So, I was perusing the 2010 California Building Code which went into effect on January 1st, and it seems that the USGBC has managed to have their LEED rating system mandated by law:
California Building Code, Section: 13C.5.103.1.1 Rating Requirement. Permit applicants must submit documentation to achieve LEED® “Silver” certification. Effective January 1, 2012, applicants must submit documentation to achieve a LEED® “Gold” certification.
Also, from text such as this, "The requirements of this section fulfill and replace all CALGreen mandatory measures, except where noted." - it seems that the USGBC has displaced the CalGreen which as far as I understand didn't require paying fees to a private entity such as the USGBC. Does anyone know what went down behind the scenes on this?
What do y'all think about this development? If green/sustainable techniques are important enough to be mandated by law, should the building code just adopt the sustainable techniques (which is what CalGreen attempted to do), or should the code simply mandate participation in a third-party rating system? Is CalGreen stealing all the hard work that the USGBC has done, or is the USGBC patenting sustainable building techniques that were already known/in-use prior to the LEED rating system? Does anybody know of any alternative sustainable design rating systems that are in competition with LEED?
should the building code just adopt the sustainable techniques
Yes. Just get rid of LEED, get rid of the fees, get rid of the exams and the certification(s) and build the most important aspects into the code. You don't go through a 3rd party certification for ADA. Why should this be any different?
You know guys and gals,
Having worked in more than a few offices, and at atleast one big time international office which claims to be a leader in sustainablity, I can tell you for a fact that hardly any offices completes any sustainable projects let alone a gold silver or whatever project. I remember people in one office scrambling to find any project that was LEED certified in an international office with almost a dozen offices around the world. Can you guess how many LEED projects they found? ONE, thats right just one. UNO.
I keep saying and will always say, Architects have always designed with the environment in mind, and we don't need a self designated body of bureaucrats to give us gold, or silver stars, We are not in Kindergarten.
We discussed this topic back in this thread . This was only a few months ago. What happened since?
If this change happened since then I have to command the state of California on finally being efficient with something. Corruption being the primary motivator. As always.
Woops, my bad. This is a San Francisco amendment to the California Building Code. Go figure... However, the fact that some municipalities are adopting LEED into their municipal code makes the discussion relevant.
It seems many architects can even be civil enough to sit down, develop their own system and agree to disagree about finer points.
LEED is a slapdash love affair between some techies, planners and policymakers that was formulated to be a clip-on, bolt-on system that didn't drastically force massive changes to lifestyle and infrastructure.
Everyone can sit around and point fingers at each other about fees, power and judgment. However, few places in the world have been built with or are currently being built with cost of and sustainability of utilities.
One can be quick to point out that any of the mega cities (New York, Tokyo, London) consume far less of just about everything per capita than you average American home by not doing anything at all.
But keep building fancy 'country' homes with 'incredible views.' Because, you know, nothing says environmental like drilling for geothermal, cutting roads, regrading, 6-car garages, septic tanks and a rain chain or two.
I cant see a reason that a building code being amended to be more sustainable is anything but positive
Architects relying on their own judgement clearly hasnt worked so far, unless we can somehow now convince all our clients that sustainable design is worth it. I dont actually see this being the reality for the majority of firms, unless i am mistaken
LEED is now law
So, I was perusing the 2010 California Building Code which went into effect on January 1st, and it seems that the USGBC has managed to have their LEED rating system mandated by law:
California Building Code, Section: 13C.5.103.1.1 Rating Requirement. Permit applicants must submit documentation to achieve LEED® “Silver” certification. Effective January 1, 2012, applicants must submit documentation to achieve a LEED® “Gold” certification.
Also, from text such as this, "The requirements of this section fulfill and replace all CALGreen mandatory measures, except where noted." - it seems that the USGBC has displaced the CalGreen which as far as I understand didn't require paying fees to a private entity such as the USGBC. Does anyone know what went down behind the scenes on this?
What do y'all think about this development? If green/sustainable techniques are important enough to be mandated by law, should the building code just adopt the sustainable techniques (which is what CalGreen attempted to do), or should the code simply mandate participation in a third-party rating system? Is CalGreen stealing all the hard work that the USGBC has done, or is the USGBC patenting sustainable building techniques that were already known/in-use prior to the LEED rating system? Does anybody know of any alternative sustainable design rating systems that are in competition with LEED?
Discuss...
Yes. Just get rid of LEED, get rid of the fees, get rid of the exams and the certification(s) and build the most important aspects into the code. You don't go through a 3rd party certification for ADA. Why should this be any different?
You know guys and gals,
Having worked in more than a few offices, and at atleast one big time international office which claims to be a leader in sustainablity, I can tell you for a fact that hardly any offices completes any sustainable projects let alone a gold silver or whatever project. I remember people in one office scrambling to find any project that was LEED certified in an international office with almost a dozen offices around the world. Can you guess how many LEED projects they found? ONE, thats right just one. UNO.
I keep saying and will always say, Architects have always designed with the environment in mind, and we don't need a self designated body of bureaucrats to give us gold, or silver stars, We are not in Kindergarten.
UNO - unless noted otherwise?
WTF
We discussed this topic back in this thread . This was only a few months ago. What happened since?
If this change happened since then I have to command the state of California on finally being efficient with something. Corruption being the primary motivator. As always.
This development is disappoint.
Woops, my bad. This is a San Francisco amendment to the California Building Code. Go figure... However, the fact that some municipalities are adopting LEED into their municipal code makes the discussion relevant.
I agree with CE. We architects are giving away our judgment to new ngo bureaucracies.
This means lower fees in the future because the value will come from somewhere else.
*shrugs*
It seems many architects can even be civil enough to sit down, develop their own system and agree to disagree about finer points.
LEED is a slapdash love affair between some techies, planners and policymakers that was formulated to be a clip-on, bolt-on system that didn't drastically force massive changes to lifestyle and infrastructure.
Everyone can sit around and point fingers at each other about fees, power and judgment. However, few places in the world have been built with or are currently being built with cost of and sustainability of utilities.
One can be quick to point out that any of the mega cities (New York, Tokyo, London) consume far less of just about everything per capita than you average American home by not doing anything at all.
But keep building fancy 'country' homes with 'incredible views.' Because, you know, nothing says environmental like drilling for geothermal, cutting roads, regrading, 6-car garages, septic tanks and a rain chain or two.
I cant see a reason that a building code being amended to be more sustainable is anything but positive
Architects relying on their own judgement clearly hasnt worked so far, unless we can somehow now convince all our clients that sustainable design is worth it. I dont actually see this being the reality for the majority of firms, unless i am mistaken
I wanted to post a link to the article about NYC's new green code based entirely on energy audits, but for some reason I can't.
anyway - I also wonder how the current lawsuit against LEED will play into all of this.
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.