Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Not amazing but better than the rest!	Customer Rating:
Here is an area where the old school of design still lingers, the book is very suitable for specific tasks but really needs improving on. Having said that I threw away my copy of Charlotte Baden-Powell's book as soon as I got this - because even this tome is much more useable than hers.

Must-have reference book

Customer Rating:

This is a valuable pool of infomation on ergonomics, minimum dimensions, information on parking, vehicle dimensions, building dimensions, design of buildings for different purposes and much, much more. I probably have only used about a tenth of the information within the book (I don't have much use for info on airport design, for example) but we use it regularly in our office as a reference book and should we ever need to know the dimensions of a cow, we know just where to look....

solid!	Customer Rating:
With data on all kinds of programmatic requirements and some valuable information on structures and materials this is a book architecture students should BORROW from the library or the office. This book can tell you the minimum ceiling height of a badminton court or the density of steel - but it won't design your project!

Planning & Design Data Marvel!	Customer Rating:
An exceedingly thorough compilation of all those annoying facts and figures you can never remember or find any where else! This book is always open at the end of my desk, and I now have to fight for it with my colleagues to get to the information. No project or facilities manager, specification writer or other member of the construction industry should be without it!

A bit of a let down

Customer Rating:

This is one of the most important books for architects and other associated professions. This copy has been extensively updated, which is to be highly commended, however, the information on acoustics and heat loss seem quite shoddy. Equations are misprinted and the cross-referencing within the sections is confusing at times baring little or no correlation to the worked examples. I only hope the other sections are not subject to the same inaccuracies.