View type 3. Unobstructed views located within the distance of three times the head height of the vision glazing

Odd, but my copy of the guide has this example on pg 751 rather than 749. Regardless, I read this example as open office 2 is non-compliant b/c the workstation partitions are higher than 42" (they're labeled as 50") and are presumably solid (not clear glazing), and there's another permanent partition within the required compliance area that is definitely above 42" and blocking the views behind it. 

As far as fixed workstations, that was not an issue in the project I had that earned this credit. They were fixed, and had partitions, but the height was limited to 42" or less throughout.

I would also like some clarification on this point. 

In another LEEDuser thread (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/view-type-3-private-office-space), it states that any area WITHIN the prescribed 3 times the height distance from the vision glazing can be included BUT this thread in combination with the reference guide seem to state if there are any permanent obstructions (ex. an office wall) within the 3 head height distance then the ALL the area would not be compliant. 

Here is the situation, we have several private offices around the perimeter of the building (10'x10' approx.). They all have clear views to the outside from any where within the office via floor to ceiling glazing. The office has a fixed wall and door so any area past the office is obstructed. Now in terms of view type three, we have regularly occupied floor area within the 3 times head height distance (i.e., the area in the office) but we do have obstructions as well within the 3 times head height distance (office wall). 

The point here is this, to have compliant floor area, is it all or nothing as Keith had said. Does ALL the floor area WITHIN the 3 time head height distance have to be completely clear and unobstructed (this could be a distance of 35+ ft if you have a higher head height)? Or would you be able to include the first 10 feet from the vision glazing of floor area if it is not obstructed? 

Thank you

The intent is to provide views as deep as possible and to reward projects that have the potential for deep views. To reward a project that is still doing the perimeter office and burying the core occupants would not make sense with this option. So for perimeter offices, you basically get option 3 and 4 to use. 

I received this review comment, "Note that for view type 3, no permanent interior obstructions are allowed, regardless of their height. Some furniture, such as workstations and large conference tables, which cannot be moved without the assistance of facilities or special trades, is considered a permanent interior obstruction."

This seems to be in contradiction to Table 3. For view type 3, "Layouts that include extensive open-office workstations or open areas with little interior obstructions along perimeter glazing are good candidates for this approach."

Who is designing open offices without using systems furniture? 

Dear all,

if I understand this correctly, an office, which is not as deep as three times the head height can´t be compliant, even if there are no "core" occupants? What if, for example the whole building is only around five times the head height deep and has single or double offices at the opposing facades and a corridor in between?

Regards

Regarding J Schuetz question, we have the same concern. A hotel where all the rooms are less deep than 3x height (27') but all have clear line of sight, unobstructed by anything over 42" high - seems like these rooms should comply with the intent of the rule. Hotel has some larger spaces (more than 27' deep) and there are obstructions so they do not comply. Is that correct?

Allison how did you solve it? I have the same comment, LEED defines a permanent interior obstruction as: 

"A structure that cannot be moved by the user without tools or assistance from special trades and facilities management. Examples include lab hoods, fixed partitions, demountable opaque full- or partial-height partitions, some displays, and equipment." 

And the definition of a structure is:

"Elements carrying either vertical or horizontal loads (e.g., walls, roofs, and floors) that are considered structurally sound and nonhazardous."

So, why would a conference table or workstations be considered a permanent interior obstruction? -->Who is designing open offices without using systems furniture? 

Thank you

Mariana - 

We revised the documentation and did not claim view type 3 in those spaces and were still able to meet the credit threshold, but we were lucky. If you look at Figure 12, it shows that fixed systems furniture with partitions (regardless of height) make the space non-compliant for view type 3.

But as we've both stated, who is designing open offices without using systems furniture with some sort of partition/spine? A training room, maybe, but not a typical open office. I had bench seating whose spine was perpendicular to the glazing be approved for view type 3, but I wouldn't count on that for other projects. 

Good luck!

View type 3 interpretation:

Can anyone lend some advice? I got a review comment back that the reviewer doesn’t like how I listed a space as view type 3. They claim the desk (aka permanent fixture) is blocking the view of a window behind it. I agree that doesn’t meet view type 3.

 I am not claiming the window behind the desk as my view though, I am claiming the full vision lite door next to the window as my view, which doesn’t have anything in front of it.  Could this be a case of misunderstanding my documents, or are they not liking that I am claiming a few square feet of space that is in front of the desk? The manual is not very clear on the nuances of what can and can’t be claimed.

Here are a few images of what I submitted and am talking about with the yellow being the claimed area used for the calc and the green being excluded but counted as regular occupied.

https://i.imgur.com/o1UKpQ4.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Oiru1ui.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/wsnJLJw.jpg

What if I revise the documents and submit the plan and just count the un obstructed area only, do you think that might fly with the reviewer?

https://i.imgur.com/WoUzHJp.jpg

Ryan - 

I agree with the reviewer, some of the area's view to the door/sidelight (as indicated in yellow) is blocked by the desk. You should draw lines from the window to the edges of the obstruction to identify which areas have views (similar to the 4th file you shared, however I expect there is slightly more area with view if you draw the line from the opposite outside window frame to the obstruction). I recommend revising the documentation to only count that which has an unobstructed view and resubmit.

Allison,

Not quite sure I follow your train of thought. The window behind the rsdnt control desk is being used for the the rsdnt control space (B157a), wouldn't that only allow me to claim the view through the door since the window is being used else where?

That would then leave me with the option in the 4th image https://i.imgur.com/WoUzHJp.jpg to only use.

Is there flexibility in the credit to allow this type of picking and choosing of area?

The good news is even if I take out all the offending areas from the calc I still calc out at 76% but wanted to try and include some space just to have a safety margin. 

I do appreciate this dialog as it helps better get my head around this credit and issue.

Ryan - 

The 4th image is substantially correct and I expect following that methodology would be approved by the LEED reviewer. All I was suggesting is that you draw your lines from the opposite outside door frame to the object (similar to how you drew lines in v.2009 - an X through the window opening with the lines extending into the space). This would capture a little more area as space with view and give you a bit more buffer. As you meet the credit threshold, then this should suffice. 

I agree, the window does not contribute to the view, only the door counts. 

I hope that clears up my comments.

I think I get it. I want to make sure i understand how to maximize a SF count if I ever need to.

Here is a update layout:

https://i.imgur.com/T2Ijirp.jpg

Yes, that looks like what I was trying to describe. 

Perfect, thanks for helping clear that up.

Regarding Tyler's query and Todd's response, am I correct in my understanding that a perimeter conference room that falls within the 3 times head height distance will qualify for option 3 even if the conference wall serves as a partition within the area?  What if the conference patitions are glass would the area beyond that, that falls within the 3 times head height qualify for option 3?

Thanks

FYI, my submital was accepted by USGBC following the methodologies described in my threads above.