access to natural daylight has become a key feature to sustainable buildings in modern architecture....it is a large part of the LEED rating system and its beneficial effects have been well documented.....increased productivity, fewer sick days, better health, greater job satisfaction, reduced electrical requirements...all can be attributed to greater access to natural daylight, which this building ignores in the name aesthetic...a bad one at that.
a few examples:
The study by the Heschong Mahone Group based near Sacramento found that students who took their lessons in classrooms with more natural light scored as much as 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district.
A survey of tenants of rented offices (BOMA, 1988) has shown that 2.1% of tenants think that the poor quality of their windows is the worst problem in their building, and that if the windows could be improved, an estimated productivity gain of 4% would result.
Dasgupta (2003) found a small but statistically significant reduction in negative mood for people who worked for about 20 minutes in a private office with a large window during daytime; but no reduction in negative mood for the same people in the same office at night.
"Mal-illumination," a term coined by the photobiologist John Nash Ott, D.Sc. (Hon.), has been linked to conditions as diverse as malabsorption of certain nutrients, fatigue, tooth decay, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), hostility, suppressed immune function, strokes, hair loss, skin damage, alcoholism, drug abuse, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and even loss of muscle tone and strength.
fell free to browse this study on the effects of natural light:
http://www.orientationsnova.com/heal...t.htm#Physical