Last month, I posted information about a strange LEED “size gap” issue my project team ran into with a project in northern Indianapolis, Indiana.
It was a strange and complex issue and I am still wrestling with a little bit. It took a unique circumstance for the “size gap” issue to create a real stalemate. For one, the owner did not wish to make the building’s new addition “physically distinct” per the LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements. Rather, the owner preferred to simply expand their current facility and go for LEED certification while they’re at it.
As a result, the project team had to consider LEED for the entire facility (i.e. the existing structure and the new addition). This is where the “size gap” came into play. After opening multiple case numbers through GBCI, I finally got them to weigh in on this issue as well – they verified that under our project’s circumstances it was ineligible for LEED registration.
I ran this issue by Joel McKellar, Founder of Real Life LEED and Associate at LS3P Associates Ltd., who was kind enough to review my comments and post commentary regarding the “size gap” issue on Real Life LEED.
Please visit Real Life LEED. It’s one of my favorite blogs. Joel has a very deep knowledge base regarding LEED and many interesting aspects of LEED are detailed in his blog.