I’m presently working on a mid-rise residential social housing building with 5 stories and 76 units. 67 of these apartments are 1 bedroom and 9 are two bedroom. According to the guide I need to assume 2 residents in 1 bedroom units and 3 residents in 2 bedroom units. This would bring me to a count of 161 building occupants which yields a requirement of 25 bike racks. However, 9 of the 3 bedroom units are adaptable (units that are designed for use by people with disabilities or for those who are limited in mobility). Is it safe to assume that people living in these units will not be able to use bicycles and can, therefore, be excluded from the occupant count?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Eric Shamp
Associate Vice PresidentCannonDesign
68 thumbs up
March 22, 2011 - 11:42 am
I think it's safe to assume that one person living in those units won't be riding a bicycle, but their family members could.
Abena Darden
Senior AssociateThornton Tomasetti
273 thumbs up
March 22, 2011 - 2:02 pm
Hi Stefania-We encountered a similar question with a dining hall for an under-served population and were questioned on our strategy to provide bike parking for only those folks who could conceivably bike to the building--the paid employees. We proposed that the requirement did NOT apply to those who a) did not own bikes, b) weren't allowed to have anything with wheels because of their participation in drug rehab programs and c) volunteers in later years who didn't usually bike. We also made the argument that because it is a high crime area, cyclists are targets. In the end we gave up! But because I am now working on a project in the same neighborhood and very similar to yours, we intend to file an interpretation request. If the fees are an issue, you could always gamble by providing a very strong, descriptive narrative with your application. To play it safe though, perhaps Eric's approach is the best bet. Just a story to share! Marian
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1979 thumbs up
March 22, 2011 - 5:07 pm
Also, reviewers have pointed out that the ability or mobility of occupants can change over time as the building program changes, so just because a unit is being designated as "adaptable" doesn't exclude occupants of those units from having bikes at some point in the future. The same could be said of the crime risk.
Stefania Minotti
M.Arch, LEED AP31 thumbs up
March 22, 2011 - 5:54 pm
Eric, Marian, thank you for the guidance. My issue is really related to space: we only have room for 23 bike rack spots. However, if I take Eric's approach in calculating the number of residents that's the amount that's required. Thanks again.
Stefania Minotti
M.Arch, LEED AP31 thumbs up
March 23, 2011 - 10:38 am
Hi David, I think it's safe to assume that if a disabled resident in a social housing building is no longer considered disabled he/she would be relocated into a unit that is not adaptable in order to make room for another disabled person. I think I will make this argument. Good call though, thank you for bringing up the point.
Jonathan Weiss
Jacobs Buildings & Infrastructure215 thumbs up
March 30, 2011 - 1:25 pm
I am by no means an expert on accessibility but I have usually gone by the premise that we should not assume that disabled people will do or will not do anything - there are many people who have disabilities that limit some activities but allow others (and watching paralympics and other sports, many "disabled" people are far more "able" than many of us!) . I would be more conservative and say that you cannot adjust the numbers based on adaptable / accessibility standards.