Dear All,
I just noticed what appears to be something illogical in C&S projects above 300,000sq.ft
For the same number of building occupants, the larger the building area, the less the number of bicycle racks required. I tried this exercise:
For 6800 users, a 310,000ft2 building would require 199 bicycle racks, whereas a 3,000,000ft2 building would require 51 racks.
Is there a logic behind that (something that relates to how dense the building is)?
Thanks!
Omar
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1981 thumbs up
April 9, 2014 - 7:43 pm
Omar,
If you only change the building area, and not the occupancy count (FTE), I can see how you might get some strange numbers. In most cases, though, the larger building is likely to have more occupants, and so the higher FTE would require more bike racks. I’m not sure I understand how you calculated the # of occupants & bike racks in your comment. With most Core and Shell projects we are using the default occupant density numbers in Appendix 1 of the Reference Guide.
For example:
If a 300,000 sf building is an office, from Appendix 1 we assume 250 sf per person.
300,000 / 250 = 1200 FTE occupants, assuming no visitors;
1200 occupants x .03 = 36 racks.
For a 3,000,000 sf office building:
The first 300,000 sf has a similar # of bike racks (300,000/ 250 = 1200 occupants. 1200 x .03 = 36 racks.)
For the remaining 2,700,000 first caluclate FTE: 2,700,000/ 250 = 10,800 occupants. Then 10,800 people x .005 = 54 racks.
36 + 54 = 90 total racks.
Does that clarify the calculation?
Maya Karkour
EcoConsulting872 thumbs up
April 10, 2014 - 2:51 am
Thank you David for your clarification,
Yes I used the Appendix 1 values to calculate my occupancy, and the methodology is the same as per your example.
The reason I raised this issue was because I have done 2 sets of calculations for 2 shopping malls. One was bigger than the other, but the space distribution was in such a way that the bigger mall had roughly the same occupancy, and it ended up that the bigger mall required less racks.
I guess it makes sense then..