the future doesn't look that good for LEED. This article suggests the wood industry is to blame. the high cost, cumbersome process, and fairly significant time investment to get certified seem more problematic to me.
and their website. seriously, who designed that piece of junk, and why haven't they scrapped it yet? internet explorer recently updated on my computer, which made leed no longer work on my computer. i don't think leed is directly responsible for making the 'compatibility' view in IE a bit more hidden, but they are responsible for releasing a slow and broken website that doesn't work on firefox or opera or safari or any other decent browser.
if there is ever a second rating system people like, introducing competition into whatever it is leed does, these people will fail. green design is great and all, but the infrastructure at leed is god-awful horrible. instead of blaming the trees, i think it's time leed starting looking at all of the failings in their institution, and the try fixing them instead of making them worse.
As a new LEEDer, I do hope that some program does come to the forefront. Right now, even with all its failings, LEED is the most rigorous program. Yes, their websites are horrid, but that shouldn't be the only metric for measuring high performing buildings. They do have silly requirements and ignore other ones, but my hope is that over time we as an industry are able to create more efficient buildings and that as the LEED program ages it is able to improve. I hope one day this is just "growing pains".
Dec 10, 13 9:49 am ·
·
fuck leed. they deserve a slow, painful death for dumbing down botht the hoi polloi and architects.
LEED has been getting a lot of push back lately. There are other rating systems out there. LEED is the biggest because it got the government's backing early on. Now Green Globes may be able to get a share of the market as we'll with the GSA's recommendation.
i think gsa's recommendation and federal requirements played a huge part of leed's general acceptance. there are a lot of government projects. having those government projects require leed, means a lot of leed projects.
"as the LEED program ages it is able to improve" -- that's the problem. they aren't improving. sometimes they are, they released a bunch of half finished pdf's for their customers (us) to fill out. many of them are finished now. i think they even highlight missing pieces that cause everything to go to shit now, so that's an improvement. but surely somebody at some point said 'this website interface is crazy far below common accepted standards. maybe we should fix it before the next release of IE, or at least pay attention to IE's developer website and stay ahead of it?" instead they created the appearance that their decision making process is closer to 'it's a fucked up website, but we're a fucked up organization, so that's ok.'
no dictionary, my mother was alwys ranting about hoi polloi in the streets. maybe she used the archi-dictionary.
problem with any program or rating systems is that it devalues the critical thinking & computational value of the architect. defering to sets of predetremined standards is how traffic engineers hav destroyed a bunch a cities. envrionmentally thoughtful building can be constructed without leed.
having a leed rating is just a way to hide, another c-y-a.
HCMY - much of what you say about LEED is certainly true.
Having said that, I liken the comparison between LEED and the alternatives to the emergence of MS Windows in the computer industry. Few would argue that Windows was, or is, the "best" operating system at any point in time. But, it did have a tremendous influence on bringing desktop computing into the mainstream -- which, I would suggest, was a good thing.
To my way of thinking, LEED had a similar 'transformational' influence -- bringing many people, designers and non-designers alike, to a higher level of awareness about the problems and techniques important to design, construction, operation, and maintenance of green buildings.
Nevertheless, as with MS WIndows, it now may be time for something better to take LEED's place.
The critiques here are valid in my opinion, as is Quizzical's defense and analogy. As I tell my students all the time about many things: "It's complicated."
That said, I believe that some of the resentment comes from the seemingly relentless, commercially-oriented professional accreditation mission of the USGBC. It's hard not to get a little cynical at the planned obsolescence and product creation it seems to thrive on. I recognize that some changes are necessary in an evolving system, but some seem revenue-driven, rather than for content.
Skeptically yours,
Citizen, LEED AP
Dec 10, 13 2:04 pm ·
·
yeah, the commercially driven product nature of it can indeed be cynical. It's like thewhole thing is marketing driven. Instead of questioning why we are building new and buy these peices of carpet, it's designed to say "hey, it's ok as long as you build new with Leed and buy carpets that are Leed approved."
Nice analogy but I'm not sure it really helps. Are MS windows & desktop computing really a benefit? This seems to be an unchallenged assumption. What are the benefits?
-Quicker connections & correspondence? Ok, maybe.
But what else? I see a lot of negatives:
-Connectivity also increases systemic risk (i.e., viruses) and has opened huge doors to the ever growing survellance state.
-Envrionmental consequences; large energy consumption in the use of & production of computers; increase use of paper; buildings are built quicker so we build more of them.
-Loss of craftsmanship. Not just drafting but even simple penmanship. When was the last time you wrote in cursive?
-Health effects of staring at computer screens. Eye strain, obviously. But the increased time sitting (cause you don't even need to get up to deliver a letter to the post box since email arrived) can also lead to additonal problems like heart disease, obesity, hemorhoids, etc.
Maybe I'm missing something but the only benefit I see to a computerized arch office is speed and frankly, that might be over-valued too. In a field like journalism, I can understand a need to get news out quickly but architecture is fundamentally a slow undertaking. The more time when can develop a project the better it can be. It's not a coincidence that the explosive growth in crap architectrue dovetails with the rise of desktop computing.
christ, my rants are beginning to sound like th unabomber :(
Its interesting that only Architects admit that Leed is a marketing tool. I think it is a system that should be part of the manufacturing industry not a part of architecture. We being environmentally friendly is part of every architects mindset without Leed.
Interesting that LEED used to say that it was a "voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven program," right on its website. http://web.archive.org/web/20130312194429/http://new.usgbc.org/leed
Now they say it's "driving the green building industry." http://www.usgbc.org/leed
Quite the change in the fundamental philosophy, even if it's only words on their web page.
handsum, 'compterized' and whatnot is much more beneficial than you're making it out to be. i don't really want to get into it, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
leed is all marketing and greenwashing and supporting the people (or ratings agencies) that probably give them kickbacks (fsc, smaqmd, the CRI green label, etc.). but still, what really upsets me is that for all the money their pulling in, and all the ratings agencies they are supporting, and explicit government support, they still can't build reasonably effective infrastructure. their website only works in IE, and it doesn't even work in IE because it's not compatible with the new release that's automatically upgraded. i'm pretty sure the average sophmore CS or web design student could do better.
the wait times for review are pretty long considering how automated it's supposed to be. the little bit i've dealt with their service, such as clarifications on how credits should be applied to real-life buildings, has been less than enjoyable. how is it that nobody at leed realizes how useless and screwed up they are? i don't know, i'm just an outside observer, but i can't help but think they're just a bunch of freeloader hippies looking for a free ride for as little work as possible.
when you have a company that wants to brand itself as a 'green' company, and they're sincere about it, that's a good thing. providing a consistent standard to define how 'green' a company should be, both to give that company some direction on how to achieve their environment goals, and a way to communicate to the public that the company is reaching their goals, is useful. that's what leed could be. i just wish they appeared more as a leader in the design and construction industry rather than a bunch of burnt out hippies that hopped on the 'green' bandwagon and conned their way into a government contract to lend them credibility.
curtkram, leed <with letters> bd+c
Dec 11, 13 10:58 am ·
·
well, yeah, for someone who is probably spends his timein his parents basement mastrbating to free online porn then, yeah, i guess there would be benefits. and tht probbably explains why you don't want to get into either.
LEED and its somewhat dismal future
http://www.leedceacademy.com/blog/leed-under-attack.html
the future doesn't look that good for LEED. This article suggests the wood industry is to blame. the high cost, cumbersome process, and fairly significant time investment to get certified seem more problematic to me.
and their website. seriously, who designed that piece of junk, and why haven't they scrapped it yet? internet explorer recently updated on my computer, which made leed no longer work on my computer. i don't think leed is directly responsible for making the 'compatibility' view in IE a bit more hidden, but they are responsible for releasing a slow and broken website that doesn't work on firefox or opera or safari or any other decent browser.
if there is ever a second rating system people like, introducing competition into whatever it is leed does, these people will fail. green design is great and all, but the infrastructure at leed is god-awful horrible. instead of blaming the trees, i think it's time leed starting looking at all of the failings in their institution, and the try fixing them instead of making them worse.
fuck leed. they deserve a slow, painful death for dumbing down botht the hoi polloi and architects.
"hoi polloi" - you pull that from the archispeak dictionary?
LEED is a suckie bureaucratic process and shitty marketing tool...and yes... the website sucks too!
http://www.ecobuildingpulse.com/leed/gsa-chooses-leed-and-green-globes.aspx
i think gsa's recommendation and federal requirements played a huge part of leed's general acceptance. there are a lot of government projects. having those government projects require leed, means a lot of leed projects.
"as the LEED program ages it is able to improve" -- that's the problem. they aren't improving. sometimes they are, they released a bunch of half finished pdf's for their customers (us) to fill out. many of them are finished now. i think they even highlight missing pieces that cause everything to go to shit now, so that's an improvement. but surely somebody at some point said 'this website interface is crazy far below common accepted standards. maybe we should fix it before the next release of IE, or at least pay attention to IE's developer website and stay ahead of it?" instead they created the appearance that their decision making process is closer to 'it's a fucked up website, but we're a fucked up organization, so that's ok.'
.
no dictionary, my mother was alwys ranting about hoi polloi in the streets. maybe she used the archi-dictionary.
problem with any program or rating systems is that it devalues the critical thinking & computational value of the architect. defering to sets of predetremined standards is how traffic engineers hav destroyed a bunch a cities. envrionmentally thoughtful building can be constructed without leed.
having a leed rating is just a way to hide, another c-y-a.
HCMY - much of what you say about LEED is certainly true.
Having said that, I liken the comparison between LEED and the alternatives to the emergence of MS Windows in the computer industry. Few would argue that Windows was, or is, the "best" operating system at any point in time. But, it did have a tremendous influence on bringing desktop computing into the mainstream -- which, I would suggest, was a good thing.
To my way of thinking, LEED had a similar 'transformational' influence -- bringing many people, designers and non-designers alike, to a higher level of awareness about the problems and techniques important to design, construction, operation, and maintenance of green buildings.
Nevertheless, as with MS WIndows, it now may be time for something better to take LEED's place.
Sincerely,
quizzical, LEED AP
The critiques here are valid in my opinion, as is Quizzical's defense and analogy. As I tell my students all the time about many things: "It's complicated."
That said, I believe that some of the resentment comes from the seemingly relentless, commercially-oriented professional accreditation mission of the USGBC. It's hard not to get a little cynical at the planned obsolescence and product creation it seems to thrive on. I recognize that some changes are necessary in an evolving system, but some seem revenue-driven, rather than for content.
Skeptically yours,
Citizen, LEED AP
yeah, the commercially driven product nature of it can indeed be cynical. It's like thewhole thing is marketing driven. Instead of questioning why we are building new and buy these peices of carpet, it's designed to say "hey, it's ok as long as you build new with Leed and buy carpets that are Leed approved."
Nice analogy but I'm not sure it really helps. Are MS windows & desktop computing really a benefit? This seems to be an unchallenged assumption. What are the benefits?
-Quicker connections & correspondence? Ok, maybe.
But what else? I see a lot of negatives:
-Connectivity also increases systemic risk (i.e., viruses) and has opened huge doors to the ever growing survellance state.
-Envrionmental consequences; large energy consumption in the use of & production of computers; increase use of paper; buildings are built quicker so we build more of them.
-Loss of craftsmanship. Not just drafting but even simple penmanship. When was the last time you wrote in cursive?
-Health effects of staring at computer screens. Eye strain, obviously. But the increased time sitting (cause you don't even need to get up to deliver a letter to the post box since email arrived) can also lead to additonal problems like heart disease, obesity, hemorhoids, etc.
Maybe I'm missing something but the only benefit I see to a computerized arch office is speed and frankly, that might be over-valued too. In a field like journalism, I can understand a need to get news out quickly but architecture is fundamentally a slow undertaking. The more time when can develop a project the better it can be. It's not a coincidence that the explosive growth in crap architectrue dovetails with the rise of desktop computing.
christ, my rants are beginning to sound like th unabomber :(
Its interesting that only Architects admit that Leed is a marketing tool. I think it is a system that should be part of the manufacturing industry not a part of architecture. We being environmentally friendly is part of every architects mindset without Leed.
Now they say it's "driving the green building industry." http://www.usgbc.org/leed
Quite the change in the fundamental philosophy, even if it's only words on their web page.
handsum, 'compterized' and whatnot is much more beneficial than you're making it out to be. i don't really want to get into it, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
leed is all marketing and greenwashing and supporting the people (or ratings agencies) that probably give them kickbacks (fsc, smaqmd, the CRI green label, etc.). but still, what really upsets me is that for all the money their pulling in, and all the ratings agencies they are supporting, and explicit government support, they still can't build reasonably effective infrastructure. their website only works in IE, and it doesn't even work in IE because it's not compatible with the new release that's automatically upgraded. i'm pretty sure the average sophmore CS or web design student could do better.
the wait times for review are pretty long considering how automated it's supposed to be. the little bit i've dealt with their service, such as clarifications on how credits should be applied to real-life buildings, has been less than enjoyable. how is it that nobody at leed realizes how useless and screwed up they are? i don't know, i'm just an outside observer, but i can't help but think they're just a bunch of freeloader hippies looking for a free ride for as little work as possible.
when you have a company that wants to brand itself as a 'green' company, and they're sincere about it, that's a good thing. providing a consistent standard to define how 'green' a company should be, both to give that company some direction on how to achieve their environment goals, and a way to communicate to the public that the company is reaching their goals, is useful. that's what leed could be. i just wish they appeared more as a leader in the design and construction industry rather than a bunch of burnt out hippies that hopped on the 'green' bandwagon and conned their way into a government contract to lend them credibility.
curtkram, leed <with letters> bd+c
well, yeah, for someone who is probably spends his timein his parents basement mastrbating to free online porn then, yeah, i guess there would be benefits. and tht probbably explains why you don't want to get into either.
get into either what?
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.