On a recent trip to Thailand, I enjoyed a rare opportunity to experience traditional responses to local design challenges, unique architectural expressions of place. Upon arrival, one of the first things you notice is the very hot tropical climate. Then, as you explore, you start to notice the particular cultural responses to this climate – that there is a recognizable characteristic, developed out of necessity, present throughout regional design traditions.

There is a continuous theme of architectural techniques that respond directly to climate with a simplicity and completeness of expression, especially evident in visits to some of the many magnificent Thai temples.

Approaching the temples, there is a sense of grandeur as bright sun shimmers off of the brightly colored tiles, among an array of sweeping roof structures and light exterior surfaces. The journey of enlightenment begins with this first glimpse of the temple complex, and continues inside with a smooth progression from the bright outdoors, through shady verandas, to serene interiors.

The temples use deep overhangs and verandas to provide vitally important shade, in response to the direct sun and persistent hot weather. These elements mediate the tremendous brightness contrast, while at the same time, acting as a threshold to solemnize the moment of entering the sacred space.

Inside, surfaces are defined by dark wood, in less reflective colors and textures. This transition has a phenomenological effect of coolness, and establishes your focus on the gleaming Buddha that reflects indirect daylight from the windows. The dazzling reflections emanating from golden surfaces are a beautiful visual expression of the Buddha’s spiritual magnitude.

The traditional Thai temples are filled with only a subdued sense of natural daylight, which is an interesting contrast to contemporary thinking, but the dark walls and ceiling are not perceived as blank planes; there is just enough ambient light to pick up ornate, glossy details which define the structure. The effect, though subdued, creates an inspiring, pleasing atmosphere.

During my travels in Thailand, there were many new experiences, but throughout them all, what I enjoyed the most was this collaborative expression of daylight and transition, and the harmony with which the local architectural style transcends necessity.

Photo Credits: Fai Dechavas (1,4), Amber Hepner (2, 5, 6), Truly Asia (3)

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is especially true when studying architectural lighting concepts. With energy codes becoming more and more stringent, and seeking sustainability through power reduction becoming more and more prevalent, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that designing by numbers does not tell the entire story. Although meeting minimum illuminance levels is critical to safety and security, and although reducing electricity demand is critical, balancing brightness, uniformity, and contrast ratios with an understanding of texture and shadow is what really leads to a successful lighting composition.

This is not to say that energy codes and recommended illuminance levels are not important, but rather that they are only one piece of the puzzle – one that must be thoroughly understood, and achieved without sacrificing visual clarity in our designs.

A lighted nighttime environment rendered with 3D computer software can be an invaluable way to communicate a lighting concept and a hierarchy of surface brightness for a space. Seeing the ceiling uniformity and shadows created by structural members can impart important information back to the designers that could easily be missed when designing by numbers alone.

Uplighted coffers and the interplay of shadows on different architectural surfaces can be visualized when accurately modeled, allowing the perceived brightness of a room or building to directly inform the design. Material characteristics can be studied and determined, well before the design is finalized, allowing the designers instant feedback on their decisions.

The catch to all of this is that careful attention must be paid to material attributes and light fixture photometric distributions. Creating a wonderful picture that is not entirely accurate can be worth the wrong thousand words.

Material colors and reflectances must be matched as closely as possible to the intended specifications. Darker or lighter color selections, or polished material finishes rather than matte, can make the rendered image differ significantly from the built form. Photometric accuracy is equally critical. Without realistic light distributions and outputs, information contained within IES data files, the 3D model is nothing more than an artistic rendition.

The lighting designer’s responsibility is to integrate all of this critical information into one cohesive model when rendered images are required. It is the thorough understanding of fixture optics, material reflectances, brightness perception, and uniformity ratios that allow lighted environments to be accurately visualized and studied through computer simulation. The artful layering of light and dark goes far beyond minimum illumination achieved or amount of energy consumed, and sometimes, the picture is worth more than a thousand words.

Photo Credits: Visarc (1a), Nathanael C. Doak / Lam Partners (1b, 5b), Peter Aaron / Esto (3b), Lam Partners (all others)

Many people would argue that the healthiest lighting at night is no lighting at all. Studies are revealing that biological rhythms are offset, sleep patterns are disrupted, even breast and prostate cancers are more likely with disrupted circadian rhythms, due in part to improper lighting at improper times of the day.

The human race evolved under both light and dark. The light-and-dark cycle sets our circadian rhythms and is responsible for our good physical and mental health. Relying on the sun, moon, and stars has for centuries provided us with high-quality, healthy lighting. That’s why there is such an interest in daylighting our buildings, not only to save energy, but to put us in touch with a natural light spectrum that changes throughout the day and provides us with healthy lighting. However, we sometime need to augment this cycle at times when tasks must be performed and there is no available “natural” light.

Exterior lighting provides useful illumination at night mostly through electric means, and there are a plethora of electric light sources available to light our cities, towns, and campuses at night. What’s the best choice? Unfortunately, that question is far too many times answered by “what’s the cheapest?” – cheapest to purchase, operate, and maintain. “What’s the most energy-efficient?” is another, more admirable, question.

Both metrics are easily quantifiable and, as a result, are used almost exclusively in decisions about what light source to use. But since we are primarily lighting for humans, we should be asking “what’s the healthiest lighting to provide at night?” This is a more difficult question to answer. We may find that the healthiest lighting at night is no lighting. But, if we determine that some sort of illumination should be provided for some given task, what kind of light is best?

Most of America’s highways, streets, and pathways are illuminated with high-pressure sodium lamps, a yellow, monochromatic source. Many lighting designers, though, prefer metal halide over sodium vapor due to its “whiter” color and superior color-rendering properties. However, designers have had a tough time justifying this qualitative aspect when compared to the efficiency and long life of sodium.

Then, a number of years ago, studies started to show that cool or bluish light (white light with relatively high color temperatures, 5000K to 6000K) improved visual acuity in off-axis seeing tasks. There was even discussion about measuring this benefit for exterior lighting applications, since off-axis tasks were very important for good nighttime vision, (scotopic) driving, and walking. Finally, designers had a scientific reason for recommending metal halide over sodium for ‘people-centric’ tasks.

On the other side of the coin is the research saying that blue light at night is bad. Studies are starting to reveal that exposure to light with higher concentrations in the blue spectrum at night may actually be bad for our health. Apparently, it is especially harmful to people prone to macular degeneration. Cool blue light in the morning and during the day, at high levels of illumination, is crucial in setting our circadian rhythms by producing serotonin in the body.

Conversely, warm-colored light at night does not suppress melatonin, which is needed for proper sleep cycles. This is why some claim that night lights should be amber or red so as not to disturb sleep patterns through the night, or that people should stop working on their computers or watching TV at least an hour before going to bed, because of blue-rich light emanating from the visual displays.

And then there is the psychological side. Most people prefer a warm tone for low levels of illumination. It feels more natural. The sun gets warmer closer to sunset. Firelight has a nice warm glow. Dimming an incandescent lamp warms its color temperature. Kruithof’s amenity curve reinforces the notion of relating color temperature to the illuminance level.

Just to complicate matters, many exterior applications are beginning to embrace the burgeoning technology of the LED. It seems to make sense from a maintenance standpoint, since LEDs have a very long lamp life. However in order for these diodes to be very efficacious, they must be in the very cool or blue end of the spectrum, about 6000K. When this color temperature is used for outdoor applications of 10lux or less, the resultant lighting system looks very unnatural, not to mention what it does to skin tones.

On the Boston Common, like in many communities across the nation, there is a mock-up of several different styles and manufacturers of LED pedestrian lanterns. One evening, as we were observing the differences between the luminaires, we received an unsolicited opinion from a passer-by who commented on how the warm-white LED lantern looked the best. I tend to agree. The blue light at night simply looks unnatural. I often wonder why induction lighting is not more common for exterior lighting applications – the color temperature and rendering properties are superb, and it is rated at twice the life of most LED systems.

Ultimately it comes down to good lighting design:

1. Identify what needs to be illuminated and what can remain dark, in order to create useful contrast and manage energy usage wisely.

2. Highlight features to reinforce a hierarchy of events and provide orientation for the user.

3. Arrange light sources in clear, understandable patterns to create optical guidance for wayfinding.

A comprehensive nighttime visual environment must provide safety, foster a sense of security, be convenient for performing tasks, and appear aesthetically pleasing. When it comes to choosing the source, it should have a high color-rendering index and a nice warm color somewhere in the 2700K range. And, remember the rule of “everything in moderation”! Providing low levels of well-considered lighting will reveal the environment to the user much more effectively than flooding an area with high levels of potentially glary light, and chances are we’ll all be healthier for it. We won’t be breathing air that is polluted by power plants used to produce electricity to power exterior lighting, and we won’t be subjected to luminous energy that disrupts our biological rhythms. A win-win situation for everyone!

Photo Credits: longhorndave (1), *melody* (2), kevindooley (3), Lam Partners Inc (4)

2010 IES ILLUMINATION AWARDS

The Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design

Award of Merit

Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art

Johnson County Community College

Overland Park, KS

Architect: Kyu Sung Woo Architects, Inc

Award recipients: Paul Zaferiou and Justin Brown with Derek Porter Studio

Stephen M. Ross School of Business

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates

Award recipients: Keith Yancey and Carlene Geraci

Taubman Museum of Art

Roanoke, VA

Architect: Randall Stout Architects, Inc.

Award recipients: Paul Zaferiou and Jennifer Pieszak

2010 IALD INTERNATIONAL LIGHTING DESIGN AWARD

Award of Merit

Stephen M. Ross School of Business

Univeristy of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates

Award recipients: Keith Yancey and Carlene Geraci

BOSTON SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS

Harleston Parker Medal for Architectural Excellence

Harry Parker Boathouse (and Ruth W. Somerville Scully Pavilion)

Community Rowing, Brighton, MA

Architect: Anmahian Winton Architects

Award recipients: Paul Zaferiou and Justin Brown

Lighting design hasn’t changed much since someone first decided to call himself a lighting designer. Twenty years ago, the most earth-shattering developments were in fluorescent lamps; ten years ago saw advances in ceramic metal halide; today we’re cautiously welcoming LEDs into regular practice. LEDs really do have the potential to displace a lot of the existing technology, once we’ve smoothed out all the bumps, but even technological jumps of this sort won’t completely address the energy crisis we are facing. Yes, LEDs will give us more light per watt, but they still produce heat and we’ll have to get rid of it somehow. We’re still using energy. So what else is there?

Buildings, as we build them now, are barely more efficient than they were 50 years ago, even the LEED ones. What are we doing wrong? We are pushing the limits of our technology but we continue to increase our per capita energy consumption. To borrow an oft-used quote, Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Perhaps our efforts to design better simply haven’t been enough, to the point that we’re essentially doing the same thing over and over again. Sure, using fluorescent lamps and super-efficient fixtures en masse throughout a building can make an impact, but is it enough to make the fundamental leap to save us from ourselves?

So, are we too cheap? When it comes time to pay the bill, do we argue about what’s on it, or look around and ask others to chip in? Ask yourself, as a designer, how many times have good, common-sense design elements been deemed expendable when the budget hits the fan? And when those tough decisions are made, what takes precedence over sustainable functionality? Immediate satisfaction! More square feet per dollar – that’s the sad bottom line. Next time you consider skimping on controls or settling for that less-efficient pendant, consider the big picture: eventually all those 1% savings here and there can add up. Budgets need to support projects in their entirety and keep what really matters. If it means sacrificing marble floors for more daylighting, do it! We’ve gotten off too easily for too long on the cost of responsible building.

Or, perhaps we’re all lazy. Take an example: as an undergrad I spent a summer in the wonderful city of Portland, Oregon, and was awed by what I saw there. Buildings without any air conditioning! Now, I’m not so sheltered that I’ve never seen a building without AC – I grew up without it – but I was astonished to see large commercial buildings without it. The climate obviously had a lot to do with it, but, when you looked around at the older architecture of the city, the pre-AC stuff, you saw that they simply designed the buildings to function without it. Big windows, high ceilings, narrow floor plates, atria, architecturally integrated daylighting, and on and on. Those designers relied almost exclusively on passive systems and when the sun went down, people went home.

The point is that all of our wonderful innovations, however efficient, have made life so convenient and comfortable that we’ve detached ourselves from the natural environment, from house to car to office. Life is actually too easy for the majority of people. Look at the nation’s waistline as an indicator. We work late because we can (the lights and AC stay on) and, consequently, we exercise less. We use more electricity by working on the fringes of the day (fewer people in the office, but all the lights are on) and even though the lights are more efficient than before, we leave them on longer. Net result: same energy use and fatter people. Just recently, the BBC published a story citing: “People who regularly put in overtime and work ten or eleven-hour days increase their heart disease risk by nearly two-thirds, research suggests. The findings come from a study of 6,000 British civil servants, published online in the European Heart Journal.”

One more guess then: is it vanity? Just because we can build all-glass buildings doesn’t mean we should – all that heat-gain and glare. Just because we can make floorplates 200 feet thick doesn’t mean we should – they only exist on life support (i.e. electricity). Just because they make light fixtures that are two inches wide doesn’t mean we should use them – those two-inch-wide fixtures are super inefficient, by the way.

Exceptional design and creativity can promote advances in technology, and those advances fuel, in turn, exceptional designs. But if an aesthetic that technology can’t efficiently support takes priority over the energy use, the cost of pretty goes way up. Is there another pretty, or could you do it another way entirely? Can practicality and originality coexist?

If it’s all or none of the above, one thing is sure: we need to make a sacrifice and adjust our values. To quote Thomas Friedman in a recent New York Times editorial:

Our parents were ‘The Greatest Generation,’ and they earned that title by making enormous sacrifices and investments to build us a world of abundance. My generation, ‘The Baby Boomers,’ turned out to be what the writer Kurt Andersen called ‘The Grasshopper Generation.’ We’ve eaten through all that abundance like hungry locusts.

Now we and our kids together need to become ‘The Regeneration’ – one that raises incomes anew but in a way that is financially and ecologically sustainable. It will take a big adjustment.

Not only do we need to radically change our building designs but we need to use them way more efficiently. We need to change our habits – turn out the lights, or not use them at all.

Photo Credits: ume-y (1), code_martial (2), BLW Photography (3)

Readers of this blog have already heard about the new Green Building codes, but there are new versions in the works, both of the energy code standard ASHRAE/IES 90.1, and of the International Conservation Code (IECC). What will these codes look like, and how will they affect the work of architectural lighting designers?

The 2010 version of ASHRAE/IES 90.1 will be published this fall. Standard 90.1 is the benchmark model energy code. Although rarely adopted directly as code, it is an alternative path for IECC compliance; it’s also the energy performance reference for both the US Department of Energy and the LEED rating systems, and is highly influential, like California’s Title 24, as a trendsetter.

ASHRAE’s goal for the 2010 version of 90.1 is to be 30% more stringent than the 2004 version. Standard 90.1-2010 will have lighting power allowances that are significantly lower than the 2004 and 2007 versions. Additionally, there will be many new controls requirements such as mandatory use of occupancy sensors in some spaces, incentives for daylight responsive controls, exterior lighting after-hours shut-off, and controls commissioning requirements, among other things.

The IECC is currently in the middle of its three-year development cycle. IECC-2012 will be published in April 2011. The goal of the Department of Energy and other stakeholders in IECC development is for IECC-2012 to be 30% more stringent than the 2006 version. It’s a little early to know for sure what will be in the next version, but expect reduced power allowances, and the addition of a space-by-space method for determining lighting power densities. Another concept that’s been proposed is the “Additional Efficiency Package Options”. To comply, the project will have to pick one option from a menu of energy-efficiency provisions like more efficient mechanical equipment, onsite renewable energy, or reduced lighting power allowances.

But here’s the thing to keep in mind: even though these new standards will be published soon, they don’t become code until they are adopted by individual states. By federal law, the DOE must evaluate each new version of 90.1 to determine if it is more efficient than the previous version (and because IECC offers 90.1 as an alternative compliance path, it piggybacks on the DOE determination). If the standard is found to be more efficient (and it will be), states are required to adopt an equally stringent code within two years.

But, enforcing this provision and getting the states to adopt the latest code is easier said than done. Currently, only ten states have adopted the most recent standard, IECC-2009/90.1-2007. At the other end, eleven states have either no statewide energy code at all, or are using standards older than 90.1-1999. The remaining states use something in between. This lag is typical, but I expect it will decrease, given the global push to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. If states follow the example of my home state of Massachusetts, then code lag will be very short in the future. Last year, Massachusetts not only adopted IECC-2009, but wrote into law that newer versions of the IECC will automatically become code soon after publication.

One school of thought says that these new standards will be overly stringent and will make it impossible for designers to produce quality results. I don’t agree with this opinion. Through my work as Chairman of the IALD Energy and Sustainability Committee, I’m pretty familiar with what is likely to be in these standards. We’ve been working hard to make sure that the codes are as aggressive as possible, but without prohibiting quality design. I believe that the new standards will only codify what any responsible designer should already be doing to reduce the negative environmental impact of their design. And, I do not think that they will prevent us from producing effective, comfortable, and beautiful spaces.

Yes, it will be harder. The “cushion” will be gone; we will have to be very careful with our use of energy in order to meet code. Competency in lighting design will require deep knowledge of code requirements, the skill to get the most out of limited power budgets, and expertise in lighting controls technology and system design.

Image Credit: D-32

Now that ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 has been published, it’s time for the building design and construction communities to consider the implications of the new green building codes coming out.

What is a green building code, and why do we need one? Imagine LEED written in code language – site sustainability, water use, energy, indoor environmental quality, materials and resources. We need green building codes because LEED is not a code; it is a voluntary rating system, not a mandatory code.

Many cities and states desire a green building standard that they can apply as code or ordinance, or through “green” legislation. To meet this need, some cities have adopted LEED as a requirement. For example, Boston requires that projects over 50,000 square feet be “LEED certifiable”. The City can’t require you to be officially LEED certified, and because LEED is a points-based rating system, there are many ways to achieve “certifiabilty”. Messy, hard to enforce – LEED is not a legal code and the USGBC does not want it used as a code.

Thus, the motivation for ASHRAE, the USGBC, and the IES to team up and create a green building standard, written in code language and ready to be adopted by any municipal or state government. It has taken several years and four public review drafts to finally get Standard 189.1 on the street. And it is still a work in progress; proposals are already being accepted by ASHRAE for changes to the standard.

Fine, you say? Sounds like a good idea, let’s see what happens? Sorry, it’s not going to be so easy – there is another green building code in the works! Have you heard of the IGCC, the International Green Construction Code? Same idea, but this time from the ICC and the AIA! (The ICC is the International Code Council who brings you the IBC and the IECC) This code has been in the works since last summer and the first draft for public review is expected March 15th. The code will be finalized at the end of next year and published in March 2012.

So what will happen? Which code will be adopted? Will they be adopted at all?

Standard 189.1 has the advantage in that it is already available, a full two years before IGCC will be ready. But the IGCC will be from the “code guys” who provide all the building codes typically being adopted in the US, so perhaps it is a more likely candidate. Worst-case scenario: in three years we have two green building codes being adopted by towns and states scattered across the country. Building design and construction professionals will have to be conversant in two different green building codes – in addition to LEED! And for each city and state we will have to keep track of which code applies, and how it is used. Perhaps one city decides that they will only apply the green code to city-funded projects, or to projects larger than 25,000 square feet, or…?

The other thing to think about is the relationship of green building codes to energy codes. The assumption is that the energy provisions in a green building code are more stringent than the applicable energy code, which would be superseded. But what if a state or locality adopts an energy code that is more stringent than the green building code they have previously adopted? Someone will have to sort this out.

And if your head isn’t already hurting, try this: you are designing a LEED project in a town that has adopted a green building code. So, now you have to design to two different green standards -every design option would have to be tested twice. And you’d have to do the calculations and documentation twice to prove compliance with each provision.

I hope someone at the USGBC is thinking about this. I know that those of us on the IALD’s Energy and Sustainability Committee have been thinking about it. Through our work on standards drafting committees, and through public review commenting, we are striving for consistency between all electric lighting and daylighting related provisions in 189.1, IGCC, and LEED.

But have you heard about CALGREEN, California’s new mandatory Green Building code? Oh, my.

Image Credits: ASHRAE (1), ICC (2), Lam Partners (3)

Integrated LED steplights create a processional approach to the plaza and reinforce the bridge’s architectural rhythm.

What happens when a heavily worn piece of an urban park gets a little well-deserved attention? And what role does lighting play in all of this?

Newly renovated Lake Plaza is the crown jewel in Houston’s popular Hermann Park. Run by the Hermann Park Conservancy, a non-profit citizens’ organization, in partnership with the City, this project has attained LEED certification through energy efficiency and sensitive restoration of landscape, as well as comprehensive site water management.

New train, new station, open for business.

A new main station for the park’s miniature train railroad, a gift shop, pedestrian bridge, pedal-boat rental, café, and service buildings all support recreation and rejuvenation in the heart of the city. While the plaza is used often during the day as a staging area for school groups attending the zoo, until the renovation, it had languished at night, despite the plaza’s proximity to the Miller Outdoor Theatre and its quarter of a million annual visitors.

The existing train pavilion prior to renovation.

Lighting guides and invites movement, making visual and architectural connections. Existing pathway lighting in Hermann Park relied upon historic “acorn” metal halide post-top lanterns. While well-designed historic lanterns can work well, many of the park’s fixtures had been installed in a piecemeal fashion, and they’d been over-lamped in a well-intended attempt to increase the sense of security. The layout of the lanterns did not provide the necessary visual connection from the Miller Theatre to the plaza, and existing lanterns in the plaza were overly bright, dominating the landscape (the eye always goes to the brightest thing in the line of view). It actually created the perception of less light because distracting glare constricted visitors’ pupils.

The gift shop by day: an airy structure that relates nicely with the wooded surroundings.

The design team chose to rework the plaza without the existing lanterns, and relocated them along the winding paths, where trees could mitigate their brightness, restoring the visual connection of the pathways to the rest of the park.

At night, the illuminated pavilions take on a different character and anchor the park’s destination points.

Illuminated, not by lanterns, but by the landscape and buildings surrounding it, the plaza beckons. Transformed at night into a composition of glowing pavilions, these structures create a welcoming destination and backdrop for evening strolls. Exactingly integrated compact fluorescent uplight sconces give the structures a fixtureless appearance, revealing finely crafted architectural details that are shaded during the day.

Tree uplights highlight rhythm and textures, while LED steplights reinforce the stepped form of the water’s edge.

Photo Credits: Overland Partners, except #3 by Lam Partners

Photo Credits: Amit Geron (top left), Stephen M. Lee (middle left), Anton Grassl (bottom left), Peter Aaron / Esto (second from left), Barbara Karant (third from left), Shepley Bulfinch (right)

Being able to see the beauty of the ‘big picture’ often requires focus on small details. This is especially true in architectural lighting, where successful projects are a collaborative integration of lighting into architecture, rather than lighting hardware applied to the built form. Hidden uplights, concealed cove fixtures, silhouetted planes, and lighted niches can all enhance and animate a space by accenting the architectural surfaces. This layering of lighted planes creates depth within the visual environment, while creating a balanced background for more ornate fixtures to be added to the composition when appropriate.

Sometimes, however, it isn’t just the composition of light and architecture but, rather, the execution of the smallest details that completes the picture. Balancing the grand gestures and features of a space with the construction of details is what allows an architectural lighting project to truly shine, for instance, detailing cove fixtures so that they are completely concealed from sight:

Other examples: perfectly aligning a pendant with an architectural datum, or matching a custom paint finish so that the hardware blends smoothly with its background. Equally important, ensuring that a junction box and its faceplate align with a minimalist fixture:

Or, coordinating the location of a switchplate:

Botching these minute details can transform the elegance of a design into an assortment of missed opportunities that cause visual clutter instead of visual clarity. An excellent design requires excellent craftsmanship and coordinated construction to reach its full potential. This responsibility falls on every member of the design team and construction team, to work together diligently to ensure that beautiful ideas on paper are transformed into beautifully lit environments.

On every project, there will always be lessons learned and ‘a-ha’ moments that contribute to our future projects. It is this continual learning process and devoted attention to detail that elevates our designs. It is too easy during construction to view these examples as oversights and to point blame.

Was it the design team, the contractor, a last-minute change by the owner, a field conflict that couldn’t be resolved? The answer is: it doesn’t matter. What matters is that each case is viewed as a reminder to us all, that without careful execution and attention to even the smallest of details, the true brilliance of the big picture cannot be brought into focus.

Photo Credits: Jon W. Denker/CAPS (1, 5), Lam Partners (2, 3, 4)