Feature By Wes Cox
The Twain Shall Meet
Over the past two decades, we’ve had a front-row seat to major shifts in the arena of commercial interiors. On the part of aesthetics, we’ve moved steadily toward openness and material restraint. Carpeted floors, partitions, and dropped ceilings have disappeared, replaced by exposed structure, polished floors, and unbroken volumes. At the same time, the way we evaluate performance has matured. Energy use, comfort, and well-being are no longer abstract goals; they’re modeled, documented, and verified.
Lighting designers are accustomed to working within this performance-driven framework, having long ago been subject to standards and codes. Now, acoustics is entering a similar phase thanks to Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) standards embedded in programs like LEED and WELL. As the two disciplines converge around shared performance goals, we have an opportunity to reconsider how they are currently specified and what becomes possible when they’re designed together.
Within the CSI MasterFormat, lighting falls squarely under Division 26. It is electrified, code-driven, and evaluated against quantitative criteria such as illuminance levels, glare control, and lighting power density. These requirements place lighting decisions early in the design process, closely coordinated with structure, mechanical systems, and life-safety considerations.
Acoustics, by contrast, is often classified under Division 9 alongside finishes and furnishings. Even as IEQ standards have brought greater clarity and rigor to acoustic performance, acoustics’ placement within the specification process positions it as secondary to early planning. As a result, acoustic strategies are still frequently addressed later in the process and are often among the first design elements revisited during value engineering.
Historically, this separation was manageable. Older building typologies relied on enclosed plans, partitions, and soft finishes that—regardless of intent—provided a baseline level of noise mitigation. In today’s open, reflective interiors, that buffer no longer exists. As a result, decisions made for one system directly impact the other. A visually restrained ceiling that performs well from a lighting standpoint can unintentionally amplify reverberation. Acoustic interventions introduced late in the design process can similarly disrupt lighting layout, spacing, and visual hierarchy.
Although lighting and acoustic systems are ultimately expected to coexist seamlessly within a single architectural field, the traditional specification process still develops them on independent timelines and within separate scopes. In practice, opportunities for cohesion are shaped more by sequence than by design intent.
Approaching the specification of lighting and acoustics as an integrated system—rather than as separate scopes—creates opportunities for closer collaboration between the two disciplines. Instead of treating acoustics and lighting as sequential considerations, teams can evaluate how both contribute to the intended use of a space from the outset.
When lighting and acoustics are considered early and in tandem, performance goals are easier to align. Coordination with structure, mechanical systems, and life-safety elements tends to be more straightforward. Documentation benefits from greater clarity, and design intent is more likely to carry consistently through procurement and construction.
This clarity is especially valuable during value engineering. When acoustic elements are understood as integral to spatial performance rather than optional finishes, they are less likely to be reduced or removed. Early coordination also helps protect lighting intent by reducing the likelihood of late-stage acoustic interventions that force compromises in fixture placement or visual hierarchy. In this context, absorptive surface area can be scaled independently from light output and lit and unlit elements can be composed intentionally to balance performance and clarity.
Integration also changes how budgets can be deployed. When lighting and acoustics are designed as separate scopes, each is constrained by its own line item, often forcing trade-offs that limit overall performance. When they are developed together, designers can distribute resources more strategically—scaling acoustic surface area where it matters most, adjusting lighting output accordingly, and achieving better sensory performance without simply adding cost. In effect, integration allows design teams to work across budgets rather than within them, unlocking solutions that would be difficult to justify in isolation.
For architects and owners, it can result in spaces that perform as intended over time, reducing the need for post-occupancy fixes and retroactive adjustments.
A renovation of Affiliated Engineers Inc.’s (AEI’s) Chicago office illustrates how this integrated approach can work in practice. Designed as a highly collaborative workplace, the project includes open work areas directly adjacent to shared lounge and meeting spaces—conditions that made acoustic performance a functional requirement, not a secondary consideration.
AEI’s existing space already had known acoustic challenges. “In this case, we knew from the beginning that we were looking at an installation that would combine acoustic performance with illumination. It really was designed as a combined solution,” explained Grant Kightlinger, senior lighting designer at AEI’s in-house lighting studio Pivotal Lighting Design.
That early alignment shaped how the ceiling was approached. Rather than resolving lighting first and layering acoustics later, the ceiling was developed as a shared system. Lit and unlit elements were intentionally composed together, allowing acoustic performance to scale where needed without over-lighting the space or disrupting visual order.
“That the lit and unlit elements were able to exactly match in sizes, materiality, and mounting methods allowed us to have a denser installation,” Kightlinger noted. “That was helpful from an acoustic perspective and was a big part of the design concept.”
For integration to become more common, manufacturers must also play a role. Products designed in isolation—whether lighting fixtures or acoustic treatments—reinforce the silos designers are navigating.
Systems that align lighting and acoustic performance within a single platform can reduce coordination friction and support earlier, more informed decision-making. By integrating photometric data, acoustic performance metrics, and installation logic, manufacturers can help teams evaluate trade-offs holistically rather than reactively. The goal is no longer to add acoustic capability to lighting as an afterthought but to rethink how ceilings are designed, specified, and delivered—treating light and sound as inseparable contributors to spatial performance.
The separation between lighting and acoustics was never ideological. It was procedural, shaped by codes, specifications, and construction conventions that aligned with the architectural conditions of their time. As those conditions have evolved, the opportunity emerged to rethink how these systems are brought together.
In today’s open interiors, light and sound are shaped by the same volumes and surfaces, experienced together, and evaluated collectively. Designing them as a coordinated system reflects that reality and mirrors the way designers already think about performance, clarity, and experience.
The integration of lighting and acoustics isn’t about blurring scopes or disciplines. It’s about empowering designers and bringing processes into closer alignment with how spaces are built and experienced.
THE AUTHOR
Wes Cox is co-founder of Sabin and an industrial designer with deep experience in architectural lighting and product development.