One or two separate buildings

This is very likely two buildings. The key issue (as I understand it) is whether the buildings are connected ABOVE GROUND by a space which serves a purpose other than circulation and are in shared ownership and/or management. The MPR guidance definition of one building is as follows:
"Space that can be included in the gross floor area of the project that serves a purpose other than parking or the circulation of people is contiguous throughout the structure."
This would suggest that a ground floor restaurant linking the two buildings would be sufficient to qualify them as a single building.
While it will increase certification costs, it may be better to certify these buildings as a group.

Hello Michael - I have recently been asked by the LEED Review team for a similar justification. Our project building is attached (very clearly, btw) by an enclosed walkway to an adjacent building. The adjacent building is owned by the same company as our project building. However, the connection is clearly used for circulation only. Do you think your definition in quotes applies in this case, and can you point me to the exact location of that MPR guidance so I may enquire with the LEED review team as to what was unclear about our submittal?
THANKS
Brian

Brian - if the space is only for circulation then these are likely two separate buildings. I quoted the "Supplemental Guidance to the Minimum Program Requirements, Version 2" located here: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs6473.pdf

Check the definition of "One Building" on page 22.

Thanks Michael - I stumbled upon that document as well. They are clearly documented in the drawings as 2 buildings with a connecting walk way. The older building is already Certified, and our project is the one seeking certification. I'm not sure why the reviewers kicked this back to us for a 120k SF building! What a ridiculous distraction and sure way to get the client irritated!