Forum discussion

NC-v4.1 EQc7:Daylight

Daylight & Views – Simulation Approach for New Construction with Phased Core & Shell (Temporary Conditions vs. Final Design)

Hi all,

I’m looking for guidance on how to approach Daylight and Quality Views simulations under LEED v4.1 BD+C: New Construction for a higher education project with a partial core & shell phased delivery.

Project context:

  • Higher education building designed with strong daylighting strategies (central atrium, open circulation, etc.).
  • Due to budget constraints, the client is proceeding with a phased core & shell approach, with approximately 25% of the building shelled (so still qualifying as New Construction).
  • The shelled portion includes the central atrium, which is a primary daylight source.
  • At initial occupancy, the client plans to install temporary walls to separate the unfinished core/shell areas from occupied spaces.
  • These temporary partitions will significantly limit daylight penetration and views compared to the intended design.
  • There is no defined timeline for completion of the shelled areas, but the intent is to finish them in the future once funding is available.

Main question:

  • Should simulations reflect the building as it will be at initial occupancy (including temporary partitions that block daylight and views)?
  • Or can we model the final design intent (i.e., fully built-out atrium with no temporary barriers), given that the shelled areas are planned to be completed at some undetermined future phase?

Thanks in advance!

0

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Tue, 03/24/2026 - 16:51

Hi Kate, I don't understand how an atrium could be close enough to provide daylight and views, but far enough away that it could be shelled relative to the phase 1 occupied area. Wouldn't the atrium mostly serve the adjacent shell area, not the phase 1 area? It would help if you could provide a plan. Setting that aside, for a NC building with no definitive timeline to occupy that part I would normally exclude the shelled part from the regularly occupied area. Often shell expansions are delayed for several years or change when executed, so GBCI reviewer is unlikely to be convinced. One suggestion is to consider temporary partitions that allow view through to the shell space. If that's not acceptable, some kind of translucent material-- i.e. polyethylene sheeting--in the temp partition could help transfer some daylight. There may be other avenues such as a letter from owner promising to install it within 5 years. Do you have the ability to set up a pre-submission call with USGBC/GBCI to ask this question?Best,Collin

Tue, 03/24/2026 - 17:03

I agree with Colin above about contacting GBCI with your question (emailing them works). Many of our projects have tenanted spaces that will be built out albeit in shorter, defined timeframes, and we have been able to submit the final plans with a letter from the owner that confirms their development. 
LEED LI #10102 has additional guidance.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.