Tristan - Nice article and review of the LEED "Feedback Plaque" as some folks are calling it. You asked for our feedback on the plaque itself as well and I have to admit that I'm conflicted. On one hand, I do see the benefit to having a dynamic tool that allows property owners and passers-by to see their building's performance in real time (or as close as possible to real time). In a sense, the building's behavior mimics the behavior of the building users themselves. It's a very unique way to engage people in a manner that's slightly more meaningful than the static etched glass "trophy."
That being said, there are a number of ways this tool misses the point. The main one being, LEED is losing favor in the industry. Yes, there, I said it! Despite everyone's efforts to use LEED as a tool to promote sustainable and environmentally sensitive business practices, the industry is moving away from it in rapid fashion; especially with the dawn of v4, a seemingly overly complicated rearrangement of well-established LEED terminology for no apparent reason at all. Developers and corporations who would have otherwise continued to support LEED are floating away.
Furthermore, the design industry is outright scared of v4. They don't understand the change, don't see a need for the change, and don't accept the change. What this translates into is a host of design professionals and project financiers who are fine with self-policing v3 protocols and forgoing the pomp and circumstance associated with the next LEED rating, and most of all, they are forgoing the plaque. Many companies have internalized a lot of what LEED has to offer, the market for green building products has shifted irreversibly upward, and energy codes have caught up to LEED in all but the most obscure US real estate markets. There’s a global focus on GHG and carbon reduction, alternative energy generation, and ending oil dependency. Through all of this discussion and shift in global initiatives and prioritization, LEED (and to a certain extent, the USGBC as an organization) has not been mentioned.
All this being said, the prognosis is not all doom and gloom. The fact that the global leaders are beginning to recognize and publicly address the long-term negative socio-economic impacts of climate change on our world is encouraging, albeit decades late. In my opinion, the USGBC has an unprecedented opportunity to propel LEED into the climate change discussion in a way that cements it into the minds of people throughout the world. They can do this, not by flashing a new fancy electronic plaque, but by directing LEED’s efforts toward responsible and resilient development, community interaction and education, and fostering a sense of unity and parity between socio-economic classes.
LEED has the potential to be so much more than a “green building rating system.” LEED has the potential to be a “life experience rating system.” The fact that the USGBC has spent years developing the “Feedback Plaque” and countless incoherent tweaks to an already confusing and frustrating rating system, just proves that they have lost their way. They have lost the sense of community that LEED provided to design and construction professionals from 2005 to 2012 and have instead directed their attention to mass commercialization and “process.” My hope is that the USGBC will regain its composure, throw v4 and this plaque idea out the window, and revisit what made LEED such a powerful and unifying tool for designers. Perhaps those same characteristics can be used to unify and heal this troubled world we live in.
Barry Giles
Founder & CEO, LEED Fellow, BREEAM FellowBuildingWise LLC
LEEDuser Expert
338 thumbs up
October 16, 2014 - 11:39 am
Brian, While I agree to the general thrust of what you say, combating climate change (through the looking glass of buildings only) is not going to be successful without realizing that the majority of buildings causing us grief have already been built....in fact one can quite rightly say 'you can design and build the greenest building in the world, but if you don't operate it that way then it's a serious waste of time, money and effort'.
LEED has always been about change. Radical change in some ways (the original program...Version 4 as examples) but mostly one can accommodate that change by seeing the results happening.
Scot points out, and to summarize his comments, that LEED EB isn't doing the job it was designed to do and that LSC has given permission to eviscerate LEED EB through a resolution taken in 2009....that's five years ago and prior to Version 4.
My concern is that if LEED EB is 'broken' then given all the effort that went into that rating system why oh why were the membership never given the opportunity of fixing it?
Scot Horst
President, CEOArc Skoru
October 16, 2014 - 3:59 pm
Hello Brian,
I love your passion for change and I agree that we have so much that we are capable of. I want to emphasize that the LEED Dynamic Plaque is not a rating system, unlike LEED for Existing Buildings, which is proven to be a fantastic rating system that continues to help us with our mission of transformation.
We have not yet been successful at connecting LEED to ongoing performance - think of the opportunity that we are leaving on the table. We've tried many things, but we have not been successful. Imagine trying to get in shape without having a scale or trying to improve your blood pressure without a monitor. The LEED Dynamic Plaque is not replacing anything or competing with any rating system. It is only adding a dimension that we have been talking about as a community for over ten years. It is a monitor for keeping your certification up to date.
The question is…do we want to be connecting buildings to ongoing performance by keeping their certifications up to date?
There is one typo in the article above. The LEED Steering Committee passed a resolution in 2011 to make all of LEED – not just existing buildings but new construction, commercial interiors, etc. - a recertification program. That was when we began development on the LEED Dynamic Plaque began.
As more individuals and teams use the platform, I believe they will understand the incredible opportunity that it presents. It's a matter of looking at the world with innocence and fresh eyes and freeing ourselves from pre-established notions of the only way something can work. As USGBC has worked to incorporate performance into our suite of products and offerings, and now as we are all getting acquainted with the LEED Dynamic Plaque – that open mindedness is critical.
Consider that the LEED Dynamic Plaque does not measure everything the same way as the LEED rating system does. It is not measuring strategies. It is only measuring results. Take the LEED Dynamic Plaque's transportation score: instead of measuring achievement of bike racks, showers, proximity to mass transit, preferred parking, etc., we are measuring the carbon spent getting people to the building. That is lighter in terms of numbers of measures but much more robust in terms of outcomes that matter to the future. Of course we want to measure them all, strategies and outcomes. That is why we want both original LEED certification and an update of the outcome of that certification based on performance.
I suggest you try the LEED Dynamic Plaque and see what you think.
Brian Salazar
President, LEED AP, WELL APEntegra Development & Investment, LLC
56 thumbs up
October 16, 2014 - 11:01 pm
Barry - Interesting points. Part of the reason why EB has not captured the hearts and minds of property owners is because "the why" has not been described well enough to get people to adopt the program and act. Aside from tracking energy and water usage, which is a requirement of any LEED certification anyway, the other elements of EB don't produce actionable data that's meaningful to the bottom line operations of the real estate.
For example, conducting a transit survey and encouraging or subsidizing public transit for occupants is a great concept, and the "right thing to do." However, for many many buildings, especially in an urban context, where parking revenue is directly linked to a property's profitability, where's the incentive for building owners to move people away from car travel? If I were an owner of a building and I was reliant on a few hundred thousand dollars of CASH REVENUE from parking cars in my building, why on Earth would I encourage people to take alternative transportation?
EB lacks "teeth" and lacks a direct connection to financial metrics that make buildings work. The other project-oriented rating systems have just started to churn out enough market data to show developers and corporations the benefits of green construction, i.e. - increased market value and lower cap rates on exit. These metrics have not been translated by the USGBC in terms of the EB program. Yes, driving down costs will help NOI and therefore market value, but a property owner can track energy usage for FREE via the Portfolio Manager Tool and not have to consult with an outside party, or buy a fancy plaque (it's also free). That's why EnergyStar for commercial buildings has trumped EB as the defacto standard for property managers.
All that said and returning to the "LDP", where's the financial incentive to put one of these things in my lobby, potentially uncover flaws in building operations that then become public knowledge, AND pay upwards of $6000 per year to maintain device that is also drawing energy from my building?
The LDP is an interesting idea, but it was not hatched properly, definitely without the feedback of property owners and their consultants, and without any meaningful connection to what drives decision-making for property managers just at the fringe CBD markets (where the LDP and where EB could potentially do the most good). Outline for me in financial terms how the LDP drives tenants to a building and helps stabilize rents (like LEED NC and CS have) and then I'll change my tune.
******
I should also end by saying, many of my clients are telling me, "We've done a few LEED projects, this project will be our last LEED project." And without naming names, I'm talking about Fortune 100 companies. The fancy plaque is not going to drive people toward LEED, but rather drive people further away. It's too gimmicky and unrelated to how the business is run.
Barry Giles
Founder & CEO, LEED Fellow, BREEAM FellowBuildingWise LLC
LEEDuser Expert
338 thumbs up
October 16, 2014 - 11:38 pm
Brian. Great discussion. (And I want to get back to that comment in a minute)
We're not finding that clients don't want to take LEED up...in fact our re-certification rate is 80% and so are others consulting groups in this field. Maybe we're in never never land here in California I'm not sure, but we certainly find that clients DO want to undertake LEED EB again...and again.
Let's turn this discussion around. What would you change in LEED EB to make it take up better in the marketplace? Now that question could be rhetorical..but what I want to point out to the USGBC is that there are many, many people out in the nation who have a very deep understanding of the LEED EB system who would have liked nothing better than a high level discussion which could have come up with many ways to make changes to LEED EB......so why did we never get the chance? Why were we completely sidelined and even now are not included in any conversation?
Brian Salazar
President, LEED AP, WELL APEntegra Development & Investment, LLC
56 thumbs up
October 20, 2014 - 4:56 pm
Barry
Your question: "What would you change in LEED EB to make it take up better in the marketplace? "
My answer: "Take the process OUT of the process."
What I mean by that is, get rid of LEED Online in its present form and recreate LEED Online as a web site "tool" that helps teams manage projects.
Take the bureaucratic B.S. out of the certification process. Allow the LEED reviewers some latitude when reviewing and responding to project inquiries so the project teams can have a dialogue with the reviewers; rather than just having project teams and reviewers answer to some form-based checklist that holds all projects to an unrealistic level of "sameness."
The USGBC claims that LEED is a system by which designers can explore their creativity and develop more natural, flexible, and organic spaces, yet the certification process itself is wrote, static, and uninspired.
Brian Salazar
President, LEED AP, WELL APEntegra Development & Investment, LLC
56 thumbs up
October 20, 2014 - 5:03 pm
To Scot Horst - I appreciate your response. Thank you.
This article pretty much sums it up for me.
http://www.archdaily.com/557605/is-it-time-for-the-anti-leed/
Especially this paragraph:
"For example, LEED for Homes is supposed to be simpler than most of the LEED systems. Yet if you want to discover what your credit is for landscape irrigation, it’s 3 pages of relatively complex calculations. The Anti-LEED system should ask one incisive question: “are you using native or well-adapted plants that don’t need long-term irrigation here?” If the answer is “yes,” you get the credit. If not, you don’t."
Having attempted 2 LEED for Homes projects in the past, I have vowed never to do one again. (The other rating systems are significantly better and are manageable.)
The point of me posting here is not to just bitch about LEED. It's a system that has supported and progressed green buildings far more aggressively and successfully than any other system out there. Kudos to the USGBC for what they have done. My criticism is that going forward it seems the USGBC has lost its focus on what matters and instead put a lot of focus on "gizmos" for lobby entrances.