Share your comments on the first public comment draft of LEED v5 BD+C/ID+C: Overall and Appendix section on this forum. You can either reply to this thread or use the "Post a Question/Comment" button to start a new thread.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Emmanuel Pauwels
OwnerGreen Living Projects
133 thumbs up
April 4, 2024 - 3:39 am
One of the first credits that a project team should work on in V4 is the Site Assessment Credit. It allows project teams to get an understanding of a project site and how it is nested in place so that opportunities and synergies between credits can be explored and optimized. Although there is a new Prerequisite in V5 related to climate resilience, why is the site assessment credit not included in the Integrative Process, Planning and Assessments Category? Dropping this Assessment is a step backwards as I am concerned and I would like to see it maintained and maybe enhanced by using language from the Sites Rating System as part of the mandatory assessments in this category.
Mark Terpstra
2 thumbs up
April 12, 2024 - 8:33 pm
One of the main criticisms of LEED I hear from consultants is that LEED is too much paperwork with not added value to the project. What often happens is the LEED consultant recycles paperwork from past projects. Unfortunately, the LEED v5 draft really pushes for more paperwork with the prerequisites:
That is a lot of paperwork to push onto a project team.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
338 thumbs up
May 2, 2024 - 2:41 pm
A lot of the LEED-CI language seems to just reproduce the NC language in ways that don;t make sense for CI. For example the accessibiltiy prereq references exterior entrances and the resilient spaces credit references operable windows. Please clarify the expectation for CI projects to meet credit intent/requirements as it applies within the project scope.
To Mark's point above about the paperwork burden, I think all of these planning efforts are important but the more they can be met without NEW documents generated just for LEED, the better. E.g. meeting minutes, marked up drawings, previously conducted campus or corporate level assessments. It would also be helpful for those requirements to scale down for CI/CS and small scope projects (e.g. warehouse, renovation with no site scope) so they're not having to write up lengthy justifications for NOT addressing something.
Ariane Laxo
Sustainability DirectorHGA
May 17, 2024 - 5:27 pm
Absolutely agree with Emily. In many cases, the CI language is not relevant to the scope of those projects. We already see TI projects shy away from LEED because there is no economy of scale - it costs far too much in consultant fees to complete all the documentation. With these additional requirements, I suspect that small percentage of TI projects pursuing LEED will get even smaller, which is the opposite of what we want, since we have so many existing buildings we want to re-use to not contribute more GHGs to this climate crisis.