As noted in most feedback for the first public comment session, this credit is too vague to be useful, actionable, or decisive for identifying successful acoustical designs and outcomes. The credit requires objectivity to give guidance to the terms based on other industry guidelines. Without this objectivity, it is unclear how the LEED V5 project reviewers will make decisive outcomes of what is submitted, or worse, the reviewers will make inconsistent decisions of the outcomes, which will introduce more confusion and conflict. Please consider the broad range of different guidelines that exist (FGI, ANSI S12.60, IgCC, etc.) and find a way to use or improve on those to make this credit effective to apply to designs, assess in post-construction, and distinguish for future Projects' success at attaining the goals.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Jeffrey Fullerton
October 27, 2024 - 9:09 am
In the event that the Path 1 Mapping Acoustical Expections remains (since this is similar to the WELL S01 element), please clarify whether you are requesting one map with all three of the conditions (Comfort, Privacy, and Communication) or whether you are expecting 3 maps, each covering these topics.
Jeffrey Fullerton
October 27, 2024 - 9:15 am
In the proposal language for Path 1, please define what acoustic criteria is appropriate. The current wording leaves open the option for every project to define their criteria themselves, which might be successful for 90 to 95% of the submissions, but what about the others? What is to stop a project from proposing a background HVAC sound level of 55 or 60 dBA for an open office area because they want to use the HVAC noise for sound masking? With the current language, it is not clear the reviewers would be in a position to reject such an inappropriate design objective that would result in adverse acoustical conditions for future occupants.
Jeffrey Fullerton
October 27, 2024 - 9:16 am
The current wording for Path 2 is depended on Path 1. As a result, there should only be an "AND" between the two; "OR" would not be possible, due to the dependence on Path 1.