Ideas for ILFI's new CEO?

Excellent! At the risk of oversimplifying, the sheer number of program offerings out there is bananas. I lose so much time in program administration that could go toward implementation and R&D. My advice would be to focus on core mission, and partner where appropriate to build market share. Advocacy will be a key component in codifying these concepts at the macro level, instead of pushing it one project. at. a. time. A laser focus on cities and states would be very helpful. Wishful thinking? Tate Tate Walker AIA | LEED Fellow | WELL AP Director of Sustainability OPN Architects o: (608) 819-0260 | c: (608) 286-9397 | d: (608) 819-0844 | twalker@opnarchitects.com 301 N. Broom St., Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53703 www.opnarchitects.com

Hi Nadav, One aspect of ILFI's advocacy is motivating the supplier-side of the building industry to provide healthier materials through the Red List imperative. I think there's an opportunity for ILFI to be more transparent on which products and materials comply with the Red List, and not just with their Declare label. Looking at what IES and Red2Green have stepped in to provide suggests there's been a bit of a vacuum in providing information and guidance on sourcing red list compliant products. There's a stark difference in how some sectors of industry (carpet, some finishes) have embraced the challenge of developing red-list free products, while many other sectors seem to ignore it or might wish it would go away. Seeing where there are few compliant products not only help chase fewer wild geese, but might also inspire more product development and competiton.  For example, ILFI has published product/ material lists from past certified projects, but there's not enough detail in those lists (what complies, what needs exceptions, etc) to inform future project teams. I suspect there’s a lot of redundant effort and re-invented wheels as each project team runs the gauntlet their first project possibly muttering “that what does not kill me makes me stronger” under their breath….   Difficult challenges can be motivating for some, but helping the industry to meet those challenges by providing information and guidance can be its own form of advocacy. It’s easier for manufacturers to dismiss the Red List as a quirky obsession if few projects pursue it and succeed. Uncertainty equals risk to many decision makers, so anything that can reduce that uncertainty can help transform the marketplace.     My two cents!   

I agree with both Tate and David's thoughts.  I've been around ILFI since it was the Cascadia Green Building Council.  One thing I've noticed, as have others that I've spoken with, it there seems to always be a new initiative with ILFI.  Many I've spoken with believe they would be better served to focus on their key components and work out the bugs/challenges before announcing their next new thing.  Work with more AHJ's to get the Living Building Challenge to a point that it can be accepted in EVERY jurisdiction.  I also believe that have a solid list of "approved" materials would be beneficial.  Every team shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.  Maybe they can put that approved list in their members only area - which could also help them gain new members?  I'm excited to see where their new leadership takes them!

Hi Nadav - Thanks for crowd-sourcing this, great idea!

First, full disclosure, ILFI just created (in July) a new Advisory Board comprised largely of past Cascadia and ILFI Board members, including me, so I will also have that (limited) platform for advocacy with the organization, and welcome any comments or feedback from this group. Regarding ILFI's new direction, I would echo the sentiments of trying to restrain new programs, as their suite of offerings is already quite broad, but I see a real opportunity for ILFI to get out ahead of the necessary move away from "Net" Zero to other, richer definitions of "Zero" and "Positive", as so well articulated in your great article on the subject: "Net Zero Energy Isn't The Real Goal: 8 Reasons Why".
ILFI could really accelerate the big shift required in our industry towards grid-adaptive buildings focused on low-carbon performance as THE priority, as opposed to the current focus that's developed over the past 15 years on "Net Zero" performance. This strategic and rhetorical shift could be taken through the whole LBC program, plus all of ILFI's "Zero" programs, so that once again, ILFI would be leading the way for this important transformation. I think the organization is perfectly positioned to take this on, and do so much more nimbly than the USGBC. I look forward to your article, and maybe even a deeper debrief from you on your conversation with Lindsay! Clark

I second Clark’s comments, and Tate’s comments around the multitude of programs. If ILFI could align behind the principles of the Zero Code, which AIA 2030 has already done, it would help the industry in this essential transition towards a focus on carbon and larger systemic thinking. Brad Jacobson FAIA, LEED® AP, DBIA Partner Pier 1 The Embarcadero, Bay 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 415-214-7276 [cid:G_190118_N24_webview_bb0303a9-c805-4097-ac97-3ab99950504f.jpg] From

May be also to focus on the 4 main types of net zero codes and certifications: - Whole Life Carbon Net Zero - Operational Carbon Net Zero - Upfront Carbon Net Zero - Embodied Carbon Net Zero

Would love to see ILFI focus on a holistic approach to reuse and upgrade existing buildings - embodied and operational carbon savings; community control and resilience; improving health and IAQ in existing buildings; respecting existing neighborhoods, honoring community memory, etc. It's where we all live and work and it's where we can have the biggest impact

Luke - I like your list, but suggest a friendly ammendment to drop the "Net", because I think that we're learning that net-annual just isn't the right time frame to be tracking/measuring things like energy, carbon, and water... all have seasonal and hourly variabilities that will vary wildly from place to place. How about the following? - Whole Life Zero Carbon  - Operational Zero Carbon - Upfront Zero Carbon - Embodied Zero Carbon  

I’ll second (or third) a focus on transparency around healthy materials/approved lists/etc., and generally more information easily available to mainstream projects and those using other ratings systems where there may be overlaps. ILFI was ahead of the curve with the Red List but the information is still not very accessible. Thanks, Allison Allison Zuchman, LEED AP BD+C, Fitwel Amb., RA Senior Sustainability Consultant The Green Engineer | Sustainable Design Consulting D: 978.341.5464 | O: 978.369.8978 F

Clark, I kind of like your idea, we should be aware that will put us to be different than UK, Europe, and possibly other countries, but then again, it may not be the first time? See attached definitions from UK. Best, Luke Leung

Hi all, Great news about the new CEO! There are already a lot of great points that I also support, but just wanted to add that after having tried to meet the green power purchasing requirements for Zero Carbon certification, it is clear that their requirements are not aligned with what is possible in Canada from both a market and a policy perspective (in contrast to the extensive province by province engagement that the CaGBC has done for their Net Zero Carbon Building Standard). Perhaps the broader question is how ILFI will aproach the "international" portion of their name? Thanks Nadav and all

This is amazing news and Lindsay Baker is a rock star genius.  I'm so excited about her announcement.  My (admittedly biased) perspective for ILFI:

CLARITY & SAYING NO:  it's as important to say what they ARE NOT doing as what they ARE doing.  Lindsay should pull a 1997 Steve Jobs and cut the product line as appropriate. 

GO WHERE NEEDED:  In their past messaging/program confusion, ILFI left a vacuum that other regional or focused orgs have filled (PHNW, Built Environment Plus, NBI...).  What's really needed now in 2021 to the runway to zero in 2050?  What actually gets us to a Living Future?

INCLUSIVE, NOT EXCLUSIVE:  let's admit it, at times the best Living Future conference could also feel like a private club for insiders.  (Hey, it's fun, but doesn't scream "scale jumping".)  Either open the tent, or make it a members only club; you can't be both.

CULTURE REPAIR:  it was an unspoken thing about the staff turnover and internal culture issues.  So many talented people passed through ILFI only to leave battered with PTSD.  This must be fixed before all else.

EITHER SCALE, OR DON'T:  either we're going for the boutique "best-of-the-best in-class" buildings and only have 27 LBC certified projects, or we're "better than LEED" and certifying 1 million square feet a day.  Playing both sides is a distraction.

EXTEND THE GOODWILL:  Mistakes were made with the Cascadia Green Building Council.  Mistakes were made with the USGBC partnerships.  Mistakes were made with the ILFI Congress.  Mistakes were made.  Acknowledge that past history and invite and welcome back all of the burned bridges that were left in the wake.

That's all I have for now. @Nadav:  happy to chat about this directly if you like.

I'd like to add something about account management / user interface / user experience. I know ILFI has put in a lot of time over the last year about how their programs are accessed through their web platform and I'd be remiss if I didn't celebrate the fact that it's gotten better, but it's still somewhat awful. I'm very pleased that this year, for the first time ever, I got notified that it was time to renew my account as opposed to trying to login to our Just Disclosure or LBC projects only to find that my access has mysteriously disappeared and then having to jump through 1001 hoops to get it back. Continuing that clarity and increasing the capacity of project teams to help themselves will continue to be huge, particularly if there's interest in scaling. I think that plays into Eric's comments of either scale or don't - if scale is a goal, then there are additional improvements needed in the user interfaces of the programs to make that viable. Or they're going to need a far larger IT department.

My feedback for ILFI is related to the local/regional collaboratives. I was frustrated with the original strategy around collaboratives, but find the new structure released this year even more frustrating. Our local Sonoran Collaborative is going to meet this fall to discuss if we even want to continue our efforts with ILFI or put the energy and momentum somewhere else. ashley mulhall SENIOR ASSOCIATE AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP, EDAC orcutt | winslow PHOENIX • NASHVILLE • DALLAS/FORT WORTH 2929 n central ave • eleventh floor • phoenix az 85012 602.257.1764 t | 480.862.4502 c | www.owp.com FACEBOOK • TWITTER • INSTAGRAM From: Allis

Wow. This is amazing feedback. I seem to have gotten out of the loop here a little since I put myself on a daily summary basis! (Especially if I don't get to them every day.) I missed this until Laura Soma pointed it out to me.   I'll echo Clark's comment on passing on these messages. I'm currently on the ILFI Board, and strategic planning is definitely in the near term future. I'm taking all of this back to the group in addition to Nadav's conversation with Lindsay. And, I can pull it out again in a few weeks when she's had a chance to absorb the fire hose of information she is getting right now.  If there's more, don't hesitate to add or reach out to me!  Margaret

I realize this may be too late, but as a long time leader of the Los Angeles collaborative, I have a few insights (more like frustrations, but let's be positive!). Firstly, ditto to Eric's comments, they are spot on. I particularly echo the internal culture issues and losing so many talented people. And I echo the scale/not-to-scale dilemma. ILFI is not the same as it was five years ago and it has definitely lost its focus, direction and MISSION. Secondly, from the perspective of the largest collaborative they had: it was a plain mistake to dissolve the collaboratives. It felt like it was a hasty move from their interim leadership and counterproductive to their mission to scale. This only resulted in more burned bridges, unfortunately. And lastly, ADVOCACY. ILFI cannot - I repeat, cannot - have any meaningful or scalable impact if they do not participate in policy advocacy. They were left behind on so many opportunities to have an impact. I continuously dealt with the frustration of ILFI missing opportunities because they couldn't agree on a direction at the executive level. This needs to be solved, pronto. Having said all this, I have tremendous hope for the future of ILFI with Lindsay and really look forward to her taking the reigns and getting ILFI back to its mission. Cheers! Avideh Haghighi AIA, LFA, LEED GA Associate Principal ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP T 213.253.5880 E avideh.haghighi@zgf.com 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Jumping on this thread late, but how about density? Kinda surprised no one's mentioned this and I'm wondering if I'm missing something. Close to seven years ago, ILFI leadership was none too happy with the editors at BuildingGreen who called out LBC on a number of issues, including lack of attainability of LBC in dense, urban environments. Seven years later, still 0 certified Living projects in the densest transect. How can this be? Has there been progress in this area that I've missed? Has some of the game moved to LCC? The NYC collaborative had some great suggestions for making LBC attainable in the world's most sustainable metropolis. Last I knew this and other friendly tinkering with LBC was not met with enthusiasm.