Now this is interesting, I came across a similar project in Shanghai. I tend to think the interior glazing to be equivalent to 1 borrowed light already. Each glazing barrier will cause transmission deterioration to the quality of daylight and view.

The double skin facade is the facade and would not be counted as an interior partition, since its not. It would be the same if you had glass exterior shading devices.

If questioned, provide images showing that they are views to the exterior.

Now if the double skin facade really does obscure the view and not really provide a quality view for the occupant, then this would be going against the intent of the credit.

Thank you both for the speedy and thoughtful responses. Unfortunately I tend to agree with both your opposing opinions, if only a 3rd person weighed in....

Guys, I am not sure now, Todd has a point indeed. Gents, are you aware of the new Shanghai Tower being built? Designed by Gensler in collaboration with local architects, it has a double skin but the space between the exterior and interior glazing, is actually usable space, for public usePublic or public use applies to all buildings, structures, or uses that are not defined as private or private use.. Beezer, is your project of similar application? Todd, in this instance will the interior skin counted as internal glazing therefore deemed to be borrowed light for occupants in inner core? What is the difference between a private cell adjoining a core wall with glazing partition facing the external skin?

Steve, if the space between the two faces of glass is occupied, then the interior layer would be considered an interior partition of glass and not the double facade. Typically, a double facade is not occupied. So with the Shanghai Tower it would not be considered the facade.

Not sure what you are asking in your second question.

I have no problem getting thru' with systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert. having panels greater than 42" so long as it is lined up perpendicular to the source of daylight. Thus in application, am talking about the centre spine only, not the side panels. Of course we always specify reasonable height just sufficient to screen out visual distraction, never installed high panel.

Hi Tristan, can you show me where it states that movable furnitureMovable furniture and partitions are those that can be moved to provide access to the view by the user without the need for tools or assistance from special trades and facilities management. is not included in the scope. This is directly impacting one of my current projects.

Hi Lisa, Tristan is correct - this revision is found under the ID+C IEQc8.2 Addenda dated 5/11/11 found on the USGBC website: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2200#ID+C

Lisa, it's in the LEED addenda spreadsheet.

I now have futher clarification from GBCI, workstations ARE included in this calculation, even though the addenda states that "moveable" furniture is NOT included. The following is from the GBCI reviewer: For IEQc8.2, if the question is whether workstations taller than 42" will prevent a direct line of sight to the outdoors, the answer is that they will and they must be included in the calculations. The 2009 LEED Reference Guide for Green Interior Design & Construction is a little confusing, but please refer to Figure 4 at the bottom of page 411.

I was told the exact opposite directly from the USGBC TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. - about sytems furniture.

"You are correct in your interpretation. LI 1646 also confirms this applicability for 2009 projects.
I have one additional clarification that may or may not impact this project--
Movable furnitureMovable furniture and partitions are those that can be moved to provide access to the view by the user without the need for tools or assistance from special trades and facilities management. and partitions are not included in the scope of this credit calculation.
Movable furniture and partitions are those that can be moved to provide access to the view by the user without the need for tools or assistance from special trades and facilities management."

Please see below from the IEQ TAG, confirming that clear furniture partitions are not part of the “two panes of interior glazing surfaces” for IEQc8.2 compliance.

Yes, the clarification was addressed through addenda. It is located in the LEED Interpretations and Addenda Database (https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/lilanding.aspx) or through our addenda page https://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2200.

This specific addenda is ID# 100000895 for NC if you are using the database (https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/lilanding.aspx).
In the future, my suggestion is to review the addenda release schedule that is listed on the addenda page https://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2200, and then to review the addenda tables for all items recently released, or search by credit in the LEED Interpretation and Addenda Database.

I guess the point of the matter is that you do need a tradesman to move systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert.. You need an electrician to move the spine of the furniture. Either way, it it totally confusing in the reference guide and addenda. To me "movable furnitureMovable furniture and partitions are those that can be moved to provide access to the view by the user without the need for tools or assistance from special trades and facilities management." would include systems furniture, therefore the addeda would exclude systems furniture in the calculation. I was surprised by the verdict on this case.

Jamie,

To document this credit you need to show a straight line in section from a seated person's line of sight out a window. If you can do that you're set.

Technically, you are providing glare control devices, the blinds, and as long as they are provided it meets the requirements. Now if these are installed and cannot be operated by the occupants, then i would say no on this or that you have to provide some images.

In all honesty it does not meet the intent, there will be no views with the blinds at 45 degrees. Again, you cannot control the occupants and what they do. But you can educate them on this. I would say something to owner that by doing this you truly do not meet the intent of the credit, nor are you providing your employees and occupants the benefits of the views to the exterior and all the other aspects that come with a good connection to the environment.

I agree. This does not meet the credit intent or letter. I am curious about this situation, though. Is this true for all regularly occupied areas on all floors?

Technically, I think glare control is required for the daylighting credit, not the views credit, but glare control is always a good idea.

There are other ways to protect the interior from view from the exterior other than blinds. For example, reflective glazing would prevent people from seeing in but allow views out.

Noriko, if I understand your question correctly—the space is the square footage of the room(s) in question.

Tristan, thank you for your prompt response.
My question is which area should be used net or gross for area calculation in EQc8.2.

It would be the space on the inside of the walls. There has been confusion on this issue because of the information required information i believe PLF 2 which requires the overall floorplate size, which will be a different number then that used in EQc 8.1 and 8.2. The table 8.1 in PLF 3 asks for the regularly occupied space which will only be used for those two credits.

Noriko, I would not count a smoking room as regularly occupied space—I would consider smoking more of a leisure activity, not study, work, or "other focused activities."

Initially i would go with Tristan and say that the smoking room would not be considered regularly occuppied. It is similar to a break room, which can be excluded.

However, you are providing windows for the space, and if the design intentA written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project. was to provide occupants a space where they could smoke and enjoy views and daylight, then include in your calculations.

I don;t think a reviewer would question your decision either way with this one as long as the inclusion of thsi space determines credit achievement or not.

It is my understanding that break rooms are explicitly called out as non-regularly occupied and MUST be excluded. This is a break room. Many break rooms are provided with views and daylight and this does not change their classification as regularly occupied or not. I would caution using this as ROS. If you do, I would include a detailed narrative of your argument for it and please, report back here on how it went!

As long as you are consistent with the inclusion and exclusion of spaces they should not be any issues. I've never had any issues when including non-regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building. in the calculations. I have not read that you MUST not include these spaces. If you are consistent and providing views and daylight to more spaces then required, you are going above the intent and requirements in my opinion. I don;t a reviewer would question this, as long as you are consistent.

I've always wondered why break rooms have been allowed to be excluded from the calculations. Here is a space that is provided to workers to rest or eat lunch so why wouldn't you provide them daylight and views. This would especially be significant in buildings where workers live in cubicle land and may not have any relevant eye relief from their computer screens except when on break.

I agree. I think it's strange that break rooms are not considered in the daylight calculations, but it does say that regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building. are where people are working. And, I guess if you are working in an office that has daylight and views, you don't necessarily need daylight and views in your break room. Still, it seems counter intuitive.

I see what you are saying about including non-regularly occupied spaces. It is a good argument. Glad to hear that you have not had issues with it.

The intent is to provide a clear line of sight, and translucent glass would obstruct the view.

However, if you programmed the panels of the workstations to be positioned perpendicular to the window, there be still clear Line Of Sight for all, right?

Steve,
Only if the partition panel that ran parallel to the window wall was clear glass from 42" up or the panel was shorter then 42".

Todd, you are right, actually we are both right. I was referring to the systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert. panel being perpendicular to the window wall, not parallel. If perpendicular, all occupants should have access to daylight view. If parallel, any panels above the 42" plumb must be in clear glazing.

Can anyone clarify if clear glass panels on furniture can be used for the line of site - when there are more than 2. Figure 2 under item 6 - calculations in the 2009 NC and ID+C book states that the line of site can pass through 2 interior glazing surfaces. I would interpret this as NO for the systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert. panels when there are more than 2.

Also, may I have film on a conference room below 36" and above 48" leaving a clear transparent area and still recieve the credit as long as I have a direct line of site?

One more clarification question here for systems furnitureSystems furniture includes panel-based workstations comprising modular interconnecting panels, hang-on components, and drawer and filing components or a free-standing grouping of furniture items designed to work in concert.: do both parallel and perpendicular panel heights have to be clear and below 42"? I have low panel heights that run parallel to the windows, but a taller panel "spine" with overheads that is perpendicular to the window wall (higher than 42").

Elisabeth, the answer would be no. The reason as stated in the reference guide is basically the quality of view i s greatly diminished by having to look through multiple panes of glass. Reflections become the biggest issue. Also, the placement with the film below 36 and above 48 would be acceptable based on the 42" line. I would say that actual quality of view is poor but technical would meet the credit requirements.

Joel, the answer is no. They do not have to be clear below the 42" line, as long as its and office with adults. If this where say a middle or elementary school, the occupants height would require them to be clear.

Ruben, I would say that although the view you describe isn't a "quality view" in the words of a proposed LEED 2012 credit, it is a view to the outdoor environment, and should qualify.

Gail, I have not heard of a lot of projects documenting EP for this credit, and with those who have done so, it seems to bring up just the sort of challenges you are facing. I have looked around before and not found expert resources who were on top of these questions.

Please post back here to share your knowledge as you go!

Hi Gail,

I am in the process of documenting this credit for the first time as well. Have you looked at the LEED Online form yet? It says you can either submit separate floor plans for each measure or submit them all in one drawing. I'm doing them separately to make it easier. For the first measure I drew multiple view lines to show which areas have them and hatched the areas that did not have multiple view lines. For the second measure I plan on doing the same, keeping the initial view lines and then just hatching the areas that don't have views to human activity, vegetation, etc. I'm hoping this will be enough to show compliance!

For the actual definition of human activity, I think it just means you have a view of people walking/doing things outside?? I'm not quite sure and the reference guide doesn't have a clear definition. Also it says "70 feet from exterior glazing" not "70% of exterior glazing" which probably means you need to be able to see objects 70 feet from the windows.

I took a look at the view factor measure but don't really understand it and feel it would be the most difficult to document. Sorry I can't help with that part! After the design review hopefully I can give you some more feedback.

You're asking whether the exterior SF can be considered for this credit?

Conventionally speaking I would say not, because it wouldn't normally be counted as occupied space according to LEED. If you wanted to cout it, I think that would hinge on whether it's considered "regularly occupied."

What is the view from the courtyard? It would have to be a view outside to count.

It is common on this campus that exterior spaces are used on all but the most inclement days. It serves as outdoor classroom, student study and lounge as well as reception area. So I'm thinking it WOULD be considered regularly occupied area. What do you think?

Hi Sue!

If you can perhaps achieve the credit without including the "outdoor classroom" it seems that would be best/easier to avoid confusion. While I agree that exterior spaces can be utilized in this manner, you might have to consider that this area (square footage) will likely need to be included throughout your project submission for other related credits (i.e. EAp2/c1, IEQp1, IEQc6.1 & 6.2, IEQc8.1, etc.)

If you feel that this space will be 'regularly occupied' and the project design specifically intended this area to be used as a classroom then you might submit a project specific CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide to confirm and/or ensure that the area/square footage is utilized and accounted for consistently across all project submittals and documentation.

Hope helpful.

Thanks Carlie
I do know it would be easier to avoid the concept of outdoor space due to complications with all the credits, and may submit a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide.
But at some point there should be an avenue within LEED to address this sort of situation of functional outdoor area- not using any energy to operate....
Happy Holidays to you!

I don't often say this, but I think there could be potential here under IDc1. You have a project feature with multiple benefits that is not addressed under an existing credit. Perhaps look at LEED for Healthcare SSc9.1 or SSc9.2 for inspiration?

Steve,
In your example described above this would mean that regularly occupied spacesRegularly occupied spaces are areas where one or more individuals normally spend time (more than one hour per person per day on average) seated or standing as they work, study, or perform other focused activities inside a building. (areas where workers are seated or standing as they work inside a building) 15 feet from the curtain wall inside the building in plan and section would need to be included in the EP calculation.

You may also want to check out a similar question asked under 'Schools v2009 IEQc8.2' discussion thread dated11/02/10. Hope helpful!

Christian, the credit requirements clearly fcall for a view to the "outdoor environment." If the courtyard is open, then it should be okay, if closed, not. That sounds a bit arbitrary, but I think it's how the credit is currently written (looks like it will change in 2012 version). You could try a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide if you want to argue for a different "view."