By the USGBC there: are 51,452 are LEED Accredited Professionals as of April 30, 2008. We only have 100,000 Architects in the Unites States. Why do we need so many LEED Professionals?
Shouldn’t you be an architect FIRST and then go for LEED.
I am over cautions regarding the rest of the building industry nipping away at the classical architect model. Land planners, component building manufactures, interior designers, KES suppliers, space planners and general contractors all wanting seat at the table during design process.
If this goes on will we wind up nothing more than order takers!
Most of those LEED-APs are not architects (and they don't distinguish if you are licensed or not when you check the box after the exam). They are engineers, contractors, consultants, lawyers(!), real estate brokers(!), and random folks who want to be accredited as USGBC sycophants.
I'm listed as one of those 707 Landscape Architects...
I second that the people who actually utilize the info tested for in the exam are the project managers and project architects, not the interns or cad monkeys (who seem to be flocking to the test like bears to honey).
So why do so many folks who have absolutely no contact with LEED Credit Letter Templates want the designation? because it's like driving a Prius - it shows to the world (at least those looking at resumes and business cards) that you aspire to be green and affiliated with the entire sustainability movement.
Are Bill McDonough, Pliny Fisk, or Ed Mazria LEED-APs? NOPE, so why is everybody else jumping into a kiddy pool that the true innovators are ignoring??
my take on your question is this: a) it's way easier to pass the LEED exam than the ARE; b) sustainability is something of a "hot" thing commercially - so lots of folks who may, or may not, be trained in design are jumping on the bandwagon; and c) how can having more people more conversant in issues related to sustainability be a bad thing?
At the end of the day, being an effective architect is mostly about working with a diverse group of people, each bringing a different level of experience and expertise to the table. I'm LEED AP and it doesn't bother me at all to find that 51,451 others have the same credential - in fact, I take some comfort in that trend.
i think that for many of those non-architects, it is really a big PR thing right now. most of them are at least in the building field, or in something that deals with it, even the press one.
i guess another question is how many of the 51,452 have actually worked on a LEED certified building. i imagine a lot of it is people doing it just to have it on their resume (which doesnt bother me at all)
bringing awareness to sustainable ideas is never a bad thing.
WOW - tough room. Except for marmkid, you folks really are "the glass is half full" sort of people. Somebody explain to me how this development can be a bad thing.
everyone bashes LEED like its causing problems, when all its trying to do is develop sustainable buildings. i hear people say that LEED certified buildings arent really sustainable and how the system doesnt work at all, and on some points they are correct. many times it is just a PR stunt by a developer or an owner, but are we actually that arrogant and petty that we would rather not have that at all and have cheap crappy buildings that are terrible on the environment instead?
if some developer is going to make some buildings, and is already going to do it as cheap as possible, at least lets get some sustainable ideas in here and there, rather there being none at all.
and the point of LEED in some ways is to make all of these things known and used more, so the stigma of a green building being expensive and harder to build for both the client and the contractor will go away.
dsc
can you explain why you wouldnt want people from other fields to become knowledgable about LEED?
when exactly were architects given complete freedom on all aspects of their projects? unless you become a big starchitect, i dont think that is ever a possibility
wouldnt it be great if all our contractors were LEED Accredited Professionals? it is not something for just an architect to become. if we educate everyone about sustainability, we wont have to convince every single client every single time
cant you just put someone on your team who is LEED AP? that way your team will look just as LEED'd up as the opposing team if that is all that matters to the client.
i might be misunderstanding what you are saying though
its all semantics really. someone in school can take a class and pass the exam, but that doesnt mean they are any more qualified to run a project than anyone else.
The fundemental point is here is another point in time where architects still can define there role.
God help us architects if in the heat of the moment they give the LEED AP the ability to coordinate building services. Illinois has not allowed interior designers to offer development services
the LEED AP doesnt have to be seperate from the architect and is someone we should either have on our team, or be able to work with. they dont have to be completely seperate.
honestly, the way things are today, it makes little business sense for an arch firm to not have some LEED AP's on their staff, if for no other reason than to avoid this problem you are talking about dsc.
if you are serious about sustainability, its something simple to become a LEED AP, and then you dont have to worry about any conflicts like the ones you are worried about.
you can define your role as the architect, and if you handle things correctly, there isnt a need for a seperate LEED AP
having more educated clients who might also be LEED AP isnt a bad thing either.
It's like my professor in undergrad who went ahead and took a class and passed the exam tp become a planner. AICP, I think it is. Now he can write architecture and planning on his business cards and it's totally legit. If the LEED test isn't that hard, why not?
Not that I'm going to do it, mind; for the type of work I do it's completely unneeded. Though I wouldn't mind having a better understanding of the system.
Also, I'm rather surprised that there are only 100,000 architects, I feel quite elite ;-)
I second that the people who actually utilize the info tested for in the exam are the project managers and project architects, not the interns or cad monkeys (who seem to be flocking to the test like bears to honey).
So why do so many folks who have absolutely no contact with LEED Credit Letter Templates want the designation? because it's like driving a Prius - it shows to the world (at least those looking at resumes and business cards) that you aspire to be green and affiliated with the entire sustainability movement.
Unfortunately in many offices, the only way for an intern or CAD monkey to get onto LEED (and non-certified random green projects) that come into their office is to be LEED accredited already. It's becoming a situation that if you aren't LEED accredited, you won't get put on those projects because the management thinks that space on the team should go to someone who is. So, unlike the Prius, taking the LEED exam can provide entree into the world of sustainable design for people who are genuinely interested and in a position to become involved such as architectural interns. Buying a Prius, on the other hand, does not provide such a gateway. Indeed there are people who use their "LEED AP" as an image-maker, but there are countless others who are using it, or trying to use it, in a genuine way and just don't happen to be in the position to call the shots (yet).
dsc
i dont understand why you are so afraid of this. there is a really simple way to keep that from happening, just become a LEED AP, or have someone on staff who is. then, you can work on the project as architect and LEED AP, and you wont have to worry about your client bringing someone else.
are you a LEED AP? because if you are, this will never be a problem
why would a client hire a seperate LEED AP in addition to the architect, when he could get them both in one person?
you seem to be worrying a whole lot about something that is not an issue at all.
I am worried about the non architect taking on the role of architect.
Interior designers for years have pleaded their case that they can coordinate all of the disciplines in a building project. They should be able to advertise to provide full architectural services under their masthead.
Would it be ok w/ you if your role was the consultant to a non architect (or engineer) but a LEED AP?
Also, so-called "project managers" or "project coordinators" which are neither architects nor contractors have existed for years before LEED ever became available. This is a very hazy area in which there is no official qualification, and in many cases no actual need. It sounds to me like you have encountered one of these who has tried to legitimize themselves by becoming LEED accredited and are upset that this accreditation has helped this person appear professional.
To me, this is a couple of situations mixed together. I do not in general have a problem with non-architects becoming LEED accredited. Heck, I've seen how hard it is for some interns to pass the test when they went to a school that wasn't focused on sustainable issues, so if someone who is not a licensed architect, or not an architect at all even, can manage to pass it then I say more power to them. It shows that they have learned something about the industry, which I have a hard time discouraging. The second issue here is that of the involvement of these interloping project coordinator type people, which I have never had a positive interaction with (except when they are an in-house facilities manager for the client, where there is a degree of special knowledge/position that provides relevancy). The third issue is not who can become LEED accredited, but what clients believe LEED accreditation to mean. If a client believes that an unlicensed but LEED accredited individual is a sufficient substitute for an actual architect, then that is something wrong with the image being presented by the USGBC and the building industry as a whole regarding the LEED program and what it actually entails. To me these are three separate issues, that happen to be combined in your situation, causing you to try and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would much rather tackle the latter two issues than the first one, and think that the profession would get more out of doing so.
it would depend on the situation, but if that was the way the project was structured at the beginning, i dont see it as being a huge problem. you then decide if that is the way you want to do business for that project, or if you want to pass it up completely.
that is different than a non-architect LEED AP taking over a project in the middle of it though. that is what i thought you were refering to.
there are some clients out there who think they can be architects or designers and essentially just want the architect to produce their "vision". that has been going on for a really long time. if you choose, you can take that "vision" and turn it into a piece of architecture.
a LEED AP who wants you to "consult" is really not much different than a client who thinks he is a designer. except now he is all "green". you can choose to work with them or not.
my point was that you can eliminate the need for a client to hire a seperate LEED AP as well as an architect. if you become knowledgable enough in sustainable design, all they will need is you.
if you are refering to clients who think they are designers, well, that has been going on for centuries and will continue to do so. there always have been and always will be clients who want to "call all the shots". only now, they have a title and are "green"
If a client believes that an unlicensed but LEED accredited individual is a sufficient substitute for an actual architect, then that is something wrong with the image being presented by the USGBC and the building industry as a whole regarding the LEED program and what it actually entails.
its again simple
dont be a "consultant" to someone who is a non-architect LEED AP. become a LEED AP yourself, which gives you the power to do it all for your client.
its really not the end of the world
and LEED AP shouldnt only be architects. LEED should perhaps have divisions of their licenses they give out, and i believe that will happen in time. its still all very new, and we cant expect it to be perfect instantly. to expect that, is not being fair to the people running LEED who have the best intentions and dont deserve to be put down by people who arent doing anything to help. (i am not talking about anyone here, just in general, since i hear a ton of LEED bashing all the time)
At this point in my career, I am content with "just" being a registered architect. I can still act sustainably without LEED AP attached to my name. Furthermore, I'm glad there are other people who are willing to do the tedious certification paperwork - it allows the rest of the team to pursue other avenues.
something like 400 of the 1200 interior desecrators are from Gensler. that's the sage tidbits you get when you associate w/ interior designers looking for jobs.
dsc, that's not curmudgeonly, it's true, from what I understand: if you're already an architect, becoming an actual certified planner is pretty dang easy.
But it's the same point as marmkid is making. Just jump through the few hoops and get the letters behind your name, then if a client wants "one of these new-fangled 'LEED professionals'" on his/her team, you can say you already have one - yourself.
i really can't believe the LEED program is still around. i worked on a few GSA projects that were required to be certified and at that time - 2001 - the rating system was b.s. somehow a building with a 100 meter south facing curtain wall that required the AC to operate in the winter got a silver rating...suspect. i am really starting to think that i would prefer no letters following my name.
from my experience, you have to be a pretty good salespersom (better than i am) to convince a client that the cost of managing leed recognition for a project is worth it. they have to have already decided they want it coming in.
that's why i think leed accreditation may be valuable, separate from whether you ever attempt a leed certified project. it's for marketing to those who want you to have the brand attached to your name.
we've taken the position that we're going to make our best efforts at making every project a responsible project - even to the extent that we'll use leed (and other) checklists on occasion - but that pursuing the leed recognition itself is an unnecessary cost to our client.
jjh, how can it be b.s. when its making many buildings that would not have any sustainable features at all, have at least something in them
i think everyones standards are way too high in thinking that LEED would change the world and make all of our clients want to do green buildings.
but to say its b.s. because it doesnt do all of our work for us in convincing clients to build sustainably, that is a terrible attitude towards it.
that building you are talking about with the 100 meter south curtain wall. what are the actual LEED points acquired in it? if you can say that those aspects of the project would definitely have been in the project no matter what, then maybe i will believe you. but i dont think they would have been.
its a process that is slowly educating clients on better building. right now i am working on a 350,000 factory/warehouse going for base certification. they have done a ton of things to get it up to be base cerftified, and they definitely would not have done so otherwise.
clients at times have much higher budgets if you can get the building LEED certified, and then will explore a much better design.
we as architects need to take responsibility for our buildings, and not say, oh look, this building isnt as good as it should be and is still LEED certified, so the whole LEED system must be b.s.
its all semantics really. someone in school can take a class and pass the exam, but that doesnt mean they are any more qualified to run a project than anyone else.
Same could be said of architects. I know plenty of people that are not registered architects who are more qualified than many who have passed the ARE.
it's way easier to pass the LEED exam than the ARE
I disagree. For anyone college trained in architecture the ARE should be much easier than the LEED exam...unless the fine points of LEED are now being taught at the college level. Still would argue that the LEED exam is trickier than any one section of the ARE.
even if its annoying when a client thinks they are an architect, at least this will get them thinking they are a sustainable architect, and will be more willing to put sustainable design into buildings.
i think the point is to get a lot of this to become standard practice. one way is to get everyone involved, client-architect-builder to become much more aware of everything that goes into sustainable design.
LEED helps accomplish this, and hopefully one day it becomes so common, that you dont need LEED anymore, it will just be standard building
while architects are hot, LEED-APs tend to be geeky. but nerds and geeks are now sexy, so yes, we impress the ladies (or so mrs. tk tells me all the time).
i don't understand why LEED is somehow being entirely associated with the Architect.... if anything most of the LEED points available would actually fall under the disciplines of various engineers (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc)
when you really look hard at the LEED credits there really aren't all that many that are going to be found on drawings with an architect's stamp on it... most of the building features that result in LEED points would be found under an engineers stamp... not an architects...
The firm I'm with, like many firms I know of, have adopted almost to the letter the approach and outlook that Steven Ward describes above...
I ain't braggin'.
i've seen it happen on projects where you dont start the LEED process until well into the project. then you have to deal with a lot of changes you otherwise wouldnt have had to deal with if you had gone in with the intent to get LEED certified from the beginning.
on the projects i have worked on, it hasnt set anything back at all in terms of profits. actually it turns out that we got some other new projects based on these LEED buildings. its great PR.
if i had to guess, i would say that any losses are due mostly to inexperience with the system, and having a client unwilling to pay for changes. if it was a problem to get buildings certified, and was causing firms to lose money, there would be a dwindling number of buildings going for LEED status, not the other way around
It's not been my experience that getting a LEED job is any more expensive to the firm than any other job (marketing is a non-billable expense for any firm, and has to be built into the overhead. LEED projects are like any others - some come by word of mouth, some from marketing. No harder to get one than with any other project...)
But where LEED accreditation does directly affect the firm's bottom line is with E&O insurance - it is the same as with architecture licensing and other credentials: the more licensed, certifications and credentials the firm holds - especially when they're held by non share-holding employees -the higher the insurance premiums, because in the insurer's eyes they imply that the firm can be held to a higher standard of care than if the same employees were uncredentialed.
wtf? how can higher skilled employees make the insurance premium increase? that seems the reverse of what I'd expect. the higher the skill level/experience, then the qa/qc is better off and less mistakes would be made=less lawsuits/claims.
I don't like LEED, I think it's a silly checklist.
-----
Realtor asked me: Are you LEED certified?
Me: No
Realtor: Oh you should! It teaches you how to design a green building!
-----
That is my problem with LEED accreditation, it doesn't teach you how to design a green building, it makes you familiar with the bureaucracies to get a building certified as such. Big difference. Am I wrong?
Total LEED Accredited Professionals as of April 30, 2008: 51,452
By the USGBC there: are 51,452 are LEED Accredited Professionals as of April 30, 2008. We only have 100,000 Architects in the Unites States. Why do we need so many LEED Professionals?
Shouldn’t you be an architect FIRST and then go for LEED.
I am over cautions regarding the rest of the building industry nipping away at the classical architect model. Land planners, component building manufactures, interior designers, KES suppliers, space planners and general contractors all wanting seat at the table during design process.
If this goes on will we wind up nothing more than order takers!
Most of those LEED-APs are not architects (and they don't distinguish if you are licensed or not when you check the box after the exam). They are engineers, contractors, consultants, lawyers(!), real estate brokers(!), and random folks who want to be accredited as USGBC sycophants.
I'm listed as one of those 707 Landscape Architects...
[march 31st stats]
Architect 10,624
Builder 421
Building Engineer 235
Building Owner 67
Building Products 65
Civil Engineering 1,008
Cleaning Product Supply 11
Code Official 20
Commissioning 201
Construction Mgmt 1,807
Consulting 1,200
Developer 348
Educator 55
Electrical Engineering 827
Facility Mgmt 124
Furniture Sales 26
General Contracting 1,493
Interior Design 1,266
Landscape Architecture 707
Legal 52
Manufacturing 201
Marketing 93
Mechanical Engineering 2,460
Non-Profit 63
Other 479
Planner 224
Plumbing Engineering 79
Press 3
Project Management 2,114
Property Management 62
Real Estate 110
Research 23
Spec Writer 41
Structural Engineering 407
Student 140
Subcontracting 131
I second that the people who actually utilize the info tested for in the exam are the project managers and project architects, not the interns or cad monkeys (who seem to be flocking to the test like bears to honey).
So why do so many folks who have absolutely no contact with LEED Credit Letter Templates want the designation? because it's like driving a Prius - it shows to the world (at least those looking at resumes and business cards) that you aspire to be green and affiliated with the entire sustainability movement.
Are Bill McDonough, Pliny Fisk, or Ed Mazria LEED-APs? NOPE, so why is everybody else jumping into a kiddy pool that the true innovators are ignoring??
my take on your question is this: a) it's way easier to pass the LEED exam than the ARE; b) sustainability is something of a "hot" thing commercially - so lots of folks who may, or may not, be trained in design are jumping on the bandwagon; and c) how can having more people more conversant in issues related to sustainability be a bad thing?
At the end of the day, being an effective architect is mostly about working with a diverse group of people, each bringing a different level of experience and expertise to the table. I'm LEED AP and it doesn't bother me at all to find that 51,451 others have the same credential - in fact, I take some comfort in that trend.
I wonder how many of the 51,452 individuals actually recycle at their home.
i think that for many of those non-architects, it is really a big PR thing right now. most of them are at least in the building field, or in something that deals with it, even the press one.
i guess another question is how many of the 51,452 have actually worked on a LEED certified building. i imagine a lot of it is people doing it just to have it on their resume (which doesnt bother me at all)
bringing awareness to sustainable ideas is never a bad thing.
WOW - tough room. Except for marmkid, you folks really are "the glass is half full" sort of people. Somebody explain to me how this development can be a bad thing.
yeah i never understood that either quizzical
everyone bashes LEED like its causing problems, when all its trying to do is develop sustainable buildings. i hear people say that LEED certified buildings arent really sustainable and how the system doesnt work at all, and on some points they are correct. many times it is just a PR stunt by a developer or an owner, but are we actually that arrogant and petty that we would rather not have that at all and have cheap crappy buildings that are terrible on the environment instead?
if some developer is going to make some buildings, and is already going to do it as cheap as possible, at least lets get some sustainable ideas in here and there, rather there being none at all.
and the point of LEED in some ways is to make all of these things known and used more, so the stigma of a green building being expensive and harder to build for both the client and the contractor will go away.
dsc
can you explain why you wouldnt want people from other fields to become knowledgable about LEED?
when exactly were architects given complete freedom on all aspects of their projects? unless you become a big starchitect, i dont think that is ever a possibility
wouldnt it be great if all our contractors were LEED Accredited Professionals? it is not something for just an architect to become. if we educate everyone about sustainability, we wont have to convince every single client every single time
When I the architect am competing for a project w/ the non architect LEED AP, who will assemble the team for the project - including the architect.
cant you just put someone on your team who is LEED AP? that way your team will look just as LEED'd up as the opposing team if that is all that matters to the client.
i might be misunderstanding what you are saying though
its all semantics really. someone in school can take a class and pass the exam, but that doesnt mean they are any more qualified to run a project than anyone else.
The fundemental point is here is another point in time where architects still can define there role.
God help us architects if in the heat of the moment they give the LEED AP the ability to coordinate building services. Illinois has not allowed interior designers to offer development services
the LEED AP doesnt have to be seperate from the architect and is someone we should either have on our team, or be able to work with. they dont have to be completely seperate.
honestly, the way things are today, it makes little business sense for an arch firm to not have some LEED AP's on their staff, if for no other reason than to avoid this problem you are talking about dsc.
if you are serious about sustainability, its something simple to become a LEED AP, and then you dont have to worry about any conflicts like the ones you are worried about.
you can define your role as the architect, and if you handle things correctly, there isnt a need for a seperate LEED AP
having more educated clients who might also be LEED AP isnt a bad thing either.
It's like my professor in undergrad who went ahead and took a class and passed the exam tp become a planner. AICP, I think it is. Now he can write architecture and planning on his business cards and it's totally legit. If the LEED test isn't that hard, why not?
Not that I'm going to do it, mind; for the type of work I do it's completely unneeded. Though I wouldn't mind having a better understanding of the system.
Also, I'm rather surprised that there are only 100,000 architects, I feel quite elite ;-)
Not to be a curmudgeon but to become a planner courses in "how to hold a meeting" count on par w/ your architecture coursework.
So why do so many folks who have absolutely no contact with LEED Credit Letter Templates want the designation? because it's like driving a Prius - it shows to the world (at least those looking at resumes and business cards) that you aspire to be green and affiliated with the entire sustainability movement.
Unfortunately in many offices, the only way for an intern or CAD monkey to get onto LEED (and non-certified random green projects) that come into their office is to be LEED accredited already. It's becoming a situation that if you aren't LEED accredited, you won't get put on those projects because the management thinks that space on the team should go to someone who is. So, unlike the Prius, taking the LEED exam can provide entree into the world of sustainable design for people who are genuinely interested and in a position to become involved such as architectural interns. Buying a Prius, on the other hand, does not provide such a gateway. Indeed there are people who use their "LEED AP" as an image-maker, but there are countless others who are using it, or trying to use it, in a genuine way and just don't happen to be in the position to call the shots (yet).
My only fear is when the non architect LEED AP is calling the shots.
dsc
i dont understand why you are so afraid of this. there is a really simple way to keep that from happening, just become a LEED AP, or have someone on staff who is. then, you can work on the project as architect and LEED AP, and you wont have to worry about your client bringing someone else.
are you a LEED AP? because if you are, this will never be a problem
why would a client hire a seperate LEED AP in addition to the architect, when he could get them both in one person?
you seem to be worrying a whole lot about something that is not an issue at all.
I am worried about the non architect taking on the role of architect.
Interior designers for years have pleaded their case that they can coordinate all of the disciplines in a building project. They should be able to advertise to provide full architectural services under their masthead.
Would it be ok w/ you if your role was the consultant to a non architect (or engineer) but a LEED AP?
I know people who are LEED certified who couldn't tell you where south is without using Google Earth...and even then I would not trust them.
Also, so-called "project managers" or "project coordinators" which are neither architects nor contractors have existed for years before LEED ever became available. This is a very hazy area in which there is no official qualification, and in many cases no actual need. It sounds to me like you have encountered one of these who has tried to legitimize themselves by becoming LEED accredited and are upset that this accreditation has helped this person appear professional.
To me, this is a couple of situations mixed together. I do not in general have a problem with non-architects becoming LEED accredited. Heck, I've seen how hard it is for some interns to pass the test when they went to a school that wasn't focused on sustainable issues, so if someone who is not a licensed architect, or not an architect at all even, can manage to pass it then I say more power to them. It shows that they have learned something about the industry, which I have a hard time discouraging. The second issue here is that of the involvement of these interloping project coordinator type people, which I have never had a positive interaction with (except when they are an in-house facilities manager for the client, where there is a degree of special knowledge/position that provides relevancy). The third issue is not who can become LEED accredited, but what clients believe LEED accreditation to mean. If a client believes that an unlicensed but LEED accredited individual is a sufficient substitute for an actual architect, then that is something wrong with the image being presented by the USGBC and the building industry as a whole regarding the LEED program and what it actually entails. To me these are three separate issues, that happen to be combined in your situation, causing you to try and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would much rather tackle the latter two issues than the first one, and think that the profession would get more out of doing so.
it would depend on the situation, but if that was the way the project was structured at the beginning, i dont see it as being a huge problem. you then decide if that is the way you want to do business for that project, or if you want to pass it up completely.
that is different than a non-architect LEED AP taking over a project in the middle of it though. that is what i thought you were refering to.
there are some clients out there who think they can be architects or designers and essentially just want the architect to produce their "vision". that has been going on for a really long time. if you choose, you can take that "vision" and turn it into a piece of architecture.
a LEED AP who wants you to "consult" is really not much different than a client who thinks he is a designer. except now he is all "green". you can choose to work with them or not.
my point was that you can eliminate the need for a client to hire a seperate LEED AP as well as an architect. if you become knowledgable enough in sustainable design, all they will need is you.
if you are refering to clients who think they are designers, well, that has been going on for centuries and will continue to do so. there always have been and always will be clients who want to "call all the shots". only now, they have a title and are "green"
"The third issue is not who can become LEED accredited, but what clients believe LEED accreditation to mean"
that i agree with has a potential to become a problem.
if that was what you were saying dsc, then i see your point.
i still think it can be avoided with some due diligence on the part of the architect
BINGO!
It is the potential to have the usgbc lobby to the state that it is a professional designation similar enough to the architect.
With the current love fest going on and the rush to adopt new codes that require sustainability I would not count it out.
does this happen on your projects?
its again simple
dont be a "consultant" to someone who is a non-architect LEED AP. become a LEED AP yourself, which gives you the power to do it all for your client.
its really not the end of the world
and LEED AP shouldnt only be architects. LEED should perhaps have divisions of their licenses they give out, and i believe that will happen in time. its still all very new, and we cant expect it to be perfect instantly. to expect that, is not being fair to the people running LEED who have the best intentions and dont deserve to be put down by people who arent doing anything to help. (i am not talking about anyone here, just in general, since i hear a ton of LEED bashing all the time)
At this point in my career, I am content with "just" being a registered architect. I can still act sustainably without LEED AP attached to my name. Furthermore, I'm glad there are other people who are willing to do the tedious certification paperwork - it allows the rest of the team to pursue other avenues.
i dont know dsc, that seems like quite a stretch
this sounds like a great issue for the aia to spend countless years and millions of dollars fighting to claim a resounding semantic victory!
something like 400 of the 1200 interior desecrators are from Gensler. that's the sage tidbits you get when you associate w/ interior designers looking for jobs.
is the LEED exam paperless???
Even if it were electronic resources would be used...at least you can recycle paper mdler...paper does not = bad.
dsc, that's not curmudgeonly, it's true, from what I understand: if you're already an architect, becoming an actual certified planner is pretty dang easy.
But it's the same point as marmkid is making. Just jump through the few hoops and get the letters behind your name, then if a client wants "one of these new-fangled 'LEED professionals'" on his/her team, you can say you already have one - yourself.
i really can't believe the LEED program is still around. i worked on a few GSA projects that were required to be certified and at that time - 2001 - the rating system was b.s. somehow a building with a 100 meter south facing curtain wall that required the AC to operate in the winter got a silver rating...suspect. i am really starting to think that i would prefer no letters following my name.
from my experience, you have to be a pretty good salespersom (better than i am) to convince a client that the cost of managing leed recognition for a project is worth it. they have to have already decided they want it coming in.
that's why i think leed accreditation may be valuable, separate from whether you ever attempt a leed certified project. it's for marketing to those who want you to have the brand attached to your name.
we've taken the position that we're going to make our best efforts at making every project a responsible project - even to the extent that we'll use leed (and other) checklists on occasion - but that pursuing the leed recognition itself is an unnecessary cost to our client.
oh, and having leed accredited m.e.p. guys on your team is much more relevant/helpful, imo.
jjh, how can it be b.s. when its making many buildings that would not have any sustainable features at all, have at least something in them
i think everyones standards are way too high in thinking that LEED would change the world and make all of our clients want to do green buildings.
but to say its b.s. because it doesnt do all of our work for us in convincing clients to build sustainably, that is a terrible attitude towards it.
that building you are talking about with the 100 meter south curtain wall. what are the actual LEED points acquired in it? if you can say that those aspects of the project would definitely have been in the project no matter what, then maybe i will believe you. but i dont think they would have been.
its a process that is slowly educating clients on better building. right now i am working on a 350,000 factory/warehouse going for base certification. they have done a ton of things to get it up to be base cerftified, and they definitely would not have done so otherwise.
clients at times have much higher budgets if you can get the building LEED certified, and then will explore a much better design.
we as architects need to take responsibility for our buildings, and not say, oh look, this building isnt as good as it should be and is still LEED certified, so the whole LEED system must be b.s.
Same could be said of architects. I know plenty of people that are not registered architects who are more qualified than many who have passed the ARE.
it's way easier to pass the LEED exam than the ARE
I disagree. For anyone college trained in architecture the ARE should be much easier than the LEED exam...unless the fine points of LEED are now being taught at the college level. Still would argue that the LEED exam is trickier than any one section of the ARE.
the LEED exam is tougher then any one section of the LARE and I'm guessing tougher then any one section of the ARE based on my study materials.
Maybe the best thing that the usgbc has accomplished is getting folks discussing what it means to be sustainable (like this thread).
that is a great point treekiller
even if its annoying when a client thinks they are an architect, at least this will get them thinking they are a sustainable architect, and will be more willing to put sustainable design into buildings.
i think the point is to get a lot of this to become standard practice. one way is to get everyone involved, client-architect-builder to become much more aware of everything that goes into sustainable design.
LEED helps accomplish this, and hopefully one day it becomes so common, that you dont need LEED anymore, it will just be standard building
it impresses the ladies.
while architects are hot, LEED-APs tend to be geeky. but nerds and geeks are now sexy, so yes, we impress the ladies (or so mrs. tk tells me all the time).
so an architect who is also a LEED AP would be geeky hot?
i better start studying!
i don't understand why LEED is somehow being entirely associated with the Architect.... if anything most of the LEED points available would actually fall under the disciplines of various engineers (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc)
when you really look hard at the LEED credits there really aren't all that many that are going to be found on drawings with an architect's stamp on it... most of the building features that result in LEED points would be found under an engineers stamp... not an architects...
so maybe engineers should be more upset?
somebody's got to spec the bike racks.
The firm I'm with, like many firms I know of, have adopted almost to the letter the approach and outlook that Steven Ward describes above...
I ain't braggin'.
i had our landscape architect spec the bike rack on the LEED project i am working on. i did get to approve it though
From what I've heard the Leed certification process is loss leader in most cases. It loses money for the firm in order to get the job.
Has anyone firm experiance in this scenerio? Losing profit because of Leed Cert?
i've seen it happen on projects where you dont start the LEED process until well into the project. then you have to deal with a lot of changes you otherwise wouldnt have had to deal with if you had gone in with the intent to get LEED certified from the beginning.
on the projects i have worked on, it hasnt set anything back at all in terms of profits. actually it turns out that we got some other new projects based on these LEED buildings. its great PR.
if i had to guess, i would say that any losses are due mostly to inexperience with the system, and having a client unwilling to pay for changes. if it was a problem to get buildings certified, and was causing firms to lose money, there would be a dwindling number of buildings going for LEED status, not the other way around
It's not been my experience that getting a LEED job is any more expensive to the firm than any other job (marketing is a non-billable expense for any firm, and has to be built into the overhead. LEED projects are like any others - some come by word of mouth, some from marketing. No harder to get one than with any other project...)
But where LEED accreditation does directly affect the firm's bottom line is with E&O insurance - it is the same as with architecture licensing and other credentials: the more licensed, certifications and credentials the firm holds - especially when they're held by non share-holding employees -the higher the insurance premiums, because in the insurer's eyes they imply that the firm can be held to a higher standard of care than if the same employees were uncredentialed.
wtf? how can higher skilled employees make the insurance premium increase? that seems the reverse of what I'd expect. the higher the skill level/experience, then the qa/qc is better off and less mistakes would be made=less lawsuits/claims.
I don't like LEED, I think it's a silly checklist.
-----
Realtor asked me: Are you LEED certified?
Me: No
Realtor: Oh you should! It teaches you how to design a green building!
-----
That is my problem with LEED accreditation, it doesn't teach you how to design a green building, it makes you familiar with the bureaucracies to get a building certified as such. Big difference. Am I wrong?
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.