DanBall

I have been involved with and followed the development of LEED for a long time. One of the early goals for the USGBC and LEED was to “change the marketplace”. I think it is hard to argue they haven’t done that. While there are buildings that don’t live up to different groups and mindsets ideal of a green or sustainable building, and every report and data set is susceptible to manipulation to show a desired result, they have certainly prompted a change in the building a design industry. There are many factors that influence the performance of a building, “green” or not, that aren’t reflected in simple reports. I think, a follow-up analysis and re-commissioning should be done on any building, “green” or not, so that it performs the best it can for how it is being used.

In a nation with limited attention spans, few look for the details behind the data or have the time to do so. The USGBC has always wanted to keep LEED evolving and trying to push the envelope, but that has been hard to accomplish [I think] since the acceptance, incorporation and draw of LEED exploded beyond original expectations. If a horse jumps out of the barn at full speed, teaching it to canter gracefully is going to take longer than originally planned. The newest version of LEED is working to address a lot of the concerns and LEED-H [as noted by vermontstreetproject] reflects the efforts to listen to what is happening in the field. Since the original version of LEED, other checklists and rating systems have been released to illustrate different ideas and where others have found discrepancies. Even as an advocate of LEED, I recognize that there are other analysis and comparison tools and LEED is not the single best answer for all situations. Similar to the toolbox, there are general tools and specialty tools and the better builder knows when it is appropriate to use them.