See all forum discussions about EBOM-2009 IEQc2.4
 Subscribe to new posts about EBOM-2009 IEQc2.4 Post a new question aboutEBOM-2009 IEQc2.4
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 IEQc2.4»
FAQs about IEQc2.4 :

What qualifies as “regularly occupied spaces” for this credit? Does the total amount of regularly occupied space used for this credit have to match other credits?

We have some vacant tenant spaces. How should I account for those when documenting this credit?

Our multi-story, multi-tenant building has many different floor plans and cubical configurations. Do we need to provide section drawings and floor plans for every space in order to document Option 2: Views?

View answers »

Forum discussion

EBOM-2009 IEQc2.4:Daylight and Views

Views and Line of Sight

Default Avatar
Sonrisa Lucero
Owner / Energy Engineer / Sustainability Consultant
Sustainnovations, LLC
LEEDuser Basic Member
94 thumbs up

If only a HORIZONTAL direct line of sight from 42" to the exterior window will ultimately allow an area to qualify as having a view, why have the discussion about glazing from 30" to 90" at all? If there is a direct line of site at 42", it is already in the range. Is there something I am missing?

5
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 13:52

I agree that this is really confusing and I don't know if the logic that I am using to rationalize these seemingly conflicting issues is correct, but I'll share it in case it helps. The LEED reference guide talks about views at 42", but it also discusses that other view heights may be more appropriate for areas with younger occupants or areas where work is done standing or in elevated areas. So, my thinking is that you have to meet both requirements: the horizontal view at 42" or whatever height you justify as appropriate and through glazing that is 30" to 90" AFF. So, this would eliminate, for example, using a horizontal view of less than 30" for a younger occupancy.
Default Avatar
Sonrisa Lucero
Owner / Energy Engineer / Sustainability Consultant
Sustainnovations, LLC
LEEDuser Basic Member
94 thumbs up

Wed, 04/06/2011 - 20:57

Thanks for the comment, Allison. You logic is is consistent with LEED NC where the 42" could be substituted for a height that makes more sense for the occupants' use of the room. However, I still don't see why having the range is relavant unless they were allowing someone from a seated position at 42" having a direct DIAGONAL line of sight to a window at 30" or 90". I will continue to puzzle about it after I submit a template with only 42" HORIZONTAL lines of sight. :-|
Default Avatar
Peter Locke
Sustainability Consulting Director
McKinstry
LEEDuser Basic Member
4 thumbs up

Wed, 08/17/2011 - 16:14

Can someone please clarify this basic question for me? The cube partitions are higher than 42", therefore seated horizontal view is disrupted. This is a fast fail for view correct? Or does the 30"-90" still give me a chance to earn views?
Default Avatar
Devani PERERA
Green Building Consultant
Elan
LEEDuser Basic Member
15 thumbs up

Fri, 08/19/2011 - 15:21

What do you think of the following explanation to rationalize these seemingly conflicting issues: The horizontal view at 42" applies to discrete locations/points (the reference guide seems to require 1 point for each space, I am assuming they mean 1 point for each working station). Glazing from 30" to 90", on the other side, pertains to the entire surface of the area and not only to a few localized points. Any thoughts?

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.