I am currently working on a large, outdoor retail shopping mall that includes multiple buildings, however we want to claim these buildings are more like connected ‘structures’ and therefore the whole mall should be considered a ‘superstructure’ and applicable under 1 certification. The buildings are broken down into site 'areas' on all floor plans and therefore do not have completely separate architectural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical plans, but are separate buildings in that they share no structural elements. Additionally, they each have completely separate mechanical systems - but these systems are almost identical throughout. What connects the structures is a continuous open courtyard, with some structural/architectural archways, but for the most part it is open space for people to travel from shop to shop.

The project team has recently submitted for preliminary review and received a Mid-Review Clarification indicating that the project does not meet the Minimum Program Requirements for Core & Shell because the superstructure does not meet the defection of a 'single building' (LEED definition of a single building being: 1. 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, and 2. All building components of the LEED project that are addressed by LEED prerequisites and pursued credits can be treated as one, such that separate reviews of the same issues are not required for different portions of the superstructure). The Review Team has suggested the project team either provide evidence that the superstructure can meet the definition of a single building, or re-register the project under group certification.

In regards to the first requirement, the buildings are connected by open walkways that serve the purpose of circulating occupants as well as retail space. However, we are concerned that this will not meet the definition of 'contiguous’ because the buildings are not physically touching. Could the courtyard walkways help us to meet this requirements by arguing that the walkways are throughout the superstructure, and as such each individual structure could be considered ‘touching’ as they share this architectural element? We are less concerned about meeting the second requirement, as all of the prerequisites and credits included in the LEED application pertain to the entire superstructure. All building materials are the same, the superstructure shares restrooms (not each building has an individual restroom), all mechanical, electrical elements are virtually identical in each structure, construction for all elements took place at the same time with the same waste hauler, GC, subcontractors, etc. It is because of this that the project team does not want to re-register and re-document the project under group certification. Because all trades on the project operated under the idea that this was a single structure, breaking out the relevant credit information as it pertains to each perquisite or credit would be very difficult as well as possibly inaccurate.

Please respond with any similar situations or advice on how we can try and formulate our argument that this mall should be considered a superstructure. Thanks to all!