Is PC9 seen as an additional compliance path for SSc2 Development Density and Community Connectivity, or a separate credit?
I did a test count of intersections for a project that should be able to achieve CI SSc2, Community Connectivity. The project is located in Portland, OR, with intersections on 260' centers, so I figured if you can get it anywhere, it would be here.
I discovered, though, that it falls just short (n = 54), because the riverfront and railroad tracks are about an 1/8 mile to the west, and an interstate is an 1/8 mile to the north/northwest. However, the 260' grid is uninterrupted to the northeast, east and south well beyond the 1/4-mile radius: shifting the center of the radius just one block diagonally to the southeast would up the intersection count to 67.
It seems that there could be room for an alternate option that would correct for sites that are in a highly open and connected community, but near geographic barriers on one side: perhaps an option for a given number of intersections within a 1/2-mile radius, with some reduced minimum within the 1/4-mile radius.
Batya Metalitz
Technical Director, LEEDUSGBC
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
September 9, 2010 - 3:27 pm
At the moment, this credit is seen as being in addition to SSc2, rather than an alternative compliance path. A project team may earn SSc2 and still earn an ID point for this pilot credit.
What we're really looking to test is whether the intersection count (which is a relatively simple submittal) can serve as a good stand-in for more complex credit requirements, while meeting a similar connectivity intent.
We have started to see that geographic barriers like railroad tracks, bodies of water, and designated open spaces can be a barrier to achievement, and your suggestion of offering various radius options sounds like a good solution, though some of these features really do hamper the connectivity of a site to its surroundings (especially in the case of railroad tracks). What do others think?
On a related note for all participating projects, please do submit your your findings even if you do not meet the threshold to earn this credit. Because it is a pilot credit, your feedback on improving the credit is even more valuable than meeting the threshold. Perhaps include some examples of how your project would fare if the radius were expanded to 1/2 mile (with a corresponding increase in number of intersections) or even 1 mile to offset the inaccessible areas.
Carey Paul
17 thumbs up
September 14, 2010 - 11:57 am
Our project site is in a dense urban location in San Diego but there are some parks and cul-de-sacs that made it a little tricky. However, we did end up meeting the minimum requirements. While I can see extending the radius to a 1/2 mile, I think a mile seems pretty extensive.
Michael Miller
Project Architect236 thumbs up
October 18, 2010 - 9:34 pm
Along the lines that Batya suggested, I would agree that any expansion of the radius should be accompanied by an increas in the number of intersections -- and potentially a proportionally larger increase, so that it's about a secondary compliance path, not just an easier threshold.
In my feedback survey on the pilot credit, I suggested a few other 'Option 2' compliance paths, such as:
1. Being allowed to count any intersection that can be reached in +/- 1750' walk (which is based on an estimated distance to a compliant intersection w/in the 1/4-mile radius, but at the diagonal on a square grid).
2. Being allowed to shift the center of the circle a small distance (250'? 300'?) to correct for projects that are slightly too close to barriers, but otherwise well-connected.
3. Being allowed to center the 1/4-mile radius anywhere that includes the entire project site within the circle, but requiring an increased threshold (70 or 75?) to attain one point.
Carter Williams
AIA, LEED APLDa Architects
30 thumbs up
January 26, 2011 - 4:57 pm
Being able to shift the center of the 1/4-mile circle some limited distance, while maintaining the number of required intersections at 60, seems like it would be a good method of getting a "clean" representative sample of a community's connectivity when there are pedestrian obstacles (highways, railroad tracks, open spaces/parks) present. Increasing the radius much beyond 1/4 mile starts to get outside the limit of walkability, at least in a suburban context (unfortunately!).
My project is in a dense, highly-connected suburb of Boston (Newton, MA). We meet the requirements to achieve 3 points for LL5.3 - Outstanding Community Resources / Transit, so the neighborhood should certainly be considered highly connected. With the 1/4-mile circle centered on the site, however, we just barely meet the 60-interesection requirement for PC9. Shifting the circle 500' north to avoid railroad tracks and a large park yields an intersection count of 67. The neighborhood has quite a few cul-de-sacs, which limits our total - and, in this case, is a good proxy for connectivity.