Calling all engineers, architects, anyone in the construction field

[cjhokie]

Hey guys, i am writing a paper on the usefulness or lack their of for the LEED design principals. I have done a fair amount of research on the topic, but i wanted to see if any professionals familiar with these principals like the idea or do not. If anyone has ever used these principals, i would be interested to know if you think they are beneficial to the construction world or if you think it is just a waste of money. Thanks everyone.

 

[Kelster]

Working for a Landscape Construction Company in Southern California it is just another layer of bureaucracy that we have to navigate through. My so called "Carbon Footprint" (I hate that term) is increased jumping through all of the hoops showing that the plants that are going on the job were grown with in a certain mileage of the job site. Another way for Gore and his croonies to make another million off of the working class.
I believe in good stewardship of our world but hate the government telling me when, where, how to live.
I will leave my soap box now.

 

[ChiTown_Huck]

Chicago is pretty proactive on the LEED stuff. I see the benefits, and I see some BS. I general though, I see it as a good way to slowly become energy efficient/energy independent. If we got all of our buildings to be self sustaining, it would make a big difference. Having incentive's and mandates to get people to use better insulation, better roofs, and better windows is worth it. I think we have to do it incrementally though so it doesn't become totally cost-prohibitive.

 

[Dr. Marneaus]

I wrote a big ole report on this exact topic last year.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that it has good intentions, but stupid methods. There are SO MANY aspects that are overlooked or ignored entirely.

It's a step in the right direction, there just hasn't been a better way to do it yet.

edited to add:

one of the biggest problems is the lack of addressing local climate. A water credit is the same in NH as it is in Las Vegas, and one of the other big issues is maintenance, and lack of reevaluation of certified projects. After it's installed and running, maintenance workers switch jobs, move on, get laid off, etc, and there is no one to teach people how to maintain the systems correctly (this is a widespread "sustainable" landscape architecture problem though.

And as I mentioned, they do no re-evaluate the certified projects from the past. There is LEED for existing buildings, as well as LEED-NC, but its not for existing LEED projects. Who's to say that the gold rated building doesn't fail 5 years down the road?

I could go on for a while about this...but I'll let you write your paper.

FYI I'm a landscape architecture/planning major, and I've taken a ton of environmental sciences and sustainability classes (ugh, I hate the S word).

 

[MadMonk]

Nice take on it Dr. Marnaeus

 

[cabaiguan juan]

Chicago is pretty proactive on the LEED stuff. I see the benefits, and I see some BS. I general though, I see it as a good way to slowly become energy efficient/energy independent. If we got all of our buildings to be self sustaining, it would make a big difference. Having incentive's and mandates to get people to use better insulation, better roofs, and better windows is worth it. I think we have to do it incrementally though so it doesn't become totally cost-prohibitive.

As a project engineer for a contruction company, I'd echo Huck's comments here. Dr. M brings up a good point about the LV vs NH differences in enviroment, however, i believe that LEED references water requirements for local spices of plants so it should take the enviromental factors into account.

 

[cjhokie]

Thanks guys, that is what seems to be the resounding point pertaining to LEED. Its a step in the right direction but not complete. In terms of construction cost vs. life cycle costs though, do you guys think that in the end the service life of the buildings will outweigh the upfront cost of extra construction?