All of our projects in the works now are LEED silver or better as requested by the government.

zero- I worked on two projects that could have gotten registered but chose not to for $$$.

My current office built a bunch of high performance projects before LEED that could have be certified today, not that anybody will.

our international projects don't bother with certification, even if we sneak a few features in.

i heard you get scratch and sniff stickers now

Projects that started as LEED Ceritified: 2
Projects that will finish/have finished as LEED Certified: 0

As a plans examiner I have examined a combined total of residential and other than residential leed projects, silver, gold and platinum, to the amount of one big fat goose egg. 0

One LEED Gold
One designed for LEED Gold, but didn't get certified because of $$$
One currently in design for LEED Silver

Of projects that have begun with LEED achievement ambitions, I am zero for 3. Two have been completed but dropped LEED for cost reasons, the third was stopped entirely when the CEO was deposed.

my records clean. hope to keep it that way

i always think of a pawn shop when i hear 'gold/silver/platinum'

it would be fun to know the ratio between the number of LEED APs and LEED certified bldgs in the country.

x$400=

in several municipalities in my area, all new projects are required to meet local "green" codes, most of which would qualify for basic LEED certification. it's just a matter of the client wanting to pay for LEED.

Fulcrum makes an interesting observation...

My experience with LEED:

1. everyone on a given project team is a LEED AP -- contractors, consultants, interiors suppliers, realtors, engineers, etc. --

and

2. projects start off "going for LEED", and then inevitably don't get certified when the owners get wind of costs.

The cost issue is very interesting. But what's the relative occurrence of the two obstacle types?

1. cost of LEED implementation (i.e., construction costs)

2. cost of LEED certification (i.e., administrative costs)

In other words, are some environmentally successful projects being built in accordance with LEED due to good environmental practices, but not being certified as LEED due to added paperwork costs?

"In other words, are some environmentally successful projects being built in accordance with LEED due to good environmental practices, but not being certified as LEED due to added paperwork costs?"

And if this is the case, then why even bother with LEED anyways?

The one question naturally LEEDs to the other.

There are many subtleties at play relative to LEED in practice.

But yeah, I'll admit to being kind of surprised that so few projects are being certified.

One Silver LEED project 2 years before i got certified, and a whole bucket-load of LEED jadedness now that i am certified, especially on the residential side. Something about allowing a pair of empty-nesters build a 7000 sqft monstrocity where $ is not an issue being easier to get certified than an off-the-grid cabin for a family of 4 under 900 sqft where $ is tight doesn't sit well with me. Seems like the certification $ could be better spent on more improvements instead of book keeping.

"And if this is the case, then why even bother with LEED anyways?"



i think the answer is that those environmentally successful projects dont necessarily need to bother with LEED

but for other projects that arent usually environmentally conscious, LEED is a way for them to be at least a little bit sustainable


for example
a supermarket might not normally care about being sustainable
so normal construction for them would not meet LEED or any sustainable requirements
but they can perhaps find added funds to help with any sustainable features if they know afterwards that they can use the LEED brand as a marketing tool which could help business

its all a sort of "less bad" type of situation
but given the reality out there, i would rather see something be as "less bad" as possible

oh, and my answer to the original question:

one started and not completed
one under construction that will be either Silver or Gold

several decent ones holz was hired to work on. but holz got low budget, ungreen remodels instead. sonufa...

I've got five projects that are wrapping up awaiting certification, and a few others that are in various stages of design and construction... none that are completely through though (unless you count LEED-CS precertification, which you shouldn't). Also a federal project that is in that dubious "certifiable but not really certified" zone, though the army corps reviewer has so far been more stringent than the typical USGBC reviews I've seen. There have been a number of projects that considered LEED briefly and decided against it. We're certainly not pushy about it, and are upfront and truthful about the soft cost and potential hard cost implications, though we put a lot of effort into getting the clients to understand life-cycle implications as well. I've not had a project where we start LEED and get far along only to back out on sticker shock...

Regarding the 'why pay for LEED when you could just be green' question, I've always found that if you don't go through the trouble of compiling the paperwork it's extremely unlikely that someone is going to go through the trouble of doing the modeling, the sourcing, and the construction practices, or at least much more likely that the sustainable features will be VE'd. I also believe the market respects LEED more than an owner's claim of sustainable construction, and I suspect that recent developments in valuation studies and underwriting standards are going to make this the case even more. One counterpoint to that argument is the emergence of mandated utility reporting when properties are leased or sold... meaning valuation will also reflect actual utility usage unlike in the past. A great development to be sure that may undermine the importance of LEED, which I can certainly live with.

I strongly agree with marmkid's thoughts, as that supermarket scenario just played out exactly in the suburbs where I live. There was a big issue with the planning/new urbanist crowd that it's not right to call a big box "green" when it's built on the fringe and contributing to sprawl. They didn't like it one bit that such a development could earn LEED certification, but in my mind if it weren't for LEED and the resulting press the store received the owners would have done jack shit instead of at least creating an efficient building with good air quality, stormwater mitigation, and other features that have nothing to do with proper planning.

also... intern architects in hell is the shit... I don't know how to size, so just click the img to link to the full screen

So- I see my dear pintday.org thread has been revived and relocated here.... IAIH is definitely the shit...

As far as projects I've consulted on: the only ones to actually go LEED are government projects, in every other project i've seen it just falls away, or isn't even considered...

I do honestly believe that LEED will become more and more of a desirable market trend in building. It will be a way for owners to show their clientele how "green" and "repsonsible" they are. Like Virginia Beach putting recycling cans on the beach + boardwalk and running busses only during tourist season...