The Need for LEED

Frank Gehry recently had some controversial opinions regarding LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a system for rating buildings on their "greenness") . Gehry is quoted as saying in reference to LEED, "I think the issue is finally a political one...a lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff." This seemed to have caused tremendous unrest in the heart of Susan Szenasy, who wrote a letter titled "you are so wrong, Frank Gehry", in which she writes:

"With buildings known to produce more than half of the world's carbon output, surely those who design and build them have to shoulder some responsibility. But not, apparently, Gehry. He cavalierly called out LEED ratings (and thus the many efforts made every day by architects and designers to make our world less toxic, use available energy and water more carefully, pay mind to the site and its proximity to public transit, etc. ) as 'political' and 'bogus.' This is unfortunate for everyone concerned, and everyone must be concerned. But I'm not surprised, though I am saddened no end."

Fred Bernstein architecture writer and critic countered Szenasy with the following

"One example is CityCenter, the Las Vegas complex that contains more than 5,000 hotel rooms, plus casinos and shopping malls and restaurants and nightclubs - altogether, 18 million air-conditioned square feet smack in the middle of the Mojave Desert. I can't imagine a greater environmental disaster than this complex (which, in addition to requiring vast resources to build and operate, is designed to draw travelers from around the world). And yet it was awarded LEED Gold status." 

Admittedly I can't say I am for LEED at all, so I guess if you're a fanboy, read on with caution.

One person I feel sums up the issue most clearly is archdaily reader Josephklein (who might be architect Joseph Klein of S.J. Janis Co. in the greater Milwaukee area. I googled his name, not creepy at all). He writes:

"Green is market making money generating verbiage that pulls at your heartstrings. Eat bread water wear a coat don't move buy one professional object use it till it falls apart. Green marketing is for the asset holding class for the poor are already green. This is mostly an institutional debate. You could say this neg GDP global growth is the most impact full environmental action none legislated and you would be right just. Green words coming from aggressive ambitious competitive tool and manufacturing individual is a bit funny. The big question is can investors still make money on the word green."

Making things "green" has gotten out of hand. Under the guise of doing something for a better tomorrow, the green movement has become a monster. It has become "cool" to be green, and it is there that I feel lies the greatest problem with the movement. Companies work to be able to put words like biodegradable or made from recycled material on their labels. This makes masses believe that by buying products of that sort, they are actually working towards this "sustainability." However, more effective modes of "greening" can often happen just by smart design, just like Andrew Kim's more efficient coke bottle concept.

These bottles are stackable, collapsible, and still even fit within machines that are design for the old round bottles. They also reduce shipping and packing costs as well as the need for specialized packing crates made just for bottles. Just simply, by rethinking basic concepts, one can make a series of greenings. 

In the world of architecture, this is just as true. LEED certification is much like the label of a "green" product. Just by putting some bike racks and renewable energy generators, you can obtain heaps of worthless points. However, really smart green design, like in BIG's Shenzhen International Energy Mansion, a competition they recently won. The simple solution of small modifications to the curtain wall increases the greeness. 

Instead of just slapping some solar panels on for some LEED points, BIG designs an integrated system that is truly worthwhile, spending the greening money intelligently. Justifying cost with equal worth. Anyone can turn a box into a LEED gold building with enough money, but is it really helping us reach a greener tomorrow? The poor are already sustainable, and now that the ones with assets find it fashionable to be as well, there comes a great need to separate labels from the truth. LEED certification was at one point in time a great start, but now they're doing more harm than good. It has already become just as worthless as those green labels placed on common commercial products. Architecture needs to be smarter than that. Architects need to stop playing along and take responsibility to smartly design truly green buildings..

Sources: Archdaily-Treehugger-Toxel

-- L