Well...is it? I've heard very conflicting views on the subject. On one hand, it does seem to encourage green building and provide a consistent set of guidelines that are proven to both ensure (buzz-word alert) sustainability and lifetime cost-savings. However, several people have told me that LEED is "bullshit," and claim that it is little more than an arbitrary checklist that, while providing the illusion of green construction. It seems to me that this position is held by architectural "hipsters" who are too cool for school, but I honestly have no idea...
So, what are the pros and cons? Is it good metric by which to measure architecture?
(Quibbling... Defining something as objectively "good" or "bad" in an objective, overall sense is virtually impossible. Pros and cons should be what people are looking for.)
LEED is better than the status quo, and good in the fact that it has brought awareness to and mainstreamed some green-building practices. Building up base familiarity with the idea of "green building" and taking away the taboo of anything green being "hippie treehugger shit" is one of the best things it's done. I would also say that two of the best things it can do are: A) further prove to people that green building is cost-effective and economically viable, and B). reframe the discussion of building cost from up-front cost to life-cycle cost (in which green ideas are fully valued, as they typically drastically reduce operating costs and such).
The negatives, obviously, are that it doesn't go far enough.
First, even a LEED Platinum building can be fundamentally unsustainable. For example, you can build a house in the middle of nowhere that one needs to drive 2.5 hours each way every day to get to work, groceries, etc (exaggeration for effect, obviously), emitting HUGE amounts of carbon emissions. This location is only barely penalized under the "Site Selection" parameters in LEED, thus allowing the house to still be Platinum, but in a broader sense not sustainable in the least. Simply put, there are far too many loopholes (i.e. a building can do well on the scoring scale by doing "some of the above", when really it should be "all of the above and more").
Secondly, LEED is a prescriptive standard (i.e. a checklist) by nature, rather than a performance-based standard. Thus, once the construction is done, they can hang up the job and consider it done, and not have to worry about if it actually worked in practice. The Living Building Challenge is an amazing example of an approach that combines the two (prescriptive and performance-based) - LEED has started to take the hint and is incorporating a lot of the LBC's ideas into newer versions of LEED (such as post-occupancy evaluations, energy/water use monitoring, user training, and so on).
Third - look at what we're going for here: a sustainable building. One that does no harm. We can do so much better than that! Try regenerative design - not just designing sustainably, but designing in a way that heals. Whether creating habitat for plants and animals, or revitalizing communities, or healing people through design, there's boundless potential here that LEED just barely comes close to touching.
So, in one sentence, LEED is a good first baby step, but we need to start running. Now.
wow. royc, have you worked on a LEED project? You sound very academic. You even included the word 'parameters' like any good academic would and you explicitly defined "sustainable" in a matter generally inconsistent with a dictionary.
LEED is a significant amount of paperwork, large fees, and a time sink. If you changed to conversation to:
"Should I advise the client to get an efficient RTU and light bulbs?" - yes
"Should we design an outhouse in lieu of toilets because toilets waste water?" - no. that's stupid.
So, in one word, as mdler kindly pointed out, "nope"
i dont think there is a blanket answer either way. saying "nope" and implying it is never useful anywhere ever, is incorrect, just like saying it is a great system that is saving the planet is incorrect.
"Should I advise the client to get an efficient RTU and light bulbs?" - yes
This is a common example of a lot of little things that can be done to help a building perform in a more sustainable way. What if your client could care less about that, yet either has added funding he can get by having the LEED plaque, or can justify spending a little more because of the marketing benefits he will recieve due to saying his building is LEED certified? Should we just ignore LEED and just sell our clients on sustainable design on the principle alone? Because I havent seen that as something that actually is happening
Are we to believe that because LEED is a popular punching bag for architects, that we should discount that it actually can have merit?
Is LEED Good?
Well...is it? I've heard very conflicting views on the subject. On one hand, it does seem to encourage green building and provide a consistent set of guidelines that are proven to both ensure (buzz-word alert) sustainability and lifetime cost-savings. However, several people have told me that LEED is "bullshit," and claim that it is little more than an arbitrary checklist that, while providing the illusion of green construction. It seems to me that this position is held by architectural "hipsters" who are too cool for school, but I honestly have no idea...
So, what are the pros and cons? Is it good metric by which to measure architecture?
nope
(Quibbling... Defining something as objectively "good" or "bad" in an objective, overall sense is virtually impossible. Pros and cons should be what people are looking for.)
LEED is better than the status quo, and good in the fact that it has brought awareness to and mainstreamed some green-building practices. Building up base familiarity with the idea of "green building" and taking away the taboo of anything green being "hippie treehugger shit" is one of the best things it's done. I would also say that two of the best things it can do are: A) further prove to people that green building is cost-effective and economically viable, and B). reframe the discussion of building cost from up-front cost to life-cycle cost (in which green ideas are fully valued, as they typically drastically reduce operating costs and such).
The negatives, obviously, are that it doesn't go far enough.
First, even a LEED Platinum building can be fundamentally unsustainable. For example, you can build a house in the middle of nowhere that one needs to drive 2.5 hours each way every day to get to work, groceries, etc (exaggeration for effect, obviously), emitting HUGE amounts of carbon emissions. This location is only barely penalized under the "Site Selection" parameters in LEED, thus allowing the house to still be Platinum, but in a broader sense not sustainable in the least. Simply put, there are far too many loopholes (i.e. a building can do well on the scoring scale by doing "some of the above", when really it should be "all of the above and more").
Secondly, LEED is a prescriptive standard (i.e. a checklist) by nature, rather than a performance-based standard. Thus, once the construction is done, they can hang up the job and consider it done, and not have to worry about if it actually worked in practice. The Living Building Challenge is an amazing example of an approach that combines the two (prescriptive and performance-based) - LEED has started to take the hint and is incorporating a lot of the LBC's ideas into newer versions of LEED (such as post-occupancy evaluations, energy/water use monitoring, user training, and so on).
Third - look at what we're going for here: a sustainable building. One that does no harm. We can do so much better than that! Try regenerative design - not just designing sustainably, but designing in a way that heals. Whether creating habitat for plants and animals, or revitalizing communities, or healing people through design, there's boundless potential here that LEED just barely comes close to touching.
So, in one sentence, LEED is a good first baby step, but we need to start running. Now.
wow. royc, have you worked on a LEED project? You sound very academic. You even included the word 'parameters' like any good academic would and you explicitly defined "sustainable" in a matter generally inconsistent with a dictionary.
LEED is a significant amount of paperwork, large fees, and a time sink. If you changed to conversation to:
"Should I advise the client to get an efficient RTU and light bulbs?" - yes
"Should we design an outhouse in lieu of toilets because toilets waste water?" - no. that's stupid.
So, in one word, as mdler kindly pointed out, "nope"
i dont think there is a blanket answer either way. saying "nope" and implying it is never useful anywhere ever, is incorrect, just like saying it is a great system that is saving the planet is incorrect.
"Should I advise the client to get an efficient RTU and light bulbs?" - yes
This is a common example of a lot of little things that can be done to help a building perform in a more sustainable way. What if your client could care less about that, yet either has added funding he can get by having the LEED plaque, or can justify spending a little more because of the marketing benefits he will recieve due to saying his building is LEED certified? Should we just ignore LEED and just sell our clients on sustainable design on the principle alone? Because I havent seen that as something that actually is happening
Are we to believe that because LEED is a popular punching bag for architects, that we should discount that it actually can have merit?
Yes!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.