What happened to Leadership?

In certain respects v4 is already obsolete relative to other standards. By the time v4 is required it will be two full version changes behind ASHRAE 90-1 (2013 and 2016).

Interesting observation Marcus. I hate to keep harping on this, but building owners will ask "why?" when it comes to LEED more and more frequently if it continues to lag behind code changes.

And the smart ones asking those questions have a very legitimate point. If any version of LEED that is available for the market to use becomes substantially equal to conventional practice, then LEED ceases to have any relevancy at all. Any project today can attain LEED Silver easily without any cost implications, if the team knows what it is doing. Over 50% of LEED projects attain Gold level certification. The market has virtually caught up to LEED v2009 IMO.

Marcus - Exactly. I was just with a developer outside DC, building 12 new buildings. Exactly 2 of which are being certified. When I asked why not the other 10, or why not LEED ND, he said they already build to Silver with no cost implications. Local code requirements are more stringent and building users understand that. The two "marquee" buildings that are getting the LEED treatment are doing so based on tenant demand within the building, but not necessarily justified by a real business case, or real sustainability metrics. It's a "marketing issue" to use his words. All this, right in the USGBC's back yard. They need to open their eyes, stop dwelling on process and deadlines, and develop a system that is fluid and moves with the market. As LEED has grown, the USGBC has also gotten fat and slow. They need to consider a significant change in direction in order to stay relevant, this deadline shift notwithstanding.

There's an important adage in business, "follow the money." Words to live by in this case.

I think maybe some people are missing the point. The developer's comments ARE the market. S/he wants the brand value of LEED, but does not concede that LEED provides any enduring value beyond immediate lease up. The tool has gotten so complex and costly that most people who "sign the front of the check" don't see value commensurate with cost. The better step would be to start with the market and develop the tools around the demands of leading edge market participants (e.g., developers, owners, facility managers), not "onlookers" like architects and engineers who get paid no matter how the building does economically.

Jerry - Although I see your point, every day in fact. The truth is, we can't rely on the development community to implement change. If stripping the earth of natural resources, ad nauseum, makes a better proforma, they will do it (or at least consider it). The design community needs to influence change, promote change, and advocate for change. THAT part of the USGBC formula is correct, in my opinion. What's wrong is that the focus of LEED has gone from implementing change, to implementing a new score card. Instead of looking at how to affect long-term, sustainable (as in financially feasible and justifiable), and socially responsive changes to the fundamental way the market functions.

The next step for green building should not be in determining whether a project accrues 20 or 21 EPDs, but whether the project will have a lasting POSITIVE impact on society (environment included).

The "currency" we are using to evaluate the success of a project is all wrong. It's still a function of traditional financial metrics, NOI, ROI, simple payback, instead of the much more complex and much more important measure of "total return" - The three Ps, manifest in financial terms. USGBC has an opportunity to use their position, influence and research to develop these metrics. But the window is closing.

One more thing...Not to belabor the point... (too late for that?!)

An example of where LEED fails: An underutilized land parcel in an urban setting that is repurposed as a community garden can't be LEED certified because it a) doesn't contain a permanent structure and b) doesn't have at least one regular occupant.

In my opinion, a project like that should AUTOMATICALLY get a LEED certification. The costs are minimal, but the positive impacts to the community and the environment are immense.

Contrast that example with City Place in Las Vegas which achieved LEED Gold, in a city with no water. There's a big disconnect between what's right and what's LEED.