"...Some experts have contended that the seal should be withheld until a building proves itself energy efficient, which is the cornerstone of what makes a building green, and that energy-use data from every rated building should be made public..."
"...Some experts have contended that the seal should be withheld until a building proves itself energy efficient, which is the cornerstone of what makes a building green, and that energy-use data from every rated building should be made public..." NY Times
6 Comments
I agree 100%. Any certification that doesn't certify actual performance is not worth the paper it's written on.
Guppy, LEED AP.
energy-efficiency is not all that leed is about - which is neither good nor bad, as long as people understand it and adjust their expectations accordingly.
energy star is a good system for energy-efficiency metrics. project stakeholders could pursue energy star only if energy is the priority, or they could do energy star and leed if they want to show a more holistic approach.
we encourage our clients to pursue energy star and then we use leed as a sort of checklist for other efforts in the development of the project but, to date, have found very little reason to sell a client on paying for leed certification. the money is better spent on that cool roof or the water reclamation system or...
this is my biggest beef w/ LEED, that you can have pretty minimal energy efficiency, no real reductions in amount of energy used and still get certified.
this is why i've been especially intrigued by performance-based programs like minergie, passivhaus, nullenergiehaus, etc.
also, the USGBC is a ponzi scheme.
I think LEED, in large part, is soon to be eclipsed by a system that's, for lack of a better term, ' a better mousetrap'. Though it continues to evolve, LEED is still a complicated and expensive certification system. I think a lot of it's popularity over the past few years has been largely due to a clamoring by developers and building owners to have 'first distinctions' for marketing fodder and bragging rights. For example, building x in Detroit is the first LEED Gold whatever in the state".
Once, the market becomes saturated with LEED certified buildings, as it is now becoming, I think developers are going to be less willing to fork over tens of thousands of dollars, for what many of them perceive as marketing costs, when that certification isn't going to garner the same kind of attention as the 3 or 4 other LEED certified buildings before it.
This is the case with almost any type of new innovation introduced into any marketplace whether it's a flat screen tv or a cell phone. The mystique and allure of 'the new' quickly wears off the more it is adopted/purchased and/or the more competitors with similar, and sometimes better, products enter the market. Remember how many heads turned when you were the guy with iphone the day it came out? Now people don't even notice and wouldn't be willing to pay $500 for a phone seemingly everyone has. The same can be said for the future of LEED in some respects.
http://www.sincerelysustainable.com
I think we're all missing out on a crucial point that has huge ramifications for architecture, and not just in terms of 'sustainability' or marketing.
Performance metrixing and post-completion services are vastly undervalued and under used. A project analized after completion is a welath of knowledge for any firm. 'What did we do right? What doesnt work? Where are the leaks?'
Performance metrixing is just never built into the contract. Is it because quantifying and admiting mistakes is setting oneself up for a lawsuit? Or is it because typically a firm can already read the mistakes/benefits/handstands before the keys are handed over?
analized?!?
do you mean analyzed?
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.