Quality View credit for K-5 school - line of sight for children

Technically it only has to be provided at 42" and is not determined based on the height of the occupants. So 42" is used for every classroom.

In reality, views should be provided according to the activity and the occupants. So it makes sense to have lower sill heights for the little people in the world.

In my LEED BD+C Reference Guide (2009 Edition, Update 2010), on page 566, under Section 4. Implementation, it states "The line of sight used...is assumed to be 42 inches for the average seated adult, but is lower for students." This seems to conflict with the statement above?

I recently received comments on a service station where I had provided views for a standing height as that is how the room is used. The comment was that it "looked like" people could "sometimes" be seated in there and that I should provide a seated height view (42") as well. I am going to try to argue #1, that no, there are not people seated in there and #2 that there is nothing in the requirement that states that you must provide views for ALL possible view heights and that providing a view for the most common use of the space should be sufficient. I'll let you know how it goes.

I have always assumed that the text expects us to provide views for the dominant use and occupant type of the space, so in my opinion, providing a seated height for the appropriate size and age of the kids in the classroom would be required in lieu of 42".

Jill, I think the reviewer was fishing. If a narrative is provided and it states that the occupants will be standing, then the review should take the project team member's professional word. If no narrative was provided and only the standing height vision line, then i can see how this is questioned. Usually a narrative response is sufficient to clarify the issue. The reviewer has no basis to deny it if you state they will be standing. It would be like a reviewer basically saying that you are lying and don;t know your project. Won;t happen.