Hi Glenn,
I'll be happy to answer your questions as best I can.
//i'm curious as to why it is you feel usgbc is "poised to literally stand in the way of a licensed architect- who is not LEED AP certified- from practicing architecture?"//
The reason I see it this way is that, for example, in order for me to qualify to take the LEED AP exam, I first need to provide proof that I am working directly on a LEED certified building (or one that's going through the certification process). How can a sole practitioner do this unless they either convince the client to hire them as their "LEED expert" (though they don't yet have that credential behind their name) or they could manage to work with a firm as their LEED consultant. Now, why would said client or firm hire someone who isn't a LEED certified architect when they can choose to work with someone else who is LEED AP certified? Is this not the way the process works?
The way the info on the USGBC site came across was that "in order to be a doctor, you must first prove you're a doctor." So, it seems to me that unless you are employed at a firm and are given the chance to work on a building that is being LEED certified, you're kind of chasing your tail on this one. Perhaps I'm missing something in this process and am making it more difficult than it needs to be.
I wonder, has the eligibility criteria gotten more stringent since the first exams in 2001?
So, based upon the above, and in correlation to the fact that many cities and municipalities are now requiring all new buildings to be LEED certified, it seems to me that only licensed architects who are already LEED AP certified will qualify to handle such building design. Thereby, shutting out all licensed architects who are not yet LEED certified. In this manner, the USGBC is dictating sustainabilty in the built environment- which is not inherenly a bad thing- it's just that they "OWN" and directly benefit financially from it; also, they are seductively "forcing" architects to sell their clients on LEED, are they not?
//LEED AP accreditation has nothing to do with architecture licensure.//
Right, your statement is correct.
//LEED AP accreditation isn't even required for a building to obtain LEED certification.//
Oh, this is something new to me. I wasn't aware that a building could obtain LEED certification without LEED AP certified people working on it- isn't that a given? If this is the case, I guess I don't fully understand the process of either certifying a building versus the need for a person to pass the certification exam.
//LEED certification has little to do with building codes.//
Really? I was of the impression that some cities and municipalities are adopting LEED principles into their building codes and are using such language as "the building must be LEED certified." Is this not the case? Perhaps I am misinformed on this; I will look into it further.
//and what part of the LEED process do you think is "a monstrosity?"//
Let me count the ways! Where should I begin? Firstly, who created it? Wasn't it a scientist who worked for R&D in the US govt? I want to say, with all due respect to him and his grand ideas, "who died and made him god of green architecture?" While I agree that it is definitely critical that our decisions as architects be based on sound scientific information, it seems very wrong for only non-architects to write specific standards and codes to achieve that. While I believe our building codes must be informed by their data/knowledge, they must not be the drivers of the code. Architects need to take more of a leadership role in the process of creating building codes based on sustainable, green principles. Instead, we have usurped this duty to the USGBC, in my opinion. (and...maybe this would have been fine had the AIA been more straightforward and vocal about it; instead, they seemed just as surprised and unknowledgeable about what does LEED stand for as the average AIA member who never attends a National convention- that is, when I attended the 2006 convention.)
//how would the AIA have made it any different?//
First of all, I would respect the LEED certification process much more had it come from the AIA. Instead, it seems that an outside entity is calling the shots on how we should approach sustainable design. Do you think that an architect would have created this silly point system where you get 1 point if you have a bike rack, and one point if you have a LEED AP person on the job, etc. <=== by the way, I think this answers the question of whether an owner can get his/her building LEED certified without using a LEED AP certified person. I'm guessing the answer is, then, that they can, but they will only be eligible for a lower than the LEED Platinum standard...?
Since I haven't been a part of a LEED process, I don't know much about it except for what I've heard on the tertiary. The point system seems cumbersome and arbitrary. And, now, as we've seen in the Shaw lawsuit in Maryland, the point system is the bone of contention. Are we now being reduced to depend upon administrative staff to track and tally up points- 1 for this, 2 for that, determining who is responsible for this or that. Surely, there must be a better way. I can conceive of an AIA Sustainable Design/LEED Document that would address these matters. But, perhaps their legal counsel told them to steer clear of it...?
It has taken U.S.G.B.C. since 1993 to create this "standard." Why were these people the ones who were qualified to take on this task? Were they the only experts on this? I think the AIA was remiss in not taking hold of this information and adopting it under their umbrella. It was as if they threw up their hands in defeat and said, this is boring, too difficult, let them do it. Well, now the AIA is basically subservient to USGBC.
I have been trying to find a good analogy, but am still having trouble with that. I was thinking it reminded me of how the health care industry came under the control of the insurance companies with managed care back in the 90's- where you had unlicensed payor sources dictating the care that a physician could provide to a patient. This is not like that though. Instead, we- licensed architects- are paying the USGBC to tell us what to do. Doesn't this seem backwards to you?
And now, I suppose in response to the concern for differentiation between who is LEED AP, they have created LEED AP specialties. Well, what if you're a general practitioner? Right now, for me for example, I can become LEED AP certified under the Building Maintenance and Oversight specialty as I know a developer who would likely hire me as his LEED consultant- so I could then be eligible to take the exam. I haven't read any further than that on this process, but it seems to me that it would be better for a licensed architect to be LEED AP BD + C. So, the resultant effect is fragmentation of our services- unless I'm simply not understanding this process.
Also, I've heard that the test is intentionally difficult. Why? That, too, seems absurd.
If you read the class action lawsuit out of New York, the attorney nails it on the head regarding how USGBC describes how "even inexperienced people can benefit from becoming LEED certified." WHAT? This is preposterous language. And yet, we have licensed architects who have brilliant track records and are leaders and lecturers in sustainable design not able to pass the exam on the first time through. So, that is how a LEED AP can usurp the role of a licensed architect. Better to hire some administrative assistant to tally up and dole out the responsibility for each point...
I'd like to think that the AIA would have been able to create a far better system- if not right away, at least over time it would have perfected it. Maybe it's not too late. I look forward to the day when the AIA maneuvers their way to be the leaders on the "LEED" system- why not call it, LSDGB (The AIA Leaders in Sustainable Design & Green Buildings), a subsidiary non-profit entity of the AIA?
So, that is my perspective.
Incidentally, I am signed up to take a $315 class in February on how to prepare to pass the LEED exam the first time through and I plan to become LEED AP certified (plus whichever specialty applies to me) within the next six months. While I may not agree with how this all came about, I see that LEED certification is no longer an option if one wants to remain employable.
Having been away from the industry for a while, I am playing catch up in general. So, among other books, I have recently ordered "The Philosophy of Sustainable Design" and "Green from the Ground Up."
Well, thanks for listening to all this... I apologize for its lengthiness. I appreciate any insight or input you or anyone else has on what's been shared here.
Kind regards,
Tara
-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-21-2010 12:49
From: Glenn Richters
Subject: Lawsuit Potential if Building Does Not Achieve LEED Cert.
tara,
i'm curious as to why it is you feel usgbc is "poised to literally stand in the way of a licensed architect- who is not LEED AP certified- from practicing architecture?"
LEED AP accreditation has nothing to do with architecture licensure. LEED AP accreditation isn't even required for a building to obtain LEED certification. LEED certification has little to do with building codes.
and what part of the LEED process do you think is "a monstrosity?" how would the AIA have made it any different?
-------------------------------------------
Glenn Richters AIA
Benefield Richters
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-20-2010 04:05
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Lawsuit Potential if Building Does Not Achieve LEED Cert.
William, thank you for the informative article links you provided. I could not tell from your comments what you think about the lawsuit.
Relatedly, in doing a google search on usgbc and its co-founders, I found this information regarding a lawsuit that challenges the legitimacy of the LEED program:
http://www.dinslaw.com/lawsuit_challenging_legitimacy_of_leed_program/Frankly, the more I am learning about the USGBC, GBCI, and LEED, the more shocked I am that the AIA didn't step in far sooner and take control of this whole idea/process. It is a monstrosity to say the least. And now we have municipalities making it mandatory that buildings must be LEED certified.
I wonder if many people realize what this organization has done. Far from supposedly making our buildings better, they are now poised to literally stand in the way of a licensed architect- who is not LEED AP certified- from practicing architecture. Thus, rendering state licensure and the AIA as totally subservient to their standards. It is scandalous!
This thread would be better titled: "While we were sleeping..."
-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------