The group agreed that we are not trying to abandon LEED – instead we are questioning whether LEED is sufficient as it is, whether our world view needs to change to properly realize the potential of LEED, or do we need something different to reach the future we envision?

Two key questions for the group are: 1. What is the nature of change being called for in our industry? 2. What has the greatest potency to catalyze this change?

Graphic by Bill Reed, based concept from Ray Cole

Organizers summarized the conversation from the previous evening into three primary foci for exploration and dialogue; these foci seemed to have great “potency for change” in one participant’s terminology: 1. Connecting to and understanding “place” as a source of love and community. 2. Envisioning sustainability (including culture) – and interconnectivity (through broader sense of time and space). 3. Creating buildings and places of beauty that are loved.

The group reflected on the evening's conversation and added many points:

• We should start behaving the change we want to see. How would we behave differently if we behaved as a living system?

• We need a shift in what is valued—the economics of our industry. We need “compassionate construction” – evoking the highest in our industry and clients.

• In the long term, we need to move from a rational to an integral way of thinking.

• The term “sustainability” creates problems – is overused, seems unattainable, has too many meanings.

• What is the role of people, culture, community, social memetics in place and design?

• How does one enspirit a sense of place? We are re-energizing a spirit of people, not a new rating system, by understanding sense of place. What is it about place that evokes a deep sense of self, compassion, and visceral connection?

• What are the first principles of understanding place? What do we need to understand about each place to be effective – creative and inventive around the things that are different at that place? Can we understand place without memory?

• What is the thinking capacity needed to encompass broader views of time and space (to address, for example, species loss, global ramifications of local actions)?

• What is the importance of community in place and design?

• How do we stay in a continual state of regeneration? What energizes and grounds us? People want a consuming passion, a sense of satisfaction beyond materialism and ambition. We want new people leap-frogging ahead.

• How do we increase effectiveness? Ask deeper questions, share lessons, communicate on a deep level – deeper dialog. How do we capture inventiveness and expertise around the world to make us all stronger and more effective?

The group reflected on the nature of dialogue, as opposed to discussion (per David Bohm) – dialog allows us to create a field of energy that increases the possibility of building together; discussion comes from the same roots as “percussion” and “concussion” both of which imply breaking things up. There are no “winners” and “losers” in dialog; instead, all own their ignorance and share deep concerns – arrogance kills dialog. All committed to open dialog at this meeting.