If an existing building plays a starring role in your project, it’s a good candidate for this credit, which rewards the reuse of buildings and their structural components. In this way you can reduce the energy- and resource-intensive manufacturing of new materials, while prolonging the enjoyment of a building’s character and history. If the existing building plays only a small role, on the other hand, it is less likely to qualify for this credit, although it may contribute to materials reuse credits. If a project includes new construction in addition to building restoration, the project is only eligible for the credit if the floor area of the new construction is no more than two times the floor area of the retained existing structure.
A LEED for New Construction registered project can earn up to three points for reusing 55%, 75% or 95% of an existing building, as well as being eligible for MRc1.2: Building Reuse—Maintain Interior Nonstructural Elements.
Evaluate credit eligibility and targets using the eligibility and building reuse calculators available in the Documentation Toolkit. The process of documenting this credit by accurately measuring the area of building elements and tabulating them in the Building Reuse calculator can be fairly time-intensive. When measuring, be sure to consistently follow the credit rules and not double-count elements. In addition, a structural survey must generally be performed to confirm the integrity of the structures and identify any load restrictions. Non-structural elements may also require study by a qualified professional.
This 100-year-old building is undergoing exterior and interior renovation for condominiums. The building's structure and shell will be reused. YRG Photo
All existing envelope and structural building elements are included. The items you do not include are interior non-structural elements, windows and non-structural roofing. If you have structural elements of the building that are considered hazardous or are otherwise structurally unsound, these can also be excluded from the calculations.
This credit deals only with surface area, so you should look at walls in elevation. For the calculation of floor structure and roof structure, surface areas should be taken off of plan drawings. Note that maintained ground-level slabs on grade such as a basement floor may contribute to this credit.
The percentage of the reused existing building structure is calculated by area, dividing the total area of existing building structure by the total reused building area.
This credit has relatively few LEED Interpretations, and so there may not be specific guidance from USGBC on some specific issues such as this one. It appears likely that a loading dock should be considered part of the building structure, and included, but some exterior appendages or structures may be more appropriate to exclude.
If considering a site with an existing building, evaluate the drawbacks of renovation and restoration compared with demolition and new construction.
Building reuse maintains cultural and historic heritage in addition to extending the useful life of the building and materials. Tax credits and even grants may be available from local and federal authorities for rehabilitating historic buildings. These incentives usually require the redevelopment to be historically sensitive, and community input may also be required.
Hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead may be present in older buildings. The owner may benefit from conducting a Phase I Environmental Assessment, and if required, a Phase II assessment with a remediation plan to ensure a safe and healthy facility.
Large cost savings for the owner, along with reduced waste and resource use, can be benefits of building reuse. Perform a budget comparison of new construction versus restoration to make an informed decision.
You may find a tradeoff between building reuse and overall environmental performance, specifically in terms of indoor air quality and energy efficiency. Although many older buildings are energy-efficient compared to average new construction, it is typically more difficult to attain the highest levels of building performance due to the constraints of the existing building. Look for areas where this tradeoff may appear, and mitigate them by identifying measures most likely to result in improved performance. For example, an historic building with a load-bearing masonry wall may not be a good candidate for adding wall insulation. Try to improve thermal performance in other areas like roof insulation, reducing infiltration through windows, and using more efficient HVAC systems.
The architect determines project eligibility for the building reuse credit based on pre-design assessment. A project is eligible if it is reusing an existing structure with no addition, or if the total gross square foot of the final project with the new addition would be less than two times the gross floor area of existing floor area. Use the Documentation Toolkit calculator to determine eligibility.
Projects ineligible for the building reuse credit can count the reused building area towards MRc2: Construction Waste Management for recycling or otherwise diverting waste, or MRc3: Materials Reuse for materials that are reused on-site in a different application (such as door used as a countertop).
If a LEED project includes both existing structure and new construction, the LEED project boundary must encompass the entire existing building regardless of the scope of work within the existing building. The only instance where a portion of an existing building may be excluded from the LEED project boundary is if it functions independently with its own mechanical and electrical system.
Incorporate restoration specifications into the construction documents.
List and tabulate in the Building Reuse Calculator all of the exterior and structural elements being reused, restored and renovated in the project.
The Building Reuse calculator (see the Documentation Toolkit) helps in tabulating and obtaining a reuse percentage for credit targets. This data can be transferred to LEED Online after being finalized. Use these guidelines in carrying out the calculations for Building Reuse.
Building elements removed because of hazardous materials do not count against you, because they are excluded from both the tally of existing elements, and from reused elements.
Many older buildings are energy-efficient compared with average new construction, but can be challenging to bring to a level of higher performance. Consult building science experts to avoid moisture and structural problems, and consult with historic preservationists to make sure that any solutions don’t conflict with historic standards, if relevant. For example, in buildings with load-bearing masonry walls, building scientists tend to want to insulate the exterior, while preservationists may object to changing the appearance of the building. Adding equipment like cooling towers may conflict with a building or neighborhood’s historic character.
Work with the restoration contractor on appropriate demolition and restoration activities that support this credit and other resource reuse credits.
To document the credit, develop a floor plan showing the location of existing structural components, floors, roof deck, exterior walls, and internal structural walls, and identify each that are reused. See the Documentation Toolkit for an example floor plan and elevation.
Take photos of exposed cavities to document complicated structural systems and future use in installation of utilities or planning renovations.
Protect existing elements during demolition and construction so that they can be reused. Renovation and restoration may be labor-intensive; make realistic plans in advance.
Before completing LEED documentation, the architect or responsible party revisits the tabulation of existing and reused elements to confirm that the percentage of reused building elements is above the threshold required for LEED.
The architect or responsible party drafts a narrative describing the project’s approach to building reuse, including the selection of preserved elements, and any outstanding project features.
Special finishes and materials may be used during construction to maintain a certain aesthetic or historic integrity. Be sure that operation and maintenance guidelines are developed that account for these factors.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
To extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport.
Maintain the existing building structure (including structural floor and roof decking) and envelope (the exterior skin and framing, excluding window assemblies and nonstructural roofing material).
Hazardous materials that are remediated as a part of the project must be excluded from the calculation of the percentage maintained.
The minimum percentage building reuse for each point threshold is as follows:
If the project includes an addition that is more than 6 times (for Core & Shell) and 2 times (for New Construction and Schools) the square footage of the existing building, this credit is not applicable.
Consider reusing existing, previously-occupied building structures, envelopes and elements. Remove elements that pose a contamination risk to building occupants and upgrade components that would improve energy and water efficiency such as windows, mechanical systems and plumbing fixtures.
A fascinating study of how buildings evolve or disintegrate after they're "finished," and how to design for their ongoing evolution. Great photos and anecdotes throughout illustrate Stewart Brand's theories, which are a compelling and easy read. A great book for lovers of old buildings, but also for those building new buildings that they wish to have a long, rich life.
Use these documents to determine eligibility for the project, if including an addition. The new construction must be not more than two times the existing floor area.
The building reuse calculator helps in tabulating and obtaining a reuse percentage for credit targets. You can then transfer this data to LEED Online.
To document this credit you'll need a floor plan and elevation identifyng the structural components that are retained and those that are demolished. It verifies the accuracy of elements included in the building reuse calculations.
Documentation for this credit is part of the Construction Phase submittal.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-2009 MR credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
We are currently working on a multiple building mixed-use project that is reusing a 3 level parking garage. The garage is an unconditioned space, and we are renovating the lighting and making minor modifications as part of the constructions scope, which will also include 7 new buildings. Can we count the garage area for building reuse?
Caleb, I don't see any reason why not.
My building has several windows that are less than 10 years old. They are in excellent shape. They are double pane, and I tested them and found them to have a low SHGCSolar heat gain coefficient (SHGC): The fraction of solar gain admitted through a window, expressed as a number between 0 and 1. with a low-eLow-E or Low-Emissivity Coating: Very thin metallic coating on glass or plastic window glazing that reduces heat loss and heat gain through the window; the coating emits less radiant energy (heat radiation), which makes it, in effect, reflective to that heat. In that way it boosts a window's R-value and reduces its U-factor. coating as well. I understand that MRc1.1 excludes windows, presumably to encourage the replacement of older single pane windows in gut-rehab projects. However in my case, window replacement will result in the landfilling of perfectly good windows, with only a small energy benefit.
I'd like to get the EP point for 95% structural preservation, so I am scrounging up as many possible opportunities as I can. I am debating whether to pursue 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 to allow me to include the windows under MRc1.1? I want to know from other LEEDUsers if I have a good case or not.
Also, if I am ultimately allowed to include windows to be preserved, then wouldn't I also have to include windows to be removed. Any thoughts?
I don't see any LEED interpretations on this so I think it would be wise to 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. Sorry I couldn't be more help!
Since the credit language explicitly excludes windows I agree with April that you would have to get 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 to be allowed to include them.
Our project is reusing an existing church, and adding an adjacent 4-story wing, with a connector in the middle. The existing church structure is currently only one floor, to which we will be adding 2 additional levels. As is, the new addition is more than 2x the square footage of the existing building, and we do not qualify for the credit. However, once the 2 additional floors are added, the new building is less than 2x the sf of existing structure. I don't think the credit language was written with this scenario in mind. Has anyone encountered this situation before? If we use an "alternative compliance path," might we qualify?
If I am following you correctly, you are asking if by adding the 2 floors to the existing building, could you count the total square footage of all three floors as existing, which would therefore be less than the adjacent addition?
If so, you would actually count the additional floors as an addition and the adjacent floors as an addition, which of course would swing your ratio the other way. Let me know if I'm missing something or if you have additional questions.
I think counting the square footage of the added floors, so that the project qualifies for the credit, is entirely within the objective/intent of this credit.
Just to be clear, the 2 new floors are entirely contained within the original volume of the existing building (like mezzanines), not added to the top of the building. There are no new structural walls or roof. Any added structural flooring would not be included in the calculations.
The entire church and all its structural elements are being reused. But if we are only allowed to count the original ground floor square footage of the church, then the new addition and connector appear to be much, much larger by comparison, which they are not -- they are actually about equivalent in height and final square footage.
We will be attemtping this credit via the "alternative compliance pathway" approach, and I will post an update regarding our success.
Looking forward to what you hear, Erica!
Follow up -- We received this response from GBCI:
"Thank you for contacting LEED Support regarding new floors inserted into an existing building.
For EAc1, this is clearly new space but inside an existing envelope. For the purpose of determining new versus existing/renovated floor area, because the new floors are contained within the existing church building, it is reasonable to consider this area as existing/renovated.
This issue does not affect MRc1. This credit only considers the amount of an existing system that will be kept. For example, if all existing exterior walls will be kept, than the percentage for that element is 100% regardless of what new is added. The only roadblock could be the existing/new proportion limitation noted at the bottom of page 347 in the 2009 LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design & Construction, June 2010 edition."
So the "roadblock" was acknowledged, but not really resolved. We are going to try to be consistent with EAp2/c1, and call this "existing/renovated space."
We have reused and relocated some steel roof joints in an existing building (between additional existing joists to reduce the spans in an area). We are not pursuing MRc3 as we do not foresee having 5% of the material costs. As we are relocating but still within the existing building, can this contribute to MRc1.1 if we require? Otherwise, my understanding is that we can use them to contribute to MRc2.
MT, this would contribute to MRc2, but not MRc1.
For clarification, why would this not contribute to MRc1.1?
As per MRc3 Bird's Eye View,
MRc1: Building Reuse can involve preserving part of a building or a material onsite and reusing it for its original purpose, or leaving it in its original location. The preserved portion of the building, or the material, only counts toward MRc1: Building Reuse (but not toward MRc3: Material Reuse or MRc2: Construction Waste Management).
The joists are being 'reused for its original purpose'. There are other walls, floors, etc. that are in their original location that are being reused and can contribute to this credit.
Thank you for the clarification.
I think that is OK, actually. We know that MRc3 materials must be given a new purpose but reusing joists as joists meets the intent of MRc1, in my mind. And when you consider the documentation that would be submitted for this credit, we provide a spreadsheet of building components that are reused so the fact that they are moved first would not be relevant. Does that make sense?
We are demolishing a large building that is no longer in use and is twice the size of an existing portion being retained. The portion of the building being reused is more than double the size of an addition that is being constructed. Would this allow us to pursue the credit for building re-use. The portion of the building being demolished will be grass planted.
You can pursue this credit but based on the calculations you provided, you may not hit the credit threshold due to the large demolished area. In that case, you can count both the reused building, and the demolished area (if diverted) toward MRc2.
I am working on 14,000sq ft 8 story historic high profile project in NYC that is keeping almost 100% of the exterior skin and framing but is removing almost all of the structural floor and roof decking in the renovation.
Is there any chance at this credit since the language says floors "and " envelope?
Alfred, you have a chance at the credit. It all depends on how the calculations work out. See our step by step instructions in the Checklists tab above for specific guidance.
In the interior was deemd to be structurally unfit for your new application, you might be able to get away with demolition.
We are renovating a former grocery store into a satelitte campus building for a university. We will be reusing the roof deck but not the roof joists. I wanted to verify that it is only the roof deck that contributes to the total reuse for this credit.
Laura, that is correct, according to the credit language.
We are designing a 36,000sf addition to a 55,000sf school. This school addition will be an extension of the existing school buildings wing.
We are not touching the existing building other than tapping into some utilities (security, perhaps backfeeding electrical, etc.).
Since we are maintaining to use the existing building but NOT altering it in anyway... does this count as 100% building reuse? How about for MRc1.2 also?
Will I have to include it in the LEED boundary? Are there tradeoffs when doing this?
This credit has always been "gray" to me. Any clarification would be a huge help! Thanks!
Jeff, if the existing building is included in your LEED project boundary and counted for all credits (including EAp2, etc.), then it can count as complete reuse.
I have a group of 5 existing buildings on a brownfieldAbandoned, idled, or under used industrial and commercial facilities/sites who expansion, redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination (may include hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants). They can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. EPA's Brownfields initiative helps communities mitigate potential health risks and restore the economic vitality of such areas or properties. (EPA) site, two are being reused and 3 are being demolished.
Q1...As the demolished structures are not LEED buildings do I count them as non-reused areas or can I just look at the existing buildings that are being renovated to be LEED certified?
Q2...These two buildings to be reused are metal warehouses and only the slab and red steel structure is being reused. Can I count the steel or is this considered part of the wall, as stated on page 349; "..beams are considered part of the larger surface they support."
About Q1: If the demolished buildings are not in your selected LEED project boundary, you do not need to count them in your reuse calculations.
About Q2: If you are re using structural wall and column then it makes sense to calculate area of the wall that includes the column. But if you are removing the walls, that couldn't be considered as a re use of a structural wall. So I feel you should calculate the area of just the supporting columns.
I am currently working on a project that has had 7 different additions dating back to 1956. We are planning on reusing all of the existing floor, foundations, steel framing, roof deck and a large portion of the exterior envelope, so I feel this credit is very likely. However, do to the nature of the building's past, finding accurate drawings of existing conditions has proven difficult.
Is there a way to simply state that we anticipate on reusing all of the existing foundation and below grade construction without giving an actual number? Or perhaps I can state that all foundation walls go 36" below grade or greater and use 36" as my average foundation wall kept in my surface area calculations?
Has anyone dealt with a similar issue and had success with submission?
Brett, my advice may not be what you want to hear, but given all the other LEED credits that require building plans, I would simply recommend making a building plan, even a fairly basic one, as an aid to credit documentation.
In filling out the LEED Online form for MRc1.1, I'm puzzled by the check box confirming that only one side of the interior structural walls has been counted. I understood that both sides of interior structural walls were to be counted. Has there been a change to this? Should I only count one side? Thanks for your help.
There has not been a change to this. It has always been the case to count one side of the interior structural wall element. See page 349 of the 2009 edition of the BD+C reference guide. Thanks!
I am new to LEED so please excuse me if this question is a little simple.
We are building a new office building on the side of an existing office, and the new office is more then 2 times the size of the old office, (only just). The new structure will be directly linked to the old structure. We will not remove any of the existing building except the windows and external doors, (which will be upgraded), so pretty much 100% of the existing structure will remain. As the new building is too large for this credit where can I use this reuse of structures etc. in MRc2 or MRc3, and how?
This would be best posted on MRc2 and MRc3. Thanks!
Our project is a major renovation to a historic building, and preliminary calcs are showing that we are reusing 99.1% of existing walls/floors/roof. It looks like there is no possible way to get exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. for this credit under the NC rating system for over 95% reuse. Obviously it is not 100% reuse, but 99% is great compared to 95%... Has anyone had a similar situation?
Janene, this credit isn't eligible for EP, so there is really not a pathway here for you. MRc1.2 is really the other logical place to get credit.
I am working on a Healthcare v2009 project where we are removing and infilling a bunch of clerestory windowsPronounced and sometimes spelled "clear-story," these are vertical, or close-to-vertical, windows high in the wall of a building that bring daylight deeply into the building and, if operable, can help ventilate the space.. We are attempting to get this credit, but do not know if the clerestory windows would be in the expempted category with other window assemblies, or if it would be classified as a roof assembly and need to be factored into the reuse percentage.
My inclination is that they would be considered windows, and therefore exempted, assuming that they are vertical.
The project that I am currently working have an existing structural floor slab (previously used as a parking lot; doesn't not have roof/walls), the current 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. is to maintain more than 60% of the existing structural floor slab and construct a one story office building above. Since the existing site just have a structural floor slab with no walls or roof and we intent to maintain more than 60% of that structural floor. Does that strategy comply with this credit?
It would but you have to account for all of the structural components into your calculation. Therefore, given that you will have all new structural walls, roof, and some floor, your total will likely not work out to the minimum 55%.
I have a question regarding compliance with this credit as long as MR Credit 1.2. Would this credit apply to a situation in which we are renovating (i.e. finishing an extension) an existing building that was built as part of the same project a few years earlier, which has been applied for LEED credit. All buildings onsite were built part of the project (no buildings were onsite prior to the project). This specific project now is the completion (i.e. build out) of the original building built five years ago which has already been submitted for LEED certification. The full envelope of the building was built and completed years ago. This project will maintain the existing building envelope and will essentially just be completing/extending indoor build out and systems (HVAC, electrical, fire, etc.).
Does it make sense to attempt to apply for MR Credits 1.1 and 1.2. OR would it make more sense to include this project as part of the original project for LEED certification. This would obviously require that we pull back our previous submissions, modify appropriately and resubmit.
Not sure if this matters, but there are other buildings onsite that are also seeking LEED certification and we are using the Master Site Campus approach.
Any help or feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Dan, given that the initial LEED certification is still in process, I think you either need to include the entire project in one LEED certification. If the LEED certification were already completed, that would be one thing, and you'd be looking a choice between a new NC certification for the whole building vs. EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. for the whole building, but in this situation I don't see how it makes sense to proceed with a process that is clearly outdated.
I did a building like this once. We went for C&S for the envelope and base building construction. Then we went for C&I for the fit-out. In that case, we got gold twice.
The building is being restored to an "historic condition." Do unfortunate additions (like CMU block in sealed up former window areas) subsequent to the "historic condition" need to be included in the calculation as existing envelope elements, or can we consider the "historic condition" the existing?
This is kind of tricky and I do not have specific experience with it - it may be worth a LEED interpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org.. My two cents, however, are 1. the window area is excluded from the structural calculation for building reuse, so I could see you making a case for excluding the area in your situation, especially if you are putting windows back in the area; 2. the CMU block in the window area are not structural, therefore your structural wall itself is being reused, despite the window area. MRc1.1 is specific to structural components, while MRc1.2 is for the interior nonstructural elements. Be sure to look in the documentation toolkit for sample calculations, which may be helpful for wrapping your head around the requirements.
If you move a core and shell to a new location, it is building reuse or materials reuse?
Kath, it sounds to me more like building reuse rather than material reuse. You are extending the life of the building as a whole, not just the materials within.
Would we think about it differently if it was just a shell?
Kath, maybe you should share a bit about how you're thinking about it, and a few more specifics. To me it seems like building reuse, but clearly at some point it will cross a line into material reuse.
We have basement level rooms that extend beyond the above-grade building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint.. Effectively, the terrace serves as the roof for these below-grade rooms. If the terrace will remain untouched, does this count as a retained structural element? Seemed like it could go either way -- it really is a structural roof element, but it is also a site element, which i don't think would count. Anyone else run into this situation? Thanks.
Erica, it sounds to me like the terrace is the roof for those rooms, and should count.
How are these calculated for this credit? As a continuation of the exterior wall?
Ilana, I am checking around but I could see this going either way. On the one hand the foundation is definitely structural and is an extension of the wall. On the other hand, I have the feeling that if it was intended to be included it would be specifically named in the credit language.
Working on a historic renovation of a school building. Two building reuse questions:
1. Same as a question above that didn't get much response - Some exterior redwood siding will be reused, some must be replaced. All the stucco will be redone. Should the reused exterior wall area be based on these envelope materials or on the fact that the exterior wall structure (framing) will be intact? The difference is the exterior walls being about 15% reused, or 100% reused (I know floors, roof deck, interior structural walls go in to the calc too).
2. The language for MRc1.1 has always been very clear that structurally unsound or hazardous materials should be left out of the calculations. However, the same language has never been included in MRc1.2 (previously, NC v2.2 MRc1.3, also Schools 2007 MRc1.3). Is it assumed that hazardous materials (e.g. moldy gyp board, asbestos) should be removed and not counted in the calculations, or is this one of those unfortunate situations where we should remove them and lose the credit as a result? If hazardous/contaminated materials can be excluded from the calculations, do you just leave it out of the "total" area?
Apologies for the delay in my response, hopefully it's still in time to be helpful on your project.
1. The credit language specifically refers to the retention of both the exterior structure, and envelope materials. Thus, the only "guaranteed" areas for inclusion are those which have the reused siding. There is not yet clear guidance from the USGBC on acceptable methods for calculating the portion of the wall that should be counted towards the credit when the structure but not the skin is reused. Cost and weight are never used in this credit, and a section area calculation would undercount the skin. I'd suggest either submitting for an official request for interpretation, or else submitting the credit with a proposed alternate calculation method that counts those areas with structural but not skin reuse as 50% compliant.
2. Hazardous materials should always be remediated, and removed from the calculations. Make sure that there is testing or confirmation that the materials are hazardous, and then yes, you simply leave the hazardous materials out of the baseline area.
I am interested in knowing what way Emily went with this because I have a similar question where there are portions fo the exterior wall where we are replacing brick veneer, but keeping the back-up framing, which is structural to the building envelope. The 50% compliant idea occurred to me also.
We are working with a major renovation in a stadium. The huge structural external columms will be maintained (100%), but the floor slabs will be demolished, except for some parts of the seating areas. The credit says that you shouldn´t count the collums separately, but considering that most of the slabs they were supporting will be demolished, I wouldn´t be double-counting their area. How should I proceed in this case? Count the collums area or just lose the credit because I won´t have 55% of floor area maintained?
You're referring to the calculation instructions on page 349 of the Reference Guide. It sounds to me like this situation is not what is envisioned by those instructions, and that it would be reasonable to count the area of the columns.
However, since this goes against the instructions given, it may be worth confirming before you count on earning the credit.
We are constructing a new building next to the existing building, the two buildings will not be attached. Essentialy the client is building a new building to expand out of the existing building but keeping the existing building for storage and extra space. The existing building is only 3200 sf and the new building is only 5000 sf, so far the new building is not 2x the existing building. Would this credit count even if the two buildings are not physically attached, and as far as I know the existing building is not being renovated?
Brian, this is not straightforward, as you might have guessed. Is the old building going to be in the LEED boundary? It would surely have to be to be considered for this credit. However, once you have it in the LEED boundary, questions are raised about how you count it for other credits. Does it have FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. occupants? If yes, then it should probably be certified separately. If no, then it could probably (in my opinion) count here, but you'd have to include it in other relevant credits as well. (Will it have HVAC?)
The LEED MPR supplemental guidance would be a good reference here.
I am not sure how often the existing building is going to be occupied since right now it is used for flight medical simulation, as wil the new building. Once the new building is complete, the equipment in the existing building is going to be moved to the new building, possibly leaving the existing building open for storage or undetermined use. Yes, the new building will have HVAC.
I believe the existing building will fall into the LEED Boundary since the utilities for the new building will tap into those serving the existing building and be routed around the existing building.
Our site includes two existing buildings. One is being deconstructed, the other is being remodeled. Do we include the deconstructed building in the calculations for MR Credit 1.1?
For this credit, you will have to include both buildings in the baseline. If that throws your calculations off and eliminates MRc1 as a possibility, you can apply the material from the retained building towards the MRc3, reused materials calculation.
Currently working on a project where a 100,000sq.ft. PEMB is being demolished down to the steel structure and foundation. We are recycling all of the metal sheeting, metal roof, wire, hardware, pipe, etc. on the job (contributing to Construction Waste Management). We are also crushing the existing parking lot into usable fill (contributing to Construction Waste Management).
Since we are resusing the foundation and the red iron frame of the building can this apply for buiding reuse, regional points or recycled (salvaged) content? Will the newly created usable fill from the existing parking be able to apply for recycled content, regional materials or building reuse?
Which credits cancel eachother out?
Before I can give you solid answers, I have a couple questions back.
What is the square footage of the resulting construction?
What CSI section woudl the fill fall under?
We are reusing 100% of the existing foundation and rebuilding the building from the existing steel structure, which is just under 100,000 sq.ft. We have not yet calculated the square footage of the panels and roof that have been removed.
The fill will fall under either 2004 CSI 31 or 32 and will qualify to be included in calculations.
If I'm reading your question right, there are three primary questions:
1. Removing the existing roof and wall panels- which credit does that apply to?
a. MRc2- CWM – Yes, this is definitely the right credit to apply these materials to.
2. Reusing the existing structural & foundation- what can that be used as?
a. MRc1 – Building Reuse
Yes, you could definitely include these elements in the MRc1 calculations. However, the calculations might not work in your favor as the credit rewards projects that retain the structural floor, roof decking and exterior cladding. Even if the building is only a single story with an existing slab, it is unlikely that the first floor (which will include the structure) square footage will be 55% of the total.
b. MRc2 - CWM – If you do not count the materials towards MRc1, MRc4 or MRc5, then you can include them in the MRc2 calculations. There’s no clear info available on this, but logic would suggest that you either get credit for getting rid of the material (MRc2) or for keeping the material (MRc3-7).
c. MRc3- Material Reuse- Unfortunately, fixed elements that are still able to be used in their original function are not eligible for inclusion in the MRc3 calculations.
d. MRc4- Recycled Content – It could be a bit of stretch, but I think an argument could be made for including these components in the MRc4 calculations. By estimating the replacement cost of the steel, and applying the default recycled content allowance of 25% - it could add up. The reused foundation will not be able to register any recycled content unless you can verify the concrete mix that was originally used, or effectively estimate any rebar content. Both elements would become part of your baseline materials cost, but could benefit the MRc5 calculations as well.
e. MRc5- Local/Regional Content- I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t be able to include the structural steel and foundation in the MRc5 calculations, using the estimated cost of replacement.
3. Crushing existing parking lot for usable fill – what can that be used as?
a. MRc2-CWM – yes- this is definitely an acceptable compliance path as long as you do not add this content to MRc4 or MRc5.
b. MRc4 & 5– This could be the same argument as for the foundation/steel, but it’s a bit less likely to pass muster. Although the logic is the same, there is an existing 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 history (1/30/2009) that calls for crushed asphalt to apply to MRc2, thus it might be a bit tough to make this argument.
Hope this rather long winded answer helps you out. Let me know if I misunderstood any of the issues.
Thanks so much! If I opt to go for MRc5 - Local/Regional Content, do I use the location of the project as the extraction point for the reused steel and foundation?
Yes, that's right.
Can anyone confirm that mold is considered to be a hazardous material for the purposes of this credit? Specifically, if a stucco facade (including moldy stucco, rusty studs, moldy gyp board, etc.) has to be replaced due to mold growth resulting from water infiltration, is it excluded from this credit calculation? Thanks.
It looks to me like you should be able to exclude any mold contaminated materials for these credit calculations. The reference guide specifically calls out as hazardous "materials that pose a contamination risk to building occupants." In addition, while it is not technically on the list of the EPA's hazardous substances (Table302.4), mold is often included in ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services ESA Phase I & II. You should be in the clear as long as the extent of the contamination is well documented.
Thanks. I was uncertain, as mold was not included in our ESA (we have asbestos).
The mold is very widespread, but not literally on 100% of the surface. But a bad detail is a bad detail -- those surfaces not yet moldy would have had a very likely gone that way eventually. Any thoughts? We aren't in a position to calculate exactly what percentage of the wall was moldy.
The nature of mold spores and fungal hyphae (the "roots" of mushrooms) it can be hard to draw a clear line between material that is definitively moldy and that which is definitively not. Seems like a conservative approach in terms of casting a wide net to avoid future health and durability issues would be justified.
Institute for the Built Environment
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.