There seems to be two layers of logic for defining single or mult-occupied space. One is by number of occupants [private office vs. conference rooms] and one is by function [café vs. open office]. There can then be four different types of spaces: [1] single occupied space but used for a variety of functions, [2] single occupied space used for a single function, [3] multi-occupied space used for a variety of functions, and [4] multi-occupied spaces used for a single function.
Following that logic, conference rooms would be multi-use by multiple occupants which would need multiple lighting levels while an open office area doesn't need to provide control of ambient lighting so long as there is task lighting. It seems to work within the examples given both in the reference guide and on this website.
Here is the question: If a room has a singular function, despite how many people use it, does it need multiple lighting levels to comply with this credit?
I'm trying to nail down the logic and clear up gray areas. I'm working on a call center that has a large servery [large break room kitchen] and cafe area, as well as a fitness and game area. I want to argue that these spaces are used by multiple people but for a single function or task and thus only need to offer access to lighting control [similar to a private office], not access to multiple lighting levels [as in a large conference room].
Thoughts?
Lauren Sparandara
Sustainability ManagerGoogle
LEEDuser Expert
997 thumbs up
March 29, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Hi Matthew,
Interesting comments and interpretations of the credit! I can't tell you the exact thinking behind this credit other than that at its most basic level its intent is to allow for controllability of occupants. I agree that the cafe area, servery, fitness room and game area should all be called "multi-occupant spaces". The Reference Guide states that you need to "provide lighting system controls for all shared multi-occupant spaces to enable adjustments that meet group needs and preferences." I don't see anywhere in the RG that states that the group needs would require having multiple lighting levels. Multiple lighting levels would make sense for a conference room where different group needs would exist (a presentatation, a small gathering, etc.) but may not make sense in other group settings with fewer uses.
That being said, I would think about ways to allow for multiple controls for these different areas if it made sense. I worked on a coffee shop that provided some intimate small lights in the cafe area for patrons to read by in our multi-occupant space. Something like that in your cafe or different settings provided for different occupants might be nice...That being said, I think you should be OK either way for these multi-occupant areas so long as you provide your reasoning one way or another.
Good luck,
Lauren
Matthew VanSweden
Director of Intersectional Professional Services55 thumbs up
March 29, 2011 - 2:24 pm
Thanks Lauren - I guess my interpretation for having "multiple lighting levels" is based off the language that mulit-occupant spaces need to "provide lighting system controls ... to enable adjustments that meet group needs and preferences"
To me, that implies "multiple" lighting controls/adjustments. It would be hard to argue that a single light switch for all the lights in the room/area provides "control" that enables "adjustment" based of group "preferences". The only options would be all lights on or all lights off, not much room for adjustment. And, if you look at the specific strategies given in the reference guide to meet this criteria, they all provide more than one lighting option [dimers, dual switching, etc].
This of course goes back to my original question regarding the logic involved here. If a room has a singular function but has multiple occupants, can the same lighting be applied to this space as is applied to a single occupied space [private office]? To me, that makes sense.
The last think i would want to do would be to say we are okay as designed right now [when they are installing the lights] and have the reviewers comment saying that _all_ multi-occupant spaces need two or more lighting "options" and either loose the credit or go back and add/change the lighting system once the drywall is up and painted.
I have a formal inquiry into the GBCI - I hope they get back to me before the lighting systems are installed...
Thanks again for your insight, Lauren. I'll report back if/when I hear something more "official".
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1976 thumbs up
March 29, 2011 - 3:48 pm
On a 2.2 project, I've seen this credit accepted when a detailed analysis of all spaces/ uses/ lighting needs/ and lighting controls was provided. The team provided a table listing all spaces within the building (not just rooms, but all spaces with different activities) in rows, and the columns listed the use, the task performed, the occupancy, frequency or duration of use, lighting requirements for that kind of task (such as ambient only, task + ambient, multiple levels of ambient, multiple zones, etc) and then the type of lighting controls provided.
This helps you to be more precise about the level of controls that is appropriate for the specific "needs and preferences" that can vary from space to space. No assurance that this method would be accepted by all reviewers, but hopefully it would be considered a valid and reasonable approach.
Matthew VanSweden
Director of Intersectional Professional Services55 thumbs up
March 30, 2011 - 12:57 pm
Okay - I mentioned I submitted a formal inquiry into the GBCI but I also submitted a non-formal inquiry to a contact I have at the GBCI. This is going to be a long [but hopefully informative] comment - so bear with me:
ME: There seems to be two layers of logic for defining single or mult-occupied space. One is by number of occupants [private office vs. conference rooms] and one is by function [café vs. open office]. There can then be four different types of spaces: [1] single occupied space but used for a variety of functions, [2] single occupied space used for a single function, [3] multi-occupied space used for a variety of functions, and [4] multi-occupied spaces used for a single function.
CONTACT: I believe this is pretty clear in the reference guide. Any space use for congregation is going to be considered multi-occupancy, even break rooms. However, there are small conference rooms that do not have to be included in the calculations. There are also exceptions if there is a small percentage of multi-occupant space.
ME: Following that logic, conference rooms would be multi-use by multiple occupants which would need multiple lighting levels while an open office area doesn't need to provide control of ambient lighting so long as there is task lighting. It seems to work within the examples given both in the reference guide and on this website.
CONTACT: Correct.
ME: Here is the question[s]: If a room has a singular function, despite how many people use it, does it need multiple lighting levels to comply with this credit or will a single lighting zone with a single wall switch be sufficient?
CONTACT: If a room is considered a multi-occupant space, then it will be required to have multiple lighting levels. There may be exceptions like the ones you list below, but we will need something from the reference guide or a CIR to deviate. You could also submit a project specific CIR.
ME: Further, for conference rooms do you need multiple lighting level controllability or will a single wall switch be sufficient?
CONTACT: Yes, conference room will need multiple lighting levels. A wall switch or occupancy sensor will not be sufficient. Additionally, single wall switches will not be allowed for single offices as they are not adjustable to suit task needs. You can use windows, blinds, etc. and overheard lighting, but an interior office with only and occupancy sensor or on/off switch will not be sufficient.
ME: In past projects, we’ve been awarded this credit [in v2.2] when conference rooms have only access to a single wall switch turning on all the available lights in the room. Is this still an acceptable strategy?
CONTACT: We are attempting to be consistent moving forward, but a single wall switch isn’t acceptable.
ME: I'm trying to nail down the logic and clear up gray areas. I'm working on a call center that has a large servery [large break room kitchen] and cafe area, as well as a fitness and game area. I want to argue that these spaces are used by multiple people but for a single function or task and thus only need to offer access to lighting control [similar to a private office], not access to multiple lighting levels [as in a large conference room].
CONTACT: The break room is a multi-occupant space. The other spaces may end up being treated differently, but I haven’t had a chance to go through all the CIRs.
Now I know this isn't "formal" but my contact has access to TAG's and he discussed this with them. I think it is fairly safe to assume this is the direction the GBCI will be ruling in the future.
Hope this helps.
Matthew VanSweden
Martin Dettling
Senior Vice PresidentAlbanese Development Corp.
3 thumbs up
February 22, 2012 - 3:27 pm
Does the conference room lighting control have to match one for one the number of seats to controls or is it acceptable to have just more than one control?
Seema Pandya
Sustainability ConsultantSLP
150 thumbs up
February 22, 2012 - 3:39 pm
It is acceptable to just have more than one control for a conference room since it is a shared space. Individual work desks would need their own controls.
Lauren Sparandara
Sustainability ManagerGoogle
LEEDuser Expert
997 thumbs up
February 24, 2012 - 10:59 am
I agree with Seema. If you have multiple uses for a conference room where this conference room has different partition abilities, then each space would need its own controllability to meet the needs of the space. However, if it's really just one space, then one control is acceptable. Also may want to think about dual switching or dimming to help accommodate different use types of the space (presentations, vs. face to face meetings, for example)