Hi all. Wanted to seek your comments on consideration of our developments as "single building" so it can fit into one LEED certification. Our development is consists of 3 buildings that connected via link-bridge and theirs functions are supporting each other, owned by the same landlord, and constructed at the same construction timeline. The main reason this development is constructed into 3 buildings is the vibration sensitive tools that can be mixed with other building function. These 3 buildings are:
(1) Admin building that housing office for administration for manufacturing
(2) FAB building that main function as manufacturing and housing very vibration sensitive tools, hence it requires to be structurely separated with the MEP spaces and office spaces
(3) CUP building that housing MEP to support the entire development.
The main reason why we would prefer under single certification is due to difficulties on documentation if we require to go for 3 certificates, since this development is only have single people access via Admin building and there is no people access directly to other buildings as part of security measures. Hence all building users need to access from Admin building. Additionally it is constructed under one construction contract. Hence all documentations are not being separated for these 3 buildings. It will be plenty of paper works to split out the documentations. We have reviewed the Campus option as well, but not all credit are can be covered. Hence it still complicate our submission. This development is served with common HVAC system, water distribution, and Building Automation System.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Michael Smithing
Director - Green Building AdvisoryColliers International Ltd.
304 thumbs up
March 22, 2017 - 1:24 am
The supplemental guidance to the MPR says the following (page 22)
Defining ‘one building’
Super-structures can often be perceived as either a string of multiple buildings, or as a single building. This is typically due to light physical connections, such as a single hallway between buildings that are otherwise physically distinct. Such super-structures may, for the purposes of LEED, be considered a single building if both of the following criteria are met.
a) Space that can be included in the gross floor area of the project that serves a purpose other than parking or the circulation of people is contiguous throughout the structure.
b) All building components of the LEED project that are addressed by LEED prerequisites and pursued credits (systems, materials, etc) can be treated as one, such that separate reviews of the same issues are not required for different portions of the superstructure.
Thus, if the link bridges can be designed to include a purpose other than circulation the buildings can be considered a single building. If it is possible to include break-out seating in these areas that should be sufficient.
Note that I presume that the link bridges are enclosed, conditioned spaces; however this is not always the case with link bridges here in Singapore. If the space is not enclosed it will be considerable more difficult to make your case.
Michael Wahjudi
Sustainable Consultant3 thumbs up
March 23, 2017 - 9:19 am
Hi Michael. Yes, we are aware as well on this requirement. The main reason why the building need to be separated via link bridge is due to manufacturing is housing vibration sensitive equipment. Hence it is required to be structurally separated. Since the project is only have one single people access, constructed at the same period; the amount of documentations that need to be redo is plenty. We have some difficulties on explaining some of credits and prerequisites.
georgi george
April 8, 2019 - 6:28 am
I would like to express an idea.If a building gets fire,people have to run down the stairs or use lifts. But if that area is in fire there is no escape.If the tall buildings are made as every floor of them is connected to the near by building's floor by a small bridge,people can ecape to any area which is out of danger.Could I get expert's advice on this?
Dave Hubka
Practice Leader - SustainabilityEUA
LEEDuser Expert
495 thumbs up
April 9, 2019 - 11:06 pm
Per the LEED v4 reference guide:
"If the project consists of multiple structures physically connected only by circulation, parking or mechanical/
storage rooms, it may be considered a single building for LEED purposes if the structures have programmatic
dependency (spaces, not personnel, within the building cannot function independently without the other
building) or architectural cohesiveness (the building was designed to appear as one building)."
Sounds like you have one building.
Melissa Merryweather
DirectorGreen Consult-Asia
245 thumbs up
April 10, 2019 - 6:33 am
I have twice petitioned for manufacturing projects connected by linked bridges that were unconditioned, and twice had them refused. It is frustrating--as Michael Smithing noted, in tropical countries those bridges are unlikely to be conditioned, but the buildings are absolutely interdependent. Often the reason for separating functions is because of the manufacturing flow which requires loading or servicing access at certain production points, not because they are fully separate buildings with different conditioning requirements for example. This is one of the several ways that LEED is a difficult fit for manufacturing projects. In my cases both owners pulled out of the certification process--conditioning the links simply wasn't economically or programatically suitable (they would have been naturally ventilated.) So I strongly suggest you get a definitive answer based on the exact particulars of your project: the number of buildings, which buildings are linked and the servicing of those links.
Dave Hubka
Practice Leader - SustainabilityEUA
LEEDuser Expert
495 thumbs up
April 10, 2019 - 7:34 am
Hello Melissa,
I can sympathize as I have had a few factory projects where the office was connected to the factory with a corridor and USGBC/GBCI defined them as two buildings. Even though it was one owner, one design team, and one construction team, built at the same time and co-dependent (i.e. factory would not exist without the office and vice versa).
In LEED v3 they strictly enforced this rule, in v4 they now allow project layouts such as this to certify as one building.