Committee on Design

As a member of the AIA, you have at least one state registration. Your registration is essential to you to practice as an architect and it is essential to the AIA in order to have you as a member. (As a matter of fact, you doubtless studied and worked many hours in order to take a test, and passed it, to obtain this registration. It did not come to you lightly.) I bring this up because the AIA - as I myself do - appears to support 'green' design. Many of the concepts of 'green' design are irrefutable. Learning passive solar design, for instance, was understood to be an essential element of good architectural practice half a century ago, as older editions of Ramsey/Sleeper will attest to. But the current trend towards the application of Energy Star and LEED Rating Systems to local building regulations undermines your registration and is in direct contradiction to the interests and responsibilities of the AIA in representing its membership. Raters who do the work of these systems do not have to be certified with the state they do it in, as the building officials who do so must be. Though Raters have only to be certified by the System they use - be it Energy Star or LEED or another, they determine - by their evaluation - whether or not a proposed project can get a building permit or after it is built, a certificate of occupancy. Some will answer that Raters are often architects as well. But sometimes - if not often - they are not. This does not address the fundamental question: why is the AIA supporting (apparently, due to its silence on the matter) the adoption of these Rating Systems when it is directly contrary to its interest in its membership? Is the AIA now requiring its members to become certified in these systems? Isn't this another form of registration? Shouldn't Raters ethically be third parties? Shouldn't the AIA be encouraging the states instead to require some minimum form of certification of its Raters? Certification that is fully and irrefutably independent of its organizational structure?

-------------------------------------------
Stephen Lesser AIA
Stephen A. Lesser Architect
East Hampton NY
-------------------------------------------

In response to Stephen Lesser, AIA, NCARB:

I raised similar concerns in an earlier post on this discussion forum.  I think this is the number one issue that the AIA National needs to address; in my opinion, they need to provide a Position Statement or White Paper on their stance regarding LEED and the USGBC.  As it now stands, I see both a generational and an ideological rift developing among the AIA membership on this issue.

In reading "The Philosophy of Sustainable Design," I found a few portions that concerned me and that, I think, are contributing to a less than pleasant dialog between the various generations of architects in the workplace.  On page 178, in the aforementioned book, in the chapter titled 'Greening Your Organization,' this is written:

"Another challenge for some leaders is to allow younger staff members who are better informed about sustainable design to become the experts."

I think a new graduate might misinterpret that to mean that it is okay to disrespect/dismiss the firm's authority"as they are a bunch of old fogies who don't know anything."  To me, this discredits the solid architectural education of those "baby boomers" who graduated back in the 70's and 80's, etc. as if they never studied the multitude of environmental, cultural, and indigenous factors affecting each site.  I don't see how this mindset- of dismissing key members of the design team- contributes to the collaborative team approach advocated in the holistic design method promoted by the book.

And regarding the intent of the "green movement" to become code, presumably promoted and lead by the USGBC, here is what is stated on pages 33-34 of the same aforementioned book:

"This decade will likely be known as the decade that green became mainstream, as people from all walks of life and from all backgrounds began to adopt the principles of sustainable design.  At the time of this book's writing [it was published in 2004], several cities and government entities have adopted the LEED rating system as their minimum standard of building.  Green is becoming policy.  By 2003, approximately four percent of all building construction in the United States was pursuing a LEED rating."

It is time for the AIA and the USGBC to promote more camaraderie between the two entities; either that, or the AIA needs to otherwise clearly state their position on such.

Bibliography:
1.McLennan, Jason F., The Philosophy of Sustainable Design,ECOtone publishing company, 2004.



-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 12-31-2010 16:17
From: Stephen Lesser
Subject: Registration and Rater Certification

As a member of the AIA, you have at least one state registration. Your registration is essential to you to practice as an architect and it is essential to the AIA in order to have you as a member. (As a matter of fact, you doubtless studied and worked many hours in order to take a test, and passed it, to obtain this registration. It did not come to you lightly.) I bring this up because the AIA - as I myself do - appears to support 'green' design. Many of the concepts of 'green' design are irrefutable. Learning passive solar design, for instance, was understood to be an essential element of good architectural practice half a century ago, as older editions of Ramsey/Sleeper will attest to. But the current trend towards the application of Energy Star and LEED Rating Systems to local building regulations undermines your registration and is in direct contradiction to the interests and responsibilities of the AIA in representing its membership. Raters who do the work of these systems do not have to be certified with the state they do it in, as the building officials who do so must be. Though Raters have only to be certified by the System they use - be it Energy Star or LEED or another, they determine - by their evaluation - whether or not a proposed project can get a building permit or after it is built, a certificate of occupancy. Some will answer that Raters are often architects as well. But sometimes - if not often - they are not. This does not address the fundamental question: why is the AIA supporting (apparently, due to its silence on the matter) the adoption of these Rating Systems when it is directly contrary to its interest in its membership? Is the AIA now requiring its members to become certified in these systems? Isn't this another form of registration? Shouldn't Raters ethically be third parties? Shouldn't the AIA be encouraging the states instead to require some minimum form of certification of its Raters? Certification that is fully and irrefutably independent of its organizational structure?

-------------------------------------------
Stephen Lesser AIA
Stephen A. Lesser Architect
East Hampton NY
-------------------------------------------

With the introduction of the IGCC. The relationship of "Green" design to Energy-Star or LEED certification takes a different turn. If/When the IGCC becomes adopted in local jurisdictions, raters only have a relationship to their certification systems, while certified building inspectors--those certified in the IGCC--have the responsibility to enforce IGCC code compliance, essentially replacing raters as the measurers of "green" design. While Energy-Star and LEED may continue to certify sustainable design, owners may not be as willing to "pay extra" for certification in those systems if mandatory code compliance gets them close to the same level of sustainability. Raters may have to become IGCC certified building inspectors to keep their businesses going. Then they can contract their services to local building departments that don't have the funds to hire full-time IGCC certified inspectors.

David W. Clarke AIA
President-Elect, AIA New Mexico - Southern Chapter
Senior Architect, Williams Design Group, Inc.
Las Cruces, NM
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 12-31-2010 16:17
From: Stephen Lesser
Subject: Registration and Rater Certification

As a member of the AIA, you have at least one state registration. Your registration is essential to you to practice as an architect and it is essential to the AIA in order to have you as a member. (As a matter of fact, you doubtless studied and worked many hours in order to take a test, and passed it, to obtain this registration. It did not come to you lightly.) I bring this up because the AIA - as I myself do - appears to support 'green' design. Many of the concepts of 'green' design are irrefutable. Learning passive solar design, for instance, was understood to be an essential element of good architectural practice half a century ago, as older editions of Ramsey/Sleeper will attest to. But the current trend towards the application of Energy Star and LEED Rating Systems to local building regulations undermines your registration and is in direct contradiction to the interests and responsibilities of the AIA in representing its membership. Raters who do the work of these systems do not have to be certified with the state they do it in, as the building officials who do so must be. Though Raters have only to be certified by the System they use - be it Energy Star or LEED or another, they determine - by their evaluation - whether or not a proposed project can get a building permit or after it is built, a certificate of occupancy. Some will answer that Raters are often architects as well. But sometimes - if not often - they are not. This does not address the fundamental question: why is the AIA supporting (apparently, due to its silence on the matter) the adoption of these Rating Systems when it is directly contrary to its interest in its membership? Is the AIA now requiring its members to become certified in these systems? Isn't this another form of registration? Shouldn't Raters ethically be third parties? Shouldn't the AIA be encouraging the states instead to require some minimum form of certification of its Raters? Certification that is fully and irrefutably independent of its organizational structure?

-------------------------------------------
Stephen Lesser AIA
Stephen A. Lesser Architect
East Hampton NY
-------------------------------------------

First of all you must realize that our elected officers are too busy seeking out obscure foreign architects and projects upon which to heap AMERICAN awards to be concerned about issues that affect our practice.

Hopefully, you have read about litigation that was filed against the USGBC and LEED back in October, citing, among other things, misrepresentation of benefits of LEED certification. It would certainly behoove the AIA to oppose any LEED related legislation until the suit is finalized. The USGBC website mentions the lawsuit, but it is my understanding that misrepresents facts about the suit. I have not looked, myself.

All that being said, I have long opposed building regulations being tied to a private, for profit, non-transparent entity. Allowing non-professionals to evaluate building design underscores the failure of the plan.

-------------------------------------------
Charles Graham AIA
Architect
O'Neal, Inc.
Greenville SC
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 12-31-2010 16:17
From: Stephen Lesser
Subject: Registration and Rater Certification

As a member of the AIA, you have at least one state registration. Your registration is essential to you to practice as an architect and it is essential to the AIA in order to have you as a member. (As a matter of fact, you doubtless studied and worked many hours in order to take a test, and passed it, to obtain this registration. It did not come to you lightly.) I bring this up because the AIA - as I myself do - appears to support 'green' design. Many of the concepts of 'green' design are irrefutable. Learning passive solar design, for instance, was understood to be an essential element of good architectural practice half a century ago, as older editions of Ramsey/Sleeper will attest to. But the current trend towards the application of Energy Star and LEED Rating Systems to local building regulations undermines your registration and is in direct contradiction to the interests and responsibilities of the AIA in representing its membership. Raters who do the work of these systems do not have to be certified with the state they do it in, as the building officials who do so must be. Though Raters have only to be certified by the System they use - be it Energy Star or LEED or another, they determine - by their evaluation - whether or not a proposed project can get a building permit or after it is built, a certificate of occupancy. Some will answer that Raters are often architects as well. But sometimes - if not often - they are not. This does not address the fundamental question: why is the AIA supporting (apparently, due to its silence on the matter) the adoption of these Rating Systems when it is directly contrary to its interest in its membership? Is the AIA now requiring its members to become certified in these systems? Isn't this another form of registration? Shouldn't Raters ethically be third parties? Shouldn't the AIA be encouraging the states instead to require some minimum form of certification of its Raters? Certification that is fully and irrefutably independent of its organizational structure?

-------------------------------------------
Stephen Lesser AIA
Stephen A. Lesser Architect
East Hampton NY
-------------------------------------------