flexiblefullpage
billboard
interstitial1
catfish1
Currently Reading

How AEC Professionals Choose Windows and Doors

How AEC Professionals Choose Windows and Doors


By By Jay W. Schneider, Editor | April 14, 2011
This article first appeared in the April 2011 issue of BD+C.

Window and door systems need to perform. Period. Over and over again, respondents to Building Design+Construction’s annual window and door survey overwhelmingly
reported that performance, weather resistance, durability, and quality were key reasons a particular window or door was specified.

Respondents also offered opinions on materials choices (aluminum is tops for windows, wood for doors), glazing options (no clear favorites), daylighting (somewhat
of a concern), and use of BIM in window and door selection (not a concern). 

Here’s what a representative sample of your peers told us about why and how they choose the windows and doors they use.

(Download a PDF of the full survey report below)

What Factors Influence Selection?

•  Respondents overwhelmingly said the top factors influencing their window/window system choices are energy/thermal performance (87%), durability/reliability (73%), and weather resistance (70%). Aesthetics ranked high as well, with 62% of respondents listing it as an important factor. Tax credits, rebates, and other incentives proved not to be significant purchasing factors.

•  Performance is also a significant factor for door/door system choices. The top factors influencing door/door system choices—energy/thermal performance (76%), durability/reliability (75%), and weather resistance (65%)—are the same ones respondents cited as influencing their window decisions. Here, aesthetics ranked slightly higher than it did for windows, with 64% of respondents saying it’s a significant influencer. The majority of respondents (58%) choose the door hardware for most projects.

•  When it comes to interior door selection, aesthetics ranked highest, with 72% of respondents saying it was their main influence. Other top factors in selection: performance (67%), initial costs (54%), and acoustical performance (43%).

•  When asked about specific concerns with window and door products overall, quality/performance was at the top, with 58% of respondents voting it their gravest concern. Second on their list: leaks or failures—very closely related to quality and performance—with 51% expressing concern. Forty-four percent of respondents listed government requirements as their least important concern with window and door projects.

•  Several respondents who provided written feedback noted concern about proper installation and the skill levels of contractors who install windows or doors. However, when ranking concerns, only 28% listed installation problems as a major concern.

•  The types of projects our respondents undertook greatly influenced window and door selection. Office buildings (56%) and multifamily housing (46%) were most often cited as the project types respondents undertook during the past couple of years. Retail/entertainment (32%) and government/military (29%) projects also ranked high.

Product Selection: A Mix of Materials

•  Aluminum (51%) and wood (40%) are the window framing materials most often specified by respondents. Aluminum-clad wood (35%) and vinyl-clad wood (33%) also ranked high as framing materials.

•  Wood doors are a favorite for 72% of respondents, while steel doors are also popular, with 58% of respondents specifying them. Aluminum doors and glass doors also fared well, with 39% of respondents specifying aluminum and 38% specifying glass. 

•  Standard window and door products are an overwhelming favorite of respondents, with 73% saying they specify standard units compared with only 27% who specify custom units.

•  Daylighting does play a role in our respondents’ window selections, with 59% saying it was an important or significant factor, while 41% said daylighting was only an average-rated factor to not being a factor at all.

•  Although code requirements are a factor in any product decision, when it comes to daylighting, 68% of respondents said code requirements are an important or very important factor. Only 13% said that codes almost never or never factor into daylighting decisions.

Product Types

•  When it came to glazing types used in projects during the last couple of years, no particular type stood out above others. Respondents indicated that each specialty type—fire-rated/safety, impact-resistant, laminated, and tinted—were used equally, and in each case in just a few projects.

•  One relatively new glazing type, electrochromic glass, was used extensively by only 1% of respondents; 83% reported no use of the technology. Similarly, only 2% reported extensive use of movable glass wall systems, while 72% reported never having used them. Clearly, new technologies like these take some time to gain adoption by AEC professionals.

•  Operable windows were used in a significant number of projects, according to respondents who used them extensively (47%), in at least half their projects (21%), or in a few projects (22%). Only 10% reported no use of operable windows.

•  Half the respondents reported using skylights and roof windows in just a few projects; 25% reported never having used them. Only 10% reported using them extensively, and 15% reported using them in an average number of projects.

BIM Usage Not Quite a Factor  

•  Building information modeling doesn’t currently play a major role in our respondents’ window- and door-related projects, with 64% saying they haven’t used BIM in this capacity. Only 11% report extensive use of BIM in making window and door selections. It might be a few more years before BIM usage cranks up for window and door projects because only 15% of respondents expect to use BIM in this capacity in the next couple years. Almost half (48%) said they don’t expect to use BIM in this capacity at all over the next couple years.

SURVEY METHODOLGY

The survey was emailed to a representative sample of BD+C’s subscriber list. No incentive was offered; 451 qualified returns were obtained. The majority of responses (45%) came from architects and designers, a group that represents half of BD+C’s subscriber base. However, respondents were spread across the professions, and included 22% from contractors and 12% from the engineering fields. 

Related Stories

Museums | Aug 11, 2010

Design guidelines for museums, archives, and art storage facilities

This column diagnoses the three most common moisture challenges with museums, archives, and art storage facilities and provides design guidance on how to avoid them.

| Aug 11, 2010

Broadway-style theater headed to Kentucky

One of Kentucky's largest performing arts venues should open in 2011—that's when construction is expected to wrap up on Eastern Kentucky University's Business & Technology Center for Performing Arts. The 93,000-sf Broadway-caliber theater will seat 2,000 audience members and have a 60×24-foot stage proscenium and a fly loft.

| Aug 11, 2010

People+Firms

| Aug 11, 2010

Citizenship building in Texas targets LEED Silver

The Department of Homeland Security's new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services facility in Irving, Texas, was designed by 4240 Architecture and developed by JDL Castle Corporation. The focal point of the two-story, 56,000-sf building is the double-height, glass-walled Ceremony Room where new citizens take the oath.

| Aug 11, 2010

Carpenters' union helping build its own headquarters

The New England Regional Council of Carpenters headquarters in Dorchester, Mass., is taking shape within a 1940s industrial building. The Building Team of ADD Inc., RDK Engineers, Suffolk Construction, and the carpenters' Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee, is giving the old facility a modern makeover by converting the existing two-story structure into a three-story, 75,000-sf, LEED-certif...

| Aug 11, 2010

Utah research facility reflects Native American architecture

A $130 million research facility is being built at University of Utah's Salt Lake City campus. The James L. Sorenson Molecular Biotechnology Building—a USTAR Innovation Center—is being designed by the Atlanta office of Lord Aeck & Sargent, in association with Salt-Lake City-based Architectural Nexus.

| Aug 11, 2010

San Bernardino health center doubles in size

Temecula, Calif.-based EDGE was awarded the contract for California State University San Bernardino's health center renovation and expansion. The two-phase, $4 million project was designed by RSK Associates, San Francisco, and includes an 11,000-sf, tilt-up concrete expansion—which doubles the size of the facility—and site and infrastructure work.

| Aug 11, 2010

Goettsch Partners wins design competition for Soochow Securities HQ in China

Chicago-based Goettsch Partners has been selected to design the Soochow Securities Headquarters, the new office and stock exchange building for Soochow Securities Co. Ltd. The 21-story, 441,300-sf project includes 344,400 sf of office space, an 86,100-sf stock exchange, classrooms, and underground parking.

| Aug 11, 2010

New hospital expands Idaho healthcare options

Ascension Group Architects, Arlington, Texas, is designing a $150 million replacement hospital for Portneuf Medical Center in Pocatello, Idaho. An existing facility will be renovated as part of the project. The new six-story, 320-000-sf complex will house 187 beds, along with an intensive care unit, a cardiovascular care unit, pediatrics, psychiatry, surgical suites, rehabilitation clinic, and ...

| Aug 11, 2010

Colonnade fixes setback problem in Brooklyn condo project

The New York firm Scarano Architects was brought in by the developers of Olive Park condominiums in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn to bring the facility up to code after frame out was completed. The architects designed colonnades along the building's perimeter to create the 15-foot setback required by the New York City Planning Commission.

boombox1
boombox2
native1

More In Category




halfpage1

Most Popular Content

  1. 2021 Giants 400 Report
  2. Top 150 Architecture Firms for 2019
  3. 13 projects that represent the future of affordable housing
  4. Sagrada Familia completion date pushed back due to coronavirus
  5. Top 160 Architecture Firms 2021