Talk:LEED

Thanks to Editors

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)

Increased First Costs?

This artical seems a bit out of date in that doing a LEED project requires increased consultants to advise the design team.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...

List?

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

--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)

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)

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)

LEED: for or against noise pollution?

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)

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)

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.

Neutrality?

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)

History

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)

Benefits and disadvantages

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)

Multiple issues

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)