1. It is my opinion that sustainability should never be a secret. Please offer the public the same training/resources that are provided to GBCI and external reviewers. Can a recording of such training sessions be offered to the public?
2. Provide a complete example of 'perfect' documentation for every prereq/credit rather than snippets of documentation. Perhaps a case study would be helpful as well.
3. Offer v5 credit training sessions at Greenbuild. It would be preferred that the instructors are the ones who authored the credit langauge (TAGs) and the ones who will be reviewing the project documentation (GBCI).
4. A pre-application call with GBCI would be beneficial.
THANKS!!
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
367 thumbs up
April 30, 2024 - 10:38 am
Compiling a few more comments from our conversation -
1. Is the draft aligned with WELL, have credits been vetted for matching current WELL standards?
2. The paths / options structure is confusing in the plain-text format of the credit library. For the final published version please include tables, nesting, collapsible section, etc - anything to make it visually clear which parts of the credit fall under another! I like the nested paths/options, I think they create a good baseline of flexibility within a credit under an upper limit of points for those strategies. For example there are a lot of transportation options, but a project also can't earn them all and end up off the hook for other categories. Just want to see a visually clearer organization
3. Overall it seems like there are a lot of US national standards referenced with "or local equivalent" allowed for international. What effort has been made to ensure that equivalents exist, data is accessible, etc? We see questions regularly on LEEDUser about how to determine what the equivalent standard is.
4. How will this be inclusive for industrial, hospital and military campuses? Will there be alternative compliance paths
5. Embodied carbon prequisites and credits place a lot of emphasis on as-built considerations and almost nothing on design considerations. With inclusion of embodied carbon into the integrative process prerequisite, it seems like a missed opporunity to look at reducing embodied carbon early in design when it's easier to coordinate and more cost effective. Can this be considered similar to WE and EA credits?
6. Would like reassurance that all the credit requirements are what we can see in the credit language, and no new requirements will show up in the ref guide, forms, calculators, etc. This is a major issue in v4.
7. Love to see resilience and embodied carbon represented in prereqs!
Dave Hubka
Practice Leader - SustainabilityEUA
LEEDuser Expert
525 thumbs up
April 30, 2024 - 2:37 pm
General comment for the wonderful folks at Building Green....maybe add a section on LEEDuser where actual GBCI review comments could be uploaded by project teams. (better yet, upload entire GBCI review reports!)
In a past life, I would compile GBCI review comments to ensure we did not get the same comment twice. This led to Proven Provider status then an approved LEED Volume prototype.
Cynthia Kaplan
Principalcmk LEED
41 thumbs up
June 5, 2024 - 6:25 pm
I wholeheartedly agree that equity should be included as part of the LEED proccess. But I want to stress that there should be equity for members of the design and construction team as well. Not every design firm can purchase many of the BIM 360 add-ons to complete some of the new prerequisites. Not every construction firm can add the necessary hours for carbon reporting into their estimate and still bid competitively. As the AEC industry increasingly becomes a David vs Goliath industry, I suspect that many of the Davids out there may see v5 as reason to forego LEED projects altogether unless there are tools and training available at an affordable cost.