Committee on the Environment

I have always been environmentally minded, even when "tree hugger" was almost a derogatory moniker (I have also always been suspicious of non-profits that seem to charge a lot of fees for stuff, but that's not really relevant here). Anyway, I have not yet gotten myself leed accredited, but it appears the time to do so may be near. But now it seems there are more "green certification" originations gaining traction like NAHB green globe and others, and I was wondering: do you all think we need to join up with all of them or wait it out and see who comes out on top and go with that? Just wondering. I would hate to invest lots of time and cash on one just to have it be eclipsed by another and have to almost start over. (Sort of like AutoCAD architecture to Revit, but that's another rant) 

Incidentally,  I still think the $25K to $150K I have seen spent on getting a building green certified by whatever green.org  would be, in most cases be better spent on the building itself which would be even better for the environment.  

This post is intended to stir discussion and not intended to make anyone upset or mad.

-------------------------------------------
Thomas Streicher AIA
Thomas Streicher, Architect
Monroe NY
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
John Corkill AIA
Corkill Cush Reeves Architects
Bowie MD
-------------------------------------------


When I was on the National Board and was head of the then-ExComm of the then-PIA's back in the pliestocene era, we blew it on the environment. I hang my head in shame that none of us at the national nor the COTE level set up a system like LEED. While surely many AIA'ers and likely COTE members were involved in the Green Building Council, nevertheless, the main impetus should have come from AIA, where perhaps some of the excesses of the GBC could have been avoided.

First, however, the GBC has accomplished one wonderful thing : Those folks have given architecture some validity back.

Prior to LEED, architecture's Vitruvian motto, "Firmness, Commodity, and Delight" had devolved to "DELIGHT"
and that only. The mags, the schools, our chapter awards programs, all focused on the well-photographed, beautiful artifact - no matter how much energy, or practicality, or livibility was squandered in the headlong worship of beauty, uber alles.

Those who suffered in beautiful but illogical and energy-squandering buildings found it hard to rejoice in the AIA Design Award hanging in the lobby while freezing or sweltering, or facing ruinous energy bills. Our clients might have been forgiven for wondering where the "Firmness" and "Commodity" went.

However, having won that great moral victory for our profession, GBC has lapsed into the eternal human problem of deeply needing to follow yesterday's victories by even new and greater victories today and tomorrow. Thus, the exams get harder and more restrictive, and building codes and local officials are lobbied to fix in stone the LEED system as supreme. The expenditure of effort and scarce resources out of proportion to the increased savings of energy in the new, improved, tightened regulations starts to eat up the savings while bringing down on all of our heads the inevitable backlash from the industry and the community alike. 

There seems to be in the newer tightened LEED demands an increasing reliance on electronic gadgetry to control every aspect of a building's performance, regardless of the scale of the structure, or the staffing available to maintain the place. Embarrassments such as early LEED buildings that do not perform as predicted, LEED (sorry) to demands that "Commissioners" be hired- at fees similar to architect's original design fees - to put the building through its predicted paces. When these unregistered "Commissioners" find what seem to them to be design errors during their commissioning, they have a convenient scapegoat, the original architect, whose liability insurance will surely pay for any corrections or improvements.

Then, the owner takes over the building and fails to tune up the computer controls, or lets tenants leave windows open in the winter/summer. Inevitably, that building will burn more energy than was predicted, and if the hapless architect has guaranteed a certain cost level for future energy bills as part of her LEEDs or her marketing to get the job, she might as well bring her liability insurer in early to prepare for the inevitable lawsuit.

Other than those few quibbles, LEED is great.

John F. Corkill, Jr., AIA

-------------------------------------------
Peter Papesch AIA
Chair, BSA Sustainability Education Committee
Former (and founding) chair of USGBC-MA Education Committee
Boston MA
papesch@mac.com
-------------------------------------------

First of all, please forgive this double-posting, but I didn't realize that it is preferable to Reply to the Discussion Forum than to Post Message ... ;-(

John Corkill pretty much says it all: the AIA missed the opportunity to establish performance criteria, GBC picked up the challenge, and now GBC has become an institution that needs to find ways to continue its economic success - a success that is and was built on the obvious need of society to have metrics for evaluating architects', engineers' and contractors' claims of the performance of their designs (i.e. pre-implementation guesses).

Leaving aside the debate about LEED accreditation by individuals or firms as a credibility metric for the public, nothing prevents all firms interested in climate change mitigation rather than aggravation to use LEED or Living Building Challenge as checklists to incorporate and coordinate the best combination of energy-frugal strategies in their designs. Note the emphasis on strategies rather than specific task items.

Now here comes the problem, which we've been trying to address since 2009: few graduating professionals in the building sector (architects, engineers, contractors) have learned the tools, skills and methods - and in particular the interdisciplinary collaboration - that a carbon neutral project requires. For that reason we have been attempting to convince the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) and its collateral organizations (AIA, AIAS, ACSA and NCARB) to  inspire each architecture school to muster its internal resources -- faculty, administration, students and trustees -- to develop curricular objectives that all graduates -- of any school -- be proficient in designing projects which mitigate climate change while being practical, inspiring and accountable to users and to society.

If you agree with this idea, please consider signing our petition <http://www.change.org/petitions/require-of-graduating-architects-full-competence-to-design-energy-neutral-buildings>. In addition, a couple of us have been working on pulling together what we call "A Working Inventory for the 21st Century Architect of Design Principles & Parameters, Design Tools, and Design Coordination that comprise the 'Architecture' of Climate Change mitigation". Want to get involved?




Original Message:
Sent: 09-28-2012 10:34
From: John Corkill
Subject: Green washed



-------------------------------------------
John Corkill AIA
Corkill Cush Reeves Architects
Bowie MD
-------------------------------------------


When I was on the National Board and was head of the then-ExComm of the then-PIA's back in the pliestocene era, we blew it on the environment. I hang my head in shame that none of us at the national nor the COTE level set up a system like LEED. While surely many AIA'ers and likely COTE members were involved in the Green Building Council, nevertheless, the main impetus should have come from AIA, where perhaps some of the excesses of the GBC could have been avoided.

First, however, the GBC has accomplished one wonderful thing : Those folks have given architecture some validity back.

Prior to LEED, architecture's Vitruvian motto, "Firmness, Commodity, and Delight" had devolved to "DELIGHT"
and that only. The mags, the schools, our chapter awards programs, all focused on the well-photographed, beautiful artifact - no matter how much energy, or practicality, or livibility was squandered in the headlong worship of beauty, uber alles.

Those who suffered in beautiful but illogical and energy-squandering buildings found it hard to rejoice in the AIA Design Award hanging in the lobby while freezing or sweltering, or facing ruinous energy bills. Our clients might have been forgiven for wondering where the "Firmness" and "Commodity" went.

However, having won that great moral victory for our profession, GBC has lapsed into the eternal human problem of deeply needing to follow yesterday's victories by even new and greater victories today and tomorrow. Thus, the exams get harder and more restrictive, and building codes and local officials are lobbied to fix in stone the LEED system as supreme. The expenditure of effort and scarce resources out of proportion to the increased savings of energy in the new, improved, tightened regulations starts to eat up the savings while bringing down on all of our heads the inevitable backlash from the industry and the community alike. 

There seems to be in the newer tightened LEED demands an increasing reliance on electronic gadgetry to control every aspect of a building's performance, regardless of the scale of the structure, or the staffing available to maintain the place. Embarrassments such as early LEED buildings that do not perform as predicted, LEED (sorry) to demands that "Commissioners" be hired- at fees similar to architect's original design fees - to put the building through its predicted paces. When these unregistered "Commissioners" find what seem to them to be design errors during their commissioning, they have a convenient scapegoat, the original architect, whose liability insurance will surely pay for any corrections or improvements.

Then, the owner takes over the building and fails to tune up the computer controls, or lets tenants leave windows open in the winter/summer. Inevitably, that building will burn more energy than was predicted, and if the hapless architect has guaranteed a certain cost level for future energy bills as part of her LEEDs or her marketing to get the job, she might as well bring her liability insurer in early to prepare for the inevitable lawsuit.

Other than those few quibbles, LEED is great.

John F. Corkill, Jr., AIA

Last week, Robert Ivy, in "AIArchitect" asked members to identify issues for AIA's positions leading to the Accreditation Review Conference (ARC) to be held in 2013.

The NAAB holds the ARC every five years. The last ARC was in 2008. Representatives from AIA, NCARB, ACSA, AIAS and NAAB assemble and deliberate to determine the changes to be adopted in the 2014 Conditions for Accreditation, including the Student Performance Criteria. Following the ARC, members of the NAAB write the new Conditions, which are then sent out for public comment, and then modified and adopted. They are then in effect for 5 years.

Now is the time to let AIA know of your concerns as they begin preparing their positions ahead of the ARC.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Broshar FAIA
Principal
INVISION Planning Architecture Interiors
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-01-2012 08:53
From: Peter Papesch
Subject: Green washed

-------------------------------------------
Peter Papesch AIA
Chair, BSA Sustainability Education Committee
Former (and founding) chair of USGBC-MA Education Committee
Boston MA
papesch@mac.com
-------------------------------------------

First of all, please forgive this double-posting, but I didn't realize that it is preferable to Reply to the Discussion Forum than to Post Message ... ;-(

John Corkill pretty much says it all: the AIA missed the opportunity to establish performance criteria, GBC picked up the challenge, and now GBC has become an institution that needs to find ways to continue its economic success - a success that is and was built on the obvious need of society to have metrics for evaluating architects', engineers' and contractors' claims of the performance of their designs (i.e. pre-implementation guesses).

Leaving aside the debate about LEED accreditation by individuals or firms as a credibility metric for the public, nothing prevents all firms interested in climate change mitigation rather than aggravation to use LEED or Living Building Challenge as checklists to incorporate and coordinate the best combination of energy-frugal strategies in their designs. Note the emphasis on strategies rather than specific task items.

Now here comes the problem, which we've been trying to address since 2009: few graduating professionals in the building sector (architects, engineers, contractors) have learned the tools, skills and methods - and in particular the interdisciplinary collaboration - that a carbon neutral project requires. For that reason we have been attempting to convince the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) and its collateral organizations (AIA, AIAS, ACSA and NCARB) to  inspire each architecture school to muster its internal resources -- faculty, administration, students and trustees -- to develop curricular objectives that all graduates -- of any school -- be proficient in designing projects which mitigate climate change while being practical, inspiring and accountable to users and to society.

If you agree with this idea, please consider signing our petition <http://www.change.org/petitions/require-of-graduating-architects-full-competence-to-design-energy-neutral-buildings>. In addition, a couple of us have been working on pulling together what we call "A Working Inventory for the 21st Century Architect of Design Principles & Parameters, Design Tools, and Design Coordination that comprise the 'Architecture' of Climate Change mitigation". Want to get involved?

To learn more go to: http://www.aia.org/repositioning

(Included there) Let Your Voice be Heard
1.   Join the AIA KnowledgeNet discussion forum and share your comments with other members.
2.   Email the AIA

-------------------------------------------
Kathleen Simpson
Manager, Knowledge Communities
The American Institute of Architects
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-02-2012 09:49
From: Michael Broshar
Subject: Green washed

Last week, Robert Ivy, in "AIArchitect" asked members to identify issues for AIA's positions leading to the Accreditation Review Conference (ARC) to be held in 2013.

The NAAB holds the ARC every five years. The last ARC was in 2008. Representatives from AIA, NCARB, ACSA, AIAS and NAAB assemble and deliberate to determine the changes to be adopted in the 2014 Conditions for Accreditation, including the Student Performance Criteria. Following the ARC, members of the NAAB write the new Conditions, which are then sent out for public comment, and then modified and adopted. They are then in effect for 5 years.

Now is the time to let AIA know of your concerns as they begin preparing their positions ahead of the ARC.

-------------------------------------------
Michael Broshar FAIA
Principal
INVISION Planning Architecture Interiors
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-01-2012 08:53
From: Peter Papesch
Subject: Green washed

-------------------------------------------
Peter Papesch AIA
Chair, BSA Sustainability Education Committee
Former (and founding) chair of USGBC-MA Education Committee
Boston MA
papesch@mac.com
-------------------------------------------

First of all, please forgive this double-posting, but I didn't realize that it is preferable to Reply to the Discussion Forum than to Post Message ... ;-(

John Corkill pretty much says it all: the AIA missed the opportunity to establish performance criteria, GBC picked up the challenge, and now GBC has become an institution that needs to find ways to continue its economic success - a success that is and was built on the obvious need of society to have metrics for evaluating architects', engineers' and contractors' claims of the performance of their designs (i.e. pre-implementation guesses).

Leaving aside the debate about LEED accreditation by individuals or firms as a credibility metric for the public, nothing prevents all firms interested in climate change mitigation rather than aggravation to use LEED or Living Building Challenge as checklists to incorporate and coordinate the best combination of energy-frugal strategies in their designs. Note the emphasis on strategies rather than specific task items.

Now here comes the problem, which we've been trying to address since 2009: few graduating professionals in the building sector (architects, engineers, contractors) have learned the tools, skills and methods - and in particular the interdisciplinary collaboration - that a carbon neutral project requires. For that reason we have been attempting to convince the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) and its collateral organizations (AIA, AIAS, ACSA and NCARB) to  inspire each architecture school to muster its internal resources -- faculty, administration, students and trustees -- to develop curricular objectives that all graduates -- of any school -- be proficient in designing projects which mitigate climate change while being practical, inspiring and accountable to users and to society.

If you agree with this idea, please consider signing our petition <http://www.change.org/petitions/require-of-graduating-architects-full-competence-to-design-energy-neutral-buildings>. In addition, a couple of us have been working on pulling together what we call "A Working Inventory for the 21st Century Architect of Design Principles & Parameters, Design Tools, and Design Coordination that comprise the 'Architecture' of Climate Change mitigation". Want to get involved?

As to the first part of your post, go ahead and become LEED certified.  Even if you never do a LEED project, the education you gain is enormous and will help you in your practice.  And becoming a LEED AP certified professional demonstrates your commitment and gives you the background you need to explain to your clients the advantages and pitfalls that attend trying for project certification.  And once you would be LEED certified, working with any of the other rating schemes is easier.

As to actually doing a LEED project, our office's philosophy is pretty much in line with your statement:  It just costs too much money that could have been more profitably spent on the building or kept in the owner's pocket.  There are clients who see an advantage in spending their money on LEED certification and are willing to spend the money to prove their commitment to sustainability.  Most clients with whom we do business are content to have the benefits of a sustainable building without the extra cost and hassle of certification.  We don't lobby clients

On the other hand, project certification does demonstrate actual accomplishment, without which you, your client, and the public are left to wonder if your project is green or just green washed.

-------------------------------------------
David Schele AIA
Felder Group Architects Inc
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Thomas,

I appreciate your viewpoint.  You make some good arguements, and they are the most common arguements I hear against green building certification programs. 

To your arguement about waiting it out so you don't have to learn and invest in a new program.  There could be a lot of time lost in the meantime.  Not only that but much like your analogy of Autocad and Revit, LEED and other programs like Greenglobes are different tools in the same toolbox.  You may need to learn both programs to be able to offer the best value to your customers as one program does not fit all projects.

To your point about not wanting to put the money into a certification program I have three counter-arguements.  One the certification program is really about trust.  If your client can trust you to actually design in the green features, and you can trust the contractor not to cut corners, and you can trust your client not to cut out features to save money then the program does have less value and maybe should be considered a value engineering point.  The second thing these programs deliver is a marketing tool for your client to be able to show thier clients.  It gives them a symbol to represent all the added value thier building has to offer.  Finally it has been my experience that when a client says "Oh I would rather put the money into green features than spend money on LEED."  What they mean is I don't care about green features at all I just want to put up as cheap a building as possible.  Certainly there are likely exceptions to this rule, but I have not seen it.  Typically for me when the first thing out the gate is cutting the green accountability system from the project most of the other green features get left on the drafting board as well.

I wish you the best decision making, and I too am only giving my opinion and don't want to anger anyone out there.

-------------------------------------------
Alexander Webber Assoc. AIA
Architectural Intern
Henneman Engineering Inc.
Champaign IL
-------------------------------------------

I personally think that no one does it better in the US than the USGBC/ LEED.  Getting to be a LEED Green Associate is not that expensive or difficult (only 2 hr. test) and the networking opportunities within the organization are significant.  These days many graduate students are coming out of school with LEED Green Associate accreditation, as well as the more significant BD+C, and many of them have had opportunities to work on LEED projects (my institution graduates at about 20 per year).  So I encourage you all to engage and look under the hood - and I sincerely believe that the USGBC is extremely useful to any professional practice.

Cheers,

Ludmilla
-------------------------------------------
Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham AIA, LEED BD+C
Senior Facilities Planner
University of Massachusetts
Amherst MA
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for all the replies, and keep them coming. I should clarify that I have worked on a few projects that where after leed certification and I think I understand a lot of the process even though I was not the leed manager, we have a few led AP's around. I did however design one of the buildings (most of the others where corporate franchise national design intent). One county gov project got as far as going out to bid and got canned by the economy and the niby's.  The others are local business, one of which just opened the new building and we are waiting on a leed verdict.  Alexander is right; in all cases here the main reason for the client to seek certification was for marketing purposes, I just heard an advertisement on the radio from one of our clients "come to the grand opening of our new green, environmentally friendly showroom!".  I suppose the marketing aspect can be applied to an architectural practice and is an argument to get accredited now, need every edge we can get these days "we are accredited in all green building certification programs!".  I also agree with and have previously thought about Alexander's "tools in the same tool box" comments (well said Alexander). Part of the discussion I think is to ask do we have enough tools for the job? Do we have too many tools for the job?  Do we have redundant tools that do the same thing? Do we have to buy all the tools? Which tool is best? Which tool do I want to use? Can I get the job done with the tool I chose to use or do we have to use the tool we are told to use?

-------------------------------------------
Thomas Streicher AIA
Thomas Streicher, Architect
Monroe NY
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 09-28-2012 11:34
From: Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham
Subject: Green washed

I personally think that no one does it better in the US than the USGBC/ LEED.  Getting to be a LEED Green Associate is not that expensive or difficult (only 2 hr. test) and the networking opportunities within the organization are significant.  These days many graduate students are coming out of school with LEED Green Associate accreditation, as well as the more significant BD+C, and many of them have had opportunities to work on LEED projects (my institution graduates at about 20 per year).  So I encourage you all to engage and look under the hood - and I sincerely believe that the USGBC is extremely useful to any professional practice.

Cheers,

Ludmilla
-------------------------------------------
Ludmilla Pavlova-Gillham AIA, LEED BD+C
Senior Facilities Planner
University of Massachusetts
Amherst MA
-------------------------------------------