My gmaws wall of VHS tapes ripped from every movie she ever rented from a blockbuster would beg to differ

This chaps my ass almost as much as the beefy 5 layer burrito

That price held untill atleast 2012, that’s a solid 5 dollars of increase in just over 10 years. I could totally be talking out my ass

That’s a square tip plug. It could be a gas line, but ur not getting the drier hooked up to that thing.

I’m pretty early on into my career and am honestly still trying to navigate this myself, but after over a decade I’d say I’d agree with what clover said somewhere else in the thread, u just have to advocate any way you can. Depending on the client, that might be using the economic angle, or the environmental angle. Some people only see dollar signs and don’t care the most of Canada is on fire and there’s no wining, but in trying you may sway the people below them that might be in decision making roles in the future.

Idk, like just try I guess :)

I agree, it is a good way to get the owners asking for levels of environmentalism that might be out of their expertise, I just wish it had more teeth.

I’d say the majority of architects are more than willing but there are contrarians. LEED does provide an avenue for Architects to get involved but its not without his issues LEED is an interesting program that has its issues. For example there are a lot of credit swap opportunities in LEED that allow u to bypass some of the other requirements that would be more impactful. The core tennents of what LEED is trying to achieve is great, it just doesn’t seem to be rather effective where it counts, production builders that are supplying the majority of housing. These developers stray away from LEED certification due to the extra cost, it takes alot of extra documentation to go for LEED. Documentation that would not be neccissary even if you would choose to build a building that is equal or better than a LEED building. I view the program similarly to Target turning their logo rainbow, low investment for big businesses looking to posture.

I originally had a reactionary response to this… Like why should the burden be on Architects. Most of us would love to make a building as efficent as possible, but at the end of the day it all comes down to who’s paying. Sometimes no matter how much u try to educate a client they don’t care and will barely be swayed with “it’s not to code” as a reason. There’s sooo many people above us with more power pulling levers and making decisions and we’re lucky some times to push a client in the direction of more sustainable (and expensive) windows that are above code minimums.

Then I read the article, and after pulling my head out of my own ass where I was apparently throwing myself a putty party, I came out agreeing with the author. Although we do not usually hold much leverage, even with organizations like AIA and Ncarb, we do have a unique position of understanding the complexities of how things go from being design to built should use that knowledge to help inform and guide movements for the betterment of the environment. For example, even if IEEC insulation regulations go up, it is up the the individual municipality to accept them, same with all building codes, and I can tell u there is Wide variation depending on how liberal the municipality is and this can be just from county to county.

So while I want to blame everyone else that is responsible for allowing the wrong codes from being rattified or rich developer for skimping on windows and insulation(still legal cause energy codes) in a high rise, it’s on architects to educate and try to push the system from the bottom.