In pursuing this pilot credit on our project, we wondered whether it was truly appropriate for the pilot credit to require all of the same view criteria measures as typically required in Regularly Occupied Spaces. While some of those criteria (such as the large view-factor and the distance within the window head-height) play strongly into the amount of daylight and comfort level of a person at a workstation, it is less clear whether these are critical items when one is in a transition space (such as a hallway). While a view is definitely important, it could be that these criteria should be adjusted to better account for the difference in how regular and non-regular spaces are used.
We also question whether it really is important to consider all non-regularly occupied spaces for views. There are some space types that are non-regularly occupied spaces that also probably shouldn't be included in the calculation as views are either inappropriate (such as for locker/changing rooms) or completely unnecessary (such as electrical closets, unoccupied storage rooms, etc.). For our project, we included any space that was not considered Regularly Occupied in the calculation, but these types of spaces definitely made the criteria calculation more complicated/difficult and didn't seem to fit in with the intent of the larger credit. If the criteria are to be kept the same, the credit would probably benefit from examining which space types really should be included due to actually benefiting from the views.
Maret Heidelberg
November 7, 2019 - 7:35 am
I have just been thinking about the same issues. In corridors and elevator lobbies there are no sitting workplaces, so measuring by the same criteria is a bit odd indeed, but I guess it has to be measured somehow.
As for the second part of your comment, occupied spaces are devided into regularly and nonregularly occupied spaces. Mechanical spaces and emergency staircases for example are unoccupied spaces according to the BD+C reference guide. So based on that, I did not include those rooms in either the Quality views or the Quality views in nonregularly occupied spaces calculations. Unfortunately I don't have any feedback yet.
Aleksandra Prawda
Sustainability ConsultantJacobs
11 thumbs up
December 19, 2019 - 6:33 am
I agree with Maret on this subject. We also excluded emergency staircases, parking garage, technical rooms, etc. from the calculations. Still we have achieved over 50% of non-regularly occupied areas - our project is 7-floor office building with lots of break rooms, kitchens, game rooms in the building perimeter.
My main concern is that our building is core and shell project and we based our analysis on the layout provided by tenant. I am not sure if this approach will be accepted, but really hope it will be as the building provides really exceptional views to the outside, including a lot of greenery, sky, and objects over 8 meters from the facade.
Regarding criteria measures, I did not even consider analysing the spaces in scope of view factor. I agree that this measure is not really applicable to many of non-regularly occupied spaces.
Amanda Tullos
CEOGreeNexus Consulting, LLC
February 12, 2020 - 4:02 pm
I agree with your thought process on this. We simply took our Regularly Occupied square footage and subtracted that from the Total square footage to come up with the Non-Regularly Occupied area, but there are definitely areas that are never going to benefit from (or could even be negatively impacted by Quality Views (restrooms, changing rooms, mechanical, etc.). We were still able to meet the thresholds, but could have seen a higher impact if we didn't have to count that areas that really shouldn't have views.
Kate McFeaters
March 3, 2020 - 11:28 am
When tabulating the area of non-regularly occupied space, we excluded non-occupied space from the calculations. We haven't received comments back yet, so we're not sure whether that is the intent.
I agree that it is not necessarily beneficial for all non-regularly occupied spaces to have views. In our case, spaces such as a meditation space, mother's room, etc., occupants preferred privacy over views. We found that prioritizing breakrooms and circulation between the break area, conference rooms, and open office areas at the building exterior easily met the most stringent compliance thresholds; however, future iterations of the credit would perhaps benefit from adding a weighted value to some types of non-regularly occupied spaces, such as game rooms, kitchens, copy rooms, fitness areas, and break areas to prioritize the non-regularly occupied spaces where the most time is spent vs. egress corridors and in our case, an unoccupied reception area.
Aleksandra Prawda
Sustainability ConsultantJacobs
11 thumbs up
March 4, 2020 - 1:53 am
Kate,
We received the review response and our approach to exclude non-occupied spaces was accepted and not commented by the reviewers, so I believe that is the credit intent.
I wonder if in the future this pilot credit will allow to exclude spaces where privacy is preferred over views from the calculations. The Quality Views credit allows to exclude spaces like teleconference rooms, because views are not the priority in such areas and windows would disturb more than be beneficial for the users. Maybe it is a way to go to exclude bathrooms, mother's rooms etc. from the pilot requirements?