Daylight & Views – Simulation Approach for New Construction with Phased Core & Shell (Temporary Conditions vs. Final Design)

Hi Kate, I don't understand how an atrium could be close enough to provide daylight and views, but far enough away that it could be shelled relative to the phase 1 occupied area. Wouldn't the atrium mostly serve the adjacent shell area, not the phase 1 area? It would help if you could provide a plan. Setting that aside, for a NC building with no definitive timeline to occupy that part I would normally exclude the shelled part from the regularly occupied area. Often shell expansions are delayed for several years or change when executed, so GBCI reviewer is unlikely to be convinced. One suggestion is to consider temporary partitions that allow view through to the shell space. If that's not acceptable, some kind of translucent material-- i.e. polyethylene sheeting--in the temp partition could help transfer some daylight. There may be other avenues such as a letter from owner promising to install it within 5 years. Do you have the ability to set up a pre-submission call with USGBC/GBCI to ask this question?Best,Collin

I agree with Colin above about contacting GBCI with your question (emailing them works). Many of our projects have tenanted spaces that will be built out albeit in shorter, defined timeframes, and we have been able to submit the final plans with a letter from the owner that confirms their development. 
LEED LI #10102 has additional guidance.

Hi Kate, OK this view is very helpful to see. I think I understand what you're asking now. I thought you wanted current-phase spaces to benefit from borrowed light through the shell spaces separated by opaque temporary partitions, a tough question. Now I see you're asking if you should include and model the shell spaces as being daylit through clear or absent partitions as it will be in the final. I usually exclude shell spaces, but my experience has been with smaller portions that what you show. I basically sorted them as "unoccupied" for all EQ credits, so they wouldn't appear in regularly- or non-regularly occupied areas. In this case, I think it makes sense to ask to include the entire shell as "regularly occupied" category, constructed as they will be in the final. As such they don't hurt the daylight or views of any reg occ spaces I can see. In the distant past I used to exclude a circulation area around the core, so I know what you mean there, can't find a reference to that practice, however. According to credit language from v4, for Core and Shell: "Assume that the entire floor plate, except for the core, will be regularly occupied space." Seems reasonable to follow that for the shell spaces here.In v5 ref guide there is the following guidance for incomplete spaces. My colleagues say that ultimately you have to work it out with USGBC in writing, since each project is different. See image below. Best of luck! - Collin