Professor Craig Langston 
Chair in Construction Management 
School of Architecture and Building 
Oeakin University 
Geelong, Australia 

Welcome to the second issue of AJCEB for 2005, with Deakin University 
again as host. In this special issue , all published papers relate to 
a landmark building, known as CH 2, currently under construction in 
Melbourne , Australia. A preamble by the City of Melbourne introduces 
some of the key features of the design . Further information and updates 
on progress can be found on the City of Melbourne's (CoM) website 
(http://www.melbourne.gov.au). 

Out of ten papers submitted for review, six satisfied the referees ' 
requirements within the deadlines for this issue. Collectively they cover 
issues of material selection, energy harvesting, heating and cooling , 
lighting, ventilation , and the business case for sustainable design . 
All authors are academics from either RMIT University, University of 
Melbourne or Deakin University. Funding for these papers was provided 
as part of a competitive grant process managed by CoM and funded by 
Auslndustry. The co-operation of CoM in the publication of this special 
issue is gratefully acknowledged. All illustrations have been provided 
courtesy of CoM and its consultants . 

Hes, Morrison and Bates present an interesting paper on material 
selection for green buildings . Using CH 2 as a case study, they report 
on the process of delivering a six Green Star rated outcome and the 
problems that were encountered along the way. Although no quantitative 
embodied energy analysis was undertaken, perhaps due to either 
accuracy concerns or time constraints, the environmental performance 
questionnaire (EQP) enabled knowledge to be applied in a practical 
context. The paper concludes with lessons learnt by the consultant 
architects and some reflections on industry education processes that 
require further attention . 

Cheung investigates the issue of energy harvesting and its application 
to CH 2. By necessity, this paper overlaps with others more focused 
on heating and cooling, lighting and ventilation, and provides some 
context for the integrated nature of the building 's energy system. The 
paper demonstrates that the energy design targets are achievable , and 
will represent best practice for a multi-storey office building. However, 
predicted and actual performance are not necessarily the same , so 
further research is essential before the energy credentials of CH 2 can be 
confirmed . 

Aye and Fuller, in a somewhat controversial paper, outline the initial 
design of the CH 2 heating and cooling system and its likely effects on 
occupant productivity. While some novel technologies are being used , 
conventional back-up systems should limit the risk of adverse indoor 
conditions arising . Having said that, the effect of temperature on 
occupant productivity is not expected to be significant, and may in time 
work against the achievement of a favourable business case . Clearly, 
the measurement of actual performance , and in particular the gain in 
productivity that occur, are critical to conclude this study, and represent an 
area of further research once the building is in use. 

Altomonte 's paper focuses on the lighting strategy selected for CH 2• 
His conclusions are that the design team has come up with a good 
balance between energy usage and occupant comfort, especially given 
a constrained inner city site with adjacent buildings. The form of the 

The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [VoIS, No 2] I i 



building, both externally and internally, reflects and supports the lighting 
strategy. Careful fit-out is necessary to maximize the benefits envisaged 
during computer modelling . While more new technologies are available, 
they have not been used nor deemed necessary to achieve the design 
targets . 

Aye and Fuller, in their second paper, comment on the design efficiency 
and integrity of the ventilation system for CH 2• They highlight a number 
of possible deficiencies in the selected design which may need attention 
either before construction is completed , or after. It is clear that post­
occupancy testing is crucial to the determination of system success, and 
this is a matter of future research and dissemination . The quality of the 
incoming air, particularly in toilet areas at lower levels , is of particular 
concern . 

Finally, Lawther, Robinson and Low present the business case for CH 2. 
They correctly suggest that financial considerations play an important role 
in the decision-making process for green buildings , and that a discounted 
approach based on triple bottom line considerations is appropriate . The 
paper highlights that the CH 2 business case is reliant upon increases in 
worker productivity. Conservatively, the assumptions that underpin the 
analysis indicate a payback period of 41 years , which is high , even for 
an owner-occupier client. While a more optimistic view might reduce 
th is period to 11 years , it should be remembered that the expected 
gain in productivity is being compared to the existing accommodation , 
which is stated as being at the end of its functional life and no longer 
meeting statutory regulations . Coupled with the budgeted construction 
cost premium of 22% for CH 2, the implications for future green buildings 
must surely be determined on a case-by-case basis, particularly where 
speculative development is involved . Nevertheless , this paper sets out a 
useful methodology for such analysis. 

Since the papers were written and refereed, a number of design changes 
have taken place as work progresses on site. Coupled with the obvious 
controversy where reviewers disagree or challenge the decisions of the 
design team , we have taken the unusual step of providing the City of 
Melbourne with an opportunity to comment on the papers , and these 
comments are included at the end of some of the papers . 

It is worth noting that in 2005 AJCEB received 47 papers for review. Of 
these , 8 were published in Issue 1 and 6 in Issue 2, a further 2 have been 
approved for publication in 2006 and another 2 pending revisions. The 
remainder comprise 12 still with one or more referees and 17 rejected. 

I hope you enjoy AJCEB 's first special issue. In 2006 the University of 
South Australia will take over the editorial role . 

Professor Craig Langston 
Editor 

The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building [VoIS, No 2] ii