s6- that book is sooooo boring and uniformative - don't waste the paper or shipping miles to get it. 99% of the papers are sales pitches for some propriatary system that is vaguely 'green'. c2c has more ideas, and the usgbc provides more practical methods of implementing everything then that book does.

Here is where I am in regards to the sustainability issue:

I believe that sustainability should be best practice in our field.

I know there are some really good sustainable buildings out there, I think there should be more and I think they should be better.

I believe the LEED although well-intentioned is one of those best/worst things to happen to the movement.

I believe that information regarding sustainable practices should be made freely available to everyone, not just how to do it but details.

I tend to be pro low-tech sustainability because it is inexpensive and only requires one thinking about the problem, although hi-tech is necessary for technology to grow and our understanding as a civilization to advance.

Many people have attacked me for wanting an easy way out, or answers to steel from a book, this is not my agenda, I do not want to look at projects and copy them as some people have stated immaturely in their post. I am starting a practice, or rather on the verge, I have projects on the boards and I am designing these projects. There is a high level of sophistication in the designs, I am not arrogant by saying that, but they are sophisticated projects which aim to take on serious building issues, one of the projects I have made an effort to not only exploit the sustainable features but I have embellished them. The project is not quietly sustainable, form follows function if you well. In my case though it is the ornamentation of the structure which speaks to sustainability. The building makes use of a rainwater harvesting system and this system is embellished and expressed in every aspect of the design. I hope it gets built, it is contemporary, it is sexy, and most of all it is sustainable. Is it good I don't know, but I would like to know more about everything sustainable so that the game I play in design can better express or communicate these systems. This is the kind of innovation I am looking for, I consider myself an artist, and I consult scientist, I do not want to invent the wheel or the latest energy producing device, but I do want to show you the wheel in a way that moves your spirit.

Lovely post jamez.

You last sentence reminds me of Will Bruder's statement that he is just "trying to get the poetic from the pragmatic". You are clearly trying to walk the walk. Good luck with the project(s).

"i believe the LEED although well-intentioned is one of those best/worst things to happen to the movement."

i've heard this from other architects, but i can't figure why people feel LEED is a bad thing. frankly i believe it's sour grapes from architects who for some reason choose not to participate in the program. "my building is perfectly sustainable. why do i have to prove it?" but from every other angle it works very well. it's codifiable and therefore certifiable so it offers the incentive of a great marketing angle for politicians and developers and this in my eyes has been the reason for its success so far. sustainability like everything else in a free market is moved by economics, not idealism. the more economic incentives there are to be stewards of the environment the better. while some architects may not like the commissioning or review processes, everything in the industry eventually moves towards standardization; why not sustainability?

treekiller - i'm picking up what you're putting down. While it does seem like a bit of a sales pitch, it's also filled with a wide variety of projects, all in one place, that are tackled in different ways. Just a resource I remember reading through at some point.

I would definitely also recommend C2C... read it over the course of a couple of days and I couldn't put it down. Turns a lot of our thinking on its head.

Too bad I'm broke saving for school and a house, or I'd be seeking out more, similar books to buy and read at my own pace.

It's not really design-related, but I think all architects could stand to read a book called "In Praise of Slow." hah.

i'm of the best/worst opinion about leed, too. i like it for all the reasons you stated, jafidler. but it just doesn't seem to reward any kind of innovative thinking. and the bar is a little low - or can be manipulated.

i went to a presentation last week by an architect who - though he believed in the goals of the program - was scandalized by the realization that he got a school built and got leed silver certification with ONLY ONE credit for reduction of energy use for climate control > i.e., they used all the same hvac design strategies that they always used.

ah, so, i didn't finish:

i think it's the best we've got, probably a necessary first step, but i think it needs some improvement, too.

[and remember, jafidler, mumby was leed ap and could have torn down the breuer and still gotten the new building leed certified.]

jamez- try reading the "Green Braid"... as for buildings/firms/www's: chesapeake bay foundation hq by smithgroup, peter testa for carbon resin material fabrication, stephen lee at carnegie mellon, the ENTIRE solar decathlon competition (everywhere from georgia tech to cmu), material fabrication at GSAP, systems innovention at CMU + the intelligent workplace, www.inhabitat.com.. just a few places/people/things to start


as far as leed--- i was all for it--- until i started actually using it. i tend to agree with some previous voices in sustainable design: leed leads nothing. it's a decent start- although as other countries around the world try to mimic our positions on leed, it is turning into a disaster... just check out shanghai's pudong district. enough said.

LEED is a good starting point but it is leading to complacency. A bunch of people in my office became LEED APs and somehow they think that just by passing this stupid test they've done something important for the environment. I am trying to create a green operation agenda for oour office, but when I ask our so-called LEED APs for extra help after work, they want no part of it. People are interested in saving the world as long as it happens between 9am and 5pm and doesn't interfere with their lunch hour.

Almost any building can become LEED Certified with minimal extra design effort if the client wants to pay to go through the certification process.

LEED, even LEED Platinum, sets the bar appallingly low, yet somehow everyone thinks that this system is saving the world. The issue is not about "proving" you have a green building, it's the fact that you can easily get LEED Certification on a building that is barely green, if at all.

jafidler the statement about LEED being the best/worst thing to happen to the movement relates to the fact that although it is great that LEED has popularized sustainable thinking and given a means to quanify sustainability for digestion by owners/developers...the very act of commodifying it turns it into a game that can be "played" to greenwash. I've seen some extremely unsustainable suburban strip developments gain a LEED rating even though many of the "sustainable" features will rarely, if ever be used or will actually lead to a better environment, but they play the LEED numbers game well and in the end it doesn't matter whether it is logical or illogical to enact particular measures in the project...it occurs because they just want the LEED rating, not a truly sustainable building. i think that's what jamez is talking about.

Another rant about the "green" movement---

I HATE it when people, especially those advertising their products, say that their products are "helping the environment" or "environmentally-friendly"

No they are not helping, and they are not friends of the environment. they are just killing the environment slower. McDonough made a great analogy this year at Greenbuild during his opening address.

He said, "If your goal is to drive from Colorado to Canada, but you are actually driving towards Mexico at 100 miles per hour, slowing down to 20 miles per hour isn't going to get you any closer to Canada."

You wanna be green? STOP BUILDING STUFF.

How ya like them apples?

Me either. Dang.

We have a leed project in the office (day job office) and one of the principals said "Why on earth would we do that the contract only says we have to supply them a leed certified building, and that is what we will give them." The project is 100,000 sf and I had proposed we study a solution that has a green roof and makes use of natural ventillation, but apparently it wasn't in the contract.

my alterego wrote this article comparing various sustainable design rating systems. published under a common copywrite license. Email me if you want me to send you the document (with better formating), i'm hoping to update this over the summer. The following was pulled from the CO USGBC Chapter's newsletter, who added a bunch of colorado centric items...

Sustainable Design Rating Systems
© TREEKILLER– 2006 some rights reserved

Here is a summary of current
sustainable design ratings systems in
the US Market. These rating systems
are distinguished from sustainable
design guidelines by incorporating
a certification process. The SPiRiT,
Green Guide for Health Care,
CHPS, and PSD Sustainable Design
Guidelines are derivates of LEED.
The certification systems are:

• LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) www.
usgbc.org

• CHPS (Collaborative High
Performance Schools) www.chps.net

• Green Globes www.thegbi.org/
greenglobes

• Energy Star www.energystar.gov

• Built Green www.builtgreen.org

• Cradle to Cradle www.mbdc.com

• BEES (Building for Economic
and Environmental Performance)
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/
software/bees.html

• BREEAM (BRE’s Environmental
Assessment Method) www.
breeam.org

• SPiRiT (Army Corp of Engineers
Sustainable Project Rating Tool)
http://www.cecer.army.mil/
sustDesign/SPiRiT.cfm

• Green Guide for Health Care
(www.gghc.org)

GENERAL GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS
Green Globes is a self-certifying
rating and was developed by the Green
Building Initiative. It is similar to LEED
and is implemented on the internet.
It addresses some areas in addition to
LEED such as acoustics, safety, demand
reduction, and integrated design. It
also requires a post construction site
visit. It is an adaptation of the British
Building Research Establishment’s
Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) for the Canadian
market. Green Globes has low market
penetration currently but is growing
in market share in the US.

BREEAM is the oldest certification
system and was a precedent for the
development of LEED and GBI.
Building Research Establishment is
the English equivalent of the USGBC
- though, I should state the USGBC is
the American version of the BRE. The
BRE certification process is not easily
accessible to US practitioners.

SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPE GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM
For many credits, the Green Guide
for Health Care directly incorporates
the language of the parallel LEED
credit, referencing LEED’s New
Construction, Existing Buildings and
Commercial Interiors products. In
some cases, existing LEED credits have
been modified to respond to the unique
needs and concerns of healthcare
facilities. In others, new credits have
been added beyond those in current
LEED products. The Guide primarily
follows the language in LEED-NC
v.2.1. The Steering Committee is
incorporating appropriate, healthcare
relevant LEED-NC v.2.2 and LEEDEB
language as it becomes available.
In general, the Guide builds on the
LEED family of products by addressing
the particular structural, usage, and
regulatory challenges of healthcare
buildings and by emphasizing the
environmental and public health
issues that comprise an important
part of what it means for a healthcare
institution to address sustainability in
their building portfolio.

SPiRiT provides guidance to support
the consideration of sustainable
design and development principles in
Army installation planning decisions
and infrastructure projects to the
fullest extent possible, balanced with
funding constraints and customer
requirements. It is intended to be
used throughout the design process to
guide the project towards a sustainable
solution as well as to score and rate
the resulting facility. The project team
or an independent review panel will
use SPiRiT to determine the rating
level of the project at its conclusion.
The U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center (ERDC)
developed SPiRiT for the Corps of
Engineers at ACSIM’s request. While
several rating tools have been put into
practice, most of them do not reflect
the reality of military installation
planning, design, and construction.
After evaluating different rating
products, ERDC based SPiRiT on the
USGBC’s LEED 2.0 rating system.

Although the Collaborative for High
Performance Schools (CHPS) was
developed as a standard for California’s
public schools, this website contains
excellent information for Colorado
too. Its Best Practices Manual is a
good standard reference for high
performance school design and has
information directed to school districts
and guidelines for designers. It contains
information on each building system
and provides a variety of detailed
design recommendations centered
on resource efficiency, daylighting,
and indoor air quality. CHPS was
developed in California, specifically
for certifying public K-12 schools.
Oregon, New York, and Massachusetts
have currently adapted variations of
CHPS, and several other states are also
exploring it’s implementation. LEED
was the basis of most of the credits,
with additional emphasis placed on
creating a good learning environment
with acoustics and resolutions passed
by the school district related to the
built environment. As a self-certifying
system, there are low registration fees,
along with extensive support network
to entice school districts to use the
system. There are no disadvantages
with using CHPS except the references
specific to California codes do not
apply.

Energy-Star for Commercial
Buildings - The national energy
performance rating system in
Portfolio Manager benchmarks the
energy performance of a wide range
of commercial facilities relative to
the performance of similar facilities
in the United States. To be eligible to
receive a rating from EPA’s national
energy performance rating system,
at least 50% of your facility’s floor
area must be defined by one of the
Eligible Space Types listed below,
which define the peer group to which
your facility will be compared. Based
on your space type, geographical
location, and level of business activity,
Portfolio Manager will assign your
facility a national energy performance
rating on a scale of 1 to 100. Facilities
that meet certain criteria and achieve
a rating of 75 or better are eligible
to apply for the ENERGY STAR.

To be eligible to use EPA’s national
energy performance rating system,
which is tailored for specific types of
facilities, at least 50% of your facility’s
floor area must consist of one of
the primary space uses listed below.
Follow each space link for complete
information on its definition and the
applicable eligibility requirements:
Office (General), Office (Bank
Branch), Office (Courthouse),
Office (Financial Center), Hospital,
Hotel/Motel, K-12 School, Medical
Office, Supermarket/Grocery
Store, Dormitory/Residence
Hall, Refrigerated/Unrefrigerated
Warehouse.

HOMES GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM
Energy-Star for Homes is a Federal
program promoting energy efficiency
and conservation. Appliances and
building products can earn Energy
Star certification, along with new
homes. There are more Energy Star
homes than all buildings certified
under LEED, Green Globes & CHPS
combined. Currently over 1500
homebuilders are enrolled in the
program and evaluated for compliance
by regional consultants selected by the
EPA. Two strengths of the program are
that Energy Star Houses are evaluated
on regional criteria and the program
has reached the widest population. The
market for Energy-Star certification is
primarily (single family) tract housing.
It is common to see projects certified
as both Energy-Star and another
system. Like the other systems, there
are extensive free marketing resources
available as the major incentive to
encourage enrollment.

Built Green - Introduced in 1995,
Built Green Colorado was created
through the joint efforts of the Home
Builders Association of Metro Denver
(HBA), The Governor’s Office of
Energy Management and Conservation
(OEMC), Xcel Energy, and E-Star
Colorado. The largest green building
program in the nation, we currently
have over 100 builder members across
the state, 45 sponsor members, and 8
members of our Built Green Industry
Leaders group. The operating budget
of the program is generated from
the dues and fees of the builder and
sponsor members, and from the
substantial financial contributions
of the Built Green Industry Leaders.
Built Green Industry Leader members
are: James Hardie Building Products,
Rheem Company, Boise Building
Solutions, Trex Decking, Whirlpool
Corporation, Kurowski Development
Co., and Grace Construction Products.
A voluntary program, the purpose of
Built Green Colorado is to encourage
homebuilders to use technologies,
products and practices that will: Provide
greater energy efficiency and reduce
pollution; Provide healthier indoor air;
Reduce water usage; Preserve natural
resources; and Improve durability and
reduce maintenance.

GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS
The BEES (Building for
Environmental and Economic
Sustainability) software brings
to your fingertips a powerful
technique for selecting cost-effective,
environmentally-preferable building
products. Developed by the NIST
(National Institute of Standards
and Technology) Building and Fire
Research Laboratory with support
from the U.S. EPA Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Program, the
tool is based on consensus standards
and designed to be practical, flexible,
and transparent. Version 3.0 of the
Windows-based decision support
software, aimed at designers, builders,
and product manufacturers, includes
actual environmental and economic
performance data for nearly 200
building products. In support of
the 2002 Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act (P.L. 107-171), BEES
has been adapted for application to
biobased products. BEES measures
the environmental performance of
building products by using the life-cycle
assessment approach specified in the
ISO 14040 series of standards. All stages
in the life of a product are analyzed:
raw material acquisition, manufacture,
transportation, installation, use, and
recycling and waste management.
Economic performance is measured
using the ASTM standard life-cycle
cost method, which covers the costs
of initial investment, replacement,
operation, maintenance and repair, and
disposal. Environmental and economic
performance is combined into an
overall performance measure using the
ASTM standard for Multi-Attribute
Decision Analysis. For the entire BEES
analysis, building products are defined
and classified according to the ASTM
standard classification for building
elements known as UNIFORMAT.

MANUFACTURING PROCESS GREEN RATING SYSTEM
Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) is a
proprietary standard administered by
William McDonough and Dr. Michael
Braungart’s consultancy - McDonough
Braungart Design Chemistry. It is
primarily aimed at manufacturers
of products and components. C2C
examines the chemistry used in a
product for all known or suspectedtoxins and also evaluates end-of lifecycle issues of re-use/recycling.
As part of Bill McDonough’s quest
to provide industrial and biological
nutrients from all products, C2C is
the most narrowly focused sustainable
design systems. There are currently
six products certified: Athletic
Polymer Systems, Inc. Tartan® Track,
Haworth, Inc. Zody™ Chair; Hycrete
Technologies, LLC Hycrete® Concrete
Additive; Pendleton® Woolen Mills
Classic Wool Flannel; Steelcase, Inc.
Think™ Chair; and Victor Innovatex,
Inc. Eco Intelligent Polyester®.


So which rating system to use?
Currently, LEED has responded well
to the wide variety of projects, with
the exception of public schools, where
CHPS augments the LEED credits. That said,
individual owners and project teams
should incorporate the rating system,
or combination of rating systems that
best match the needs for the project.
Why is getting a project certified
worthwhile for the owner? The
USGBC has produced extensive
presentations addressing this issue.
To summarize, there are financial
and ethical incentives. The financial
incentives are the most persuasive for
selling certification to owners: they
receive enhanced marketability, free
publicity, access to governmental
subsidies and grants, and generally
an increased ROI. As architects the
firm benefits by providing excellent
service, receive recognition, and
positive publicity, enhance a firm’s
technical skills and quality control,
and gain additional fees through
the added service. Then there is the
ethical dimension associated with the
environmental benefits (doing the
right thing). This ethic applies to
designers and owners alike.

Bill McDonough frequently discusses
creating the maximum good - not
doing the least harm. As a design
practice, firms can easily embrace the
maximum good as a win-win situation
for owners and the places we make.
Practitioners of green design will
want to be familiar with the variety
of rating systems available in order
to discuss with their clients the
advantages and disadvantages of each.
Rather than to default solely to the
LEED rating system, it is important
for sustainable design consultants (not
LEED consultants specifically), to be
versed in all of these rating systems
and to apply the best ideas to your
next building project.

i don't disagree that it can be misused to push through projects that probably shouldn't happen; leed certification cannot justify building just anything, but it really is THE system right now. like it or not.

i don't think there's anything in LEED that's trying to stifle innovation; in fact you can get additional LEED credits for innovative implementation or practice. it's a starting point and if it gives an incentive for sustainable design all the better. dwelling on its negative aspects does not seem productive to me; it's a bit like bitching about the AIA (which i'll admit to being guilty of at times). what is the point of simply pointing out its faults?

we're trained in critical thinking. you have to identify the problems before you can go about desigining the solutions.

are you "designing solutions" though when you are just pointing out faults on a discussion forum? i hope everyone that's unhappy with the program gets in touch with the USGBC.

"...you have to identify the problems before..."

not simultaneous.

Forums like this are for the discussion of problems, only USGBC can fix the problem and if enough 'nappy headed hos' complain then the problem will get the attention it deserves and will be fixed. I hate Imus, but man I love that saying, I am not even sure if it is racially insensative to make that comment, that would be like calling someone ugly, but let's not get side tracked from the discussion.

Meta: Are you trying to argue that global warming doesn't exist? Or rather, that it hasn't been caused by human activity?

the statement "we care about ourselves" can be refuted.

saying that building destroys the environment is like saying the eating destroys the environment. They are necessary evils, and its important to satisfy the original objectives whilst minimizing the damage.

The difficulty is that the minimum keeps changing and being redefined.

that last statement is the silliest thing i have read today.

"Do the chickens have razor sharp talons?"

"Boy, I didn't understand a word that came out of your mouth"

I've heard an architect quip: "I make sustainable architecture--it's so beautiful that no one will ever tear it down"

might FLW say something like that today? he would be justified. So would Louis Kahn. But an idea of sustainability--fitness for a place and time--is so ingrained in their work, any 'word' like sustainable or green becomes superfluous.

The sustainable movement will have won its battle when we can just call it 'architecture' again. Organic food is really just normal food, and hopefully someday instead of an organic food section there will be a special 'GE, pesticides, and artificial fertilizer' food section in the supermarket.

gaia theory anyone?

why don't you bunch of cruchies join the peacecore....
or at least read "a poverty of reason" before becoming martyrs on the bandwagon

Excellent el-dude, I'm glad to see someone else understands this logic too.

very nicely put el_Duderino

I think that is what Martha Schwartz was saying in the interview I did with her. Good Design is part of holistic sustainability, but not at the expense of other principles.

1) ban nascar, indy 500, long beach grand prix, drag racing, etc

perturbanist-
it's peace corps, not peacecore

dammson, whilst you are at it

2) ban golf, football (both of them), etc - yes they don't create as much damage via green house but because the bloody things take so much fertilizers to stay green, that routinely gets flushed back into our water streams (surface & ground)

there was a hilarious NewYorker cartoon where a NASCAR driver is pulled over at a pitstop, with two huge gas pumps fillin' him up, and a conscientious pit crew member says "Is this a bad time to talk about global warming?"

i++

sorry i meant peas corpse,
i recline my commitment

green spam...happy earth day

awareness + action

You can check Ken Yeang's interview on EcoDesign

www.clubofpioneers.com

You can check Ken Yeang's interview on EcoDesign

www.clubofpioneers.com

ana- what is your obsession with that ken yeang interview? you only need to post something like that once and those that care will find it.

Speed skimmed that thread, somebody made a point about lack of details, and somebody else made a point about the fact that the future of green design is in scientific research, not architectural manifestos (or something to that effect)... I think these points are key... I think I can see some of theTracer's point, which is not to trash alot of the good sustainable design books out there, but more to point out that, like most books written by architects, sustainable architecture books tend to be high on ideas and message, and weaker on data... If it's interesting to read, it's probably not really 100% meat, at least 30% gravy...

I've heard a complaint from PhD students about architcts... That they don't do the hard work up front, just polish the surface of the thing, and then talk as if they are somehow putting into practice the stuff that academics spend years researching... IMHO, real innovation will come as much from researchers who do the hard work up front, the guys at universities, not just the designers in the field... Whether that is research on ecology, on building cycles, passive energy, energy efficient technologies, design technologies, etc. Eventually the translation might happen that better design tools are created... Making the data accessible... For example BIM technoiogies that could allow you to push and pull on building orientation and form, get live lighting and energy calculations etc. based on climate region, etc... mechanical systems, etc...

I think "green" as a word is a bit fluffy, makes architects seem like coffee table readers... Things like "energy efficient" or "passive energy" are more pointed... Lets get specific...

why obsession???? oh sorry if I posted it twice... its a typewriting mistake ....

ana- you posted the same thing on two diff threads. that borders on obsession. double posts don't count.

in a business week slideshow...