So I hear that BREEAM is to be pronounced as in the fish not as some 1950’s airline (BREE-AM). When did this happen – and is it a clever piece of viral marketing to give BREEAM a lift?
BREAM is never far from discussion in the work that I do, and over the last two weeks has cropped up as usual, but its mention has raised a number of worrying thoughts in my mind.
Firstly on a workshop, discussing the need for BREEAM on a new project, the comments, how “we know all about BREEAM, just means we will have more cycle sheds” “nothing to do with us its a design thing”. And there was the genuine perception that nothing different need be done.
Secondly, I have talked or communicated with three people, all UK based, who are taking the LEED assssor course. The reason, mentioned by all was that their clients are starting to look at LEED as an alternative to BREEAM . This led, on one occasion to a discussion between the two, with the conclusion that LEED postively encourages innovation more so than BREEAM and encourages or enables more collaboartively working across the project teams to acheive the standard.
A while ago I posted an item cracking the codes relating to the USA Architecture 2030 movement which undertook a study of all the USA based codes in relation to achieving the 2030 objectives, and highlighting the gaps – the codes or standards didnt quite go far enough.
I would love to see a similar mapping exercise in the UK – a gap analysis betwen all of our codes (and I would include BRREAM, Regs, Considerate Contractors etc ) against the objectives set for the sector – (CSH, Construction Strategy, proposed Code for Sustainble Non-Doms etc).