ABSTRACT: The paper outlines a number of potentially very useful building performance concepts that have been ignored, forgotten or only partially adopted. The idea explored in this paper is that, despite many significant advances in specialized fields, there are also many issues that remain outside the mainstream of building research, guidelines or conventional wisdom. Some of these are technically challenging to integrate into current body of knowledge, but others remain “outside the tent” for reasons that are difficult to justify.
The review of neglected issues in building performance includes the Integrated Design Process (IDP) and Predicted v. Actual performance, which are both recognized as being important but are not fully implemented. The differences between Source, Primary and Delivered energy are well recognized by energy specialists, but not by many professionals. There is a major misconception about Zero or Nearly Zero definitions amongst some professionals and almost all professional publications, or perhaps such groups are choosing to disregard the importance of embodied energy and emissions in the lifecycle environmental impacts of buildings. The differentials between Predicted and Actual performance are beginning to become recognized as being important, but need more visibility. An issue related to metrics, occupant density and annual person-hours, is something that is generally ignored but should not be, since it places energy and emission results in a much more realistic context. Weighting in rating systems is another metricrelated issue which must be resolved if rating results are going to have any meaning beyond marketing value. The prospect of Synergy Zones offers the possibility of improved performance within small urban areas, but the problems posed by management complexity will be difficult to overcome. Finally, going “off the grid” with large buildings is clearly a bad idea.