Note: This page is based on notes from a talk given by Rick Diamond at the Pacific Energy Center in San Francisco on April 8, 1999. I decided to publish Rick's "Myths, Lies and Factoids" on The Energy Guy web site because I found them to range from thought-provoking to profound as well as quite entertaining!

If you have something to add in the way of a comment or additional wisdom on any of these issues let me know. I'm considering expanding the potential for further dialog and illumination on these myths by adding links (by myth) to a page with the thoughts of others.

- Ray Darby

Disclaimer:

The following does not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, the University of California, PG&E, nor anyone else that I can think of. These are personal observations. And I reserve the right to change my mind about anything I say. I hope to do so this evening in response to your questions.
- Rick Diamond

Definitions:

Myths: One of the fictions or half-truths forming part of the ideology of a society.

Lies: A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true.

Factoid: Not in my dictionary! I take it to mean something that sounds like the truth--but isn't. Inside the beltway, where you'd think they'd have figured this out it is often used to mean a "little fact" or "fact bite".

A taxonomy of myths? Creation myths, legitimacy myths, natural phenomenon, cultural change

A taxonomy of lies: Sissela Bok (Lying) 1) people lie from positions of strength and 2) people lie from positions of weakness.

Why talk about myths, lies and factoids?

Myths are ways of understanding the world we live in. They may represent incomplete understanding or scientifically not valid premises, but they help us interpret otherwise inexplicable events, and we shape our behavior accordingly.

Anthropologists use the term "folk theory" to describe the models people use to help them navigate the world. While these folk theories can be dismissed by economists and scientists, they nevertheless are the basis for how people's attitudes, beliefs and behaviors are determined.

Unlike particle physics, where theorists inhabit unimaginable realms, everyone has familiar experience with energy in the buildings where we live, work and play. So folk theories about energy help us as energy experts understand how the rest of the world views what we do. And by looking closely at the stories and theories we develop we can see what might be viewed by others as myths or lies.

I've organized the myths into two categories:

1) what consumers believe
2) what designers profess (and teach)

Ultimately we want to understand how our world works. By examining some of the myths about energy and buildings I hope we can better address the important issues facing us today.

Myth #1. A thermostat is like a valve--the higher you set it the more and faster the heat comes out. Anthropologist Willett Kempton has written about this folk theory. We all know people who, when they come home, turn the thermostat way over the desired setting to "crank up the heat" convinced that this will provide faster and greater amounts of heat. Similarly, we see people who set the oven at a higher temperature setting than needed, in order to "heat it more quickly".

Kempton writes that the model in our minds is that the thermostat is really like the gas pedal in the car. Push more and you get more power. Engineers will tell us that the thermostat is only a switch--the heat is either on or off. But we know better.

Thermostats represent a real power struggle in many households. Who sets them, at what level and how often they are changed are issues hotly disputed, argued, negotiated in many households and workplaces. Solutions such as dual controlled blankets could point the way to multizone controls for residential space conditioning.

Myth #2. The utility meters are wrong--or the meter reader makes mistakes. We found in our surveys of households that many people believe their meter is wrong or that the meter reader makes mistakes. Utilities go to great lengths to inform people that the meters are valid, but many people still read their meters. We also learned in our surveys that people in duplexes and apartments often read their neighbors' meters as well. This was particularly true for the elderly people sampled.

Myth #3. Cleaning the refrigerator coils improves its efficiency. Countless guides and brochures include this recommendation, and there is some intuitive logic that if you clean the years of accumulated dust from the surfaces of the coils, the heat transfer will improve. Unfortunately there is little data to support this claim. In some recent tests there was no evidence of improved efficiency from cleaning the coils. I put this in the category of things that we like to recommend so people can feel like they have done something good. My fear is that people may try to clean their refrigerator coils and not see any savings, and feel there is nothing more they can do. Or they may be unable to clean the coils--a non-trivial task for many elderly or disabled--and feel guilty that they can't do their part.

Myth #4. An individual's environmental beliefs translates to behavior that supports the environment. Behavioral psychologists have studied this phenomenon and found that--as we all know from everyday experience--there is a weak link between what we say we believe and what we actually do. We all know members of environmental organizations who drive gas-guzzling Sport Utility Vehicles. A basic finding from behavioral psychology is that general beliefs don't lead to general behaviors, but specific beliefs may lead to specific actions. So if you are a strong believer in solar power, you may install a solar water heater. But if you have a general belief that the environment is good, it may not lead you to any specific activities that benefit the environment.

Myth #5. We are running out of energy. This is one of those statements that is both true and false. We are not really running out of energy, if you consider that the sun is likely to be around for a while. And we're not running out of fossil fuels either, if you look at the world coal reserves or the projections that oil will stay under $20 per barrel for decades. But we are faced with tough environmental choices on the use of energy supplies.

Myth #6. Energy efficiency increases the first cost of buildings. New energy-efficient technologies such as high-performance windows are more expensive than conventional windows, and can increase the first cost of a building. But if designers takes an integrated approach they can often recover the increased costs of new technologies by decreasing the costs of others. In this case the improved windows, lighting, whatever, will allow for significantly lower cooling loads and the chillers can be reduced in number and size--at significant lower first cost.

Myth #6. Deregulation will lower the cost of electricity for homeowners. I really don't want to address this one. Do we want lower cost? Will this mean more electricity produced from coal? Will there be a greater consumption of energy because of lower costs? We can see how efficient our cars have become with the lower cost of gasoline. For the first time, the average efficiency of new cars is lower than for used cars.

Myth #7. People won't pay more for "green" electrons. Economists have told me that individuals will not pay more for "green" electrons if they can get the same service cheaper. Five years ago a utility experienced several customers who were willing to pay a premium for PV power. The recent entry of green-power providers in the deregulated market in California has not been stellar, but clearly some customers will pay more for the perceived benefit of doing the right thing environmentally. Economists call this paying for externalities--but it still isn't rational behavior for individuals.

Myth #8. Higher utility prices will lead to more energy conservation. The highest residential utility rates in the US are in NYC and Hawaii. Not areas we normally associate with high investment in energy efficiency. One area of the country that has been active for decades in investing in energy efficiency is the Pacific Northwest, where electricity is $.04/kWh.

Myth #9 People behave rationally. I don't understand how economists can believe this and claim that they are rational. Again if we look at the range of behaviors people exhibit in their homes and workplaces it is hard to discern rational behavior. And to claim that the aggregate of this irrational behavior will be rational is also a mystery to me.

We have observed people who run their air conditioning at home in the summer with all the windows open. When questioned they say they want to have both a/c and natural ventilation. From an engineering perspective this makes little sense, because you can't cool the outdoors. But from the individual's perspective, they want to be able to hear their kids playing outside while they are indoors sitting next to the blast from the a/c.

Most people do behave rationally--according to their own definition of what's rational.

Myth #10. Reading under bad light strains the eyes. I certainly heard this as a kid, but I don't know if it's true. Certainly too much reading can tire the eyes, but reading under the covers with a flashlight probably doesn't lead to needing glasses later in life.

Myth #11. Leaving lights, computers, whatever, on uses less energy than shutting it off and turning it on again. There may be other reasons of convenience for leaving appliances on, but energy savings is not one of them.

Myth #12. The earth is getting warmer because of increased CO2 from human activity. Too many people--particularly in Congress--believe this is a myth, and resist any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. The reality is that while we may not know the details or understanding the mechanisms fully, anthropogenic levels of CO2 are affecting climate, and are expected to increasingly make climate more unstable.

Myth #13. It is too expensive for us to reduce CO2 emissions. Again, this is a popular myth with our current government, but there has been careful research and documentation on the cost-effective strategies that we can achieve to reduce CO2 emissions. What's lacking is not the technical smarts, but the societal and political will to address this imperative. But these actions also have costs. It is also a myth that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will be "free". Basically we don't know what the costs will be, and we can only guess at the consequences. But there should be discussion of these issues throughout society.

Myth #14. Installing energy retrofits or designing energy-efficient measures reduces energy use. Maybe. But unless they are the right measures, installed carefully and operated correctly, there won't be any energy savings. I've seen solar collectors on the north side of the roof (the owner wanted them visible from the street). We've come across numerous daylight and occupancy sensors that were taped over or disabled by workers who didn't like them or understand their purpose. And we've seen numerous controls on HVAC systems disabled by the building managers either because they were never commissioned to work properly or because the operators wanted to be in control. With careful planning and commitment the energy efficient strategies can work, but we can't take for granted that they will work automatically.

Myth #15. Energy efficiency measures result in using less energy. Sometimes the installation of an energy efficiency strategy results in improvements or the amount of service, but not energy savings. The difference is between "energy conservation" and "energy efficiency". Many would argue that what we care about is efficiency--reducing waste. Others would see the need to reduce consumption of resources. An example is the consumer who buys 50% less fat potato chips--and eats twice as many. The chips are more efficient, and the customer benefits by getting twice as much pleasure--but no calories have been saved. This phenomenon is often called the "take-back" effect by energy analysts, and it is often not considered significant, but it exists. People will often take back the energy savings from improved windows and insulation in the form of increased comfort.

Myth #1. Building Science is a rigorous, logical, scientific discipline; architecture is soft and intuitive.

In my experience, it's the building scientists who are the wacky, goofy theorists who put forth all sorts of impractical schemes, and the architects who are the sober, practical and pragmatic professionals. For one thing, is what we call "building science" really science? Around my lab I often hear that building science is not "rocket science," meaning that real brain power is busy elsewhere. So I called some real rocket scientists I know at Cal Tech, and asked them how difficult their jobs are. They said, modestly perhaps, that it was nothing, really, just mixing chemicals and making explosions - stuff kids do. One astrophysicist volunteered that he needed help figuring out how to insulate his attic, and did I have any ideas.

If you ask social scientists about their fields - with the exception of economists - they often bemoan the lack of rigor in their discipline, saying it's all rather vague, and they point to the physicists as having more "scientific" principles. And when you ask physicists about the rigor in their field, they tell you how they envy the mathematicians, whose work is more pure. As for the mathematicians, they describe their field as being "intuitive and rather vague."
I was particularly pleased to come across an essay by Edward Rothstein, "Contemplating the Sublime" (The American Scholar, Autumn 1997) that discusses how in mathematics and the sciences, objects are studied to disclose a design or order. Rothstein quotes several mathematicians. The mathematician Hermann Weyl wrote, "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful; but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually choose the beautiful." G.H Hardy wrote, "There is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics. Bertrand Russell, "Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty - a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture." And Paul Dirac once proposed that if his theory were beautiful and an experiment proved it questionable, he would tend to doubt the experiment more than the theory.

What is going on here? Are our assumptions about science being based on cold, rational, experimentally determined facts being jettisoned for beauty? Maybe these two domains are really not so far apart? Maybe we have been guilty of practicing "ugly" building science.

Myth #2. If only we had gotten into the design process earlier.

I hear this from consultants all the time. By the time they are brought to the table all the key design elements have been decided and all they can do is make minor changes. So the question is, when is the best time to bring in technical expertise? Often, when our team has been asked for advice on energy alternatives during schematic design, we frequently end up saying that until the basic design decisions about size, shape, materials, zoning, etc., are decided, we can't do an energy simulation.

Obviously the difficulty is drawing the line at the point where there is enough information available on which choices can be based before key elements have been determined. Although incremental changes can be made at any point in the design and construction process, change orders can be expensive. Changing a glazing spec at the working drawing stage is relatively inexpensive (although HVAC sizing will be affected) but changing glazing size can be very costly.

Ideally, on major projects designers and consultants need to form partnerships. The reality is that design budgets, more often than not, allow for only brief encounters between them.

Myth #3. If only architects had a better design tool that would allow them to understand the impacts of their design on energy use.

The use of energy simulation tools in the design phase allows lots of neat permutations and variations to be explored. In my experience, however, architects don't want to use them. Too busy to add any more "learning experiences" to their already overburdened job, they prefer to hire consultants for this purpose.

There is another concern here that when design tools become easy to use, any "tool user" can become an expert, without necessarily understanding the consequences of his or her actions. The possibility for disasters is very real. We need to understand that tools are tools, and they are only as good as the understanding of the user.

Myth #4. We need to teach architecture students more building science.

Actually, I've often thought that we don't need to teach students about building science at all, we need to teach design faculty about building science. When I once proposed such a seminar, the other technology faculty were aghast that I would even suggest such a thing.

From my perspective, this separation between teaching technology and teaching design reinforces their differences when what we need to do is emphasize their interdependence. I would like to see all building science courses renamed "Beginning Design Studio" and "Advanced Design Studio and Seminar."

While, in theory, team teaching serves to improve this situation, in my experience teaming a design faculty with a tech faculty in studio results in the technology being marginalized even more as the design faculty demands the students' attention. Despite several examples of successful partnerships, I am concerned that unless the design faculty have some understanding of and enthusiasm for the technology issues, the students will simply ignore them.

In addition to teaching design faculty, the people I would like to educate about building science are CEOs, building owners, movers and shakers in the community, and society at large. Perhaps we should teach building science in the business and law schools. Once these future power brokers appreciate the importance of healthy, comfortable environments then the architects will scramble to meet their needs.

Myth #5. If we explain the basic principles of building science more clearly, we will win over architects and design students who are currently seduced by beautiful designs that violate these principles.

A ready example of this proposition, taking a page from Cris Benton, is when I show a group of architecture students slides of Richard Meier's Douglas House, and explain how uninhabitable it must be with its two-story west-facing glass. The problem I have is that every time I show this example and explain how it violates principles of comfort, energy efficiency, and produces glare, fades furniture and irritates pets, the students (and I'm guilty of this, too) still love the way it looks. Consequently, enormous west-facing windows continue to show up in all their studio projects.

My solution? I've stopped showing students the Douglas House. But I think we need to realize that esthetic appreciation is subjective and personal, and while beauty and habitability need not be mutually exclusive, we would be foolish to think that we can argue away the one using arguments for the other. In a contest between beauty and technology, beauty will win every time. The message I try to convey to my students is, if they want expanses of unshaded glass, fine, but they had better understand the consequences of their design on the comfort of the building users and its impact on the environment.

My argument isn't that you can't design a "good" building that incorporated sound design and environmental concerns, but that it is a mistake to attack a "beautiful" building and saying it is flawed because it fails by other criteria. Kant argues--I'm following Rothstien here--that the judgment of beauty is a detached judgment--it has nothing to do with the usefulness of the object, its monetary value or anything else. We shouldn't confuse "beauty" and "good."

Myth #6. All buildings must face south (or north).

We can all appreciate the arguments for proper orientation of glazing and the use of thermal mass to take advantage of passive heating and cooling opportunities. Nevertheless I am struck by how an insistence on solar orientation has driven designs. I would prefer that credit be given for orientation based on access, view, surrounding buildings, and the proper treatment of glazing with respect to its different orientations. Simple solar orientation criteria is a simplistic proxy for "energy-efficient design," and I suspect this practice is fairly widespread. Energy criteria, important as they are in the design of buildings, cannot be dominating factors: sometimes it is important not to let the "energy tail" wag the "design dog."

Myth #7. Low-e windows look just like regular windows.

I confess - this one caught me by surprise. I had recommended low-e windows for the studio of an artist friend. The quality and color of light was important to her and her concern was whether these windows would block out too much daylight. I told her there would be some reduction in the visible transmittance, but it wouldn't be noticeable. And it probably wouldn't have been had she not put a French door with clear glass next to the low-e windows. It was instructive, at least, to see how different the color of the sky was through the two panes of glass. Of course the solution would have been to have low-e glass in the French door.

Myth #8. You can't have operable windows in commercial buildings.

The only people I know who say they prefer sealed windows to operable windows are HVAC engineers. And when I've asked them whether they have sealed windows in their homes, they just glare at me.

Several reasons are given for this dictum, the chief one I hear being that you can't control the HVAC system if you have occupants opening and closing windows. I suspect that concerns for security, smoke control and the cost of window hardware are also important. But people like operable windows where they live and where they work. I recently reviewed design schemes for a new municipal building that included a daring entry by a well-known avant-garde firm, featuring "venturi air foils" and other high-tech strategies. I pointed out to the jury that the truly radical technology that distinguished this scheme from the others was that it alone had operable windows. While we cannot settle the debate about operable vs. inoperable windows, again, we should be clear about the basis for the arguments pro and con.

Myth #9. Tight buildings cause "Sick Building Syndrome."

Architects and clients frequently tell me that they don't want their buildings to be "too tight." "Buildings have to breathe," they say.

The Canadians and Scandinavians have been building tighter homes and offices for years, and have addressed the issues of the resulting increase in moisture and indoor pollutants by installing mechanical ventilation systems. These systems typically work well; indoor comfort levels are reportedly quite high. One problem that the Swedes and others have discovered, however, is that conditions comfortable for humans, are also comfortable for bugs, dust mites in particular. Asthma appears to be increasing, especially in children, and although several factors are involved, dust mites appear to be a causal factor.

Health problems in the workplace are real and probably more widespread than we previously realized. The causes are not well understood, but probably have more to do with the outgassing of chemicals from building materials and products, and faulty ventilation systems, than with the tightness of the building envelope.

Without discussing the issue of how much ventilation is needed, what the provisions are for smoking, whether we should test all houses for radon, and how to best bring in outside air, let me say that these are all important questions that need our serious attention as designers and builders.

Myth #10. Energy codes restrict the creative genius of architects.

Following the 1991 fire in the Berkeley/Oakland hills that destroyed over 3000 homes, the local chapter of the AIA convinced the city to petition the state to exempt designers of new replacement homes from meeting the state's energy code. The argument used was that most homeowners wanted their new houses to be just like their previous ones, which were all built prior to the state's first energy code in 1973. After a flurry of faxes and phone calls between state and city officials (ask me about the details if you are interested) the city withdrew its support for the architects' petition, and the law of the land prevailed: energy codes would be enforced.

The degree to which local architects felt constrained by the energy code was surprising. Surveys of builders throughout the state confirm that meeting the code posed no difficulties, except for architects. The most disliked part of the residential energy code is the lighting requirement for the kitchen and bath that can be met only by fluorescent lighting. That brings up the next - controversial - myth:

Myth #11. Fluorescent lighting is bad.

This one has been around for years and has received a lot of press. I remember my first day in design school when our class was addressed by one of the senior design professors. One of the students asked about the incessant low buzzing in the room. The professor launched into a tirade against fluorescent lighting, pointing out that it wasn't "natural" and that it was bad for us. I climbed onto a table and whacked one of the overhead air ducts with a tube of drawings. The noise stopped. The students all looked at the prof, who continued with his lecture without missing a beat. The odd thing to me is that none of my classmates remember this incident, and I'm willing to bet that the prof still fumes against fluorescent light. Lesson: Never let an ugly truth get in the way of core beliefs.

A postscript to the above incident. Noisy ballasts can be a problem. When the library at Harvard's Graduate School of design was remodeled, the lighting designer specified an industrial-grade fixture that was used in an inverted position for indirect lighting--a "high tech" look. Somehow an industrial-grade ballast (a D rating for acoustic purposes) was also specified, which created a terrible racket, interfering with the staff's ability to work and the students ability to sleep. The ballasts were replaced with A-rated ballasts and the problem went away.

Myth #12. Fluorescent light is just like incandescent.

I've told my students this for years, arguing that well-designed fluorescent fixtures were indistinguishable from incandescent ones. It was only when we started comparing actual installations that we saw how different they were. Recent advances in compact fluorescent lamps have made them almost interchangeable with incandescent A-lamps, but we shouldn't try to convince people that they are the same. We need to show how they are different and which is appropriate for different needs.

Myth #13. Compact fluorescent lamps interfere with electrical systems and radio and TV reception.

I have read studies showing how CFLs can cause harmonic distortions in some electrical systems. But I was dismayed to learn that residents of a senior housing project in Worcester, Massachusetts, were complaining of poor TV reception following the installation of our energy retrofits. The retrofits consisted of heating controls, new windows, roof insulation and CFLs in all 70 apartments. In my follow-up surveys the retrofit crews said they had never had complaints about poor TV reception before, and that the management was seriously considering taking out the new CFLs. I asked the lighting scientists back at the lab, and they were puzzled, too. Then we discovered that during the insulation of the roof the contractor had disconnected the TV antenna. Once it was reconnected the problem went away. Another lesson in correlation and causality. But perception is reality: the residents still talk about the problems with their new lights.

Myth #14. More and smarter controls are better.

For decades the "house of the future" or "office of the future" has featured more and smarter automation. Automated coffee machines that bring your morning cup to your bed and robots that clean bathrooms are two scenarios that have been proposed for at least the past 100 years. We already have seen major advances in "smart homes" and "intelligent buildings" which take advantage of information technology using sensors to automate and integrate building security, environmental controls and other features. But we need to stop and ask ourselves how much control is enough? What are the energy and environmental consequences, not to mention the sociological and psychological, consequences of increased building automation?

The need for increased controls, unquestioned, of course, by the manufacturers of control equipment, has been that the such systems will allow building occupants and operators greater satisfaction through the control of their temperature, lighting and air flow.

Studies have shown that workers like to have local control over their ventilation, lighting and temperature in their workplace. While other research has shown that workers don't want the additional hassle of having to manipulate control panels, they just want environmental conditions taken care of for them. We don't have to choose between smarter buildings or smarter people, but we should continue to look at the consequences of these actions.

Myth #15. Refereed architectural journals are a valuable source of information for the profession.

An article in Science in the early 90s [Hamilton, 1991] reviewed the use of "citation indices" as an indicator for how frequently publications in different fields were used by those in the field. The article showed that atomic, molecular and chemical physics, at one end of the spectrum, had more than 90% of its journal articles referred to by others, suggesting that researchers were reading these cutting edge articles. At the other end of the spectrum were refereed architectural articles, where 99.6% of the papers were never cited. Building technology did somewhat better: only 84% of all the articles had no citations. Does this mean that no one is reading the articles, or just that no one is citing them? How is research in architecture used, for what purposes and by whom? As people pointed out, journal articles can have an impact without being cited--it is possible that people read the articles for general interest.

Myth #16. Vernacular design provides an environmental model for contemporary architecture.

Students typically enjoy the lectures on vernacular architecture, and assignments on indigenous solutions are usually quite popular. But how are the lessons of Yemeni towers and Pueblo dwellings to be extracted for purposes of modern practice? Arguments that vernacular design has been shaped by environmental and climate conditions are routinely disputed by cultural anthropologists who argue that form follows culture, not terrain and climate.

Given the 20th-century legacy of cheap fuel and electricity, and people's expectations for uniform comfort conditions in all of our buildings, what opportunities are there for vernacular-based designs? Is the image of a naturally ventilated skyscraper an oxymoron?

One colleague wrote to say he had always shown pictures of Mesa Verde and other Southwest architecture talking about how the buildings were oriented to the south to take advantage of the overhang to block the summer sun. He discovered to his horror that several of these buildings actually faced west. While dozens of passive solar books claim vernacular as their precedent, a cursory look at the orientations of the SW pueblos show that they face in all directions.

I would like to explore further the myths of a earlier, pastoral society. Several cultures have the myths of an earlier, "golden age", where man lived in harmony with nature. I'd like to know more about how environmentally aware these earlier societies were--what I've read about the Maori of New Zealand, several central American cultures and elsewhere suggests that these cultures were not as environmentally sensitive as we might believe.

Myth #17. "Sustainability" will be the rallying cry for a new, environmentally-sensitive architecture.

We've all had to address the sustainability issue, if only to decide whether the word itself is appropriate. Although the term has been given prominence throughout professional schools and design firms by articulate speakers and practitioners, has anything changed as a result? Are firms adopting "green" strategies because of their new-found appreciation for the environment, because of greater demand from clients, because they see it as a new market niche? Can we separate the hype from the solid work?

Myth #18. Better environmental quality means greater productivity.

The buzz word for the nineties has been "productivity" not "energy efficiency," for the obvious reason that workers are expensive and energy is cheap. Several books and articles have been written on how better environmental design has enhanced productivity. But the evidence to date has been pretty thin. It is difficult to measure the impact of changes in environmental design and measuring productivity has always been extremely complex. To show causation between the two is not trivial. In fact, it may be some time before we have good evidence to support the relationship between these variables.

What Next?

So what can we learn from looking at these so-called myths. Do they help to explain any of the behavior we see or experience daily in our work? I feel that we need to take stock of our often cherished beliefs to see if they are blinding us to more fundamental truths. I think that as everyone is a player in the issues of energy, and environmental well-being, that we need to understand the perspectives of "experts" and non-expert's alike.

If we can better understand the basis for our beliefs, then we can better use our resources for education and communication, and from this better understanding we can take better actions.


Acknowledgments

These ideas are the results of an on-going conversation I have had over the years with friends, colleagues and students, during lunches, around drafting tables and in elevators. I especially appreciate the comments and shared stories from SBSE colleagues and others who responded to an earlier draft of this paper. I welcome comments from readers. If you'd like to provide comments, to be linked and published off this page, send comments on these myths here. If you'd like to write me, you can do so by sending me email at RCDiamond@LBL.GOV.

Bibliography

Cuff, Dana. 1991. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gutman, Robert. 1988. Architectural Practice: A Critical View. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Hamilton, David. 1991. "Research papers: Who's uncited now?" in Science, v251 n 4989, page 25.

Janda, Kathryn. 1996 "Designing from experience: the effects of research on practice" in Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study, vol. 6 p 89, Washington DC: ACEEE.

Lovins, Amory, 1992. Energy-Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities - Strategic Issues Paper. E-Source, Inc. Boulder, Colorado.

Pressman, Andy. 1995. The Fountainheadache: The politics of architect-client relations. New York: Wiley.