This project is an academic building on a higher education campus in the United States. The campus does not have a robust inventory of LEED buildings, but is attempting to make strides towards greater sustainability. Our design review denied this credit and offered the following technical advice: It appears that the occupants of the adjacent building will have access to the bicycle storage facilities and shower/changing facilities. Provide supplemental calculations confirming that sufficient bicycle storage and shower/changing facilities have been provided to serve all occupants with access to the amenities, including individuals who are not part of this LEED project.
Since the University has only recently adopted LEED on campus and is in an inner-ring suburban condition, a strong network for alternative transportation has not yet been established on campus. Additionally, since this is an academic building on an open campus, it is essentially open to the public and a great number of people theoretically have access to the bike racks. The technical advice seems to indicate that our project must bear the burden of additional bike racks and shower/changing facilities to subsidize nearby existing buildings that lack these amenities.
This stance seems very counterintuitive to the language in the reference guide. Is there any precedent for a ruling of this nature? How can our project even begin to provide calculations that include potential users in adjacent buildings?
Michelle Robinson Schwarting
148 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 11:55 am
So we understand the situation better, the bike racks and the shower are both in the LEED registered building? Or are they located at/in the neighboring building? Are the two buildings connected at all (pedestrian bridge, covered walkway between the two, shared courtyard with main entrances, etc.)?
Are you attempting any credits from a "LEED campus" approach?
Becky Dix
Christner Architects7 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 12:44 pm
The changing rooms / shower facilities are located within our LEED project, the bike racks are directly outside our building as well. We are not attempting any credits from a LEED campus approach. However, the project is part of a campus setting, and more specifically part of the science and technology campus, so there are many pedestrian relationships between our building and those near it including sidewalks and covered walkways.
Deborah Lucking
Director of SustainabilityFentress Architects
LEEDuser Expert
260 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 1:18 pm
Are any of the adjacent buildings within 200 yards walk distance, entry to entry?
Similarly, are the bike racks within 200 yards of any adjacent building entry?
We have had success with providing signage (in our case, for preferred parking) that the spaces are "Reserved for Staff and Visitors to Building X", but this might not work well for your project. (Or send the right message.)
Lyle Axelarris
Building Enclosure ConsultantBPL Enclosure
64 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 1:44 pm
This seems like an overstep. It's one thing if you want to claim credit for shower facilities in an adjacent building owned by the same owner, but this is the opposite situation. The reviewer seems to be saying basically that you have to account for buildings outside of your scope.
What's next, will we be denied SSc8 because a neighbor's site lighting is trespassing ON to the LEED project, or SSc6.1 because an adjacent building is directing too much stormwater ON to the LEED project. This sounds completely backwards. I say "phooey"! (there, I feel much better now) :)
Deborah Lucking
Director of SustainabilityFentress Architects
LEEDuser Expert
260 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 2:39 pm
Lyle, you said exactly what I was thinking!
Becky Dix
Christner Architects7 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 3:00 pm
(Us too!)
Deborah, to answer your question: yes, there are existing buildings within 200 yards of our project's main entry. Likewise with the bike racks.
Is there any precedent for this type of signage at bike racks? It seems to send the wrong message (in our opinion).
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
May 13, 2016 - 3:10 pm
What I've done in a similar situation (hospital campus) was to describe the owner's whole approach to the bike racks on campus and then how this project fit within the master plan. They (owner) are just starting out and don't have a track record. USGBC is asking if they are for real or for show. Assure the reviewers that the owner is for real.
This may mean someone has to understand their campus and what the totals would mean for bike racks and showers. Your project is Step 1. If your design approach meets the credit intent for this project, then all you are negotiating is protecting the credit intent in operations. Look at EBOM. Look at the Schools credit. Sit down with someone at the College and get them to draft a meaningful approach to this strategy for them. Try not to do this for them if you aren't getting paid to do it.
Michelle Robinson Schwarting
148 thumbs up
May 16, 2016 - 9:12 am
You can also request a call with the LEED Reviewer to review the situation and your proposed response. Send an email to leedinfo@usgbc.org with a description of the issue and your proposed clarification (see tips from above replies on LEEDuser). Per USGBC.org, be sure to include Project name and number, Specific Credit numbers in question, Detailed questions that you would like to discuss on the call with the review team, Reason for the call request.
Having a call with them to review the situation will help you in knowing what they're looking for and better enable you to have an appropriate response for your LEED certification.
Good luck! And keep us posted on what they say!