Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses

Hi Julie, I noticed this too. It feels like a trend in 2012 in general. I posted a comment on the main page here that says that many of the credits are high in documentation time (therefore cost) but don't necessarily guarantee improved performance for that extra effort. This is definitely one of those credits.

This going to be a problem for international projects in particular since development density requires us to know the gross square footage and site area of surrounding buildings. There is no data available or it's ony chattered. Even worse because of privacy laws, which protect people and companies from having data collected and /or distributed without their consensus. So there probably never will be such a data base in Europe. But without a questions buildings located in the inner city cores in Europe have the development density. I wish I could just use the zoning maps, which show the factor of GSF vs. site for each property, but you aren't allowed to use that. I suggest to allow projects located in an area zoned as city center by the local authorities to use proof of that instead.

Even worse non -residential vs residential GSF. Sure the building owners will give me that information no problem.

So much agree with Julie and Mara. I could take some photos of the surrounding and you can see right away this is an area with lots of residential and commercial in a great mix, but instead I see myself counting mail boxes and door bells and guesstimating GSF to confirm something rather obvious.

Uh oh, I'm being quoted.

I think Susann hits the sore spot. Maybe there exists an expediated or simpler way. Tracing building footprints in google earth for area and multiplying by number of floors (street view or photos?). Whether they are residential or commertial is problematic.