Yes, it works both ways though. On the one hand the insurance companies prefer that only licensed people manage projects, be called any title with "manager" in it or that would imply control over projects, and perform most construction administration duties, especially site inspections and observations. This is to avoid allegations that unqualified personnel were negligently assigned to duties beyond their capabilities.
However, having employees who are licensed (or LEED accredited, or CSI certified, or hold any other widely recognized and/or test-based credential) means that the firm can be held to a higher standard of care. Typically the more credentials the firm's employees hold, the higher the firm's E&O premiums.
Firms usually see this as a necessary cost of doing business, at least in the case of architecture licensing/registration.
But with the abundance of LEED accredited people - which includes many with no actual LEED experience - combined with the still relative scarcity/infrequency of actual LEED projects in many firms, it's understandable that some firms may not see "LEED accredited" on an intern's resume as a positive for the firm - especially if the firm already has LEED accredited personnel.
The way our insurance rep explained that to us was that the more licensed employees we have, the more likely that we have employees who are not working under direct owner supervision at all times. We aren't supposed to send an unlicensed person into the field alone, or let him draw up contracts or review shop drawings or anything like that without supervision. But a licensed person is by definition at least minimally qualified to do those things independently, so it's normal and likely that firms will use licensed people for those tasks, and won't always oversee them as closely. So the insurance company wants more money for taking on that risk.
because of that "silly checklist" though, there are a ton of buildings that are at least a tiny bit better off than they would normally be. a building that is certified is more green than a lot of these buildings would normally be.
i think for an architect to dismiss LEED completely to a client or anyone else is kind of arrogant. unless every one of your buildings is always 100% sustainable, to say LEED is worthless is ridiculous.
I have a hard time explaining that this brownfield site, that Mr. /ms. Owner just spent huge dollars cleaning up is less suitable than the greenfield site b/c it is two blocks closer to the bus stop.
I am planning on becoming a LEED AP just to call it for what it is - a silly check list.
As of may 2008 the exam is now held in the same manner as the ARE. according to the handbook, it covers subjects of how to check which box, how to evaluate "technical work products prepared by other team members," and "participate and guide the development of technical analyses with design professionals".
the point is to give incentive for builders and clients to create sustainable buildings
yes, if you follow the energy code you are halfway there. but do you know how many buildings would stop right there if there was no incentive? think of the other half of points achieved
you cant honestly think that is pointless for them to get the 20 freebie points and then add on the 20 more sustainable aspects to the building that otherwise wouldnt be there
i seriously do not understand your point. the points are too easy to achieve? oh dear lord, we are now complaining about things being too easy?
i still dont see what is silly about giving people some incentive to build sustainably. its not like architects were very successful before LEED came around in convincing people to design sustainably
it all sounds like being against something just to be against it
i dont see the point
marmkid: I think your attitude about this is spot-on. LEED will become more rigorous with time - I think they took a very practical "walk before running" approach at the start that didn't scare the begeeshish out of people who easily could have ignored, or fought, any move whatsoever toward sustainability.
say what you will about LEED - you can't deny that they've had a huge positive impact. let's be grateful for what's been achieved and encourage them (and ourselves) to push for more.
really the only serious problem with LEED that is currently developing is the use of it as a measuring stick to recieve public funds from public entities... such as municipalities...
i believe pittsburgh is currently making it a requirement to be LEED certified in order to recieve any public development funds in its downtown districts...
when you have a private although 'non-profit' organization setting the standards for the release of tax payer money i think there is a problem there...
municipalities should follow the example set by chicago to develop their own systems and metrics for measuring sustainability that can be more closely tailored to local conditions and needs...
thats a good point. i do think that will be the next step regarding all of this as well. pretty soon it will just be something that is integrated into the particular codes
i think the goal of this is to not make it something you should get a pat on the back for. it should eventually just be the way you build. LEED is a good stepping stone for the smaller, less glamorous building projects to have a reason to think sustainably
its easy for a huge billion dollar skyscraper to be green, but what about the local supermarket. if its not in the code, they need something to justify going anything beyond the code, when its not a high profile building. LEED at least gives those types of projects a reason to think a little more about the design impacts it will have.
LEED for existing buildings is really one of the best products they have... its going to take several more decades to cycle out the current building stock to newer more efficient versions... anything that can be done now to convince clients to upgrade their MEP systems in the mid term is good
hopefully they can just integrate a lot of these ideas into the building codes to make it so you just dont wait until a buildings life cycle is done, it makes people more proactive in upgrading their buildings.
maybe if they didnt make it mandatory for existing buildings right away, maybe gave them like a certain window of time in which to upgrade, and anything sooner, they get some kind of funding to give them the incentive
i don't like leed. to me it's a branding effort and reduces whatever sustainable/environment issues an architect may have to nothing more that a sound bite, e.g, a building passed or it doesn't, an architect is either leed approved or he isn't.
architect's are supposed to act with sensitivity and wisdom in all aspects of practice and i don't see why they would cede the sanctioning of that (i.e., the now fadish "green" movement) to a non-profit that obviously feels it knows better than them. building codes are annoying enough. becoming leed-ap seems akin to becoming zombie.
to go a step further, how much do any of you supporters of leed really know about the usgbc? yes, it's a non-profit but who's running it? who sits on the board and what are there ties with any number of manufacturing corporations? ostensibly the usgbc is motivated by a result to improve the environment and care for the future of the planet...but there are also some handsome profit margins in the more expensive "green" versions of materials now moving into the marketplace. it would be a shame to see an entire profession (a supposedly intelligent profession) duped by market forces.
perhaps i'm mistaken, but those are questions worth asking and if you're already privy to the answers then please share.
Are those questions on the exam? If so, then my apologies...I probably should have researched more before posting my opinion. Obviuosly enough, I'm not leed accredited.
well i actually personally know at least 2 people who were heavily involved in the development of LEED and the firm i work for was a very early supporter and contributor to the development of leed... we are also a charter member for LEED India...
the organization is legit... there isn't a bunch of backroom deals going on with the green mafia... which by the way who are all these super powerful sustainable manufacturers that you seem to think the USGBC is in cahoots with? can you answer that question?
puddles
you do raise some good questions, but i dont understand where all the skepticism from architects comes from? why do you automatically assume something shady is going on? especially when you havent even done the research to find out the answers yourself.
no architect should ever spec or design with any product or material they are told is sustainable without doing any research at all on it.
but you cant seriously argue that LEED has not been helpful in the development of sustainable design. there are countless numbers of projects that now take into account sustainable features they otherwise wouldnt have cared to think about. please tell me how that is a bad thing?
do you suggest sustainable design to all your clients and get them to agree to everything you say? because if not, gaining LEED certification is an easy way to help convince a client
it seems you are like the other people who are opposed to LEED without really doing any research about it. you are opposed to it because its popular? its now a "fad"? i dont get why people think LEED is bad because it is now getting people to think about sustainable design, when BEFORE, architects did a really terrible job at convincing anyone to think sustainable.
being opposed to something just for the sake of being opposed to it isnt something someone in a so called "intelligent" profession should do
and you didnt give any actual reasons to be opposed to LEED, just that you thought there was something shady going on in the background of it, based on just a hunch?
LEED isnt perfect by any means, and it needs architects help to make it better, not bitch about it and put it down for no reason at all
if you care about sustainable design like it sounds like you do, i dont see why you wouldnt want to help improve it
architects are supposed to act with sensitivity and wisdom in all aspects of practice and i don't see why they would cede the sanctioning of that
This is a totally valid statement and the part that worries me. I worked on a LEED gold project at my old firm and so know a bit about the process, but still have no intention of getting certified. I think I can design a project with "sensitivity and wisdom" that would meet many of the goals of a certified project. But I do wonder if I will ever not be able to get a project because they require for some reason having a LEED AP on the job. I don't worry about it, but I'm curious if it will ever happen.
instead of leed, i think they should come out with ld (leadership in design). if you pass the multiple choice ld test, then you become an accredited design leader, capable of producing sensitive and/or wise buildings.
lb
that is definitely something that might happen at some point. if a client wants a LEED certified building enough, but doesnt want to hire an outside LEED consultant, you may end up losing something if you dont have someone in your office who is a LEED AP. it wouldnt have to be you, yourself. but that might be something that comes up. though if someone is that much of a stickler about things, it probably wouldnt be worth the fight or anything, since they would be doing bare bones stuff at best.
jafidler/treekiller
that seems the natural progression of things. there will eventually be different levels and different titles probably depending on what your profession is.
since LEED is in is early early stage, it needs to begin like this to make everyone aware of it and get people involved. it couldnt be a real hard test to start with, and have everyone fail and lose interest completely.
i agree that not everyone needs to worry about becoming a LEED AP, that really doesnt do much for you if you dont work on sustainable projects or research any of it yourself. but having the ability to certify buildings by LEED, that is a great way to generate interest from clients to think about building sustainably, and in a lot of cases where they would not ever consider it before. like i said in another thread, i am working on a factory/warehouse that is now going for LEED certification. they wouldnt be able to afford to upgrade any of these things, except they have a seperate budget generated from the PR it will bring in when their new factory is certified.
that would never have happened before if they just claimed it was a sustainable building.
if a manufacturer claims their product is "green" its usually not too hard to confirm that. you just do a little bit of research and compare it to a similar product.
its really not that hard, and most of the time you will find that they are not trying to scam you
its like 10 minutes of research
I SPENT A LARGE MAJORITY OF MY CAREER SUPPORTING AND ASSISTING ARCHTIECTS WITH CADD!!!
I HAVE BEEN WONDERING IF I SHOULD BECOME A LEED AP; AS IT SEEMS CAD HAS BEEN DISPLACED BY BIM, AND NOW ARCHITECTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THEIR WORK THEMSELVES; FINALLY. SO I AM LOOKING HERE AFTER THREE YEARS OF WAITING AND SEEING; AND I FIND THIS STUPID IDIOT ARCHTIECT MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT ASSISTANTS; MANY OF WHOM HAVE BEEN TOTALLY FINANCIALLY DESTROYED BY AN INDUSTRY THAT HAS FAILED MISERABLY!! THIS IS COMPLETELY INSULTING!!!
LIKE IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT I SIMPLY DESIRE TO WORK AND FIND THE ONLY TIME YOU NEED ME IS WHEN THE MARKET IS SATURATED BY LIES AND GREED!!!
I HOPE ALL THE LEED AP`S TAKE OVER AND THE ARCHITECTS SHRIVEL UP AND DIE!!!
Total LEED Accredited Professionals as of April 30, 2008: 51,452
Yes, it works both ways though. On the one hand the insurance companies prefer that only licensed people manage projects, be called any title with "manager" in it or that would imply control over projects, and perform most construction administration duties, especially site inspections and observations. This is to avoid allegations that unqualified personnel were negligently assigned to duties beyond their capabilities.
However, having employees who are licensed (or LEED accredited, or CSI certified, or hold any other widely recognized and/or test-based credential) means that the firm can be held to a higher standard of care. Typically the more credentials the firm's employees hold, the higher the firm's E&O premiums.
Firms usually see this as a necessary cost of doing business, at least in the case of architecture licensing/registration.
But with the abundance of LEED accredited people - which includes many with no actual LEED experience - combined with the still relative scarcity/infrequency of actual LEED projects in many firms, it's understandable that some firms may not see "LEED accredited" on an intern's resume as a positive for the firm - especially if the firm already has LEED accredited personnel.
The way our insurance rep explained that to us was that the more licensed employees we have, the more likely that we have employees who are not working under direct owner supervision at all times. We aren't supposed to send an unlicensed person into the field alone, or let him draw up contracts or review shop drawings or anything like that without supervision. But a licensed person is by definition at least minimally qualified to do those things independently, so it's normal and likely that firms will use licensed people for those tasks, and won't always oversee them as closely. So the insurance company wants more money for taking on that risk.
because of that "silly checklist" though, there are a ton of buildings that are at least a tiny bit better off than they would normally be. a building that is certified is more green than a lot of these buildings would normally be.
i think for an architect to dismiss LEED completely to a client or anyone else is kind of arrogant. unless every one of your buildings is always 100% sustainable, to say LEED is worthless is ridiculous.
I have a hard time explaining that this brownfield site, that Mr. /ms. Owner just spent huge dollars cleaning up is less suitable than the greenfield site b/c it is two blocks closer to the bus stop.
I am planning on becoming a LEED AP just to call it for what it is - a silly check list.
As of may 2008 the exam is now held in the same manner as the ARE. according to the handbook, it covers subjects of how to check which box, how to evaluate "technical work products prepared by other team members," and "participate and guide the development of technical analyses with design professionals".
what do you say to a client who only cares about getting the LEED credits and nothing else?
do you criticize them for not being "really sustainable" and only following a silly checklist?
i dont understand such a backlash towards something trying to promote sustainable design and building
b/c most of the points are pointless.
so much of the mep ideals most of us do from the get go.
if you follow the icc energy code you are half way there.
you cant make every single point hard to obtain
the point is to give incentive for builders and clients to create sustainable buildings
yes, if you follow the energy code you are halfway there. but do you know how many buildings would stop right there if there was no incentive? think of the other half of points achieved
you cant honestly think that is pointless for them to get the 20 freebie points and then add on the 20 more sustainable aspects to the building that otherwise wouldnt be there
i seriously do not understand your point. the points are too easy to achieve? oh dear lord, we are now complaining about things being too easy?
I didn't say they were hard. just silly.
I just wish leed should was more than "the e-myth revisited."
not sure what the e-myth revisited is
i still dont see what is silly about giving people some incentive to build sustainably. its not like architects were very successful before LEED came around in convincing people to design sustainably
it all sounds like being against something just to be against it
i dont see the point
marmkid: I think your attitude about this is spot-on. LEED will become more rigorous with time - I think they took a very practical "walk before running" approach at the start that didn't scare the begeeshish out of people who easily could have ignored, or fought, any move whatsoever toward sustainability.
say what you will about LEED - you can't deny that they've had a huge positive impact. let's be grateful for what's been achieved and encourage them (and ourselves) to push for more.
really the only serious problem with LEED that is currently developing is the use of it as a measuring stick to recieve public funds from public entities... such as municipalities...
i believe pittsburgh is currently making it a requirement to be LEED certified in order to recieve any public development funds in its downtown districts...
when you have a private although 'non-profit' organization setting the standards for the release of tax payer money i think there is a problem there...
municipalities should follow the example set by chicago to develop their own systems and metrics for measuring sustainability that can be more closely tailored to local conditions and needs...
thats a good point. i do think that will be the next step regarding all of this as well. pretty soon it will just be something that is integrated into the particular codes
i think the goal of this is to not make it something you should get a pat on the back for. it should eventually just be the way you build. LEED is a good stepping stone for the smaller, less glamorous building projects to have a reason to think sustainably
its easy for a huge billion dollar skyscraper to be green, but what about the local supermarket. if its not in the code, they need something to justify going anything beyond the code, when its not a high profile building. LEED at least gives those types of projects a reason to think a little more about the design impacts it will have.
LEED for existing buildings is really one of the best products they have... its going to take several more decades to cycle out the current building stock to newer more efficient versions... anything that can be done now to convince clients to upgrade their MEP systems in the mid term is good
hopefully they can just integrate a lot of these ideas into the building codes to make it so you just dont wait until a buildings life cycle is done, it makes people more proactive in upgrading their buildings.
maybe if they didnt make it mandatory for existing buildings right away, maybe gave them like a certain window of time in which to upgrade, and anything sooner, they get some kind of funding to give them the incentive
did anyone else get the USGBC memo today on LEED 2009 (v3.0)?
sounds like it aims to fix alot of the problems described above...
see this thread
i don't like leed. to me it's a branding effort and reduces whatever sustainable/environment issues an architect may have to nothing more that a sound bite, e.g, a building passed or it doesn't, an architect is either leed approved or he isn't.
architect's are supposed to act with sensitivity and wisdom in all aspects of practice and i don't see why they would cede the sanctioning of that (i.e., the now fadish "green" movement) to a non-profit that obviously feels it knows better than them. building codes are annoying enough. becoming leed-ap seems akin to becoming zombie.
to go a step further, how much do any of you supporters of leed really know about the usgbc? yes, it's a non-profit but who's running it? who sits on the board and what are there ties with any number of manufacturing corporations? ostensibly the usgbc is motivated by a result to improve the environment and care for the future of the planet...but there are also some handsome profit margins in the more expensive "green" versions of materials now moving into the marketplace. it would be a shame to see an entire profession (a supposedly intelligent profession) duped by market forces.
perhaps i'm mistaken, but those are questions worth asking and if you're already privy to the answers then please share.
puddles - is that a test? cause those questions are on the exam and I already passed.
My clerical assistant is currently studying for the LEED exam.
curt- are they studying for you or for themselves?
Are those questions on the exam? If so, then my apologies...I probably should have researched more before posting my opinion. Obviuosly enough, I'm not leed accredited.
puddles..
well i actually personally know at least 2 people who were heavily involved in the development of LEED and the firm i work for was a very early supporter and contributor to the development of leed... we are also a charter member for LEED India...
the organization is legit... there isn't a bunch of backroom deals going on with the green mafia... which by the way who are all these super powerful sustainable manufacturers that you seem to think the USGBC is in cahoots with? can you answer that question?
puddles
you do raise some good questions, but i dont understand where all the skepticism from architects comes from? why do you automatically assume something shady is going on? especially when you havent even done the research to find out the answers yourself.
no architect should ever spec or design with any product or material they are told is sustainable without doing any research at all on it.
but you cant seriously argue that LEED has not been helpful in the development of sustainable design. there are countless numbers of projects that now take into account sustainable features they otherwise wouldnt have cared to think about. please tell me how that is a bad thing?
do you suggest sustainable design to all your clients and get them to agree to everything you say? because if not, gaining LEED certification is an easy way to help convince a client
it seems you are like the other people who are opposed to LEED without really doing any research about it. you are opposed to it because its popular? its now a "fad"? i dont get why people think LEED is bad because it is now getting people to think about sustainable design, when BEFORE, architects did a really terrible job at convincing anyone to think sustainable.
being opposed to something just for the sake of being opposed to it isnt something someone in a so called "intelligent" profession should do
and you didnt give any actual reasons to be opposed to LEED, just that you thought there was something shady going on in the background of it, based on just a hunch?
LEED isnt perfect by any means, and it needs architects help to make it better, not bitch about it and put it down for no reason at all
if you care about sustainable design like it sounds like you do, i dont see why you wouldnt want to help improve it
This is a totally valid statement and the part that worries me. I worked on a LEED gold project at my old firm and so know a bit about the process, but still have no intention of getting certified. I think I can design a project with "sensitivity and wisdom" that would meet many of the goals of a certified project. But I do wonder if I will ever not be able to get a project because they require for some reason having a LEED AP on the job. I don't worry about it, but I'm curious if it will ever happen.
instead of leed, i think they should come out with ld (leadership in design). if you pass the multiple choice ld test, then you become an accredited design leader, capable of producing sensitive and/or wise buildings.
the more a manufacturer says something is 'sustainable' or 'green', the more skeptical I am of their claim.
I like the idea of the lD accreditation. Just make the test hard enough that less then half the takers can pass.
lb
that is definitely something that might happen at some point. if a client wants a LEED certified building enough, but doesnt want to hire an outside LEED consultant, you may end up losing something if you dont have someone in your office who is a LEED AP. it wouldnt have to be you, yourself. but that might be something that comes up. though if someone is that much of a stickler about things, it probably wouldnt be worth the fight or anything, since they would be doing bare bones stuff at best.
jafidler/treekiller
that seems the natural progression of things. there will eventually be different levels and different titles probably depending on what your profession is.
since LEED is in is early early stage, it needs to begin like this to make everyone aware of it and get people involved. it couldnt be a real hard test to start with, and have everyone fail and lose interest completely.
i agree that not everyone needs to worry about becoming a LEED AP, that really doesnt do much for you if you dont work on sustainable projects or research any of it yourself. but having the ability to certify buildings by LEED, that is a great way to generate interest from clients to think about building sustainably, and in a lot of cases where they would not ever consider it before. like i said in another thread, i am working on a factory/warehouse that is now going for LEED certification. they wouldnt be able to afford to upgrade any of these things, except they have a seperate budget generated from the PR it will bring in when their new factory is certified.
that would never have happened before if they just claimed it was a sustainable building.
if a manufacturer claims their product is "green" its usually not too hard to confirm that. you just do a little bit of research and compare it to a similar product.
its really not that hard, and most of the time you will find that they are not trying to scam you
its like 10 minutes of research
DID SOMEONE REALLY SAY "CAD MONKEY???" WTF!!!
I SPENT A LARGE MAJORITY OF MY CAREER SUPPORTING AND ASSISTING ARCHTIECTS WITH CADD!!!
I HAVE BEEN WONDERING IF I SHOULD BECOME A LEED AP; AS IT SEEMS CAD HAS BEEN DISPLACED BY BIM, AND NOW ARCHITECTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THEIR WORK THEMSELVES; FINALLY. SO I AM LOOKING HERE AFTER THREE YEARS OF WAITING AND SEEING; AND I FIND THIS STUPID IDIOT ARCHTIECT MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT ASSISTANTS; MANY OF WHOM HAVE BEEN TOTALLY FINANCIALLY DESTROYED BY AN INDUSTRY THAT HAS FAILED MISERABLY!! THIS IS COMPLETELY INSULTING!!!
LIKE IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT I SIMPLY DESIRE TO WORK AND FIND THE ONLY TIME YOU NEED ME IS WHEN THE MARKET IS SATURATED BY LIES AND GREED!!!
I HOPE ALL THE LEED AP`S TAKE OVER AND THE ARCHITECTS SHRIVEL UP AND DIE!!!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.