Committee on the Environment

Jeff,
It's great to cite all those good moves that have occurred...and I can add even more that aren't on your list, but that doesn't mean we're "done". Requiring the SD emphasis is the ONLY way many of our members....the ones who most need it....get some of this info. You are absolutely right that the issue has permeated the thinking of many people at a certain level of our practice, those being the people involved in all that good stuff, but it's not yet more than a blip on the radar screen of others.

Removing that requirement seems dramitically premature to me. As Bill Burke points out, we don't feel like we have yet licked the issues of health, safety and welfare.....and I think that focus is a lot more widespread.

Two unfortunate unintended consequences of dropping the requirement are:
1. Members saying, thank goodness I don't have to worry about THAT anymore...I can just go back to design, or specs, or whatever.... (I have actually heard this....anecdotal, but real.)
2. Those who are looking to prove that sustainability is "over" now seemingly have the AIA agreeing with them.

This is a disappointment, to say the least.
Betsy


-------------------------------------------
Elizabeth del Monte FAIA
The Return on Innovative Project
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

Thank you, Betsy, for stating what many of us feel. We are hardly 'there'. 

Architecture in general and the AIA have yet to begin to address the potential for true sustainability, not to mention basic 'limiting the damage' and energy neutrality. True sustainability can only be engaged when architects look beyond the building and into the system of life our clients and communities engage in. There is tremendous potential in healing damaged ecosystems and communities. Buildings and Planning are the most profound entry points to engage in this level of systemic understanding. The process of design can engage all the dimensions of what is required for quality of life in each particular place we live. Let's not stop at the wall. 

Over the decades, we as a profession, have continually excused ourselves from new realms of responsibility - as if we are protecting business. Its time to step up, not avoid the difficult. No building is successful if the quality of the community and the quality of the ecosystem is compromised. We've got a lot of work to do.

Bill Reed
Regenesis Group
Integrative Design Collaborative

-------------------------------------------
William Reed AIA
President
Integrative Design Collaborative, Inc.
Arlington MA
-------------------------------------------

I agree with Bill and Betsy.  It's so important to have architects and planners who are knowledgeable and actively pursuing sustainable design.  We will not be able to make our codes and policies greener if we don't have architects, contractors, and the general public making the case for sustainability.  We have a long way to go in many areas of the country, and this educational requirement is important.
-------------------------------------------
Bonnie Richardson AIA
City of Tempe
Tempe AZ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 17:42
From: William Reed
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

Thank you, Betsy, for stating what many of us feel. We are hardly 'there'. 

Architecture in general and the AIA have yet to begin to address the potential for true sustainability, not to mention basic 'limiting the damage' and energy neutrality. True sustainability can only be engaged when architects look beyond the building and into the system of life our clients and communities engage in. There is tremendous potential in healing damaged ecosystems and communities. Buildings and Planning are the most profound entry points to engage in this level of systemic understanding. The process of design can engage all the dimensions of what is required for quality of life in each particular place we live. Let's not stop at the wall. 

Over the decades, we as a profession, have continually excused ourselves from new realms of responsibility - as if we are protecting business. Its time to step up, not avoid the difficult. No building is successful if the quality of the community and the quality of the ecosystem is compromised. We've got a lot of work to do.

Bill Reed
Regenesis Group
Integrative Design Collaborative

-------------------------------------------
William Reed AIA
President
Integrative Design Collaborative, Inc.
Arlington MA
-------------------------------------------

The dialogue with AIA NC is underway here and I'll post updates as I know them.  Essentially, "they" say that SD is seen as mainstream overcoming the need to partition the AIA CEU topics.  My assumption is that the USGBC/GBCI credential maintenace program has also influenced the sunset to some degree as there could be a redundant SD CEU accounting and better to utilize GBCI.  It's only my assumption though.

Nonetheless, my counter to the mainstream reason (and GBCI assumption) is that if the whole of our profession is surveyed we'll all be surprised by how many of us have yet to engage in SD and how few are a LEED AP.  So, if you're not a LEED AP then GBCI is not available to you and if you're not active in SD, for whatever reason or market/client type, then the reasons for the sunset is a not applicable to you.  I suspect that the sunset was based on the experiences of an upper portion of the profession but not the whole.  This is where the SD gap currently is.

be greener

-------------------------------------------
Jim Kirby, AIA
www.greenthinc.com
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 17:42
From: William Reed
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

Thank you, Betsy, for stating what many of us feel. We are hardly 'there'. 

Architecture in general and the AIA have yet to begin to address the potential for true sustainability, not to mention basic 'limiting the damage' and energy neutrality. True sustainability can only be engaged when architects look beyond the building and into the system of life our clients and communities engage in. There is tremendous potential in healing damaged ecosystems and communities. Buildings and Planning are the most profound entry points to engage in this level of systemic understanding. The process of design can engage all the dimensions of what is required for quality of life in each particular place we live. Let's not stop at the wall. 

Over the decades, we as a profession, have continually excused ourselves from new realms of responsibility - as if we are protecting business. Its time to step up, not avoid the difficult. No building is successful if the quality of the community and the quality of the ecosystem is compromised. We've got a lot of work to do.

Bill Reed
Regenesis Group
Integrative Design Collaborative

-------------------------------------------
William Reed AIA
President
Integrative Design Collaborative, Inc.
Arlington MA
-------------------------------------------

I agree with James.  Also, this all seems terribly short sighted as the Green Code is upon us all now and only a matter of time before it over takes the governing agencies.  If you're not ready today, you can contribute in the future.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Gilbert AIA
Nashville TN
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-07-2013 10:45
From: James Kirby
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

The dialogue with AIA NC is underway here and I'll post updates as I know them.  Essentially, "they" say that SD is seen as mainstream overcoming the need to partition the AIA CEU topics.  My assumption is that the USGBC/GBCI credential maintenace program has also influenced the sunset to some degree as there could be a redundant SD CEU accounting and better to utilize GBCI.  It's only my assumption though.

Nonetheless, my counter to the mainstream reason (and GBCI assumption) is that if the whole of our profession is surveyed we'll all be surprised by how many of us have yet to engage in SD and how few are a LEED AP.  So, if you're not a LEED AP then GBCI is not available to you and if you're not active in SD, for whatever reason or market/client type, then the reasons for the sunset is a not applicable to you.  I suspect that the sunset was based on the experiences of an upper portion of the profession but not the whole.  This is where the SD gap currently is.

be greener

-------------------------------------------
Jim Kirby, AIA
www.greenthinc.com
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

I can't speak to why the requirement was discontinued, but I can speak to my thoughts regarding having it in the first place.

SD is just one aspect of Architecture.  I found the Nanny State mentality of the AIA and this committee to set aside a special requirement to be very intrusive.  Why are the thoughts and goals of this committee so much more improtant than any other Knowledge Community.

The discussion in this thread has also been very insulting and condescending.  So many of you assume that those of us who don't begin and end our day worshiping at the altar of SD are irresponsible intellectual neandrathals.  Grow up, pull your head out of the sand and begin to create meaningful work that serves your clients and society in all ways possible, including sustainability.















heless, my counter to the mainstream reason (and GBCI assumption) is that if the whole of our profession is surveyed we'll all be surprised by how many of us have yet to engage in SD and how few are a LEED AP.  So, if you're not a LEED AP then GBCI is not available to you and if you're not active in SD, for whatever reason or market/client type, then the reasons for the sunset is a not applicable to you.  I suspect that the sunset was based on the experiences of an upper portion of the profession but not the whole.  This is where the SD gap currently is.

be greener

-------------------------------------------
Jim Kirby, AIA
www.greenthinc.com
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 17:42
From: William Reed
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

Thank you, Betsy, for stating what many of us feel. We are hardly 'there'. 

Architecture in general and the AIA have yet to begin to address the potential for true sustainability, not to mention basic 'limiting the damage' and energy neutrality. True sustainability can only be engaged when architects look beyond the building and into the system of life our clients and communities engage in. There is tremendous potential in healing damaged ecosystems and communities. Buildings and Planning are the most profound entry points to engage in this level of systemic understanding. The process of design can engage all the dimensions of what is required for quality of life in each particular place we live. Let's not stop at the wall. 

Over the decades, we as a profession, have continually excused ourselves from new realms of responsibility - as if we are protecting business. Its time to step up, not avoid the difficult. No building is successful if the quality of the community and the quality of the ecosystem is compromised. We've got a lot of work to do.

Bill Reed
Regenesis Group
Integrative Design Collaborative

-------------------------------------------
William Reed AIA
President
Integrative Design Collaborative, Inc.
Arlington MA
-------------------------------------------

Thank you all for this conversation.  In my work as a consultant on SD projects, I see very strongly the need to continue the SD credit requirement.  While most of the architects I work with have a sense of sustainable design, we all have so much more to learn, both technically and in how to work together as a team in a more integrative way that will lead to new thinking and more sustainable results.  As Bill Reed says, architects have only begun to address the challenge of sustainability.  And what more important challenge is there for us to address?  As architects we have a huge opportunity and responsibility to create a more sustainable future.  I remember being very excited that the SD requirement came into being and rather than eliminating it, I think the AIA would be well served to increase its requirements if the profession is truly committed to a net zero energy use world by 2030.  Additionally, as Bill says, let's not stop at the wall; this is not just about buildings.

-------------------------------------------
Helen J. Kessler FAIA, LEED Fellow
President
HJ Kessler Associates, Inc.
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-07-2013 10:45
From: James Kirby
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

The dialogue with AIA NC is underway here and I'll post updates as I know them.  Essentially, "they" say that SD is seen as mainstream overcoming the need to partition the AIA CEU topics.  My assumption is that the USGBC/GBCI credential maintenace program has also influenced the sunset to some degree as there could be a redundant SD CEU accounting and better to utilize GBCI.  It's only my assumption though.

Nonetheless, my counter to the mainstream reason (and GBCI assumption) is that if the whole of our profession is surveyed we'll all be surprised by how many of us have yet to engage in SD and how few are a LEED AP.  So, if you're not a LEED AP then GBCI is not available to you and if you're not active in SD, for whatever reason or market/client type, then the reasons for the sunset is a not applicable to you.  I suspect that the sunset was based on the experiences of an upper portion of the profession but not the whole.  This is where the SD gap currently is.

be greener

-------------------------------------------
Jim Kirby, AIA
www.greenthinc.com
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

I Agree with Betsy, there are so many in our profession who have not been reached yet. Removing the requirement is premature.
best,
Alan

-------------------------------------------
Alan Scott FAIA
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Portland OR
-------------------------------------------

The AIA's desicion to create separate SD requirements in the first place was a mistake.  It was driven by buzz, hype, fashion, and political correctness.  Sustainable design is a worthy endeavor, but step back from this myopic focus on SD for a moment and consider why SD should not be a separate continuing education requirement. 

By setting SD apart as its own category, it not so subtly states that building structure, HVAC systems, moisture control, building materials, roofing systems, etc. are all less important.  None of those topics have their own category or minimum number of hours.  So, is SD is the only architectural issue worthy of focused consideration?  Is there so little faith in the architectural profession and its practitioners that the AIA has to forcibly open our eyes to the value of SD?

It appears that the AIA got caught up in the PC PR and over reacted.  It is refreshing to see that this mistake is being corrected.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 19:17
From: Alan Scott
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

I Agree with Betsy, there are so many in our profession who have not been reached yet. Removing the requirement is premature.
best,
Alan

-------------------------------------------
Alan Scott FAIA
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Portland OR
-------------------------------------------

Betsy is right.  We aren't done.  We have a long way to go to fully integrate sustainable design into the profession.  Creating the SD CEU requirement was a step in the right diection, sunsetting it is not.

-------------------------------------------
Russell Perry FAIA
Vice President
Office Director
SmithGroup JJR
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2013 19:17
From: Alan Scott
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

I Agree with Betsy, there are so many in our profession who have not been reached yet. Removing the requirement is premature.
best,
Alan

-------------------------------------------
Alan Scott FAIA
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Portland OR
-------------------------------------------

Another voice in favor of the sentiments Betsy has stated so well.  Thank you Betsy.

This was a suprise to me as well.  I also found it rather strange that the AIA Board made the change out of earshot of so many members.  I never heard any discussion at the local Chapter level or at the member level.  That is worrisome.

Maybe this means that the collective voice of COTE needs to be louder and more focused?

-------------------------------------------
Rand Ekman AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Cannon Design
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------

The SD requirements were always supposed to be for a specified trial period. That period ended.

This forum is great for discussion, but not so great to spark any action from the Board. I don't think that is the intended purpose of this forum.

That said, you should let your Regional Director(s), your representative on the AIA Board of Directors, know that you think this subject should be placed on the Board's agenda for discussion at their next Board of Directors meeting. 

If that already happened (I didn't really follow this issue that closely) and the Board decided to let it sunset anyway, then you could draft a resolution for consideration at the Convention, asking that the program be extended. (You need to check deadlines for this to happen. It may not even be possible for this year.)

The process is not simple and not very user-friendly. It's not as simple as standing up during the Annual Business Meeting and asking to be heard. Most people don't take the time to understand what happens at the Annual Business meeting, until they have a resolution they want to be considered. You need to do a lot of work to get this issue heard.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is much better to get this done in time for the Secretary's Advisory Committee to review the language of the resolution so that it can be published in the Convention "Yellow Book" of Resolutions than to ask for action from the floor of the convention, as I found out when we tried to get a resolution on adopting LEED as the AIA's preferred green rating system adopted.

This is where parliamentary procedure comes into play and things could grind to a halt.

Based on some objections we were hearing, we modified the language at the eleventh hour, asking the Board to consider adoption of ANY green standard as a matter of AIA policy.

Rules only allowed us to read the title of the Resolution before it was put to a preliminary vote for consideration. Kind of like getting a second, a consensus as to whether the Resolution should even be heard at all. 

Whoever is going to present the Resolution needs to be an accredited delegate. Your Regional Director is automatically accredited. Otherwise, you need to make sure that whoever is holding the votes for your Region will give you at least one single vote and you go through the proper accreditation process, or you will not be allowed to address the convention at the Business Meeting.

Without the chance to read the entire resolution prior to a vote, our resolution failed to get the necessary number of votes to have the full resolution read into the record and considered for a vote. By having it published prior to the Convention, the delegates can vote directly on each resolution, since prior publication takes the place of the preliminary vote to consider.

You need to check the deadlines, rules, and somehow gauge the level of support of an initiative like this if you go this route. Again, your Regional Director should be able to assist you with that. You should know that even if a resolution passes on the floor of the convention, and there is no guarantee of that, it still goes back to the Board of Directors later in that year to be ratified.

I guess my point is that if you want something to happen, you need to ask the right people for something to happen; you need to be specific about what you want to happen; and most importantly, you need to read and understand all the rules involved in how to ask for something. And it would be much easier if you found a "champion" on the Board to bring this up as a part of their Board Agenda and make your case.

I don't think you can gauge support of an issue like this on this forum simply because most people who subscribe have done so because of their interest in COTE and Sustainability. You'd be preaching to the choir. 

For whatever this is worth.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-05-2013 10:41
From: Rand Ekman
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

Another voice in favor of the sentiments Betsy has stated so well.  Thank you Betsy.

This was a suprise to me as well.  I also found it rather strange that the AIA Board made the change out of earshot of so many members.  I never heard any discussion at the local Chapter level or at the member level.  That is worrisome.

Maybe this means that the collective voice of COTE needs to be louder and more focused?

-------------------------------------------
Rand Ekman AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Cannon Design
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------

I too have been taken by surprise by the announcement that Sustainable Design has become so mainstreamed within the profession that AIA National no longer sees a need to require SD CEU credits as part of every AIA member's continuing education requirements.  It is very unfortunate that AIA National has taken this position.   An immediate consequence of this has been that the AIA Florida Committee On The Environment has been eliminated by this year's AIA Florida Association President,  who in his own words stated "that now that sustainable design is mainstreamed within the profession, we no longer have to give it special emphasis, or utilize scarce resources addressing it."  He appears to be taking National's position that the importance of Sustainability is part and parcel to every architect's practice, and there for no additional attention need to be paid to it.  I disagree with this position.

I know first hand that there are three distinct camps in the profession on the issue of Sustainability;  Those who do not believe in any of the issues of sustainability, or any issues in connection with such concerns as global climate change, or an architect's ability or need to be concerned with such issues:  These I have become convinced will not not easily change their thinking.  This unfortunately is a fairly significant sized group, and would be appropriately required to obtain SD knowledge.  The second is the camp who have some level of belief and understanding  and what to better understand the issues and then gain more knowledge about solutions;  This is fortunately a growing group.  Providing continued emphasis on,  and ease of access to SD specific CEUs, is an appropriate way to serve our membership.   The third camp is those who understand the issues and are knowledgeable of solutions (and typically are also constantly trying to learn more and more about more alternatives and more solutions).  This same group are typically the ones who are more than willing to provide their knowledge to those who are seeking it.  This third group is not nearly as large as would be hoped, but encouragingly, continues to also grow.  

HSW and SD go hand in hand.  It is one thing to have an unsafe building (one that might fall on you or burn you when you cannot get out), another is to have one that is either a danger to your health and well being, or as significantly so detrimental to health of the world that the very climate that we rely upon can become our worst nightmare.  Those in the profession who KNOW we can positively affect our environment our doing their part, those in the profession who think that the built environment MAY be impacting our environment, want to know more.  Those who don't seem to care presently may actually become knowledgeable by requiring SD CEUs enough to become aware, and to become proponents of positive change.  Inaction will have its consequences, yet there is NO downside to any positive action, and each positive action can bring about beneficial change.

To state that sustainable design has become mainstreamed within the profession shows either a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues and the state of the profession, or worse, a desire to just "return to business as usual".  Other professionals such as mechanical and electrical and civil engineers and interior designers have made major efforts to become identified as the "go to" and source and leaders for knowledge and leadership on environmental issues.  How often do architects turn to their mechanical and electrical engineers to have them "make" their designs energy efficient and "sustainable", rather than designing their projects and directing their consultants based on the knowledge the architect himself or herself should possess.  If our association is stating that sustainable design is now mainstreamed within the profession, and no longer needs special attention and emphasis, rather than continuing to advocate for and more strongly emphasis the need and the opportunities for increasing knowledge of the issue, then we will continue to find ways to marginalize our position of leadership.

I must agree with Mr. Del Vecchio's comments that if we are in fact concerned about this issue, we have to take it beyond just this forum, to National in the appropriate manner.  If time allows, it must be brought before the upcoming Annual Business Meeting at the National Convention. (However, it may well be too late for this convention, as the time frames and the associated hurdles are extensive at this stage.)  If the timing does not allow for this, then minimally each of us needs to contact our Regional Directors and express our concerns so that it is brought to the national board at their next convening.  if we can even re-initiate the dialog at the upcoming convention, we can make significant advances.   We need to take a position of leadership on this, and this is frankly the opportunity to begin.

-------------------------------------------
Lawrence Maxwell AIA
Spacecoast Architects, P.A.
Indialantic FL
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 03-05-2013 10:41
From: Rand Ekman
Subject: Sustainable Design Requirement

Another voice in favor of the sentiments Betsy has stated so well.  Thank you Betsy.

This was a suprise to me as well.  I also found it rather strange that the AIA Board made the change out of earshot of so many members.  I never heard any discussion at the local Chapter level or at the member level.  That is worrisome.

Maybe this means that the collective voice of COTE needs to be louder and more focused?

-------------------------------------------
Rand Ekman AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Cannon Design
Chicago IL
-------------------------------------------

Gratitude to Betsy and Bill for being honest and aware.

"Sustainability" often is understood to address only the aspects of climate change mitigation (dialing down the dials to do less bad) and  seems to  miss the climate change adaptation measures which are needed to make sites and facilities fit for purpose to flourish over time (especially mission critical sites).

If the "sustainable design requirement" is dropped, does our profession/the Institute really offer a service of value for a society/world facing the climate of the future?

I would like to reinvite everyone to go to Performance.gov to look at the Sustainability Performance Plans of each federal agency - http://sustainability.performance.gov/.

Look a little further and you will find that each agency has a climate change adaptation plan.
The public is invited to comment by April 15, 2013.

You may have direct interest in GSA's climate change adaptation action plan-  http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/104819. Comment to this plan at adaptation@gsa.gov.


Adapting together!
ARAK

-------------------------------------------
A.R. Ann Kosmal,  A.I.A. LEED AP BD+C
Architect, Certified Permaculture Designer, CPHC-Certified Passive House Consultant
Convener- GSA Climate Change Adaptation and Resiliency Team 
Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings
U.S. General Services Administration