We were talking LEED in a staff meeting this week. From the comments, it seems that more and more clients are interested in meeting LEED recommendations, but only a few actually want to pay for that LEED certification. The credits don't seem to be worth the bureaucracy.

Also, during the AIA convention in LA, one of our architects went on a tour of a prominent LEED-certified building, but was annoyed because the tour guide kept pointing at things and saying how many LEED credits they were worth, instead of explaining how they made the building work better.

A lot of architects are sold on LEED, green building, etc. but in reality the building maintenance types have a lot more sway in renovation projects. I like Roof Gardens, but my institutional clients have been paranoid about roof leaks, roof warranties, etc.

I would want secure bike storage within the building, perhaps lockers sized for full-size or folding bikes, but the building guy just sees muddy tires tracking in more dirt, and handlebars whacking his door jambs and scraping his walls.

I have a concern re: the focus on features installed strictly to accumulate LEED points. It's partly based on my ignorance of the LEED process and what happens once the building is commissioned.

Do the buildings actually achieve what they're supposed to do, not just post-commissioning but a year or two after? Does it matter? Does a building need to maintain its LEED certification?

I have a passing familiarity with one LEED building with on-site wastewater treatment and recycling of grey water. The building couldn't control bacteria in the cooling tower using 100% grey water for make-up. They had to go to 50% domestic water make-up. Does it matter?