Talk:LEED

Classify the buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuliyehuanshi (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of red links in it. The paragraph spacing is also a bit extra.

Glama1 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

An additional sentence that can be added to the fourth paragraph is:

The first LEED-certified home was built in the United States in 2006 and was inspected and rated by Conservation Services Group.

A citation for the end of this sentence would be: "CSG Certifies First Mass. Home to Meet Sustainable Design Criteria." MassNonprofit.org. Retrieved July 17, 2014.

Energywriter (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

LEED is not universally well thought of. Many professionals have raised critiques from a variety of angles. How can an article this long not reflect ANY criticism? Is it maintained by USGBC staff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.96.122 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Why is there no criticism?jmanooch 04:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanooch (talk • contribs)

The Internet is so full of bogus links to spam pages it is like breath of fresh air to go to Wikipedia and find the real organization for the LEED standard and real reliable information. To the editors of this page. You are Great! Thanks. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This artical seems a bit out of date in that doing a LEED project requires increased consultants to advise the design team. LEED has been around long enough where only the "late to the party" firms may be having to hire LEED consultants to advise them on a program that's been around for a while. If you want to save this expense, hire a firm that's done 20 or 30 LEED projects and go on...

Uhm, how about a list of current LEED buildings. JDG 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

--There have been hundreds of LEED certified buildings. It may be difficult to post all of them, but there is a link to the usgbc website for searching them, and there are also case studies the USGBC has put together. Any thoughts about whether they should be posted to wikipedia? 75.28.136.229 09:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Listing them on the page or creating a category to group LEED-certified buildings would seem to be useful. Would obviously lead to more attention to the individual properties and green building as a whole. Seems like something worthy of drawing people's attention to as it becomes increasingly important and mainstream.

It would be feasible to give the names of perhaps the platinum-certified buildings, since there are very few, and simply say how many buildings are in the other classes, as of a particular date. It's certainly not feasible to list the hundreds of buildings in the lower levels. -- Beland (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are nearly 5000 certified buildings and well over 100 platinum buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtopus (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just went through and posted the rough outline of the LEED design points (it seems like you have to shell out $200 if you want the full details) and I can't find a single point that seems to touch on noise from buildings, though they touch on things like light pollution, views, and (rather ominously) increased ventilation, indoor air quality and "thermal comfort". To me, the system sounds like it actually encourages massive machinery and noise indoors and out for the strange, pointless fad pursuit of 'perfect' indoor air (i.e. air so dry in the winter you get cracked knuckles and itchy skin). On the other hand, I have one article here that claims the scheme does give some credit for reducing noise [1] Which is it? Wnt (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

LEED is an energy efficiency standard, not a list of personal pet peeves. As for an ideal RH environment, LEED calls for humidification as part of a credit, which will entirely stop the dry air problem. Your substantial misunderstandings are reasonably confusing. Have you actually had any involvement with the industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.167.130 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree - if you have a desire to reduce noise pollution, develop an approach, implement it and propose it as an innovation credit. That's what innovation credits are for! Just be prepared to make a SOLID case that you've actually DONE something innovative... buying a quiter HVAC unit is NOT going to win you any points... and it will be hard to proove with out testing...

LEED for Schools has a prerequisite called Minimum Acoustical Performance, with a related credit for higher performance. This can be used as an innovation credit in any of the other rating systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archtopus (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some of this article sounds more like a commercial than an encyclopedia. For instance:

"LEED certified buildings often provide healthier work and living environments, which contributes to higher productivity and improved employee health and comfort."

This sentence is loaded with poor logic and vaguely defined terms. Exactly the sort of thing I would expect an encyclopedia to filter out. ...Just the facts please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.136.61 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Look at the first sentence: "and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, ...."

Really? That reads like a commercial. It should be fixed or flagged. 69.34.161.37 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think flagged is best, as trying to sort verified performance facts from uncertain claims in an evolving design tool faces the challenges of much gray area. We will never be done fixing this. If readers sense there is vagueness in LEED, and uncertainty in what LEED certification delivers that is accurate. The most important statement is that LEED is a design tool, not a performance metric. Misused design tools easily fail to achieve desired outcomes. --Brian Ashman (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also examine the sentence: "The hallmark of LEED is that it is an open and transparent process.." seems to imply the process is free for all to participate. Examine the profit centers and motives for LEED management, then compare to the Green Globes process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.96.1 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This all sounds pretty unharmful, but it does involve living persons, so it needs to be verified quickly. A lot of it looks like original research.Jesse Crouch (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Completely un-neutral and unreferenced. I know a lot of these are legitimate points, but wikipedia isn't a discussion board. Jesse Crouch (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is largely unreferenced.

The certification section should be condensed and more prose than a list. A general description of the point system and what categories the points fall into would be sufficient. The actual points that are given can be found on official LEED documents and don't need to be duplicated here, especially given the quickly-changing state of LEED currently.

Looks like there's lots of original research here. A lot of it looks valid and mostly unharmful for not, but should be cited soon.Jesse Crouch (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

LEED critic Henry Gifford has filed a lawsuit against USGBC for

  1. monopolization through fraud,
  2. unfair competition,
  3. deceptive trade practices,
  4. false advertising,
  5. wire fraud, and
  6. unjust enrichment.

This article needs updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.148.126 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

according to [2]. -- Beland (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

LEED, Not So Clear-Cut; Some argue that the big business is sustainable design is a fraud by Utne Reader Staff January-February 2012, page 21 in-print. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see buildings claiming things like Gold and 4-star, or plain 3-star and 5-star LEED certification. What does this mean? It's not covered on the page. -- Beland (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120130090848/http://www.cagbc.org:80/Content/NavigationMenu/Programs/LEED/RatingSystems/Homes/default.htm to http://www.cagbc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Programs/LEED/RatingSystems/Homes/default.htm#providers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101122082831/http://esbnyc.com/sustainability_energy_efficiency.asp to http://www.esbnyc.com/sustainability_energy_efficiency.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017204416/http://www.sotaconstruction.com/project_details.asp?id=42 to http://www.sotaconstruction.com/project_details.asp?id=42

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121132129/http://popcitymedia.com/devnews/phipps052312.aspx to http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/phipps052312.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2039

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article is quite plainly a pamphlet written by some supporter or staff member of some part of LEED. It's a puff piece.

This is a pity because it makes what may very well be a worthwhile professional practice look more like an aggressively evangelical cult of some sort.

The fact that the article is more public relations than encyclopedia entry leads it to some oddities. For instance, we have LEED also has grown from six volunteers on one committee to 119,924 staff, volunteers and professionals.[10] LEED standards have been applied to approximately 83,452 registered and certified LEED projects worldwide, covering around 13.8 billion square feet (1.28 billion square meters).[11]

The organization claims to have existed since 1993 yet 119 thousand people have applied it to 84 thousand projects. Two projects for every three people in a generation flat? This looks to me like a ridiculous result of somebody simply picking the most boastful available number, the biggest around, without thinking for a moment what they mean.

Somebody call rewrite, maybe?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article is very extensive and contains a lot of well-structured information. I tried to fix as much as possible the links that didn't refer to any Wikipedia page, but there are a lot of them! --Mauri polimi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauri polimi (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

As a key founding contributor to LEED and long time LEED fellow Daniel A.Huard I believe might warrant a new page please. Dbaggs01 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

New paper from NBER. Does LEED Certification Save Energy? Evidence from Federal Buildings GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beyzia (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jelotan.

— Assignment last updated by WikiEdit7205 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply