Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "1604" "2006-10-23" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Our project is a high-rise residential building. Several of the typical unit types include interior sleeping rooms that have large sliding wall panels, (not traditional bedroom doors) that function as the doorways to sleeping rooms. When open, these sliding wall panels open the sleeping rooms to the rest of the unit. When an occupant is sleeping, the panels would be closed for privacy. The design of the rooms are such that normal \'awake\' uses of the room would occur with the sliding panels are in the open position giving the room occupant direct views through the rest of the unit to the exterior. Is it acceptable to calculate EQc8.2 Views for each of these unit types with the interior sleeping rooms sliding wall panels in the open position?" "The submitted CIR is inquiring if sliding wall panels for interior sleeping spaces in a high-rise residential application will enable the project to meet the intent of this credit by providing access to views that are flexible. The narrative provided by the project team indicates that the sleeping rooms are designed to enable occupants to open the sliding wall panels when exterior views through adjacent spaces and connection to the larger living space is desired and to close the panels when additional privacy is needed. The flexibility of the design and occupant controllability, as described, appears to meet the intent of the credit. It should be noted, however, that drawings of the rooms and moveable wall panels will need to be submitted with the design documentation submittal to fully determine compliance with the credit intent." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "1646" "2007-01-16" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our office building client is considering raising their desk partitions to help with acoustics. Our team believes that acoustic quality is an important component of Indoor Environmental Quality, even though it is not directly addressed by LEED. Therefore we are trying to carefully balance this concern with LEED credit requirements. Raising the furniture partitions just 6-inches to 66-inches total will help significantly, according to a study performed by a professional acoustics consultant. The client is proposing to make the portion of the panel above 60-inches clear, so as not to intrude on the daylighting and views. Will this still allow the furniture panels to be excluded from the calculations for daylighting and views? A previous CIR cites TRANSLUCENT panels, and suggests that these would not be acceptable. Our client is considering clear panels." "Views through interior glazing may be counted under this credit. However the horizontal view requirement of the credit must still be demonstrated from the seated height average of 42 inches. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1699" "2007-03-22" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Our project is a 330,000 sf high school, which contains both a gymnasium and an auditorium. As we consider which areas will have access to views, we have determined that both of these spaces would be negatively impacted by the inclusion of vision glazing between the heights of 2\'6"" and 7\'6"". The gymnasium will be used for many activities, including sports (like indoor soccer) where the wall surfaces are part of the field of play. Our team is concerned that the inclusion of windows will negatively impact the variety of sports that the space can be used for, and we are also concerned that there would be safety issues surrounding glare and the potential for glass breakage, should we install vision glazing in this space at the prescribed elevations. Accordingly, we propose that this space be excluded from the calculation for ""Access to Views"". The auditorium, in our opinion, is a ""non-regularly occupied space"", which will be used intermittently for programs were the audience focus on the stage is important, and where high-tech lighting strategies will be employed. Furthermore, our team is concerned that the inclusion of vision glazing in the auditorium space may hinder the overall effectiveness of the space. We propose that this space be classified as a ""non-regularly occupied space""; however, if the USGBC does not agree with our proposal, we also would like to propose that it still be excluded from the calculation for ""Access to Views"" because vision glazing would hinder the effectiveness of the space. We would appreciate your confirmation of the appropriateness of our three proposed exclusions above." "The project is inquiring if the gymnasium and auditorium can be excluded from their EQc8.2 calculations. Per previous CIR Ruling in NCv2.1, EQc8.1 dated 3/4/2003, projects may exclude spaces where tasks would be hindered by the use of daylight/windows. Since the gymnasium and auditorium would be hindered by the inclusion of vision glazing between the heights of 2\'6"" and 7\'6"", the project may exclude these areas from the EQc8.2 calculations. Please clearly delineate the areas of the project being excluded from the calculations and provide a narrative describing the rationale and assumptions made for each excluded area in the certification documentation for this credit. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1720" "2007-03-22" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "This project is a new City and County Courthouse in Denver. Courtrooms and jury deliberation rooms have unique space requirements that require the need for privacy and controlled lighting. It might be possible to provide daylighting in some of the courtrooms but the area of glazing and the depth of the space make it nearly impossible to meet daylighting requirements for LEED compliance. Additionally, if glazing is provided, it will be at a high level height for security purposes. This credit applies to both 8.1 and 8.2 though only submitted under 8.2. Also, courtrooms and jury deliberation rooms have a highly fluctuating schedule. Some courtrooms are not used for several days for example so whether they are considered regularly occupied or not is questionable. Also, holding cells are used to hold prisoners in for just a few hours of the day and are often located in interior zones with no daylighting or views for security purposes. Can these room types, specifically courtrooms, holding cells, and jury deliberation rooms, be excluded for views and for daylighting?" "This CIR is inquiring if courtrooms, holding cells, and jury deliberation rooms can be excluded from compliance with the requirements of EQc8.2 based on intermittent occupancy schedules and security purposes. The LEED NCv2.2 Reference Guide defines ""Regularly Occupied Spaces"" as, ""areas where workers are seated or standing as they work inside a building."" Spaces that may have intermittent or infrequent occupancy, such as court rooms, conference rooms, etc., may not be excluded from consideration solely based on the duration or frequency of occupation. All rooms that are considered regularly occupied must be considered for compliance with the credit requirements. The second issue posed by the CIR deals with specific security issues relating to court rooms and holding cells. The CIR indicates that these spaces, for security reasons, cannot be designed with low level glazing to permit direct, line of sight, access to views, as required by this credit. Projects may exclude certain regularly occupied spaces from compliance with the credit requirements if specific functional requirements exist that prohibit the incorporation of glazing for direct access to views. Project teams must provide a detailed narrative explaining the reasons for exemption of spaces. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1833" "2007-10-04" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "The LEED for Core & Shell reference guide states that credit EQ8.2 ""may be eligible for exemplary performance. however, there is no prescribed threshold for determination of exemplary performance."" We are proposing a quantitative performance standard for measuring availability of views beyond the standard of EQ8.2. The project under consideration is a 27-story office tower in a downtown location with floor to ceiling glazing and no party walls. The current metric requires a direct line of sight to vision glazing from 90% of the occupied floor, so making an incremental improvement to that metric (i.e. to 95% of the floor) does not in our opinion constitute sufficient improvement for an exemplary credit. We propose that instead exemplary views be measured by improved view quality, specifically: 1. Spaces that have multiple lines of sight to vision glazing in different directions (at least 120 degrees apart) have significantly higher quality views than those without. We propose that an ID credit for exemplary views be granted if, in addition to achieving EQ8.2, 90% of all regularly occupied areas can show separate lines of sight to vision glazing at 120 degree angles to each other. 2. Spaces closer to windows have higher quality views that fill more of the field of vision than spaces that rely on distant windows for minor views to the outside. We propose that an ID credit for exemplary views be granted if, in addition to achieving EQ8.2, 90% of all regularly occupied areas are within three times the window head height of vision glazing. 3. It might also be reasonable to require demonstration of both metrics to ensure that an ID credit is being granted for truly exemplary projects. Do the proposed metric warrant a likely exemplary performance credit?" "Exemplary Performance for LEED-CS v2.0 EQc8.2 can be satisfied if at least two of the following four measures are suitably demonstrated. This design provision must also be addressed within Tenant Guidelines. 1. 90% or more of regularly occupied spaces have multiple lines of sight to vision glazing in different directions at least 90 degrees apart. 2. 90% or more of regularly occupied spaces have views that include views of at least two of the following three options: 1) vegetation, 2) human activity or 3) objects at least 70 feet from the exterior of the glazing. 3. 90% or more of regularly occupied spaces have access to unobstructed views located within the distance of 3 times the head height of the vision glazing. 4. 90% or more of regularly occupied spaces have access to views with a view factor of 3 or greater, per the Heschong Mahone Group study, ""Windows and Offices; A Study of Office Worker Performance and the Indoor Environment"", page 47, for their Primary View (seated at workstation, facing computer screen). See: http://h-m-g.com/downloads/Daylighting/day_registration_form.htm to obtain free access to report download. Submittal Requirements: Please provide: 1) Separate floor plans indicating compliance for the chosen compliance paths. Please be certain to indicate all non-regularly occupied areas (including a narrative describing why they are not considered regularly occupied) and all complying and non-complying regularly occupied areas. 2) Typical sections for all applicable view conditions. 3) A copy of the Tenant Guidelines including a section that addresses how opportunities for views have been addressed in building design. This section must include a sample interior layout illustrating how the views can be maintained after fit-out for the final occupants. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1892" "2008-09-15" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "The building that we are applying for LEED-EB certification is an upscale hotel. The annual occupancy percentage of guestrooms is in the high 80s. For this credit, can hotels assume guestrooms as being ""regularly occupied spaces"" as specified in the requirements? Does this apply to daylight as well, considering our hotel has several rooms and suites that guests on business use for meetings and other ""critical tasks?""" "Yes, hotel guestrooms would be defined as ""regularly occupied spaces"" as specified in the requirements for both EQc8 daylighting and views. The same would hold true for rooms and suites that guests on business use regularly for meetings and other ""critical tasks"" unless these critical tasks would be hindered by the use of daylighting or views. If this were the case, then these rooms would be excluded from the EQc8 daylighting and views calculations. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2020" "2008-01-29" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "The building in question will be a 200,000 square feet warehouse with a 300 square feet office space. The warehouse space will be used for storage of goods and materials that will be transported to an adjacent facility (within 1/8 of a mile) for use in product manufacturing. The employees of the warehouse facility will spend a majority of their day within the office space except for the occasional need to go out into the warehouse space to receive and stock incoming shipments, or transition of these goods and materials to the adjacent facility. The layout of the warehouse space will consist of long rows of aligned storage racks and shelving - with intermediate aisles and end aisles that would be parallel with the exterior walls of the building. As such, is the entire warehouse space considered ""regularly occupied"" space? If not, would the aisle ways be considered as ""regularly occupied"" space? In either case what would the window size, location, and spacing requirements be for these windows? Would windows be required around 90% of the building? Please provide some guidance on a strategy that would be consistent with the intent of this credit." "The CIR inquiry is asking if a warehouse space that is largely unoccupied, with the exception of short term efforts to transfer stored materials, can be excluded from the requirements of this credit. Per the submitted narrative, the workers that handle the warehouse materials are regularly assigned to office space elsewhere in the building and only occasionally enter the warehouse for the purpose of handling shipments. Under this specific case, the warehouse can be reasonably excluded from the requirements of access to views for the purposes of this credit. Note: The office space must meet the requirement to obtain the credit." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "2280" "2008-09-05" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "There is much confusion in the design community regarding the number 42 inches and its relationship to the allowable height of movable systems office furniture. We seek clarification that a systems furniture panel could be more than 42 inches tall in this credit since that number is for the eye level of the seated person, not necessarily the maximum height of the panel. The Reference Guide refers to the calculation of Direct Line of Sight to Perimeter Glazing and provides Table 1, which includes a column labeled ""horizontal view at 42 inches,"" which may be the source of confusion. The Guide advises that the designer use open plan offices and configure high panels perpendicular to windows to keep views open. It does not state that panels cannot be taller than 42 inches. It is our understanding that what actually determines whether there is a view for 90% of regularly occupied spaces includes the size and location of perimeter glazing (windows) and what structural components might block views. A person who is seated with their eye level at 42 inches can easily see over a somewhat taller panel to the view if the windows are large enough and appropriately placed. As is illustrated in the horizontal view diagram of Figure 2 in the Reference Guide, a plane of vision isn\'t restricted to a straight line, narrow field, it expands out to a wider vertical plane. There is likely to be a maximum height of panel, but that would have to be determined case by case. For this CIR\'s purpose, we request agreement that a panel up to 45"" tall could be acceptable in a situation where the perimeter glazing is of the appropriate size and placement and required submittals support that the view is available to 90% of the seated occupants." "The way in which this credit is determined is if there is a direct line of sight from a point 42 inches above the floor to perimeter glazing. The perspective in this credit is taken from the seated position, requiring that there be no obstructions above that height in the view. There is no prescriptive requirement for the height of the panels used. In order to support that the credit requirements have been met, please provide floor plans and representative sections highlighting the areas with direct line of sight and showing interior partitions and perimeter windows with respect to the view at 42 inches above the floor. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2282" "2008-09-15" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "This Credit Interpretation Request is in reference to a 90,000 square foot office building, research laboratory and data center, which utilizes extensive internal vision glazing and open office design to visually connect most occupants to landscaped exteriors. Offices with internal vision glazing are typically occupied by individuals that occasionally require the privacy of a closed-door office, i.e. those with direct reports and those having access to confidential information. In order to maximize their views when not in need of privacy, reverse wound spring hinges will hold the office doors in the open position as a default. The doors can, of course, be shut manually when the occupant desires privacy. This is a similar situation to the CIR of 10/23/2006 where sliding wall panels were used in residential sleeping rooms. USGBC ruled that the Views calculations could be performed with the panels in the open position. We would like to calculate the views for each of these offices equipped with reverse wound hinges in the open position. For each office using doors equipped with reverse wound spring hinges, which default the doors to the open position, is it acceptable to calculate EQ c8.2 Views with doors in the open position?" "Can open doors qualify as vision glazing for the purposes of this credit? Open doors do not meet the requirements of this credit to provide views to the outdoors. The intent of this credit is to provide a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. While the described design periodically provides limited views through office doors that default to open, this strategy does not guarantee views for the occupants. From the provided description it is unclear at to why vision glazing cannot be incorporated into these spaces to ensure quality views at all times (allowing for privacy needs with some form of shades or blinds). Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2304" "2008-10-21" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project is an industrial core and shell building designed for warehouse use. The tenant improvement is likely to include built-out office space in the corners of the building where office windows will provide views for seated employees. The tenant improvement of the warehouse is likely to dedicate the bulk of the space to storage racks. Per a credit interpretation ruling dated 1/29/08, this area would be considered not regularly occupied. The area adjacent to the loading docks however may be a location where workers will spend the bulk of their workday loading and unloading trucks and staging materials on pallets, making a portion of the warehouse perimeter a regularly occupied space. In order to accommodate this potential use of area, and to meet the intent and requirements of EQc8.2, glazed sections will be included in the roll-up dock doors. This glazing will be approximately 6 inches high in long segments that run most of the width of each door. Since the workers perform their tasks while standing up, the glazing will be optimally located at eye height, approximately 63 inches above the floor, per the CIR ruling dated 3/22/07. The warehouse workers will have a nearly continuous unobstructed view from their work area. It should also be noted that the doors will also be open on a regular basis, further allowing views and connectivity to the outdoors. Can these glazed sections contribute towards credit compliance?" "The project team is asking whether 6"" high glazing incorporated into a roll-up door qualifies as vision glazing for the purposes of this credit. Yes, the intent of this credit is to provide for the building occupants a connection between indoor spaces and outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. The described roll-up doors, which include segments of glazing 6 inches high, 63"" off the finished floor, provide views for standing workers. While it would be difficult to consider this a high-quality view, and the design team is encouraged to increase access to a higher quality view, glazing at this height, meets credit requirements. As noted in the LEED Core and Shell Reference Guide, please provide a feasible tenant layout for the intended building use, clearly delineating regularly occupied spaces. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2344" "2008-10-21" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Per EQ Credit 8.2, 90% of all \'regularly occupied spaces\' shall have a direct line of sight to the outdoor environment via vision glazing between 2\'-6"" and 7\'-6"" above finish floor. An interpretation is requested to determine if an electrical teaching lab which is a regularly occupied space may be excluded from this credit\'s calculation due to an exemption from views based upon corporate security needs. We have a situation parallel to a previously ruled upon CIR regarding daylight and the CIR ruling on views of 3/22/2007. Corporate security dictates that this Equipment Lab is not on view from the parking lot or adjacent roads. The Owner\'s HVAC and power units are the worldwide industry leaders in mission critical battery backup and cooling requirements for IT technology. It\'s R&D sets it apart from all other companies; with their product accounting for as much of the world market share in cooling and power integrity as its next 25 competitors combined. As such, there have been numerous court cases and litigations regarding corporate copy write and patent infringements over the previous three years, with Competitors unlawfully taking their technology and using it or copying it within their own product lines. The Owner\'s president has testified in numerous lawsuits in the previous two years resulting from corporate espionage and patent infringement. The Teaching Lab is a highly regulated room within the overall Learning facility with over 300 pieces of equipment, including product that is \'next-generation\' technology within the IT industry. This technology will revolutionize the way IT equipment uses and maintains energy. The Lab has multiple card access requirements for individuals to gain access. Photography is not permitted. Only students with instructors\' permission can enter the Lab. Visitors are excluded from the Lab unless personally led by staff. All of these precautions are to protect patents and corporate assets from espionage. Likewise, views into the Laboratory from the outside are not permitted for concerns of competitors taking information away from the Lab site. All of the equipment can withstand the effects of UV sunlight, and as such, the Teaching Lab has continuous clerestory windows along its south wall allowing daylight deep penetration into the Lab. The Owner\'s current training Lab has no daylight and the Owner deliberately wanted to create the new Lab as a more pleasant and user-friendly space - thus the inclusion of daylight into the space. Were it not for these security concerns, the Lab would have windows below the 7\'-6"" view threshold, allowing staff and students\' direct views out of the Lab. As it is, only daylight is permitted and the windows remain clerestory, blocking view but admitting daylight. Note also, all instructors and students using the Lab have regularly assigned spaces within the office area and classrooms that do contain views and that meet the requirements of this credit. Your interpretation as to whether we may exempt this room from the calculations is greatly appreciated." "Yes, the electrical teaching lab may be excluded from EQc8.2 calculations due to the nature of security of this space. Per LEED-NC v2.2 EQc8.2 CIR ruling dated 3/22/2007, spaces can be excluded if specific functional requirements exist that prohibit the incorporation of glazing for direct access to views. Project teams must provide a detailed narrative explaining the reasons for exemption of spaces." "10280" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "5045" "2007-03-22" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "Our project is a full service automobile dealership that includes a single large open room designated as the Service Shop. The Service Shop is approx. 20, 000 sq. ft. This area is approx. 53 % of the total regularly occupied area 37,730 sq. ft. of the project per the Views Credit criteria. The area does not include desks or seating, but is the primary work station (locations) of several employees. The guidelines for the views credit compliance assumes a ""42 inches (average seated height) sight line from a point at 42 inches above finish floor to the perimeter vision glazing"" to determine compliance with the views credit. In the Service Shop area employees stand to perform their work responsibilities which is servicing cars. We would like to propose a line of site at ""63 inches above finish floor to establish the sight line so that from a point at 63 inches above the finish floor to the perimeter vision glazing"" can be used to determine compliance with the views credit requirements. The 63 inches above finish floor is derived from the average of the two values for an average standing male and female person per the human dimensions anthropometric data for adults found in the Architectural Graphic Standards, by Charles George Ramsey, 10th Ed., American Institute of Architects. The project team would like to establish a standing height line of sight for the Service Shop Area that allows us to locate vision glazing for the staff to access views and also comply with the views sight line requirement for this credit. Will the USGBC accept documentation that shows the ""standing work area"" in the service shop with a sight line located at 63 inches above finish floor to perimeter vision glazing to provide views for the building occupants?" "The CIR is asking for a specific exemption to the 42"" seated height sight line that is established for determining access to views for regularly occupied spaces. The project contains an automotive service shop where workers stand throughout the day to perform their duties. The project team has proposed a 63"" standing sight line for determination of access to views for auto service shop. As the service shop is a non-typical work environment where the majority of work is conducted by standing employees, the 63"" sight line is acceptable for documenting access to views. It should be noted, that this modified sight line is only allowable for the auto service application of this project. All other office and work areas must still comply with the seated height sight line of 42"" noted in the NCv2.2 Reference Guide. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5117" "2008-04-28" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "There is much confusion in the design community regarding the number 42 inches and its relationship to the allowable height of movable systems office furniture. We seek clarification that a systems furniture panel could be more than 42 inches tall in this credit since that number is for the eye level of the seated person, not necessarily the maximum height of the panel. The Reference Guide refers to the calculation of Direct Line of Sight to Perimeter Glazing and provides Table 1, which includes a column labeled ""horizontal view at 42 inches,"" which may be the source of confusion. The Guide advises that the designer use open plan offices and configure high panels perpendicular to windows to keep views open. It does not state that panels cannot be taller than 42 inches. It is our understanding that what actually determines whether there is a view for 90% of regularly occupied spaces includes the size and location of perimeter glazing (windows) and what structural components might block views. A person who is seated with their eye level at 42 inches can easily see over a somewhat taller panel to the view if the windows are large enough and appropriately placed. As is illustrated in the horizontal view diagram of Figure 2 in the Reference Guide, a plane of vision isn\'t restricted to a straight line, narrow field, it expands out to a wider vertical plane. There is likely to be a maximum height of panel, but that would have to be determined case by case. For this CIR\'s purpose, we request agreement that a panel up to 45"" tall could be acceptable in a situation where the perimeter glazing is of the appropriate size and placement and required submittals support that the view is available to 90% of the seated occupants." "The CIR is requesting clarification to determine if modular furniture panels up to 45"" in height can be acceptable for use in spaces while still meeting the requirements of this credit for direct line of sight views. According to the LEED NC Reference Guide (page 384) moveable furniture and partitions are not included in the scope of this credit calculation. The modular furniture in question should not prevent credit compliance. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5228" "2009-06-19" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "At over 2 million GSF, Beijing Parkview Green (PVG) is one of China\'s largest sustainable architecture projects. PVG is made up of four buildings, including two 11-story and two 20-story towers (Blocks A-D) that house retail area, offices and a six-star hotel - all of which are enclosed in a ""Microclimatic Envelope"" (ME) comprised of glass and plastic (ETFE - ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene). As a separate, non-structurally tied edifice, the ME operates in concert with the buildings at the site, providing benefits in energy conservation, solar reflectance, and stormwater management, while providing insulation value to the structures within. If you think of a glass covering on a cake stand, you have a pretty good idea of the nature of the ME. We are seeking an interpretation that characterizes the volume within the Microclimatic Envelope as the equivalent of ""outdoors"". This area, which will contain plantings and sculpture and visual access to daylight, will provide aesthetic and visual pleasure to the inhabitants of the project consistent with the intent of the credit. We plan to count all of sightlines out of the building envelope windows, some of which look out onto the ""outdoor"" plaza within the ME, others which look out through the ME, as outdoor sightlines for the purposes of complying with this credit." "The project team describes four buildings which are enclosed in a glass and plastic covered structure (ME), and requests that views into the ME be considered views to the outdoors for the purpose of this credit. The area within the ME, as described, cannot be considered an outdoor environment; the environment inside the ME is a sealed interior space similar to a fully glazed atrium space. Exterior environments are different in that they have natural airflows, sun, rain, moisture, and biological content, which result in unexpected and random movement patterns. However, interior spaces that have direct line of sight through the ME will qualify. For compliance with this credit, floor plans with feasible tenant layouts and sections views must highlight direct line of sight to the outdoors. Applicable Internationally; China" "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5282" "2008-01-11" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "We would like an interpretation as to whether views to an indoor atrium garden meet the intent of this credit. The design of our building includes an extensive amount of vision glazing along the entire perimeter while optimizing energy efficiency, layout, and functionality. When designing our building, we used many of the philosophies of Frank Lloyd Wright, who designed many buildings local to our area. The design philosophy of his that we are most proud of is ""bringing the outside in and the inside out"". Access to direct outdoor views is provided from 75% of individual workspaces and >90% of other regularly occupied spaces within the building; therefore, we fully recognize the importance of views of nature to the well-being of our employees. The small percentage of workspaces along the interior of the building that do not have a direct line of sight to the outdoors have a view of an interior atrium garden. Our extensive atrium garden runs the entire length of the building on both floors fully daylighting the interior of the building. It opens to admit fresh air during the spring, summer, and fall. The garden is home to a number of full size trees planted into ground where their roots can extend under the building. There are over 1,000 tropical and subtropical plants in the atrium garden. There are insects in the atrium that are controlled through an integrated pest management program. We think that from an objective view of what constitutes ""outdoors"" there is very little difference between outdoors and our atrium. From an aesthetic point of view, we believe that the sight lines created are beautiful and that they exceed the quality of most views, particularly outdoor views with little or no vegetation such as parking lots, streets, or other building. Buildings with a lower outside surface area are typically more efficient in energy and material use - we believe that our unique atrium garden provides indoor beauty that is comparable to the outdoors. We think that our employees are more in touch with nature because they walk through it every day as they go from point to point within the building. Note: Photos of the atrium are provided with our application under EQ Credit 8.3/84 and IUOM Credit 1.2." "The submittal requirements for EQ Credit 8.3/8.4 are clear, precise and measurable. Allowing an exception for views to atrium gardens would open up this LEED-EB credit to too much uncertainty for future LEED-EB application reviews without the establishment of quantifiable guidelines for required atrium garden criteria. If and until atrium garden criteria are established by the LEED-EB Revisions Committee for views to atrium gardens, the proper avenue for earning credit for these gardens would be through pursuing a LEED-EB Innovation Credit. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"