The second, less obvious, impact is building longevity. A building that is well designed is likely to last longer. A poor performer increases the likelihood of a retrofit or, worse still, risks demolition. Either way there is cost to the environment.

The third, less understood, consequence is productivity; we perform better when we are comfortable. Yet productivity gains are almost never factored during design, partly because productivity is hard to quantify, partly because architects do not see enhancing workplace productivity as their job.

This essay examines two types of comfort, thermal and visual, looking at environmental strategies for workspace design in hot humid climates.

This argument is flawed. Comfort is not just about physiology; it is also about psychology. In addition
to the level of comfort, there is also the question of type of comfort. In hot humid climates like Singapore and Malaysia air conditioning is perceived a necessity, no longer a luxury. High humidity levels, coupled with noise and pollution of urban settings, have made the natural ventilation unacceptable, particularly in the workplace. What is still negotiable is the extent to which we must rely on AC across the entire building. Studies have shown that acceptance varies with context and activity. Move out of the primary workspace into secondary zones such as cafeteria or recreation spaces and occupant expectations are less rigid. Here a natural breeze is acceptable, a fan might do as well. Move further into transit spaces, such as atria and corridors and the tolerance for natural ventilation increases. In toilets, for instance, occupants often prefer natural airflow to mechanical options, primarily for reasons of hygiene.

An office building could, therefore, be without AC across substantial portions of its gross floor area without sacrificing real comfort or productivity.
A prerequisite here is that the architect must,
during brief formulation, discuss the options with
the developer and/or users, deciding how far to
go with alternatives to AC. In this rethink of what
is necessary and what is acceptable, the atrium
could be a semi-outdoor space; the cafeteria
and recreation areas might have large outdoor components that are comfortably shaded and landscaped.

Achieving equitable daylight distribution is the answer. The question is how?

The best solution is to begin with a building's plan depth, window location and size. With a narrow floor plate, windows on opposite sides, the contrast between periphery and centre is reduced. When that fails one looks to technologies that help moderate distribution, optical devices such as light pipes, light shelves and prismatic panels.

Despite the difficulty in getting it right there is widespread agreement amongst experts on the importance of daylight to occupant comfort. People seem to generally prefer daylight to electrical light. This preference translates to productivity gains and energy savings.

A CPGreen study of a building in Manila was carried out in response to dissatisfaction amongst staff with offices overlooking the building's internal atria, which had very little daylight. Many asked to move to offices spaces closer to the building's perimeter with access to external windows. The perceived value gap between the two zones was significant enough to prompt the organization to consider a retrofit of the atrium for enhanced entry of natural light. In commercial settings, this preference gap translates to real estate value. The incentive for creating comfort is then not just environmental, it is also fiscal.

As a rule here, it's best to stick with water-based paints and adhesives as oil-based products have higher levels of VOCs. Centralise pollutive equipment, such as copiers and fax machines,
in areas with higher fresh air intake.