I don't know about anyone else, but I would not be comfortable voting “yes” on any standard resulting from the 3rd comment period draft. the magnitude of changes necessary for me to be comfortable with voting yes on the resulting standard would require at least another look at how they have handled the likely multitude of comments they will be receiving on this draft.
For one thing, I would really want to see both the documentation requirements for the credits–this will be where “the rubber meets the road”–as well as any updated credit weightings to ascertain weather the increased stringency and documentation requirements are adequately rewarded and not too onerous to complete.
Perhaps we should all urge USGBC to include a 4th comment period before sending LEED 2012 to ballot: I know I will be.
Barry Giles
Founder & CEO, LEED Fellow, BREEAM FellowBuildingWise LLC
LEEDuser Expert
338 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 11:51 am
Rob
A very measured answer, thank you. Now a question: Back not that long ago USGBC created "The Bookshelf". This was created so that each prereq and credit was a separate chapter of the total book (The total book being whichever breed of LEED was being used, NC, CI, etc). What was indicated at that time was that on a rolling two year process specific chapters would be updated as and when needed...this would result in an simpler process, targeting a smaller number of credits/prereqs at a time that the membership could then get their heads around, keep some semblance of continuity by retaining some prereqs and credits and therefore reduce the comment periods to a clearly defined number and width of discussion.
So Rob, what happened?
Rob Watson
CEOECON Group
170 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 2:33 pm
Hi Barry--I can't really answer 'what happened' on behalf of USGBC. My guess is that the inherent complexity of managing multiple changes over several rating systems while ensuring transparency and participation have resulted in USGBC modifications in its approach. I think the reality of managing multiple comment periods, even with a smaller number of credits, caused some rethinking. My guess is that there is also something having to do with ANSI consensus body requirements that forced a reconsideration.
Bonnie Richardson AIA, LEED AP
Architect/Principal PlannerCity of Tempe
4 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 5:16 pm
There's something to be said for accomplishing this in smaller segments. I find this comment process overwhelming! I'm afraid many practitioners, especially those in government positions, are not able to allocate any time on the job to give careful consideration to these important proposals for change. It takes a lot of time, which can consume nights and weekends.
I'd guess there are a lot of people who get started and then decide they can't do a good job of it, so they do nothing, which does not help us produce a practical and efficient criteria where the costs don't outweigh the benefits.
Mara Baum
Partner, Architecture & SustainabilityDIALOG
674 thumbs up
March 26, 2012 - 7:44 pm
I'd forgotten about the bookshelf concept. I think this is one area in which BD+C 2012 really excels -- there's a master system (shelf), with individual books (credits) or chapters (options) pulled off for different building types, e.g. schools, healthcare, etc. This makes for a richer system than 2009.