LEED Associate? Option

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Sharon Lund Senior Member Username: sharon_l Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2005 Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:37 am:    We are finding in our firm that the designation LEED AP applies most directly to the individuals who have the "lead" on project teams. It's an overwhelming amount of time and money to invest in the fragmented displines that are part of our project teams, and encompasses far more than the responsibilities and training of those individuals. For example, why do our civil engineers need to know the calculations for daylighting spaces? Or our electrical engineers need to know how to calculate storm water runoff? They need to know those are components of a LEED project, but not the specifics. On the other hand, we would like to train all those on the project team for LEED projects to understand the components and requirements for their discipline. A member of our firm recently took the new online LEED course and the 18-question quiz following it. We're now thinking it would be great to have a new category of LEED personnel who have taken such a course and quiz that could attain a designation such as LEED Associate. Perhaps a similar course could be designed in each specific discipline, and then the designation could perhaps be LEED Civil Associate. A LEED Administrative Associate could be trained in the submittals and paperwork of a project. A LEED Wastewater Associate could be trained in the storm and waterwater aspects of a project. Is this something USGBC is considering? For those of you who have several LEED projects under your belts, what are your thoughts on this proposal? Joel McKellar, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP Junior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 09:25 am:    I disagree. I think comprehensively understanding the basics of the LEED system is vital for all members to really get at the benefits of integrated design. The LEED AP designation and exam does NOT get into the specifics. It really just scratches the surface. I thought I knew it all when I passed the exam... then I actually started on a few LEED projects. BIG DIFFERENCE! I am a LEED AP and know almost nothing about the calculations reguired for say, SSc6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control. I leave that to the civil engineers. I do know the basic strategies for achieving this credit, which allows me to help direct designers in what they need to do. I work for an architectural firm, so we need to be versed in everything, but I still think the more specialized disciplines need a general understanding as well. Using civil as an example, you would think they only need to be versed in stormwater credits, brownfield remediation, site development, and a few others under the SS category. By teaching them only those skills (and keeping them ignorant of other goals), we may miss an opportunity for truly creative design solutions. Perhaps the problem of excessive grading need on site could be turned into a sustainable solution by using the dirt to form a rammed earth wall (both local and energy efficient) for a portion of the building? I'm not saying the civil engineer needs to know the details of the Green Label Plus standard for carpets or how to calculate the global warming potential for an HVAC system (both of which are not required for the LEED AP exam but ultimately needed in a LEED project), but making them aware of the issues can only help in the long run. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 214 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 11:14 am:    To address your question, I for one would agree. The practice is much more complicated than the test. My understanding from the USGBC crowd is that they have been stiffening up the test for the past three versions 2.0, 2.1 and now 2.2. they have also added more questions on process, not just point calculation. I for one would argue against a lesser than full AP designation as you can see below I see LEED as less than a minimum as it is. (now to rant for a minute) You've hit upon the crux of the matter in miniature. LEED only scratches the surface of true sustainability. LEED (Oh! EXCUSE ME) LEED tm…is a farce. Offices in Seattle want to have “100 %” LEED accreditation of their design staff so they can wave the banner of greenness. At the same time, their personal actions and their firms actions are only “sustainable” when the client and time allow it. If they’re in a hurry, they hop into their SUV and drive. No Flex Car for them! I have yet to see any firm publicly turn down a large high profile job because the Owner decided LEED “wasn’t worth it.” Yes, Yes, I know long-term thinking and payback beat out short-term capital expenditure, but banks don’t give loans based upon lifecycle cost (maybe they should). The hypocrisy of the architectural (and larger design) community makes me ill. The smug cloud (see South Park) wafting over architecture is obviously leading to a lack of oxygen in the blood of many an architect. B.T.W. I have a worm bin, I take the bus, I recycle everything I can think of, buy green(ish) power …and I know that I’m a long way from a carbon 0 lifestyle. Will I get my LEED tm AP? – Sure one of these days – but I’ll never put it on my business card. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 272 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 06:00 pm:    Marc: Rant on! All the great "things that you can do to save the planet", like use fluorescent lights or take shorter showers, are part of what's needed, but they delude people into thinking they are doing something significant. "Why should I worry about my gas guzzler? I remembered to turn off the lights." Those things have such a small effect that they mean nothing unless large numbers of people do them. Everyone wants to save the planet - until it affects them personally. The things that will make a big difference almost always affect convenience and lifestyle, things we are reluctant to change. As you note, many firms are "sustainable" when convenient, promoting LEED while keeping a fleet of Expeditions as company cars, and doing little in their personal lives. We look for "local" materials for LEED, but quickly give up when that stuff from Europe is so cool. If you're really serious about "sustainable" design, and not just going for a certification so you can say you got it, you will make the hard choice. The government exhibits the same hypocrisy; the State of Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the University of Minnesota all proclaim their commitment to "sustainable design", then decide to build three separate sports stadiums. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 600 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 08:24 pm:    I look at the grocery stores that have more aisles of take-out and single-serving foods (with their multiple layers of packaging so that you get exactly one ounce of potato chips) and at the same time, promoting their logotyped canvas or nylon shopping bags. and then there are the aisles full of bottled water -- my office here is all worked up about getting ceramic coffee cups so that we don't keep throwing away paper cups. I proposed that we simply get rid of the paper cups and let people bring in their own cup if they wanted one, but that seemed to be too uncomplicated, so of course we had a design competition, and it will probably be six months before we get office cups. then I've heard the arguments that washing ceramic cups is more wasteful than throwing away paper cups... and the debate continues. LEED isn't really the issue -- I think the issue is the perception that LEED is the answer and the popular (and professional ) press is busily promoting it as "the" appropriate response to any environmental question. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 152 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 08:52 am:    Is it better to spec a door with an agrifiber core or a door with FSC stave wood core? Is it better to ship cotton insulation 3000 miles or use fiberglass that is manufactured 100 miles away? The difference between these decisions, in the big picture, is nil. But, we are starting to spend hours debating these minuscule differences for the sake of a LEED point. LEED has become THE answer only because bureaucracies across the country are adopting it and making it law. And, we all know what happens to a good thing when bureaucracies get involved. Joel McKellar, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 11:17 am:    I think Bob Berkebile put it best. A LEED building isn't necessarily good, it's just less bad. What frustrates the hell out of me are environmentalists who put down a step in the right direction because it wasn't a jump off a cliff. How can you expect a system intended to influence building design and construction practices to turn everyone inside the building into electric bus-riding, organic cotton wearing advocates for the earth? Should there be LEED cameras placed in the parking lot linked to a special USGBC police force that tickets anyone parking a hummer? Even though it's about the BUILDING, I can list a number of LEED-NC credits intended to influence occupant behaviors. A credit for choosing a site near existing public transit, preferred parking for low-emitting vehicles, centralized recycling centers for the building, supporting tradable energy credit purchasing, and bicycle racks and showers for occupants. What else could they do? Oh yeah, setup an entire system (LEED EB) that focuses on sustainable and healthy maintenance and operations practices. The USGBC aimed to create a flexible, living (read constantly changing) system to push the boundaries of standard design into an area that hurts the environment less and promotes better living conditions for the people inside them. What's LEED now will inevitably be code later as the green industry refines itself and becomes more accepted (and more importantly familiar) to the design and construction community at large. I think everyone could agree that the goal is noble and the follow-through is still years (really more like decades) away from really being streamlined, efficient, and tailored to any building type. If they raised the bar too high the system would fail from lack of use. For those who have been following the evolution of LEED NC from pilot to 2.2, you may have noticed that some credits deemed too hard to achieve were made easier and the credits everyone achieved were strengthened. A perfect example is that as of June 26 it is now a prerequisite for all LEED projects to achieve 2 points in the EAc1, Optimize Energy Performance credit. This is equivalent to reducing energy use over an ASHRAE 90.1-2004 baseline by %14. Formerly, you were only required to match the standard, and before that, you only had to match ASHRAE 90.1-1999. The system will never be perfect for reasons posed by the questions Don asks above. At every step of the way there are tradeoffs, and under the LEED system you are left to decide what is important, which I think is a much more effective formula than setting a long list of prescriptive requirements that could potentially limit creativity and ingenuity. I realize I'm coming off as one of those USGBC lovin' liberals. When we start talking details I have plenty of issues with them. They act more like a corporation than a non-profit. Their website is the epitome of poor design and functionality, and customer service is about as bad as you can get, but at least it's a step in the right direction. For those speaking against LEED, what do you propose we do instead? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 601 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:09 pm:    I think we should do what we've done in comparable situations: provide financial incentives, put specific goals into building codes, and stop handing off "enforcement" to a third-party non profit (who by the way, makes money on every LEED project out there in the way of fees.) About twenty years ago, when cities wanted to preserve old buildings, they provided tax credits for people who reused old buildings. Cities now provide tax credits for energy efficiency (more insulation, more efficient heating systems). I would rather have actual construction subsidized than LEED administration fees. Unlike some folks out there, I don't believe that having a project be LEED rated "assures" compliance with environmentally sound practices. I've worked with too many developers who will do the absolute minimum to get LEED credits -- and at the same time, they are buying non-optimum products, and spending thousands of dollars on administrative fees in order to get that rating. I would rather see them put $50,000 into better mechanical equipment. I have issues with a city such as Seattle handing off judgement to a third party like USGBC. if the City of Seattle wants this to work, then they need to be responsible for determination and enforcement. If the city wants to enforce higher energy standards, then they need to write them into code. There are funding sources for home buyers who locate near transit -- and don't use their cars to commute. LEED doesn't need to encourage this -- lending companies can encourage this. My issue is not with the results... my issue is with the 500 pound gorilla of the USGBC. I simply don't see them as the only source for information and good judgement, and by having government building required to meet LEED standards, we're passing off our own good judgement to that organization. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:47 pm:    Thank you Anne, those are excellent points. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 55 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 01:23 pm:    If we build a LEED platinum SUV assembly line, what have we accomplished? Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Advanced Member Username: peggy Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 01:53 pm:    Kudos to Joel for his thoughtful messages. Don't be discouraged by the nannering nabobs of negativity. And to the nannering nabobs - relax. Sustainability IS slowly being incorporated into codes, at all levels. And, using the USGBC benchmarking tool of LEED to measure sustainability is a great start, with or without project registration and the plaque. None of us who champion sustainability are so naive to think that LEED and/or the USGBC are the be-all and end-all, although the nannering nabobs appear to presume that we just fell off the organic turnip truck. Having the USGBC verify, through LEED Certification, that projects have met their sustainable goals is vastly superior to the greenwashing that goes on out there when there is no metric to evaluate sustainable performance. The wind is blowing in our favor - sustainability is getting mainstreamed. Personally, I think that's great! Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 216 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 02:00 pm:    I'm not worried about you Peggy, OR the other well educated folks who use and promote LEED or any sustainable practice. I'm discouraged by the un-educated "got to draw" architects who think that filling out a form = sustainability AND then get all smug about it. We have to do this thing (sustainability) for real and push the un-educated clients and architects all to a higher plane. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 04:20 pm:    Peggy: BTW, it's "nattering" not "nannering". That's about the only memorable thing that Spiro Agnew ever said. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 325 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 08:47 pm:    Dave Metzger: Wasn't Maryland's most renowned ex-Governor, Spiro T, also infamous for advocating the treatment of problems with "benign neglect?" I find it very interesting --- and the policy of my no. 1 client architectural firm --- that "sustainable" is becoming mainstream. There's no reason not to specify wood fiberboard for casework that does not contain formaldehyde. VOC compliance? Projects in California, home of sabertooth air quality management districts, have nothing but low-VOC coatings (although there is latitude regarding going the extra measure with zero-VOC coatings). Of course, this "mainstreaming" means it becomes more difficult to be innovative when the "usual and customary" standard is environmentally friendly. And it becomes embarrasing to find that the corrugated metal siding advertised as being produced from recycled steel means shipping heavy loads from Pennsylvania to California (Left Coast manufacturers haven't jumped on the Green bandwagon yet in their advertising). J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 244 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 11:52 am:    I believe and participate in LEED projects not because I think they will result in perfect (or sometimes merely good) buildings, but because it forces everyone (owners, designers, builders, manufacturers) to think about these issues. No, it is not a perfect system, and some of the responses to LEED parameters are just plain silly. However, it is an attempt to think more holisticly about a range of issues and come up with a system which says implicitly, "Sustainable buildings are not merely the result of a designer's response to a program, or a contractor's responsible use of the site and construction materials, or the owner's operational philosophy." It is the responsibility of everyone acting collaboratively. LEED certification provides a way to have a 3rd party review what has been done and say, "Yes, you accomplishe these goals; no, you didn't accomplish these." As has been pointed out, the project team will play enough games with LEED criteria; just imagine what would happen if no one was to review anything. In the few LEED projects that I am currently working on, not only does the design team have to be a bit more collaborative, but the owner and the contractor have to join the team as well. What I also believe is that the collaboration has to also extend to subs and fabricators and material manufacturers, and I sense that too often, these guys are unaware of project goals. All of you who are architects have probably spent a lot of time with other architects grousing about the AIA and how irrelevant the organization seems. All of us architects (or at least most of us) have, at one time or another, threatened to not renew our membership. 9I would certainly pay my CSI dues before my AIA dues--oops, did I say that out loud?) I remember such a discussion with a colleage about 15 years ago which he ended by pointing out that like it or not, it's the only game in town. If you are an architect, you must be a member of the AIA to participate in larger issues relevant to the profession. There are other organizations that attempt to do what AIA does in one form or another, but at the end of the day, AIA is the organization that serves the profession in the broadest manner. There are alternatives to the USGBC's LEED programs; but like the alternatives to the AIA, they are relatively insignificant. At this point, if you want to build buildings that meet sustianable criteria, and demonstrate to the public that you have have done so, LEED is really the only game in town.