Anyone else out there under the legacy LEED AP system considering just remaining a legacy LEED AP, as opposed to forking over money every two years to USGBC? Do you think people outside the building industry will really notice that much of a difference between the two?
My career track is sort of taking me to a place where the benefits of a current LEED AP designation are only tangental to what I do (e.g., I probably wouldn't be hired just for the 'sustainability' portion of a project). However, the credential (or even the legacy credential) could still be useful as a badge to say, 'Look, I care about the environment!'
(I think it goes without saying that the ability to design in an efficient, sustainable way depends very little on the credentials of the professional and very hugely on the professional's talent and mindset. Nevertheless, I just said it anyways.)
The upside to upgrading, I think, is that you are remaining part of one of the larger communities (at least in mindshare) of people who are involved in this sort of thing. I think that it is important for professionals to be able to congregate in organizations like this, and I support the 'community' aspect of the USGBC and its affiliated credentials (even if some of the actual credentials are kind of problematic).
i'm a legendary legacy LEED AP
an' not givin' no mo' money to dem you see
i dropped four hundred bones jus' to take dat test
an' scored a ONE-NINE-FIVE yeah i'm one a da best
but did it get me anywhere? sure a learned a lot
but i'm lookin' for a job an' all i hear is 'NOT!'
so i'll stick with the title i currently gots
it shows dat i care 'bout earth a-gettin' da hots
Legacy LEED AP here that has no plans on maintaining my LEED status like my arch registration. USGBC can take their new classifications and pound sand.
I don't know if LEED actually leads [haha] to sustainable buildings, or if its just a greenwash buzzword catchphrase a la 'zero-carbon.' I think if LEED is to be given the merit it currently [and inexplicably] has it should mandate performance metrixing.
LEED has mostly been a way of grouping many of the various things that have been tossed aboard the bandwagon of 'sustainability'. In a way, it's good because it raises awareness of the different categories of whatever it is that we, as a society and as experts, determine is 'green' by general consensus.
The (well, a) downside is that describing *why* the building is 'high performance,' especially using LEED, can be problematic. Is it energy efficient? Does it not poison you when you breathe in the air? Can you enjoy the building by not driving there? LEED takes the tower of all these complexities and stamps it, Godzilla-like, into the single squashed pancake of data of the 'LEED Certification'.
(Nevermind that LEED's way of rating the individual criteria is not always the 'best' way of rating that particular criteria. As one example: I can't provide a source off the top of my head, but recall seeing a study that suggested that DOE-2 provides a variance of about 40% or so compared to the built condition? Perhaps someone out there knows more about this, or has seen the study I am referencing. Anyways, this high level of variance suggests that energy modeling is useful when determining what kind of strategies may work better than others in general situations, but that the modeling shouldn't be treated like money as it is in the LEED system; e.g., you shouldn't say 'my particular model is 7.9% better than this other model, so I cross the threshold into a different point level.')
LEED gives a sort of 'brand identity' that a building's designers care about the environment, but the caring is not necessarily backed up by empirical evidence that the building 'performs' better over the long run. I believe they are trying to adjust the standard to address this concern, but there are still many other issues that are not quite addressed (e.g., at what point does 'green' become a meaningless phrase because so much meaning has been thrown at it? How can you categorically say that one building is x number of points or y ranking levels better than another because they address different 'green'issues?)
At this point, though, updating your professional 'status' does not necessarily reflect much other than an updating of the 'brand'; the biggest benefit that LEED provides us (aside from the community) is that brand. And, once you already have the LEED AP after your name, the marginal benefit of adding the '+' after your name isn't likely to be all that high.
Re:steelstuds, I put 'LEED AP' in letters bigger than my name. It's important that the client or business knows primarily what they are getting - not me, but a ranking system ;-)
Mixmaster: most people put LEED AP in letters bigger than their name. You are right in your previous post about LEED being about 'brand identity'. Those most likely to go after the LEED brand were developers (primarily commercial real-estate). These developers have all but gone extinct in the past two years.
Institutional clients have long ago come up with their own green goals that suit their needs much better.
Whenever I think about how bad the recession has fucked me over, I remind myself of the poor saps at USGBC, and I feel a bit better. At least I'm not on that sinking ship.
i'm probably going to let it expire while picking up passivhaus consultant.
the USGBC screwed over so many people once the recession was in full swing. lame. plus, LEED buildings don't perform as well as they should, because of the lack of metrics. double lame.
I think this is a great discussion to have, and I've spoken with a lot of my colleagues about it as well. I, like many of you, have no plans to pursue any further LEED accreditation. I think that LEED was a great market transformation tool, and I think that the USGBC has filled a void where the AIA was lacking; however, I honestly don't think it merits any more of my money or time spent on learning units. I just think that if you've reached a point where you are fully aware of the Living Building challenge or you can design a Passivhaus, as holz mentioned, why walk yourself backwards with LEED?
As for the letters, they are still behind my name and will remain there until the USGBC issues us "legacy" folks a cease-and-desist order. I paid for the exam, I read that whole book, and I passed the test, and I did so before most people had even heard of LEED. That tells a story about me as a professional and I plan on keeping those extra letters around until they lose their relevance.
Emily, I could not have said it better myself. Your entire post, I feel, is spot on.
I'll also raise the fact that the ICC is rolling out the International Green Construction Code (IgCC). Like most aspects of the code, it may only ensure minimum compliance. But still, when everyone is designing sustainably to some measure, it is both good for all concerned and it also makes it less of a notable distinction. With respect to the IgCC, my understanding is that this will be a voluntary aspect of the code in most regions, at least for now, though there are a couple jurisdictions which have already mandated its usage.
In addition, it seems there will be room for real 'sustainable design specialists' as well. But I wonder how long architects can maintain a strong presence in this domain. It seems as though commissioning agents and ME's are better educated and positioned to determine, innovate and drive the development of building metrics. I don't know of any architects who know how to model thermal energy migration through an environment using computational fluid dynamics and really assess performance. If anything, we may be in a better position to guide the sustainable agenda through policy than through actual technical innovation.
I'm starting my own certification system. Anybody want to send me $500 to become accredited and earn the right to have BL-AP after their names?
MEs and commish agents are only better situated to look at things that get plugged in. the architect is still the best person to integrate all the systems into the spatial arrangement/massing/fenestration of the building. Would you trust an ME to design a staircase?
a staircase, maybe no. a thermal envelop, yes. it would probably be a collaboration, but with us on the short end, b/c in the client's mind, the dynamic is that the engineer makes it work (ie, helps save owner money and make the space comfortable) and the architect makes it look nice (ie, adds to the cost for reasons owner may personally not understand, other than knowing i don't want an ugly building)
the owner knows they want a nice looking staircase and so they are more than happy to pay for that to be designed, perhaps
What is wrong with having "Architect" after your name? Seems like we are trying to be like the medical profession except we are often many bodies of working on the same project. I agree with MDLER....
I am more with mdler everyday. A LEED AP friend of mine says not only is he going to allow his credentials to lapse but he wants to print t-shirts that read:
LEED is for losers
I personally don't see the value in it for my own practice because none of my clients can afford it. As for passivhaus, I'll be at the training in Urbana in a few weeks. That seems to have some power to make a positive difference that can attract new clients and work.
I can make a sustainable building without LEED just fine, thank you. They do it in Europe all the time. And there's more to them than bike racks and bamboo floors.
No need to be so hard on LEED. It has transformed the market. 8-10 years ago, to talk of sustainability at all was considered fringe and unacceptable in most professional, business and even casual design contexts. LEED made it mainstream for owners, developers, lenders which means it opened up the opportunity of working on this type of work for designers in the professional context. For that it deserves gratitude and respect. And to be fair, much of their promotional material for a long time has emphasized the market transformation component of their mission.
And with respect to their rating system, I think they've always set the bar wherever they thought they could get broad buy in, implicitly taking the approach that some change, even if mostly nominal, is better than no change at all. As they have gotten buy in, they have proven to (albeit slowly) increase the rigor of their standards, but never to the point of jeopardizing broad buy in.
Also, they have for the most part been the leading force in innovating the documentation process for decision making and validation in the U.S. This, in addition to the market transformation role, may be their legacy, whether or not their rating system is able to continually adapt to remain the market leader.
I think the problem, the frustration, the sense of waste/degree of watered-down-ness of their system arises when the concept of what LEED is involves expectations of a complete solution --- market transforming tool AND gold-standard of rating systems AND main professional organization for designers emphasizing sustainable design AND main research organization pushing the bounds of what sustainability is. Sometimes the USGBC seems to indulge the misconception that it does and can perform all of these roles, though it cannot and does not.
But clearly the USGBC is at a crossroads. Much of their broad buy in focus will be usurped by the IgCC (not definite but very likely). Another complication the USGBC faces is the fact that regardless of what the USGBC or Passive House or BREEAM or any other standard does, ASHRAE (to which most sustainable design methods and standards are benchmarked) is taking the 2030 challenge seriously and updating their standards accordingly, for instance, 189.1. So presumably a designer can meet the ASHRAE guidelines without referencing any sustainable design standard and still be in compliance with anyone of the standards with regard to those performance metrics.
Also, with the transition to the IPD, collaboration and commissioning will become more mainstream (though this transition is being slowed by the downturn, it is happening) so the value of LEED requiring collaboration and validation will also no longer be a distinguishing characteristic of it.
So what will USGBC's role be? A professional organization? Will they innovate standards and role out guidelines in coordination with ASHRAE that ICC and other code bodies will reference? Does the USGBC become mostly a political lobby? It is not yet clear to me.
So to echo Emily Kemper, the value of being a legacy LEED AP may be that it suggests that you were their, interested, involved, developing that knowledge as an early adopter. It says something about your personal commitment to the idea and value of sustainable design. And that is worth something. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you know the best way to design a high performance building right now.
look, the reality is that there's two trajectories the usgbc could have taken a few years ago (right at the top of the leed hype): they could have broadened it's appeal even more, strengthened the actual energy performance characteristics, and cut out the sillier credits. (to give them some, they did move to the latter). the other path - the one they chose - was to follow those that were making a (highly lucrative) cottage industry off of being a professional leed a.p. meaning, those who were doing quite well knowing the ins and outs of the leed system and could charge owner, architects, whomever was lagging behind a pretty penny to help manage their projects (now, really, there's nothing wrong with what they were doing).
the professional leed a.p.'s, however, were getting frustrated that just anyone could take a test and become a leed a.p., that more and more people in-house were able to do what they were charging a premium to do. so they pushed back, forced the usgbc into this ridiculous system of being a 'specialist' leed ap, of new tests and continuing ed. and the usgbc fully bought in - 'think of all the new revenue streams we can generate!'
unfortunately, that's probably where (seemingly) all of us on the post so far have drawn the line.
i share a lot of emily's frustrations - i was the second one in my firm to be a leed ap (2002) and i signed up because the system seemed like just enough traction to help drive a conversation with my colleagues and clients about how to create better buildings.
right now, though, it's not that anymore. the system is rapidly becoming an end unto itself. and some clients are taking notice. some, though, are not. it's a mistake to underestimate the currency the system still holds. even with that in mind, i'm not willing to tie my time up with their system anymore. simple as that.
okay, I'm not disputing what you're saying, outed, but i think the USGBC and the LEED rating system has served a purpose to this point and will go down as having had a significant role in legitimizing the incorporation of sustainable goals in building design
yes, maybe in california and a few other forward thinking places this was already discussed seriously a decade ago, but for all of us (at least in my experience) in less progressive places, LEED has been very helpful by making it okay to talk about this issue without it being dismissed out of hand. yet even today, at least where i am, i have often encountered strong, completely unfounded, irrational even, skepticism, so i don't care if it is LEED or Santa Claus or Lindsey Graham telling people that its okay and necessary to take this stuff seriously, whatever makes it okay to raise the issue, i am grateful that i can do so with less groans and snickers
i am not defending LEED, i am just saying it has played an important role in making lenders, clients and bureaucrats comfortable considering sustainability as a legitimate concern when designing their facilities, that is all, and (IMO) for all of us in the less progressive flyover states, this is to our benefit
i pretty much said ASHRAE will be pushing the standards in my post above, so i am agreeing
Good conversation here. It's an important and hot topic and clearly we've all had varying degrees of experience with the system. I think if nothing else, for me it illustrates how very saturated the market is becoming with all of these different "rating" and "scoring" and code systems. I think that, as usual, California will lead the way into the "green" code realm, while the U.S. DOE, if they can get their act together, will redefine the "rating" system realm with their rating system for buildings and homes. They are working on it right now but there are a LOT of stakeholders, as you can imagine, so it's taking a while. I, for one, can't wait for the DOE "blessed" rating system to come out, and the accompanying software. It's going to make my job easier!
jmang - certainly not trying to minimize leed's impact in the overall marketplace. absolutely has been huge in helping lots of people define a common standard to reach and strive for. and, despite my personal issues, i can see where it will have a vital role into the future.
My understanding of the opt-in path (which I am pursuing) is that you have two years to get your 30 CE hours and once you get that you are specialized. I think the "maintenance fee" is even waived for the first two years. After that it's $50 every two years, plus 30 CE, which is not that bad - I know it's the principle of the thing, but compared to other professional fees it's just not that much. And CE hours are not that hard to get.
In the event you don't get all of your CEs done, then you just revert to legacy LEEP AP. There's a ton of free CE links at the USGBC website (mostly through AEC Daily and McGraw Hill). So basically, why not opt in and go for it, and if you don't make it, then you aren't any worse off than where you are now, and it doesn't cost anything to give it a shot.
What do I get in return for my $50? Where is the value? There are already so many fees and costs that are all too willingly accepted as the price of doing business in this profession - where do we draw the line?
I passed my LEED exam 3 years ago and have no real motive to take it any further than that. My current place of employment doesnt have any need for anything further, and i am certainly not paying for any of it on my own. Right now it seems, unless you work at an uber-green firm, all LEED credentials look essentially the same.
While I find it hard to agree that LEED is worthless(I imagine thats just exaggeration to emphasis a point), as some like to say, its definitely not the leader in sustainable design.
But does anyone out there keep up the credentials out of their own pocket? That is something that i cant really see the benefit in. If your firm pays for it and sees a benefit in having a current LEED credential, sure, let them pay for it and hopefully you get more out of it than just some letters behind your name. Otherwise, I hardly see the point, or what it gets you
slytown -
If that is the case, thats actually not that bad. $25 a year isnt really that big a deal. Is there a deadline that you must opt in if you are a legacy?
Slytown: $50/2 years isn't too bad in the larger scheme of things. However I doubt it will stay $50/2 years forever - the USGBC doesn't strike me as the kind of organization that would be immune from fee creep, not in the least ;-)
Granted, it's not a professional organization you're paying into - you're paying into keeping yourself credentialed, a la a continual NCARB record. If you want to join the professional organization, that's extra money.
While it beats retaking the test if you want to keep your credential (@marmkid, you have until June of next year to decide, otherwise you have to take the test again), I'd be more concerned about having to pay for LEED's CEUs. Does anyone have experience in getting those things for free (like architect CEUs, which generally can be found whenever the appropriate product rep wants to sell you something and feed you lunch), or are they generally expensive and hard to find?
4arch - For good or ill, you get a credential. If your work includes providing LEED-related services, then that's the cost of doing business. You probably get a sweet t-shirt discount too.
marmkid - There's lots of information here - http://www.gbci.org/cmp/enrollment.aspx The deadline depends on when you became eligible to enroll in prescriptive credential maintenance, but I don't think any of the deadlines have passed yet.
There are lots of ways to earn hours, but some of them have caps (for example, self-study is limited to 6 I think). But you can get all of them through continuing education courses, which are quickly becoming as free and ubiquitous as AIA credits. Just search through the listings for free classes. A lot are available through AEC Daily, McGraw-Hill, and I even took one on Trane's website (ASHRAE course sponsored by Trane). Read a PDF, take a test, get a credit.
What looks like it will be more difficult is the 6 LEED-specific hours. Very few of the courses are LEED-specific, but every credit you document for a LEED project counts as one hour. Assuming you are at a firm, it shouldn't be too hard to get someone to let you document some credits. It's pretty tedious.
Lastly, I would recommend downloading the audit papers (they are somewhere on the GBCI site) just so you can be prepared for them to reject some of your claimed hours. If the CE auditing process is anything like the LEED admin process, they're going to reject a couple just 'cause.
Sep 20, 10 6:32 pm ·
·
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.
Maintain Legacy LEED AP, or opt into the new credentialing system?
Anyone else out there under the legacy LEED AP system considering just remaining a legacy LEED AP, as opposed to forking over money every two years to USGBC? Do you think people outside the building industry will really notice that much of a difference between the two?
My career track is sort of taking me to a place where the benefits of a current LEED AP designation are only tangental to what I do (e.g., I probably wouldn't be hired just for the 'sustainability' portion of a project). However, the credential (or even the legacy credential) could still be useful as a badge to say, 'Look, I care about the environment!'
(I think it goes without saying that the ability to design in an efficient, sustainable way depends very little on the credentials of the professional and very hugely on the professional's talent and mindset. Nevertheless, I just said it anyways.)
The upside to upgrading, I think, is that you are remaining part of one of the larger communities (at least in mindshare) of people who are involved in this sort of thing. I think that it is important for professionals to be able to congregate in organizations like this, and I support the 'community' aspect of the USGBC and its affiliated credentials (even if some of the actual credentials are kind of problematic).
Thoughts?
*beat a-boxin'*
i'm a legendary legacy LEED AP
an' not givin' no mo' money to dem you see
i dropped four hundred bones jus' to take dat test
an' scored a ONE-NINE-FIVE yeah i'm one a da best
but did it get me anywhere? sure a learned a lot
but i'm lookin' for a job an' all i hear is 'NOT!'
so i'll stick with the title i currently gots
it shows dat i care 'bout earth a-gettin' da hots
schaMO !!
So if you got Leed AP 4 years ago, your now a legacy LEED, does that mean you can no longer register a LEED project?
Legacy LEED AP here that has no plans on maintaining my LEED status like my arch registration. USGBC can take their new classifications and pound sand.
i'm about 'this close' to being done with usgbc. so, no, not going to roll over my leed ap legacy status.
green globes anyone?
I don't know if LEED actually leads [haha] to sustainable buildings, or if its just a greenwash buzzword catchphrase a la 'zero-carbon.' I think if LEED is to be given the merit it currently [and inexplicably] has it should mandate performance metrixing.
What a shame that USGBC managed to coincide their money grabbing expansion of LEED accreditation with THE COLLAPSE OF THE INDUSTRY.
Silly rabbits.
On the other hand, I look forward to seeing less business cards with
Joe Schmoe, LEED AP
on them.
It was cringe-worthy the first time I saw them in 2000, it's cringe-worthy now. Would you put ASHRAE behind your name? gah.
Haha, puns FTW.
LEED has mostly been a way of grouping many of the various things that have been tossed aboard the bandwagon of 'sustainability'. In a way, it's good because it raises awareness of the different categories of whatever it is that we, as a society and as experts, determine is 'green' by general consensus.
The (well, a) downside is that describing *why* the building is 'high performance,' especially using LEED, can be problematic. Is it energy efficient? Does it not poison you when you breathe in the air? Can you enjoy the building by not driving there? LEED takes the tower of all these complexities and stamps it, Godzilla-like, into the single squashed pancake of data of the 'LEED Certification'.
(Nevermind that LEED's way of rating the individual criteria is not always the 'best' way of rating that particular criteria. As one example: I can't provide a source off the top of my head, but recall seeing a study that suggested that DOE-2 provides a variance of about 40% or so compared to the built condition? Perhaps someone out there knows more about this, or has seen the study I am referencing. Anyways, this high level of variance suggests that energy modeling is useful when determining what kind of strategies may work better than others in general situations, but that the modeling shouldn't be treated like money as it is in the LEED system; e.g., you shouldn't say 'my particular model is 7.9% better than this other model, so I cross the threshold into a different point level.')
LEED gives a sort of 'brand identity' that a building's designers care about the environment, but the caring is not necessarily backed up by empirical evidence that the building 'performs' better over the long run. I believe they are trying to adjust the standard to address this concern, but there are still many other issues that are not quite addressed (e.g., at what point does 'green' become a meaningless phrase because so much meaning has been thrown at it? How can you categorically say that one building is x number of points or y ranking levels better than another because they address different 'green'issues?)
At this point, though, updating your professional 'status' does not necessarily reflect much other than an updating of the 'brand'; the biggest benefit that LEED provides us (aside from the community) is that brand. And, once you already have the LEED AP after your name, the marginal benefit of adding the '+' after your name isn't likely to be all that high.
Re:steelstuds, I put 'LEED AP' in letters bigger than my name. It's important that the client or business knows primarily what they are getting - not me, but a ranking system ;-)
Mixmaster: most people put LEED AP in letters bigger than their name. You are right in your previous post about LEED being about 'brand identity'. Those most likely to go after the LEED brand were developers (primarily commercial real-estate). These developers have all but gone extinct in the past two years.
Institutional clients have long ago come up with their own green goals that suit their needs much better.
Whenever I think about how bad the recession has fucked me over, I remind myself of the poor saps at USGBC, and I feel a bit better. At least I'm not on that sinking ship.
i'm probably going to let it expire while picking up passivhaus consultant.
the USGBC screwed over so many people once the recession was in full swing. lame. plus, LEED buildings don't perform as well as they should, because of the lack of metrics. double lame.
I think this is a great discussion to have, and I've spoken with a lot of my colleagues about it as well. I, like many of you, have no plans to pursue any further LEED accreditation. I think that LEED was a great market transformation tool, and I think that the USGBC has filled a void where the AIA was lacking; however, I honestly don't think it merits any more of my money or time spent on learning units. I just think that if you've reached a point where you are fully aware of the Living Building challenge or you can design a Passivhaus, as holz mentioned, why walk yourself backwards with LEED?
As for the letters, they are still behind my name and will remain there until the USGBC issues us "legacy" folks a cease-and-desist order. I paid for the exam, I read that whole book, and I passed the test, and I did so before most people had even heard of LEED. That tells a story about me as a professional and I plan on keeping those extra letters around until they lose their relevance.
hear hear. bring on the cease and desist letters to those that are making you money. great business model there.
Emily, I could not have said it better myself. Your entire post, I feel, is spot on.
I'll also raise the fact that the ICC is rolling out the International Green Construction Code (IgCC). Like most aspects of the code, it may only ensure minimum compliance. But still, when everyone is designing sustainably to some measure, it is both good for all concerned and it also makes it less of a notable distinction. With respect to the IgCC, my understanding is that this will be a voluntary aspect of the code in most regions, at least for now, though there are a couple jurisdictions which have already mandated its usage.
In addition, it seems there will be room for real 'sustainable design specialists' as well. But I wonder how long architects can maintain a strong presence in this domain. It seems as though commissioning agents and ME's are better educated and positioned to determine, innovate and drive the development of building metrics. I don't know of any architects who know how to model thermal energy migration through an environment using computational fluid dynamics and really assess performance. If anything, we may be in a better position to guide the sustainable agenda through policy than through actual technical innovation.
I'm starting my own certification system. Anybody want to send me $500 to become accredited and earn the right to have BL-AP after their names?
MEs and commish agents are only better situated to look at things that get plugged in. the architect is still the best person to integrate all the systems into the spatial arrangement/massing/fenestration of the building. Would you trust an ME to design a staircase?
-BL LEED-AP v2.1
a staircase, maybe no. a thermal envelop, yes. it would probably be a collaboration, but with us on the short end, b/c in the client's mind, the dynamic is that the engineer makes it work (ie, helps save owner money and make the space comfortable) and the architect makes it look nice (ie, adds to the cost for reasons owner may personally not understand, other than knowing i don't want an ugly building)
the owner knows they want a nice looking staircase and so they are more than happy to pay for that to be designed, perhaps
LEED is bullshit
What is wrong with having "Architect" after your name? Seems like we are trying to be like the medical profession except we are often many bodies of working on the same project. I agree with MDLER....
I am more with mdler everyday. A LEED AP friend of mine says not only is he going to allow his credentials to lapse but he wants to print t-shirts that read:
LEED is for losers
I personally don't see the value in it for my own practice because none of my clients can afford it. As for passivhaus, I'll be at the training in Urbana in a few weeks. That seems to have some power to make a positive difference that can attract new clients and work.
I can make a sustainable building without LEED just fine, thank you. They do it in Europe all the time. And there's more to them than bike racks and bamboo floors.
No need to be so hard on LEED. It has transformed the market. 8-10 years ago, to talk of sustainability at all was considered fringe and unacceptable in most professional, business and even casual design contexts. LEED made it mainstream for owners, developers, lenders which means it opened up the opportunity of working on this type of work for designers in the professional context. For that it deserves gratitude and respect. And to be fair, much of their promotional material for a long time has emphasized the market transformation component of their mission.
And with respect to their rating system, I think they've always set the bar wherever they thought they could get broad buy in, implicitly taking the approach that some change, even if mostly nominal, is better than no change at all. As they have gotten buy in, they have proven to (albeit slowly) increase the rigor of their standards, but never to the point of jeopardizing broad buy in.
Also, they have for the most part been the leading force in innovating the documentation process for decision making and validation in the U.S. This, in addition to the market transformation role, may be their legacy, whether or not their rating system is able to continually adapt to remain the market leader.
I think the problem, the frustration, the sense of waste/degree of watered-down-ness of their system arises when the concept of what LEED is involves expectations of a complete solution --- market transforming tool AND gold-standard of rating systems AND main professional organization for designers emphasizing sustainable design AND main research organization pushing the bounds of what sustainability is. Sometimes the USGBC seems to indulge the misconception that it does and can perform all of these roles, though it cannot and does not.
But clearly the USGBC is at a crossroads. Much of their broad buy in focus will be usurped by the IgCC (not definite but very likely). Another complication the USGBC faces is the fact that regardless of what the USGBC or Passive House or BREEAM or any other standard does, ASHRAE (to which most sustainable design methods and standards are benchmarked) is taking the 2030 challenge seriously and updating their standards accordingly, for instance, 189.1. So presumably a designer can meet the ASHRAE guidelines without referencing any sustainable design standard and still be in compliance with anyone of the standards with regard to those performance metrics.
Also, with the transition to the IPD, collaboration and commissioning will become more mainstream (though this transition is being slowed by the downturn, it is happening) so the value of LEED requiring collaboration and validation will also no longer be a distinguishing characteristic of it.
So what will USGBC's role be? A professional organization? Will they innovate standards and role out guidelines in coordination with ASHRAE that ICC and other code bodies will reference? Does the USGBC become mostly a political lobby? It is not yet clear to me.
So to echo Emily Kemper, the value of being a legacy LEED AP may be that it suggests that you were their, interested, involved, developing that knowledge as an early adopter. It says something about your personal commitment to the idea and value of sustainable design. And that is worth something. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you know the best way to design a high performance building right now.
look, the reality is that there's two trajectories the usgbc could have taken a few years ago (right at the top of the leed hype): they could have broadened it's appeal even more, strengthened the actual energy performance characteristics, and cut out the sillier credits. (to give them some, they did move to the latter). the other path - the one they chose - was to follow those that were making a (highly lucrative) cottage industry off of being a professional leed a.p. meaning, those who were doing quite well knowing the ins and outs of the leed system and could charge owner, architects, whomever was lagging behind a pretty penny to help manage their projects (now, really, there's nothing wrong with what they were doing).
the professional leed a.p.'s, however, were getting frustrated that just anyone could take a test and become a leed a.p., that more and more people in-house were able to do what they were charging a premium to do. so they pushed back, forced the usgbc into this ridiculous system of being a 'specialist' leed ap, of new tests and continuing ed. and the usgbc fully bought in - 'think of all the new revenue streams we can generate!'
unfortunately, that's probably where (seemingly) all of us on the post so far have drawn the line.
i share a lot of emily's frustrations - i was the second one in my firm to be a leed ap (2002) and i signed up because the system seemed like just enough traction to help drive a conversation with my colleagues and clients about how to create better buildings.
right now, though, it's not that anymore. the system is rapidly becoming an end unto itself. and some clients are taking notice. some, though, are not. it's a mistake to underestimate the currency the system still holds. even with that in mind, i'm not willing to tie my time up with their system anymore. simple as that.
okay, I'm not disputing what you're saying, outed, but i think the USGBC and the LEED rating system has served a purpose to this point and will go down as having had a significant role in legitimizing the incorporation of sustainable goals in building design
Jmaganelli,
Sustainability is pursued in other countries without creating another expensive bureaucracy that takes away authority from Architects.
I would rather see ASHRAE push things on their end and LEED go away.
LEED has become this end unto itself and that's wrong
Also, 10 years ago sustainability was being pursued very seriously in California under Title 24 (I think that was the right number).
So it wasn't fringe and now CALGREEN will make much of what LEED offers standard practice as other states copy it
yes, maybe in california and a few other forward thinking places this was already discussed seriously a decade ago, but for all of us (at least in my experience) in less progressive places, LEED has been very helpful by making it okay to talk about this issue without it being dismissed out of hand. yet even today, at least where i am, i have often encountered strong, completely unfounded, irrational even, skepticism, so i don't care if it is LEED or Santa Claus or Lindsey Graham telling people that its okay and necessary to take this stuff seriously, whatever makes it okay to raise the issue, i am grateful that i can do so with less groans and snickers
i am not defending LEED, i am just saying it has played an important role in making lenders, clients and bureaucrats comfortable considering sustainability as a legitimate concern when designing their facilities, that is all, and (IMO) for all of us in the less progressive flyover states, this is to our benefit
i pretty much said ASHRAE will be pushing the standards in my post above, so i am agreeing
you can get LEED accredidation by hanging 'green' art on the walls of your project...
LEED is bullshit
Wondering if they give credits for Green Farts? The new alternative form of energy!
Good conversation here. It's an important and hot topic and clearly we've all had varying degrees of experience with the system. I think if nothing else, for me it illustrates how very saturated the market is becoming with all of these different "rating" and "scoring" and code systems. I think that, as usual, California will lead the way into the "green" code realm, while the U.S. DOE, if they can get their act together, will redefine the "rating" system realm with their rating system for buildings and homes. They are working on it right now but there are a LOT of stakeholders, as you can imagine, so it's taking a while. I, for one, can't wait for the DOE "blessed" rating system to come out, and the accompanying software. It's going to make my job easier!
what's leed?
jmang - certainly not trying to minimize leed's impact in the overall marketplace. absolutely has been huge in helping lots of people define a common standard to reach and strive for. and, despite my personal issues, i can see where it will have a vital role into the future.
So - back to the original question -
My understanding of the opt-in path (which I am pursuing) is that you have two years to get your 30 CE hours and once you get that you are specialized. I think the "maintenance fee" is even waived for the first two years. After that it's $50 every two years, plus 30 CE, which is not that bad - I know it's the principle of the thing, but compared to other professional fees it's just not that much. And CE hours are not that hard to get.
In the event you don't get all of your CEs done, then you just revert to legacy LEEP AP. There's a ton of free CE links at the USGBC website (mostly through AEC Daily and McGraw Hill). So basically, why not opt in and go for it, and if you don't make it, then you aren't any worse off than where you are now, and it doesn't cost anything to give it a shot.
What do I get in return for my $50? Where is the value? There are already so many fees and costs that are all too willingly accepted as the price of doing business in this profession - where do we draw the line?
I passed my LEED exam 3 years ago and have no real motive to take it any further than that. My current place of employment doesnt have any need for anything further, and i am certainly not paying for any of it on my own. Right now it seems, unless you work at an uber-green firm, all LEED credentials look essentially the same.
While I find it hard to agree that LEED is worthless(I imagine thats just exaggeration to emphasis a point), as some like to say, its definitely not the leader in sustainable design.
But does anyone out there keep up the credentials out of their own pocket? That is something that i cant really see the benefit in. If your firm pays for it and sees a benefit in having a current LEED credential, sure, let them pay for it and hopefully you get more out of it than just some letters behind your name. Otherwise, I hardly see the point, or what it gets you
slytown -
If that is the case, thats actually not that bad. $25 a year isnt really that big a deal. Is there a deadline that you must opt in if you are a legacy?
Slytown: $50/2 years isn't too bad in the larger scheme of things. However I doubt it will stay $50/2 years forever - the USGBC doesn't strike me as the kind of organization that would be immune from fee creep, not in the least ;-)
Granted, it's not a professional organization you're paying into - you're paying into keeping yourself credentialed, a la a continual NCARB record. If you want to join the professional organization, that's extra money.
While it beats retaking the test if you want to keep your credential (@marmkid, you have until June of next year to decide, otherwise you have to take the test again), I'd be more concerned about having to pay for LEED's CEUs. Does anyone have experience in getting those things for free (like architect CEUs, which generally can be found whenever the appropriate product rep wants to sell you something and feed you lunch), or are they generally expensive and hard to find?
4arch - For good or ill, you get a credential. If your work includes providing LEED-related services, then that's the cost of doing business. You probably get a sweet t-shirt discount too.
marmkid - There's lots of information here - http://www.gbci.org/cmp/enrollment.aspx The deadline depends on when you became eligible to enroll in prescriptive credential maintenance, but I don't think any of the deadlines have passed yet.
Here's the only place I know of to find approved CEU courses - https://www.usgbc.org/CourseCatalog/CourseCatalog.aspx?PageID=2278&CMSPageID=2115
There are lots of ways to earn hours, but some of them have caps (for example, self-study is limited to 6 I think). But you can get all of them through continuing education courses, which are quickly becoming as free and ubiquitous as AIA credits. Just search through the listings for free classes. A lot are available through AEC Daily, McGraw-Hill, and I even took one on Trane's website (ASHRAE course sponsored by Trane). Read a PDF, take a test, get a credit.
What looks like it will be more difficult is the 6 LEED-specific hours. Very few of the courses are LEED-specific, but every credit you document for a LEED project counts as one hour. Assuming you are at a firm, it shouldn't be too hard to get someone to let you document some credits. It's pretty tedious.
Lastly, I would recommend downloading the audit papers (they are somewhere on the GBCI site) just so you can be prepared for them to reject some of your claimed hours. If the CE auditing process is anything like the LEED admin process, they're going to reject a couple just 'cause.
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.