A little background: Ok, so I’m a recently accredited LEED professional (yes, prior to March 31, 2009– big whoop). Some colleagues/teammates whom I work with asked me to help out with “that LEED stuff for a proposal.” Oh joy!
First, I need to rant a bit. I found studying for the LEED exam extremely tedious; with no real “resolution” or “outcome” other than passing the test. I admit frustration with how the LEED study guides were written. It’s not really how I’ve practiced architecture for the last 14 years. Realistically I think that all good architects think inherently in the whole building approach. We know the “gives and takes” of building orientation, mechanical system trade-offs. The LEED exam was more about recalling facts by rote but felt a little isolated and not cohesive; maybe that’s a side effect of the nature of computerized testing. (Yes, I’m a product of Old School. I took the architecture exam over a 3-day period when it was all by pencil; it felt a little more “real,” like the practice of architecture, but I digress).
So, trying to explain the “what” of the MR credits to my colleague was the “easy” part… not having a clear answer to the “why” he asked, “but why are the percentages set at these levels; they seem arbitrary." My only response was “Perhaps they are, but USGBC is relying on project data since 1998 and these criteria apparently work best towards attaining the goal of sustainable construction."
Back to the main topic: So I was an owner's rep. on a project which started out with the Board’s lofty goals of “constructing a LEED certified classroom building.” So I said, “Excuse me guys, I think you’ll find that you’ll get more bang for the buck if we use LEED concepts and sustainable products/techniques and forego the project registration”; that was in 2003. Fast forward to 2007 when the Board hired an architect and a LEED consultant for the project and, surprise, preliminary budget numbers showed a $65,000-$85,000 premium to construct 17,000 SF of classroom building and attain LEED certification. Ultimately the Board elected to build sustainable, save the cost of enhanced commissioning, energy modeling, etc. and install ground source heat pumps as a part of the HVAC system. The final GMP cost showed the cost “savings” of not LEED certifying the project more than covered the cost of the geothermal system and related specialty HVAC equipment. If I hadn’t been so involved, I never would have believed it.
If the choice is a) building what the owner wants, b) building within the owner’s budget c) advising the owner what’s the best way to get from point A to point B (so far I’d suggest don’t be blinded by a plaque on the wall), continue to use your architect’s best judgment and design with all the tools you have available (LEED is another tool, not the end-all to end all). In addition to the good design, there are tons of great “tag line,” “one-liners,” and lessons that are easily accessible for discussion among the school kids, the parents, and professionals like us.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/16161467/index.html
—Lisa Stacholy, AIA
Comments (6)
I just found this blog and wanted to express my agreement with your comments. I too am a three day pencil exam Architect. I was around for the first round of sustainable practice in the late 70's and early 80's. As the energy codes and LEED became mainstream I was pleased to find that most of the strategies were already in my "tool box" and being applied. I have foregone LEED certification and advise clients to apply the criteria but not pay for the plaque on the wall. They can look to their lower utility bills, increased staff satisfaction and productivty and increased bottom line instead. I am somewhat concerned at the published self-serving comments that LEED certification will be an "absolute" requirement for adding value to buildings.
Posted by Patrick McKeegan | June 3, 2009 7:32 PM
Posted on June 3, 2009 19:32
Hey guys, thanks for the comments! I really like the fact you spent the time to comment your "I Agree." I think it's nice to know I'm not talking to myself out here.
To Craig's point of an unknowing public thinking they are dealing with an expert... When I finished my thesis and got my Masters, my mother-in-love said, "Oh, now you can put AIA after your name! That's great"
umm...yeah, well sort-of, thanks.
Posted by Lisa Stacholy | May 4, 2009 1:48 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 13:48
I thought this article raised excellent points as well! Craig - I agree! Instead of a LEED for new buildings vs for existing vs homes, we should have LEED for Architects/Engineers, LEED for Developers, LEED for Contractors, etc. That makes more sense to me. The new system that is about to be engaged really makes you go down a specialty route. As architects, many of us do all of these things. So why should we be limited to a specific specialty with LEED? Likewise, why do developers and the general public that want to get into LEED need to know some of the technical information that really should be the responsibility of the architects/engineers?
Posted by Tom Fallon LEED AP | April 28, 2009 2:04 PM
Posted on April 28, 2009 14:04
Hey Lisa, Nice news clip and I totally agree with your assessment. What I am afraid of is that LEED certification will lead (no pun intended) again to the erosion of an architect’s value and ultimately services. Now anyone can become LEED certified and automatically they will be viewed by at least by an unknowing public, as an expert. However, unfortunately that person may know nothing or have any training in the design of buildings and the built environment. I am certainly glad that our professional organization stayed on top of this one.
Don’t get me wrong I am all for an educated populous as it comes to all things Architecture and I include sustainability as part of that. I just feel that architects and our professional organization(s) should be leading this effort. It is fine for another organization to come up with criteria to evaluate and subsequently certify buildings as long as architects are represented and a part of that process. However, the actual agent to assist an owner with these decisions should be under the purview of the architect. The process of a project applying for LEED certification should if it is necessary, should be under the guidance of the Architect just as it is for getting a building permit or meeting a jurisdiction’s Fire Marshall/Life Safety standards. I am sure that those things too will be eaten away as well if they haven’t already. :)
At this point we as architects should be designing and making recommendations to our clients on what makes sense for their projects which should include sustainability, energy consciousness, and life cycle costing, where applicable and within their budget constraints. Yes, LEED is just another tool or guide in the process of designing what makes sense for our clients.
Posted by Craig VanDevere | April 24, 2009 11:43 AM
Posted on April 24, 2009 11:43
What's funny is that LEED does teach other building industry professionals things that architects probably already know yet most people think one has to be an architect to even take the exam.
I think that the exam is imperfect but for the average person it is the best tool to draw them into studying the concepts of sustainability. Hopefully, the LEED 2009 exams will be less rote memorization.
Posted by Jon LEED AP | April 22, 2009 7:07 AM
Posted on April 22, 2009 07:07
I am a bit disillusioned with LEED. It seems like many of its rating criteria are political and are not uniform across the board between various materials and methods. Why is the treatment of employees important for lumber (certified) and not for steel or the coal that is strip mined to create it? I was planning on taking the LEED AP exam, but, upon further investigation, think I'll set my conformance goals on another rating system.
regards,
patrick
Posted by patrick marr | April 21, 2009 4:59 PM
Posted on April 21, 2009 16:59