Requirements referrers to Appendix A. Provide Appendix A in next round.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forForum discussion
Requirements referrers to Appendix A. Provide Appendix A in next round.
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forTo post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
David Smith
2 thumbs up
January 14, 2011 - 2:06 pm
SS Credit: Heat Island Reduction
Please change
"Use open-grid pavement system (at least 50% pervious)"
to read:
"Use open-grid pavement system (at least 30% pervious)"
There are very few concrete grid paving units with 50% open surface area or 50% pervious materials at the surface that meet ASTM C1319, the product standard for concrete grids. Most concrete grids are 30-40% open surface area as the remainder needs to be concrete for structural support of vehiccles.
As written, the 50% percentage excludes all concrete grid systems and I don't think that was the intention of the writers. 30% minimum pervious materials at the surface allows for sufficient grass to grow and provide cooling as intented by this credit.
Concrete grid systems can be completely covered with topsoil (not just openings) and sodded or planted with grass seed such that the entire surface is grass. That is not typically done, but it is a design option that can help further achieve this credit.
SS Credit: Rainfall Management
Please clarify "Manage onsite the runoff from...." I understand the 95th percentile event. However, one could interpret "manage onsite" as a means (or excuse) to detain and slowly release the 95th percentile rain event with a large detention pond when a permeable pavement might be more cost-effective and consume less land. I don't think encouraging detention ponds is the intention of this credit. I am respectfuly requesting to please find words that encourage volume reduction on site which of course directly helps pollutant reduction. This suggests a greater emphasis on onsite infiltration whenever possible. Thank you.
Aaron Desatnik
GreenRoundtable10 thumbs up
January 31, 2011 - 8:08 pm
I literally get dozens of calls a week from people either looking to take one of the LEED exams or trying to understand the credential maintenance process. There are two components:
1. I completely agree with the need for a continuous raising of the bar. How can we expect teams to design better buildings if they're not learning about the newest technologies, processes, etc? It's like expecting increasingly efficient businesses without online project management tools, time sheets and workplans. It's simply absurd.
2. I completely agree that USGBC and GBCI could have done more to prepare people for the transition. It was really a matter of time before this credit came to pass (or at least be considered). Not only did they do a poor job communicating the requirements, but they did a great job making the life of LEED AP's a nightmare. Why not give numbers and enable providers to submit credits? Why no maintain the one-time-a-year CEU deadline? AIA and other organizations do this, and it makes life easier for people. At some point in the near future, LEED will not be as dominant as it currently is, and USGBC could have used this as an opportunity to address this criticism. It was a serious missed opportunity for them.