I am all for regularly scheduled LEED/sustainability mtgs with the team, but to have that many (12!) and require the owner to be at each of them stops them from being beneficial working mtgs and turns them into a LOT of "presentation" meetings with the owner - with not a lot getting done.
I thing the owner should be required to be part of a percentage of them, but not all of them. And/or to have periodic mtgs with the client (but not all 4 members of the integrative design team) makes sense too. Working mtgs without the client allows the design team to be a bit more free in the discussion to really work things out, without having to worry about how the client perceives what we are saying.
To have that many "extra" mtgs with the client (plus 4 other required people that may have to come from out of town) would require more fees, and our budgets for LEED have never been "roomy".
Jill DeMarotta
Interior DesignerGresham Smith and Partners
44 thumbs up
October 1, 2010 - 2:17 pm
And the initial meeting is supposed to be an all day meeting. That is too long for a small project.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
October 11, 2010 - 2:49 pm
I think the idea is that the owner should be an active participant in the development of the design, not a passive receipient. These meetings should be an integral part of the development of the design, not something "extra" added on to the process. Some owners are not willing to engage to this degree.
I certainly could see these specific requirements being more a a problem for small projects.
Tammy George
Project AssistantMoody Nolan Inc.
8 thumbs up
October 19, 2010 - 1:49 pm
We tried out meetings a little differently with one of our school projects and it worked out well. We had meetings with the owner already scheduled but then did integrated design meetings the week before the owner meeting so we could freely discuss the design and keep the owner involved. Many of our other projects with members out of town typically use WebEx (or similar) as valuable resources to allow member input without the added travel expense. However, added fees for meeting time could be an issue.