Michael Italiano, the only key USGBC founder not named as a defendant..... He notes, “LEED doesn't guarantee anything, and I think LEED gives people the tools to understand that.”
I think Italiano is kind of pissed that he's the only one not to get sued. It's as if he had no part in making the standard. So he's on a one-man self-implication foot-in-the-mouth tour:
"We have this tool... that does nothing... and we sell this tool to people... so that they can understand what our tool doesn't do... which is anything."
Very interesting. Lawsuits tend to only benefit lawyers, but it's certainly good to have a system that has become synonymous with "green" actually undergo some scrutiny. Let's hope the result is, as Henry Gifford says, more transparency and honesty in green design and not just further turf battles that make no one want to hire any of us.
LEED became anything but "green design" when it turned into a marketing checklist. As the lawsuit rightly points out, building owners are more concerned about getting LEED points, regardless of if they actually have any positive environmental benefits. Some of the items they reward points for are truly laughable. The system has become more about the promotional photo and the plaque that gets installed at grand opening, with very little in the way of evaluation, at least from what I have seen.
I doubt this will get anywhere as LEED has enough money and bureaucratic power to bury this, but I am glad to see that some someone taking a critical look at a system that has gone on too long without any checks and balances.
It would really just be better if they extracted the useful parts of the LEED program and just built them into the building code, much like ADA requirements, IMO.
The part about the selling of "worthless credentials" drew a few chuckles...
There was an article here in the Chicago Reader about a woman who built a neighborhood kitchen space called Logan Square Kitchen. She got LEED cert but somehow didn't get her Zoning squared away so the City is now saying that she's a banquet hall and needs dedicated parking spaces. She has none. They are threatening to close her down. No, they are actually in the process of suing her out of existence.
But she got the bragging rights of LEED certification, right?
The other stuff, the stuff that will drive her out of business, wasn't as important as getting bragging rights for LEED.
I new the LEED system was crap the first time I saw a Lowes with a LEED silver designation in the middle of suburbia behind a sea of asphalt parking....
I am sure there is no self-promotional incentive in the lawsuit at all.....
That being said, all this is saying is that there are a lot of stupid people out there who cant think for themselves.
It takes about 2 seconds of research to see that LEED doesnt guarantee anything sustainable at all.
The owners actually interested in sustainable design are not just using a LEED checklist and claiming to be sustainable. The ones who are are those who could really care less about sustainable design, and without LEED, would not be doing anything at all.
Essentially then LEED has zero value and then should be done away with all together, as all it is giving people is a false sense of action. It's no different than buying a product labeled as "natural" or "organic" and feeling like you have made a health food decision. It's a label and nothing more.
This is an issue than, because architects have paid a lot of money (collectively) to get this label behind their title and owners sink a lot of money getting this label plastered on their projects and if LEED claims to have no guarantees of actually providing something sustainable than it's a scam, simple as that.
i like that analogy about buying organic foods as opposed to buying non organic,
I hate to say this people, I told you so.
I've been saying it for like 10 years Leed is Misleeding.
I have defended LEED as an organization based on what they do, the amount of money it costs et cetera. But LEED is as dense as LEAD.
However, many of the concepts promoted by LEED are promoted by other ecologists and conversationalists alike. So, I think the issue is that LEED is an easy target because easy target is easy. The concept of clip on technologies and copy-and-paste methodologies is rife everywhere.
Like, I'm not a fan of green belts. They're essentially the post-modern equivalent of using freeways in ghetto busting.
No animal larger than a raccoon will live in a 300' wide strip of woods. Yeah, they have their benefits. But I think there are far more inherent issues with mixing people back into nature.
Nature sucks. It's filled with bitey thing, sratchy things, itching things and dieasey things.
If you have been adversely affected by LEED, you can join the suit by contacting the attorney's office at http://www.consumerclasslaw.com/?page_id=34 and they will send you the information.
Class action lawsuit against USGBC and LEED
Archrecord has a note about a recent lawsuit.
Michael Italiano, the only key USGBC founder not named as a defendant..... He notes, “LEED doesn't guarantee anything, and I think LEED gives people the tools to understand that.”
So there!
^my favorite line from the article!
I think Italiano is kind of pissed that he's the only one not to get sued. It's as if he had no part in making the standard. So he's on a one-man self-implication foot-in-the-mouth tour:
"We have this tool... that does nothing... and we sell this tool to people... so that they can understand what our tool doesn't do... which is anything."
This is hilarious.
Very interesting. Lawsuits tend to only benefit lawyers, but it's certainly good to have a system that has become synonymous with "green" actually undergo some scrutiny. Let's hope the result is, as Henry Gifford says, more transparency and honesty in green design and not just further turf battles that make no one want to hire any of us.
LEED became anything but "green design" when it turned into a marketing checklist. As the lawsuit rightly points out, building owners are more concerned about getting LEED points, regardless of if they actually have any positive environmental benefits. Some of the items they reward points for are truly laughable. The system has become more about the promotional photo and the plaque that gets installed at grand opening, with very little in the way of evaluation, at least from what I have seen.
I doubt this will get anywhere as LEED has enough money and bureaucratic power to bury this, but I am glad to see that some someone taking a critical look at a system that has gone on too long without any checks and balances.
It would really just be better if they extracted the useful parts of the LEED program and just built them into the building code, much like ADA requirements, IMO.
Completely agree Cherith. I TA an environmental design class and the first day of it we make sure to tell everyone this is not about LEED.
I'm not giving USGBC $400 for a test and $4000 per building. I'm going to do it right by siting and passive systems.
The part about the selling of "worthless credentials" drew a few chuckles...
There was an article here in the Chicago Reader about a woman who built a neighborhood kitchen space called Logan Square Kitchen. She got LEED cert but somehow didn't get her Zoning squared away so the City is now saying that she's a banquet hall and needs dedicated parking spaces. She has none. They are threatening to close her down. No, they are actually in the process of suing her out of existence.
But she got the bragging rights of LEED certification, right?
The other stuff, the stuff that will drive her out of business, wasn't as important as getting bragging rights for LEED.
That's how twisted this LEED thing has become.
holy crap make... can you link me to that article??
I new the LEED system was crap the first time I saw a Lowes with a LEED silver designation in the middle of suburbia behind a sea of asphalt parking....
I am sure there is no self-promotional incentive in the lawsuit at all.....
That being said, all this is saying is that there are a lot of stupid people out there who cant think for themselves.
It takes about 2 seconds of research to see that LEED doesnt guarantee anything sustainable at all.
The owners actually interested in sustainable design are not just using a LEED checklist and claiming to be sustainable. The ones who are are those who could really care less about sustainable design, and without LEED, would not be doing anything at all.
letdown, here's the link:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-food-licensing-shared-kitchens/Content?oid=2525637
Essentially then LEED has zero value and then should be done away with all together, as all it is giving people is a false sense of action. It's no different than buying a product labeled as "natural" or "organic" and feeling like you have made a health food decision. It's a label and nothing more.
This is an issue than, because architects have paid a lot of money (collectively) to get this label behind their title and owners sink a lot of money getting this label plastered on their projects and if LEED claims to have no guarantees of actually providing something sustainable than it's a scam, simple as that.
Shut it down.
they moved the article! wth?
At least I printed it before it dissapeared
make, that was a funny, sad, frustrating article you linked to. Favorite part:
"Murray's application for a liquor license was approved in October 2009—contingent on her securing parking"
Oh, the sweet, sweet ironing.
i like that analogy about buying organic foods as opposed to buying non organic,
I hate to say this people, I told you so.
I've been saying it for like 10 years Leed is Misleeding.
I have defended LEED as an organization based on what they do, the amount of money it costs et cetera. But LEED is as dense as LEAD.
However, many of the concepts promoted by LEED are promoted by other ecologists and conversationalists alike. So, I think the issue is that LEED is an easy target because easy target is easy. The concept of clip on technologies and copy-and-paste methodologies is rife everywhere.
Like, I'm not a fan of green belts. They're essentially the post-modern equivalent of using freeways in ghetto busting.
No animal larger than a raccoon will live in a 300' wide strip of woods. Yeah, they have their benefits. But I think there are far more inherent issues with mixing people back into nature.
Nature sucks. It's filled with bitey thing, sratchy things, itching things and dieasey things.
If you have been adversely affected by LEED, you can join the suit by contacting the attorney's office at http://www.consumerclasslaw.com/?page_id=34 and they will send you the information.
I had to waste a lot of time memorizing stuff for a test when in real life all i need to do is open the book and look up the specifics
That has adversely affected me and my life
Can i get in on this?
is this just going to make LEED a better system?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.