Letters

I am writing to correct a misconception published in your White Paper concerning USGBC's Industry Trade Association Policy. Your report states: "The USGBC should reconsider the admission of trade associations."

Trade associations have always been and still are allowed to participate as members in USGBC. First, they can join through one or more of their members. For example, Exxon could join and represent Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Second, they can join through their IRC § 501(c)(3) charitable foundations as decided on a case-by-case basis by the USGBC Board. The board acted on this policy a number of years ago at the request of the National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation and voted to allow the foundation to join.

The primary reason for establishing this policy was based on experience we found highly detrimental to developing green building standards in ASTM. The ASTM Green Building Subcommittee was created in 1987 in response to the very strong national need and demand for leadership green building standards.

The Green Building Subcommittee worked for about three years in developing several draft standards, but they could not be submitted for initial ballot vote of the subcommittee because of strong, unified opposition by industry trade associations and their "front" organizations. This was a critical part of the reason for establishing USGBC and the USGBC Industry Trade Association Policy.

I was asked to and did explain this at the September meeting with industry trade associations that you mention on page 44 of the White Paper.

Mike Italiano, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Italiano is a USGBC co-founder, first general counsel, author of the USGBC's Industry Trade Association Policy, and a member of the USGBC Trade Association Task Force. These remarks are his personal opinion, not necessarily those of the USGBC.

Robert Cassidy replies: David Gottfried, USGBC's co-founder, has a different recollection. In his recent book Greed to Green, he writes (at page 122): "Shortly after our official launch we received checks from two trade organizations, each for $300 — the same fee our environmental organizations paid. Although on paper both groups were nonprofits, one represented two thousand firms, and the other about two dozen billion-dollar powerhouse corporations. Mike and I moved quickly to get our board to prohibit trade associations from becoming members, and returned the two checks. If they joined, we feared we'd never recruit any of their members; not only that, but their strategy might snowball to other building product areas, such as carpet, drywall, and wood. If that occurred, USGBC would become a council of trade organizations, killing the pioneering spirit that our visionary and progressive corporate members stood for."

Note: A USGBC task force has issued a draft "background paper" on trade association membership to USGBC members. Comments may be sent to memberviews@usgbc.org by March 8.

On the "57 Great Ideas" (BD&C, 1/04), I have long felt that our industry has been short on the "Big Idea." Sadly, very little has changed in the past two thousand years in the world of building construction. We have been woefully behind when compared to our peer industries. In our industry we design and construct facilities that house some of the greatest innovations man has ever seen. Sadly, we don't seem to learn from our client's world but rest in ours.

They say to have a great idea you must first have a bunch of good ideas. If there is an overarching big idea out there, I think it is the collaboration movement. We need to do whatever is in our power to break down the walls that exist between design and construction, if not for ourselves, for our clients. We have been an industry that has focused on the bricks and sticks when what our clients expect is a solution.

Randy Simmons, Chairman, R.R. Simmons Construction Corp., Tampa, Fla.

Messrs. Rumler and Heptig (Letters, 1/04) have clearly missed the point of the piece (Editorial, 12/03), which was simply to bring to our attention a potentially unexpected set of circumstances that could affect any of our work. The fact that this particular set of circumstances stemmed from a religious dispute makes it in no way "distasteful," nor does it make the events fall outside the bounds of "construction issues." Neither does it call for religious debate, at least not within the pages of this publication. Had the editorial used these events to launch into a "real discussion about ethics," as Mr. Rumler would have had you do, then I would join with Mr. Heptig in suggesting that we need to stick to construction issues.

Craig E. Burgess, AIA

We're wondering if the scene on the cover (BD&C, 01/04) is a computer model or a photograph or a combination of the two.

Steve Lyons, Moseley Architects

The editor replies: We wondered the same thing, so before we published the image, we asked photographer Prakash Patel that question. He assured us that not only is it a real photograph and those are real people, but the shot has a story behind it.

It seems Patel had to shoot the image while dangling from the window-washers' rigging to get the right angle across the atrium of the Discovery Communications headquarters building. The first time he tried to get the shot, he miscalculated how long it would take to set up, and lost the light. He came back a second time, but cloudy conditions did not produce the right light. On the third attempt, the mechanical and natural worlds came together to produce the image on our January cover.

We are having a contest among building and accessibility inspectors to see who can cite the most code violations in the portion of the stairway/ramp shown in your photograph (BD&C, 1/04, p. 20). I suspect that IIT is already working on some remedial stair plans in order to beat the lawsuits that are surely going to follow now that attorneys around the nation have been put on notice that this extremely imaginative creation exists. In my opinion, it looks like an M.C. Escher poster coming to life.

I hope that BD&C will continue to highlight controversial issues in the interest of promoting constructive dialog. The outcome of such dialogue is that we are all better at what we do in order to serve our clients and society in general.

Lee Martin, AIA, Chief Building Official, Broward County (Fla.) School Board

Mr. Brunett's letter (BD&C, 01/04) was exactly on point.

My partner and I have enjoyed a fair amount of experience in designing public buildings. When I read the story ("Koolhaas Encounters Mies," BD&C, 12/03), I was staggered by the audacity of exactly what bothers Mr. Brunett: the apparent total disregard for — and mocking of — the building code. My first reaction was that in the building code there must be some loophole of which I'm not aware. Otherwise, BD&C would not have published [the photo on page 20].

The story illustrates that architects who have a cavalier (not to say dangerous) approach to what should be a serious subject are rewarded with paeans of praise in the professional and lay press, leading of course to more and more commissions. We in Toledo have been "blessed" with more than one architectural outrage resulting from public and private boards falling under the spell of "signature architects."

Melvin Henry Mull, Angel, Mull + Associates, Inc., Toledo, Ohio

Three thoughts did cross my mind as I read your editorial (BD&C, 12/03). First, I found it interesting that a national magazine would seem to oppose the exercise of "free speech." I saw no evidence in your editorial the opposition conveyed anything in the "telephone, letter-writing, and e-mail campaign" that was actually incorrect or untrue. Why were they wrong to express their views, but you are not wrong to express your thoughts?

Second, it also seemed disingenuous of you to imply that "conception counseling and HIV testing" were the primary purposes of the building when these services are already readily available in the area. It is clear these two are not the primary purposes for their business. Is it possible the reason the vast majority of people and contractors sided with the "boycott" (as you called it) was not because of any supposed financial pressure, but because they actually believe abortion is wrong?

Third, I am curious if you would feel the same way if the building construction being opposed were a meeting hall for the Ku Klux Klan, an adult bookstore, or a similar type of building involving a divisive use, instead of an abortion clinic. Would you have written an editorial defending the construction of these buildings?

The only thing your article effectively did was give ideas for opposing questionable buildings to thousands of people across America.

Tony Kinder, PE, Cleveland Surveying Company, Cleveland, Tenn.

I am a developer of affordable housing in New York. I read with interest the editorial about the construction boycott of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin.

This is reminiscent of the Montgomery bus boycott, which was called worse things than "harassing." All those Black ministers having meetings in their churches telling people what God wanted was outright intimidating. And the Boston Tea Party, which wasted all that tea, really had to be an "illegal conspiracy." They got all those people together in one place even without a telephone.

Regardless of one's opinion about abortion, a campaign that stirs up this much support deserves admiration. It is a story about grass-roots democracy and neighborly citizenship personified. We wouldn't need the government to change the world. We could do it ourselves. The possibilities are not frightening, but astounding.

Richard J. Crossed, President, Conifer Realty LLC, Rochester, N.Y.