As a preface to my commentary on the IGCC, let me address all “single-family residential architects / designers”: Don’t get smug! Once the IGCC (for commercial projects) is formally adopted, the next matter of “green-code” business is formulation of the International Green Residential Construction Code (or some derivation of the name). So don’t think that what I’m reviewing won’t impact you. This is only a foretaste of what’s coming “to your neighborhood”.
Forging ahead:
To continue my commentary on the International Green Construction Code (IGCC), I lambast the lack of neutrality inherent within the IGCC. Generally, codes are “neutral” – no-one makes or loses money based upon a code’s implementation. Not so with the IGCC. Adoption of the IGCC will facilitate a group of financial winners and one specific financial loser (to see the full list, please see my blog at http://greenhermes1.blogspot.com ). Since this posting is for the AIA Knowledge Net, I’ll concentrate on my primary concern – a practicing architect – the one big financial loser under the IGCC. Why? Architects will be required to provide more effort, more liability, more reporting, and more responsibility – all for the same fee (see my previous blogs).
Architects were “represented” (supposedly) by two to four members of the Public Comment Hearing Committee (PCHC); however, none of the representatives truly acted in the interests of AIA practicing-architect members. To illustrate:
A. Vernon Woodworth, AIA
“Representing AIA “- Associate Principal, R.W. Sullivan, Inc. - Boston, MA
http://www.rwsullivan.com/
R. W. Sullivan is a large MEP / Fire Protection Engineering firm. Commissioning Agents (aka mechanical engineers) are large “winners” in the IGCC, so I can’t imagine that an “associate principal” in a MEP firm could represent architects.
Dennis A. Andrejko, FAIA
“Representing AIA” - Associate Professor of Architecture - University at Buffalo, Department of Architecture
http://www.ap.buffalo.edu/architecture/people/andrejko.asp
Teacher first – practitioner second…Architecture schools are also “winners” in the IGCC, so I can’t imagine that an associate professor of architecture could fully represent architects that depend on their practices as the sole means of support.
Dru Meadows, AIA, CCS, FCSI
“Representing ASTM International” - Mathis Consulting Company - Asheville, NC
http://mathisconsulting.squarespace.com/team/
This one’s easy. This AIA member represents ASTM International. ASTM is also a “winner” in the IGCC, so forget AIA representation through Mathis Consulting.
Maureen Guttman, AIA
“Representing AIA” - Executive Director, Governor's Green Government Council - Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=23222535&authType=name&authToken=mv1l&pvs=pp
Bureaucrat first – AIA second – governmental agents have no liability whatsoever. There’s no way that a bureaucrat will look out for the interests of practicing architects. Their responsibility is to look out for their employer – in this case, the state.
So, even though (at least) four AIA members serve on the IGCC Public Comment Hearing Committee, none REALLY represent the interests of AIA members – all represent other interests…so, it’s no wonder that practicing architects are getting the “short-straw”.
What possessed the AIA – allowing it to totally ignore the practicing professionals, who comprise the core of its membership?
I can certainly understand why the ICC doesn’t want practicing architects making policy (If questions like mine were asked during the IGCC-formulation process, the code might not have been where it is now); but the AIA?
So here’s the real issue: is the AIA so concerned about its sustainability “mission statement” that it’s afraid of what its constituency might say – that practice matters might overrule “progressive” matters? And, how can the AIA rationalize supporting the onerous requirements within the IGCC that impact the financial health of every practitioner? Those are questions that every practicing architect should ask their national, state, and local AIA directors, and that’s the basis of my next article:
6 - The IGCC is totally unnecessary - A practical guide to fighting back against the IGCC.
BTW: LEED is a trademark of the U. S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system.