Morning gentlemen,
Thanks for the debate presentation. A very good idea. FYI there's a lot more specific info provided above on the No side. Without your preface, I would have interpreted the debate as tending negative. Your comments on the work spent on "improving requirements" and "the user experience" are hard to evaluate without being able to review the documentation requirements that you note in the MR comments apparently still need some work after 6 iterations.
Two things would be helpful to me. Since the Yes argument sounds more like general rhetoric than the specifics cited in the No argument, a further bit of narrative expressing why your office ended up on the Yes side would be valuable. I'm left feeling like you're just hoping many of the concerns expressed will be resolved by mid-2015 when 2009 sunsets, that implies by our beta testing, rather than expecting v4 to be ready for prime time. After all this concentrated time and effort and a new platform already in place, why?
Most helpful would be a current v4 rating system draft to read and review, rather than the credit library scenario your link provides. It is time consuming and inconvenient to access them one at a time. I've queried the USGBC also. Is there a cohesive document?
Laura Charlier
LEED Services DirectorGroup14 Engineering, Inc.
58 thumbs up
June 24, 2013 - 1:04 pm
Michelle,
Here is the link to the balloted version of the language, scorecards and a summary of changes for each rating system. I had a hard time tracking it down too.
http://www.usgbc.org/leed/v4
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
522 thumbs up
June 24, 2013 - 2:23 pm
Hi Laura,
Bless you, I have tremendous difficulty finding resources on the new site. Everything is buried so deep. Thanks.
Michael Deane
Retired VP, Chief Sustainability OfficerTurner Construction
1 thumbs up
June 24, 2013 - 4:18 pm
I have struggled with how I would vote for a long time, and have evolved from a strong NO to a qualified YES. In the end the need to support LEED and USGBC and to support continuous improvement as a fundamental principal took precedent over any particular issues I may have with specific credit requirements, unfamiliar reference standards and details yet to be worked out. My YES vote is testament to my faith that the details will be worked out (and that the membership will make sure of it), that we will get used to the new standards (the same way we got used to the original ones) and that as a matter of principal we must keep working to improve the rating system. That even if it is not perfect right out of the box, we will use the parts that work and fix the parts that don't. All this rumination is made somewhat easier by the long transition period we have been given to continue to use "the devil that we know" (LEED2009) until 2015. My YES vote also assumes that because of the increased rigor of v4 (and the potentially increased cost and agita of certification) that there will be a fall off (perhaps a significant falloff) in the number of projects seeking formal certification and that this is the price we pay for leadership. And I would rather USGBC take the high road toward market transformation than the low road of increased market share.