Individual Comfort Controls in a Library

Kyra, This is a tricky one because I haven't seen any great guidance in the Reference Guide or through CIRs to answer your question. I would agree that I think it makes the most sense to consider the common study areas as multi-occupant spaces, with one control needed for that zone. This is because an academic library setting appears to meet the definition of a shared multi-occupant space, as a place "where transient groups share spaces, such as conference rooms, break rooms, and lecture halls." It might make sense to also review LEED for Schools, even if your application will be through LEED-NC. However, I believe that any "reception desk" like areas in the library should be treated as "individual workstations". Lauren

Another library (community) related question: how would one define open reading or study areas (either desks or lounge chars/sofas) that normally surround the book stacks? They fit the definition of regularly occupied spaces though the same users might not occupy the same spaces regularly. The major areas of a community library interior would be open to the stacks & therefore public and not subject to individualisation. Is it safe to assume that these public areas can be removed from the calculations? Can this thinking apply to the other Controllability of Systems credit, IEQc6.1?

It seems to me that these spaces would be considered multi-occupant spaces but not individual workstations. Therefore, users should be able to have some controllability with light settings. Alternatively, I think that you could try to make a case for why it might not be reasonable for all public occupants to be able to alter their settings and instead you could argue for a mechanism toward occupants communicating their requests to a building manager or front desk information center or something of that nature. You could also reference LEED for Retail which states that you can just provide controllability for FTE and not transients. Obviously, you aren't using a retail scenario here but I often reference that system when I have slightly different circumstances. Anyone else have experience with community spaces and controllability? Meeting credit intent of controllability while also finding a reasonable solution for your project function are of utmost importance.

Thanks for your recommendations. Occupant comfort is a very important factor in a library experience, but your reasoning in referencing retail is sound - the library is providing a service and transient occupants might expect not to have direct control of building systems that affect a large group of unrelated users. Communicating needs with an authorized user seems to make this situation similar to communicating with a teacher or monitor in a classroom before any changes can occur. Does anyone have experience with presenting such an interpretation for a community space?

Hi Mohammed, I'd check out this previous thread: http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/IEQc6.1#comment-10468 I have taken this approach for a community center before and the concepts applied can often be used across both EQc6.1 and EQc6.2. An important thing to note is that -- although my approach has been successful on one attempt -- I did not submit a formal CIR for this approach and so please take this advice with a grain of salt. Generally speaking, I think it is good to assume that a strong argument that shows real reasoning and protocols established will be taken seriously by your reviewer. You have to be thorough in showing how you are meeting the true intent of the credit. Good luck.