
• Users:
checklist for ‘live’ questioning or questionnaire for
‘remote’ survey of club members and general users.
The results of the surveys are summarised in the
following sections.
4.1 Architect Surveys
Architects do not usually calculate the daylighting
for the halls. Instead they use either an external consultant or rely
on intuition and estimates from window sizes and rules of thumb. At
Glasgow Council this has resulted in designs that have been generally
satisfactory to users, with few glare complaints.
Most architects are unhappy with present guidance.
They mentioned the lack of clarity or useful working details,
especially in respect of CIBSE guidance. Several architects used sports
council advice, although in some cases the sports council had to be
persuaded to consider daylighting. Best practice cases, such as Brune
Park and Mountbatten, see chapter 5, were used by one practice for
design guidance.
One architect stated that guidance is used too
rigidily and that architects should think more from first principles.
4.2 Engineer Surveys
Engineers use daylight factor calculations and a
variety of computer programs to estimate, calculate or simulate
daylighting. Most will also rely on their intuition, and a few will
simulate the halls using computers or models. The modelling exercises,
in one or two cases, were not helpful or successful to the architects
and engineers.
Guidance sources were mainly from the sports
council, CIE and BSRIA publications. CIBSE guides were used for
specifying artificial light levels, but they were not generally liked.
4.3 QS Surveys
Information, so far, from Quantity Surveyors of
existing sports halls has been difficult to obtain. Many of the
projects are archived, making it awkward to find information.
Surveys, at this stage, have identified that adding
windows to sports halls adds significantly to the capital costs.
Depending on the type of glazing, the cost per m2 of glazing can be 2 -
3 times that of a standard wall or roof. Additions to this would be
maintenance costs and energy losses or gains (resulting in extra
cooling or ventilation requirements). However, few of those interviewed
had considered life-cycle costs or cost-in-use.
Typical costs (per m2) for glazing systems include:
• Glass block
walls - £165.00;
• Double-glazed
with reflective coating; aluminium framed, centre pivoting windows -
£400.00;
• Double-glazed
with solar control tint; aluminium frame, non-opening windows -
£200.00;
• Patent
glazing with aluminium frames; double-glazed with solar control tint -
£500.00;
• Double
glazed polycarbonate barrel vault rooflight - £180.00.
4.4 Staff Surveys
Staff at the sports centres visited were generally
unaware of the correct operation of the lighting in the halls. Most
were relying on reception staff to operate lights.
There was an awareness of the benefits of natural
lighting, in that it made the interiors much more pleasant for the
users. Management seemed to be largely unaware of the prospective
energy savings to be gained by making full use of available daylight,
although in most halls the light levels available from daylight alone
was not sufficient for play.
None of the halls visited had facilities for
controlling the daylighting and this resulted in complaints about glare
and overheating in two of the halls. These had been rectified,
partially, in one hall by adding solar control film, whilst the other
hall was awaiting an effective solution.
4.5 Users Surveys
Hall users were asked about their views of the
daylighting, artificial lighting, heating and ventilation. Two of the
halls visited had satisfied users, apart from the odd complaint about
occasions of glare and losing sight of the shuttlecock (for badminton
players). Both of these halls had central rooflights and one, more than
the other, a certain amount of clerestory glazing.
Another two halls, with only clerestory glazing,
suffered the most complaints from users. Many found the sun came
through the windows for long periods of time, causing glare and
overheating. One hall had been partially remedied by retrofitting solar
control film, but this did not stop the glare from direct sunlight from
entering. This particular hall also had complaints from volleyball
players: those players facing the window could not see at all when the
sun was shining.
One hall suffered from overheating; one was either
too cold or too hot; one was satisfactory and the last one had
excessive air movement, but was regarded as being fresh. These comments
were related to the design and control of the heating and ventilation
systems, which were not always optimal.
Acoustics were commented on in one or two halls,
with lack of clarity of speech being the main complaint, due to the
long reverberation times.
