I'm pushing for more ecologically minded credits to balance against all the energy engineering and interior architecture (IEQ):
Would plants in buildings be worth a credit? how about if you could quantify the amount of O2 generated?
Following my nome de plume by establishing a prerequisit to eradicate all invasive species on the site + prevent their spreading through disturbed areas? or is this too harsh- have you met an ailanthus that you liked?
What about making the poor fools who work in an suburban office park walk a little more? Have a credit for making great staircases that diverts traffic from the elevators; move the parking further away, so you actually move your fat ass a little more; and another credit for a habitrail/excercize path in the great (ok broiling) outdoors? maybe we won't need liposuction or have a heart attack- ah the power of architecture!!!!
---
The other big discussion point is: should the usgbc expand LEED to cover a greater range of the buildings being built or should it continue to focus on the most innovative 25%???
My thought is to maintain the LEED brand as the BMW of building rating systems- let green globes, CHPS and others cover the middle ground. A selection of systems creates a healthy market place.
So what are your ideas????
(I have an insider at Paladino & Company - the consultant who is developing the actual LEED 3.0 standards - I'll pass the great suggestions along).
there should be negative points when certain materials or materials with certain chemicals are used. the two big obvious ones are vinyl and formaldehyde. it's just a shame that a Gold standard building could have vinyl windows. maybe rather than negative points, these two things are prerequisites in an "ETHICAL" catagory where certain things are listed that all buildings must comply with to even.
what about having catagories and points for things beyond the building and therefore beyond LEED? there could be points for employee/ employer policy such as reducing the companies fossil footprint, incentives for maintaining a 10% minimum bike trips per month, maintaining a rigorous recycling program or composting program or recycling the single sided waste paper on-site into employee use notebooks or buying and using fleet vehicles that are hybrid or using Flexcar rather than buying? this is all related to how the users or employees of the building will be doing business. that should be taken into account. you could achieve a LEED platinum building for a company manufacturing vinyl products. something is fundamentally wrong with that.
i like the idea of the plants/ trees and total O2 producted.
one of the things i don't like about LEED is that it's all about the points. sometimes trying to gain a point in one catagory makes it hard or impossible to achieve a point in another.
D.Dog,
Gotta agree with you on many points there. The fact the vinyl is still used in eco. designs is CRAZY. If it's flooring, there's plenty of rubber alternatives that don't give off VOC nor is the production as poisonous as vinyl production. How about aluminum windows? I mean there are plenty of quality alternative materials out there, and most companies that sell vinyl products also sell their rubber or aluminum counterparts. Even "sustainable" firms follow this backwards practice. It's laziness.
The problem is everyone is jumping on the "sustainable bandwagon" with out really delving into what it means to be sustainable in an truley ethical sense.
DD- can you give an example of earning a credit that precludes earning others?
Any thoughts on how to push the credential of LEED-AP to have more respect? Does the USGBC need to limit who can take the test? Should candidates have a professional backgrounds in the AEC field?
Have you any exposure to the other green rating systems out there? Green Globes, Energy Star, CHPS, BREAM, et al?
I don't think more ecologically based credits are the way to see LEED become more widely adopted...and I'd say the goal of LEED is to have it become so popular that most of it simply gets abosrbed into the building code within 10-20 years. Are we going to have a city inspector come to make sure you have enough trees in the building before issuing the C.O.?
I work with a lot of engineers in an engineering realm and there is this inherent hostility towards architects and ARCHITECTURE by engineers that seems to be taught in engineering schools. Maybe it is a class. Like ‘Architects are the problem 101’.
I get the sense that LEED ( and I am LEED certified) is taking on this tone.
Instead of looking thinking about what it is it focuses on what it is not.
I think the USGBC needs to limit who's a member. Many companies just pay the dues but don't push towards creating or promoting eco. products.
I think the main issue is that Ethical practice is objectional (although most of us can agree on what is ethical building practices and what aren't). Leed, while it may not be perfect, is quantitive. It is up to the architects to take it that step farther and say "hey, just because your building is LEED building, doesn't mean that it's a good building".
And let us not forget, just because architecture is sustainable, doesn't mean it's any good.
LEED has become a brand.
In the comercial sector a small percentage ( lets say 10%) of builders and owners are sincere in thier efforts the other 90% are looking for a marketing opportunity they could care less if if the project is green,brown beige or purple.
I like the idea about credits for interior plant life. I don't think things like Devil Dog suggested, that focus on the way the corporation and its employees behave, will really work though. LEED is about the *building*, and those people with their cool bike trips and low fossil fuel use could cease to inhabit that building at any time. This is a big problem with sustainability to me- too many people think about things that are or could end up being fleeting.
Maybe a building could get another point for every five or ten years it survives with sustainable features intact? That way, a building that was certified gold could eventually become platinum, by virtue of it's being good enough to last.
I understand the inherint flaws of giving points to employee practices. Obviously if the tenants move out, who's to say that the new ones will follow in the same or better habits.
But I think the ultimate point is to start promoting these positive habits. Perhaps the residents will move out, but hopefuly they would continue their practices still, and that's still important. It all comes down to getting people to practice what they preach.
I guess I just feel like that's getting into a realm of company certification or something. What if there were a corporate LEED-type system that evaluated these practices, so that LEED didn't have to try and do it all? What if an office's tax bracket was affected by what level of that rating system they were at? I get encouraging the practices, I just feel like that's a whole other ball of wax that isn't in the architectural realm.
Materials can be the hardest part of the green building issue to deal with. Some of the posts above were questioning the use of vinyl in buildings and framing it as an ethical issue. When you step back and look at the larger picture, it all gets more complicated.
In my area vinyl windows are far and away the cheapest you can buy (and even some of the cheapest ones nowadays have pretty impressive thermal performance).
If I'm working on a low income housing project, do I put in the vinyl windows and use the money saved to add other sustainable features? Or do I put in wood Loewen units just to prove an ethical point? (Conveniently overlooking the fact that the wood windows will be left to rot in place and end up being in a landfill in 15 years anway wheras vinyl could theoretically last much longer than that, even when not maintained at all).
I think in this case the ethical thing to do would be to use the vinyl windows.
I feel the USGBC should definately place some limitations on who can take the test. Currently, anyone can take the exam. With enough research, anyone can be LEED certified with no experiance or training of any sort. It definately needs to be more stringent guidelines on the companies that hold memberships. Many are simply using the LEED badge to promote products, without doing any promoting of sustainability itself.
Vinyl is an awefully pollutant product (not just in use but most importantly production). It's destroyed people's lives who live in proximity to or work at production plants. SO WHO CARES IF ITS THE CHEAPEST, I'm not ever going to choose it as a material to use. Vinyl production is much more destructive than a bit of wood frame in a landfill to people and the environment.
Um, poor people might care if it's the cheapest. Being homeless destroys a lot of people's lives too.
If you're not specifying any vinyl whatsoever for your projects, including eliminating things like PVC pipe and hidden vinyl components tobuilding products, I'd like to see some numbers on how you've mitigated the impacts on cost. It's great to say you're never going to specify vinyl, until you actually have to weigh the real world ethical choices that have to be made to get some of these projects built.
i believe that LEED is the minimum standard for sustainable buildings. the rating system has flaws but at the very least, it has spawned interest into making something better. it has opened our eyes and asked us to exam the way we design and what that means in the big picture.
it would be incredible to have LEED criteria incorporated into the model buiding codes. that should be a goal. and yes, i think an inspector should count your trees (if it 's in the code). zoning codes already require certain percentage of permeable surface in parking lots (though parking lots are bad in other ways, it's a start).
the use of products shouldn't always be about the bottom line. yes, vinyl is cheap, monetarily, but what is it's cost to society, the end user, the producer and surrounding community? wood is often stated as a renewable resource and that it could be recycled but specifying Brazilian mahogany should be an ethical red flag for any 'sustainable' project. the right product has to be specified for the right project. bryan4arch does have a valid point about making choices. we all compromise in some way. our responsibility is to educate ourselves, make the best decision possible, then inform our clients. hopefully they agree with our decision, if not, then we change. we might not work with that client again, it's our prerogative. there are no Howard Roarke's.
i think that the USGBC should incorporate CU's for accredited people. it's appalling to me to set a standard (by examination) and then not require continuing education requirements. though if one does not continue their education could they be found deralict in their standard of care? i'm not sure where i stand on limiting LEED AP people.
on a side note, i hate the word cheap. i stay away from cheap. i'm looking for value. if vinyl gives me that value, then i'll use it. i don't think that it does, therefore i do anything i can to avoid using it. the monitary cost of a product is only one part of the equation; there are so many other things to think about and consider.
these are some interesting points being made. i do think there has to be a balance between cost and quality. not all architects have the luxury of working with wealthy clients. there are so many projects where the client just wants the cheapest thing available and you have to make an ethical decision in the end. there are no right or wrong choices, there's only better and worse...and its all relative.
i think the whole LEED thing has become all about marketing. i am constantly seeing ads for products that are "green" or "sustainable"...these words have been thrown around so much i'm not really sure what they mean anymore! really what it comes down to is how much of it is common sense good practice and how much of it is about the marketing factor (for architects and supplies both). what needs to happen is the LEED guidelines should become more integrated into city/state regulation.
It is the governments job to advance civilization into full compliance.
So get your LEED. You can be certified yet again.
We at the Department of Standardization welcome all who aspire to total world standardization. There are many joint committees available for your selected leadership. It is a bright future, Super, in Standardization. Thank you again for your enquiry, you are rightly in the standard.
We at the department are so honored to apply the standard to make this world fully compliant. Our leadership is fully certified, as you know, on all levels and committees. With the young leadership coming through the ranks, such as yourself Super, we face a strong future where non compliance will be relegated to the pages of unwritten history. The department salutes you Super, UL salute tested!!!!!
I'm bringing this back up to the front.
Does anybody have any further info about LEED 3.0, such as when it will be implemented? Also, I have heard rumors that all LEED-APs may have to be re-accredited under LEED 3.0. Can anyone substantiate this rumor, or is it totally false?
from quiz's link: LEED 3.0 will go out for public comment May 1st and be adopted by the membership at GreenBuild in November in Boston. It will in essence go into effect January 1st, 2009.
this LEED v3.0 may not be the full blown overhaul promised last year by the usgbc according to that link, but an interim revision which is still needed. The ASLA's Sustainable Sites Initiative isn't going to be finished for a few more years and so the SS credits won't get supercharged till then.
I'd like to see the points devalued... By that I mean instead of having to meet 4 requirements to earn one point, there should just be 4 mini-requirements worth a point each. It was really frustrating when we did all sorts of things to reduce exterior lighting density and light trespass to have about 150 square feet of too-high footcandles across the property line cause us to lose the point. We had ensured interior lighting was managed, reduced our lighting density to acceptable levels, and specified full-cutoff fixtures, but that didn't matter due to a walkway next to the property line! Instead of 60 points let's make there be hundreds... If something needs to be encouraged strongly, just give it that many more points.
Bob Berkebile once said: "LEED isn't good. It's just less bad." I'm a huge supporter of LEED, but it's important to understand that LEED isn't design, it's paperwork. The benefits of going through the process have undoubtedly made a number of developer driven projects we've worked on better, though we could always do more. I think anything that pushes a developer in a more sustainable directive is excellent, regardless of whether the motivating factor is a true desire for sustainability or the potential for a higher lease-rate.
...also we need to ratchet up the value of water savings!!! 5 points is far too few for something that directly impacts our ability to survive as a race!
Joel, it is a pleasure to have you join the conversation.
food production is almost as important as water and only gets 1 point for not building on an agricultural site. Points need to be available for growing food on site, along with composting.
if LEED goes to much further into code enforcement there will be a backlash. LEED should be voluntary.
Also only an licensed architect or engineer should be certified. I don't want a one year intern who is LEED certified telling a building owner how to build.
Also only an licensed architect or engineer should be certified. I don't want a one year intern who is LEED certified telling a building owner how to build.
If the 1 year intern is talking to a client wouldn't there typically be a more senior person there as well? I've never worked at a firm where someone so inexperienced is allowed to have 1 on 1 discussions with a client, especially trying to influence the owner. IMO, the problem isn't that interns are getting LEED accredited, the problem is that senior staff isn't.
The reason why Jr. staff is getting LEED certified is because it is far cheaper and easier than the ARE. LEED, while it has its merits, is nothing more than a way for a company to sell products and services. I am not sure if the council is a not for profit but they do make money and now influence the building environment.
My overall stance is architects should be controlling the built environment. Not the planners, not the fire department, not the contractor, and not the green paper pushing beurocrat.
Come on. When a bike rack and bus stop out way a high performance hvac system. Good god!
Also chicken and egg question. How does one become a LEED commissioning authority when you need two prior projects in order to become one?
it's not 3.0 but LEED 2009! the public review draft will be released monday...
Dear USGBC Community:
With its introduction in 2000, the LEED Green Building Rating System helped to spark a revolution, articulating a new set of integrated, measurable goals that changed the way we approach the design, construction and operation of our offices, schools, hospitals and homes. Over the past eight years, we've moved it steadily forward, evolving the way we measure and rate building performance and doing so against a backdrop of increasing urgency to find solutions to climate change and energy dependence.
That buildings account for fully 39% of US C02 emissions sent the issue of dramatically improving building performance to the top of USGBC's agenda in 2006. It was clear that incremental change to how LEED functions wasn't enough. Instead, we needed to reframe our focus towards driving significantly greater outcomes in total building performance while, at the same time, incorporating technical advancements such as bioregional credits that would enable LEED to continue to evolve as a better, more refined tool for green building.
Yesterday, the USGBC Board of Directors voted unanimously to send out for public comment on Monday, May 19, LEED 2009, a new version of the rating system that delivers against key environmental and human health impacts, and puts in place a transparent framework for weighting credits accordingly, based on the best available science. It is the product of thousands of hours of volunteer time and deep expertise generously given by representatives from every corner of the building industry.
LEED 2009 resets the bar for green building leadership because the urgency of our mission has challenged the industry to move faster and reach further than ever before. LEED 2009, coupled with an expanded third-party certification program and significant enhancements to LEED Online make up a multi-faceted initiative that we refer to as LEED v3. You will be hearing more specifics about all these changes over the next few months, which will include the fruition of an initiative to integrate LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) into LEED credits.
But the immediate need is your engagement in the public comment process on LEED 2009.
To that end, attached is the memo to the board that the LEED Steering Committee prepared that will give you the framework and background on what the public comment process entails. On Monday, you will receive an e-mail that will provide you the links to the public comment forms and the supporting background documents that will help you help us improve LEED. All stakeholders in the building community are invited to comment.
We urge you to participate in this important next step in delivering on our mission of green buildings for everyone within a generation.
With deep appreciation for your commitment to the work,
Marlowe, I’d like to hear why you think EIFS should receive -1 from LEED?
I think interns are more interested in LEED accreditation because they are more interested in the future. Perhaps if Old School designers thought about it earlier we wouldn't have built all these energy hog buildings.
Architectnophiliac - Same as you would any other building. Just register and start filling in the credits. Like all things with the USGBC, it begins with pulling out your credit card!
treekiller,
my thought is energy consumption dropped after the 70's because of the first wave of the energy crisis. i wasn't around but some people remember a time when you had to wait in line just to fill up your gas tank along with the first adoption of ASHRAE 90.1 in 1975. So the start of thinking more environmentally sensitively and the development of mechanical equipment which were more efficient was in the forefront. Why would the USGBC develop LEED EB and Core and Shell if there aren't buildings out there which where poorly designed, maintained or constructed... from an energy stand point? ASHRAE 90.1 is the minimum code as far as energy efficiency but there are still buildings being built in the US well below these numbers.
and as your link states
"While these figures indicate that, as a nation, we are clearly making positive strides toward increasing our energy productivity and reducing our carbon footprint, we have only begun to scratch the surface of the potential savings that additional investments in energy efficiency technologies could provide,”
i'm sure we have all seen these statistics
• 70% of electricity consumption,
• 39% of energy use,
• 39% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
• 40% of raw materials use,
• 30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and
• 12% of potable water consumption.
i see Old School as nothing to do with age, it's more of a mentality, an unwillingness to learn and adapt.
Jun 10, 08 2:36 pm ·
·
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.
LEED 3.0!!!!
Just attended a workshop for the next version- hmmm... so many ways to save the world.
this thread had some classic thoughts about the current version nc v2.2
I'm pushing for more ecologically minded credits to balance against all the energy engineering and interior architecture (IEQ):
Would plants in buildings be worth a credit? how about if you could quantify the amount of O2 generated?
Following my nome de plume by establishing a prerequisit to eradicate all invasive species on the site + prevent their spreading through disturbed areas? or is this too harsh- have you met an ailanthus that you liked?
What about making the poor fools who work in an suburban office park walk a little more? Have a credit for making great staircases that diverts traffic from the elevators; move the parking further away, so you actually move your fat ass a little more; and another credit for a habitrail/excercize path in the great (ok broiling) outdoors? maybe we won't need liposuction or have a heart attack- ah the power of architecture!!!!
---
The other big discussion point is: should the usgbc expand LEED to cover a greater range of the buildings being built or should it continue to focus on the most innovative 25%???
My thought is to maintain the LEED brand as the BMW of building rating systems- let green globes, CHPS and others cover the middle ground. A selection of systems creates a healthy market place.
So what are your ideas????
(I have an insider at Paladino & Company - the consultant who is developing the actual LEED 3.0 standards - I'll pass the great suggestions along).
there should be negative points when certain materials or materials with certain chemicals are used. the two big obvious ones are vinyl and formaldehyde. it's just a shame that a Gold standard building could have vinyl windows. maybe rather than negative points, these two things are prerequisites in an "ETHICAL" catagory where certain things are listed that all buildings must comply with to even.
what about having catagories and points for things beyond the building and therefore beyond LEED? there could be points for employee/ employer policy such as reducing the companies fossil footprint, incentives for maintaining a 10% minimum bike trips per month, maintaining a rigorous recycling program or composting program or recycling the single sided waste paper on-site into employee use notebooks or buying and using fleet vehicles that are hybrid or using Flexcar rather than buying? this is all related to how the users or employees of the building will be doing business. that should be taken into account. you could achieve a LEED platinum building for a company manufacturing vinyl products. something is fundamentally wrong with that.
i like the idea of the plants/ trees and total O2 producted.
one of the things i don't like about LEED is that it's all about the points. sometimes trying to gain a point in one catagory makes it hard or impossible to achieve a point in another.
just some thoughts.
D.Dog,
Gotta agree with you on many points there. The fact the vinyl is still used in eco. designs is CRAZY. If it's flooring, there's plenty of rubber alternatives that don't give off VOC nor is the production as poisonous as vinyl production. How about aluminum windows? I mean there are plenty of quality alternative materials out there, and most companies that sell vinyl products also sell their rubber or aluminum counterparts. Even "sustainable" firms follow this backwards practice. It's laziness.
The problem is everyone is jumping on the "sustainable bandwagon" with out really delving into what it means to be sustainable in an truley ethical sense.
DD- can you give an example of earning a credit that precludes earning others?
Any thoughts on how to push the credential of LEED-AP to have more respect? Does the USGBC need to limit who can take the test? Should candidates have a professional backgrounds in the AEC field?
Have you any exposure to the other green rating systems out there? Green Globes, Energy Star, CHPS, BREAM, et al?
volative organic compound is the name of my band. and we kick ass!!!
I don't think more ecologically based credits are the way to see LEED become more widely adopted...and I'd say the goal of LEED is to have it become so popular that most of it simply gets abosrbed into the building code within 10-20 years. Are we going to have a city inspector come to make sure you have enough trees in the building before issuing the C.O.?
I work with a lot of engineers in an engineering realm and there is this inherent hostility towards architects and ARCHITECTURE by engineers that seems to be taught in engineering schools. Maybe it is a class. Like ‘Architects are the problem 101’.
I get the sense that LEED ( and I am LEED certified) is taking on this tone.
Instead of looking thinking about what it is it focuses on what it is not.
I think the USGBC needs to limit who's a member. Many companies just pay the dues but don't push towards creating or promoting eco. products.
I think the main issue is that Ethical practice is objectional (although most of us can agree on what is ethical building practices and what aren't). Leed, while it may not be perfect, is quantitive. It is up to the architects to take it that step farther and say "hey, just because your building is LEED building, doesn't mean that it's a good building".
And let us not forget, just because architecture is sustainable, doesn't mean it's any good.
LEED has become a brand.
In the comercial sector a small percentage ( lets say 10%) of builders and owners are sincere in thier efforts the other 90% are looking for a marketing opportunity they could care less if if the project is green,brown beige or purple.
I like the idea about credits for interior plant life. I don't think things like Devil Dog suggested, that focus on the way the corporation and its employees behave, will really work though. LEED is about the *building*, and those people with their cool bike trips and low fossil fuel use could cease to inhabit that building at any time. This is a big problem with sustainability to me- too many people think about things that are or could end up being fleeting.
Maybe a building could get another point for every five or ten years it survives with sustainable features intact? That way, a building that was certified gold could eventually become platinum, by virtue of it's being good enough to last.
I understand the inherint flaws of giving points to employee practices. Obviously if the tenants move out, who's to say that the new ones will follow in the same or better habits.
But I think the ultimate point is to start promoting these positive habits. Perhaps the residents will move out, but hopefuly they would continue their practices still, and that's still important. It all comes down to getting people to practice what they preach.
I guess I just feel like that's getting into a realm of company certification or something. What if there were a corporate LEED-type system that evaluated these practices, so that LEED didn't have to try and do it all? What if an office's tax bracket was affected by what level of that rating system they were at? I get encouraging the practices, I just feel like that's a whole other ball of wax that isn't in the architectural realm.
This is true, it's called government regulations. But those don't work either.
Who cares really. I'm one of those people that believes my generation will see the end of our civilization, if not the whole human population.
Materials can be the hardest part of the green building issue to deal with. Some of the posts above were questioning the use of vinyl in buildings and framing it as an ethical issue. When you step back and look at the larger picture, it all gets more complicated.
In my area vinyl windows are far and away the cheapest you can buy (and even some of the cheapest ones nowadays have pretty impressive thermal performance).
If I'm working on a low income housing project, do I put in the vinyl windows and use the money saved to add other sustainable features? Or do I put in wood Loewen units just to prove an ethical point? (Conveniently overlooking the fact that the wood windows will be left to rot in place and end up being in a landfill in 15 years anway wheras vinyl could theoretically last much longer than that, even when not maintained at all).
I think in this case the ethical thing to do would be to use the vinyl windows.
I feel the USGBC should definately place some limitations on who can take the test. Currently, anyone can take the exam. With enough research, anyone can be LEED certified with no experiance or training of any sort. It definately needs to be more stringent guidelines on the companies that hold memberships. Many are simply using the LEED badge to promote products, without doing any promoting of sustainability itself.
Vinyl is an awefully pollutant product (not just in use but most importantly production). It's destroyed people's lives who live in proximity to or work at production plants. SO WHO CARES IF ITS THE CHEAPEST, I'm not ever going to choose it as a material to use. Vinyl production is much more destructive than a bit of wood frame in a landfill to people and the environment.
SuperBeatledud:
Um, poor people might care if it's the cheapest. Being homeless destroys a lot of people's lives too.
If you're not specifying any vinyl whatsoever for your projects, including eliminating things like PVC pipe and hidden vinyl components tobuilding products, I'd like to see some numbers on how you've mitigated the impacts on cost. It's great to say you're never going to specify vinyl, until you actually have to weigh the real world ethical choices that have to be made to get some of these projects built.
i believe that LEED is the minimum standard for sustainable buildings. the rating system has flaws but at the very least, it has spawned interest into making something better. it has opened our eyes and asked us to exam the way we design and what that means in the big picture.
it would be incredible to have LEED criteria incorporated into the model buiding codes. that should be a goal. and yes, i think an inspector should count your trees (if it 's in the code). zoning codes already require certain percentage of permeable surface in parking lots (though parking lots are bad in other ways, it's a start).
the use of products shouldn't always be about the bottom line. yes, vinyl is cheap, monetarily, but what is it's cost to society, the end user, the producer and surrounding community? wood is often stated as a renewable resource and that it could be recycled but specifying Brazilian mahogany should be an ethical red flag for any 'sustainable' project. the right product has to be specified for the right project. bryan4arch does have a valid point about making choices. we all compromise in some way. our responsibility is to educate ourselves, make the best decision possible, then inform our clients. hopefully they agree with our decision, if not, then we change. we might not work with that client again, it's our prerogative. there are no Howard Roarke's.
i think that the USGBC should incorporate CU's for accredited people. it's appalling to me to set a standard (by examination) and then not require continuing education requirements. though if one does not continue their education could they be found deralict in their standard of care? i'm not sure where i stand on limiting LEED AP people.
on a side note, i hate the word cheap. i stay away from cheap. i'm looking for value. if vinyl gives me that value, then i'll use it. i don't think that it does, therefore i do anything i can to avoid using it. the monitary cost of a product is only one part of the equation; there are so many other things to think about and consider.
these are some interesting points being made. i do think there has to be a balance between cost and quality. not all architects have the luxury of working with wealthy clients. there are so many projects where the client just wants the cheapest thing available and you have to make an ethical decision in the end. there are no right or wrong choices, there's only better and worse...and its all relative.
i think the whole LEED thing has become all about marketing. i am constantly seeing ads for products that are "green" or "sustainable"...these words have been thrown around so much i'm not really sure what they mean anymore! really what it comes down to is how much of it is common sense good practice and how much of it is about the marketing factor (for architects and supplies both). what needs to happen is the LEED guidelines should become more integrated into city/state regulation.
If cost is the bottom line, then use straw bales!!
Rammed earth is also an excellent (and beauuuuutiful) option.
Superbeatledud,
It is the governments job to advance civilization into full compliance.
So get your LEED. You can be certified yet again.
We at the Department of Standardization welcome all who aspire to total world standardization. There are many joint committees available for your selected leadership. It is a bright future, Super, in Standardization. Thank you again for your enquiry, you are rightly in the standard.
We at the department are so honored to apply the standard to make this world fully compliant. Our leadership is fully certified, as you know, on all levels and committees. With the young leadership coming through the ranks, such as yourself Super, we face a strong future where non compliance will be relegated to the pages of unwritten history. The department salutes you Super, UL salute tested!!!!!
anybody have experience with either greenglobes or energy star?
How about CHPS or BREEAM?
I'm bringing this back up to the front.
Does anybody have any further info about LEED 3.0, such as when it will be implemented? Also, I have heard rumors that all LEED-APs may have to be re-accredited under LEED 3.0. Can anyone substantiate this rumor, or is it totally false?
my mom uses Globes as a Green product for her washing?
Hard to say what's really up with 3.0 -- the USGBC website is fairly silent on the subject.
Howver, I did see this article recently, which provides a decent "insider's" description of what's underway with LEED 3.0: New Version of LEED to Incorporate Better Metrics for Historic & Existing Buildings - albeit from a Historical Preservation perspective.
Havent' yet seen anything definitive about requiring those with LEED AP currently to be retested.
from quiz's link:
LEED 3.0 will go out for public comment May 1st and be adopted by the membership at GreenBuild in November in Boston. It will in essence go into effect January 1st, 2009.
this LEED v3.0 may not be the full blown overhaul promised last year by the usgbc according to that link, but an interim revision which is still needed. The ASLA's Sustainable Sites Initiative isn't going to be finished for a few more years and so the SS credits won't get supercharged till then.
I'd like to see the points devalued... By that I mean instead of having to meet 4 requirements to earn one point, there should just be 4 mini-requirements worth a point each. It was really frustrating when we did all sorts of things to reduce exterior lighting density and light trespass to have about 150 square feet of too-high footcandles across the property line cause us to lose the point. We had ensured interior lighting was managed, reduced our lighting density to acceptable levels, and specified full-cutoff fixtures, but that didn't matter due to a walkway next to the property line! Instead of 60 points let's make there be hundreds... If something needs to be encouraged strongly, just give it that many more points.
Bob Berkebile once said: "LEED isn't good. It's just less bad." I'm a huge supporter of LEED, but it's important to understand that LEED isn't design, it's paperwork. The benefits of going through the process have undoubtedly made a number of developer driven projects we've worked on better, though we could always do more. I think anything that pushes a developer in a more sustainable directive is excellent, regardless of whether the motivating factor is a true desire for sustainability or the potential for a higher lease-rate.
http://reallifeleed.blogspot.com
...also we need to ratchet up the value of water savings!!! 5 points is far too few for something that directly impacts our ability to survive as a race!
Joel, it is a pleasure to have you join the conversation.
food production is almost as important as water and only gets 1 point for not building on an agricultural site. Points need to be available for growing food on site, along with composting.
if LEED goes to much further into code enforcement there will be a backlash. LEED should be voluntary.
Also only an licensed architect or engineer should be certified. I don't want a one year intern who is LEED certified telling a building owner how to build.
yet I'm seeing more students and unseasoned interns taking the test then project managers. But who listens to an intern anyway?
In terms of building codes, Green Globes is further along then the USGBC.
GBI™ proposed American National Standard 01-2008P: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings has been released for Public Review.
A performance based code is much more sophisticated and adaptive to the real word then anything based on arbitrary points.
I agree that they should start intoducing negative points for using certain products.
For example, I think EIFS should be worth -1 point at least. I could cite all the reasons why but I think we all know what they are.
If the 1 year intern is talking to a client wouldn't there typically be a more senior person there as well? I've never worked at a firm where someone so inexperienced is allowed to have 1 on 1 discussions with a client, especially trying to influence the owner. IMO, the problem isn't that interns are getting LEED accredited, the problem is that senior staff isn't.
The reason why Jr. staff is getting LEED certified is because it is far cheaper and easier than the ARE. LEED, while it has its merits, is nothing more than a way for a company to sell products and services. I am not sure if the council is a not for profit but they do make money and now influence the building environment.
My overall stance is architects should be controlling the built environment. Not the planners, not the fire department, not the contractor, and not the green paper pushing beurocrat.
Come on. When a bike rack and bus stop out way a high performance hvac system. Good god!
Also chicken and egg question. How does one become a LEED commissioning authority when you need two prior projects in order to become one?
Sounds like a racket to me.
it's not 3.0 but LEED 2009! the public review draft will be released monday...
Dear USGBC Community:With its introduction in 2000, the LEED Green Building Rating System helped to spark a revolution, articulating a new set of integrated, measurable goals that changed the way we approach the design, construction and operation of our offices, schools, hospitals and homes. Over the past eight years, we've moved it steadily forward, evolving the way we measure and rate building performance and doing so against a backdrop of increasing urgency to find solutions to climate change and energy dependence.
That buildings account for fully 39% of US C02 emissions sent the issue of dramatically improving building performance to the top of USGBC's agenda in 2006. It was clear that incremental change to how LEED functions wasn't enough. Instead, we needed to reframe our focus towards driving significantly greater outcomes in total building performance while, at the same time, incorporating technical advancements such as bioregional credits that would enable LEED to continue to evolve as a better, more refined tool for green building.
Yesterday, the USGBC Board of Directors voted unanimously to send out for public comment on Monday, May 19, LEED 2009, a new version of the rating system that delivers against key environmental and human health impacts, and puts in place a transparent framework for weighting credits accordingly, based on the best available science. It is the product of thousands of hours of volunteer time and deep expertise generously given by representatives from every corner of the building industry.
LEED 2009 resets the bar for green building leadership because the urgency of our mission has challenged the industry to move faster and reach further than ever before. LEED 2009, coupled with an expanded third-party certification program and significant enhancements to LEED Online make up a multi-faceted initiative that we refer to as LEED v3. You will be hearing more specifics about all these changes over the next few months, which will include the fruition of an initiative to integrate LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) into LEED credits.
But the immediate need is your engagement in the public comment process on LEED 2009.
To that end, attached is the memo to the board that the LEED Steering Committee prepared that will give you the framework and background on what the public comment process entails. On Monday, you will receive an e-mail that will provide you the links to the public comment forms and the supporting background documents that will help you help us improve LEED. All stakeholders in the building community are invited to comment.
We urge you to participate in this important next step in delivering on our mission of green buildings for everyone within a generation.
With deep appreciation for your commitment to the work,
Rick Fedrizzi
President, CEO & Founding Chairman
...eagerly waiting the public review documents to be emailed...
Real Life LEED has done you the favor of summarizing far too much information about the new LEED 2009 draft into a tidy blog post:
http://reallifeleed.blogspot.com/2008/05/regionalization-public-comments-and.html
Enjoy!
Joel McKellar, LEED AP
http://www.reallifeleed.com
Marlowe, I’d like to hear why you think EIFS should receive -1 from LEED?
I think interns are more interested in LEED accreditation because they are more interested in the future. Perhaps if Old School designers thought about it earlier we wouldn't have built all these energy hog buildings.
Derickw-
since 1970, energy use in the US has been cut in half thanks to increased efficiency. So what energy hog buildings are you talking about?
Most architects who were design buildings before 1970 are either dead or retired - so who are these 'old school designers'?
random LEED question but serious application. How do I go about getting a building not in the US, not done by a LEED certified architect - certified?
Architectnophiliac - Same as you would any other building. Just register and start filling in the credits. Like all things with the USGBC, it begins with pulling out your credit card!
treekiller,
my thought is energy consumption dropped after the 70's because of the first wave of the energy crisis. i wasn't around but some people remember a time when you had to wait in line just to fill up your gas tank along with the first adoption of ASHRAE 90.1 in 1975. So the start of thinking more environmentally sensitively and the development of mechanical equipment which were more efficient was in the forefront. Why would the USGBC develop LEED EB and Core and Shell if there aren't buildings out there which where poorly designed, maintained or constructed... from an energy stand point? ASHRAE 90.1 is the minimum code as far as energy efficiency but there are still buildings being built in the US well below these numbers.
and as your link states
"While these figures indicate that, as a nation, we are clearly making positive strides toward increasing our energy productivity and reducing our carbon footprint, we have only begun to scratch the surface of the potential savings that additional investments in energy efficiency technologies could provide,”
i'm sure we have all seen these statistics
• 70% of electricity consumption,
• 39% of energy use,
• 39% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
• 40% of raw materials use,
• 30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and
• 12% of potable water consumption.
i see Old School as nothing to do with age, it's more of a mentality, an unwillingness to learn and adapt.
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.