Researcher Anastasia Swearingen claims that "LEED certification is little more than a fancy plaque displayed by these ‘green’ buildings", and compares energy use intensity (EUI) of LEED certified buildings to non-certified buildings. Quoting data from the Green Building Report for the District of Columbia, she concludes that "For LEED-certified buildings, their EUI was 205, compared to 199 for non-certified buildings..." — treehugger.com
12 Comments
"They are basically trying to convince you to drive Hummer instead of riding the bus, because the bus has a worse MPG."
It is about time, this parasite group is exposed for what it really is: a profiteering bureaucracy, designed for companies and institutions to easily wash their hands of the environmental obligations in architecture.
Whoever thought that a complex, emergent system of a building can be deduced to adding numbers on a calculator is either a fool or a liar.
LEED Gold, platinum, uranium, purple...
One more note: Treehugger, an organization that clearly has an agenda aligned with LEED and other affiliates should know that by supporting and defending LEED by trying to attack counter-arguments, they are shining more lights on the 2 ton elephant in the room.
If you notice that most of the feedbacks from people regarding the articles are stating the problems of LEED, not the other way around as Treehugger wanted.
These are professional astroturfers, hired guns for industry.
Is there an effective, broad-based alternative, though? Individual architects and engineers can do much better in their own projects, but I wonder if it's possible to mobilize at a large scale without a system something like LEED. Branding and accreditation seem like an integral part of getting projects built affordably. These have a momentum of their own which leads to standardization and (I fear inevitably) generalization of results.
You have a point George.
Truly radical concepts for "s" word architecture has been in existence, like Kenneth Yeang's Bio-clamatic tower or more pragmatic, 'Whole Building Design Guide', but there was no holy church of mobilization.
But mobilization is another issue.
LEED is a worst example of political and market approach to dismiss the concern for environmental and energy problem in architecture by putting a bandaid to an internal bleeding and announce. "it's a cure".
But we need more discussion on this, which is a another big problem. Elite architects won't even go near this issue because they know that LEED is nothing but a trend and below their pay-grade for time-worthy discussion.
Everyone else simply drank the koolaid and signed up without debate or reasonable skepticism.
Why are isn't there a symposium on effectiveness of LEED, to open the discussion for debate? Has there ever been a debate over this?
im not surprised. are you? a problem must be created so that profits can be made. a plaque on the wall??? c'mon what is that gonna do. it's a deeper issue. a societal issue. a deep rooted issue. one that a building full of plaques can't fix. we are wasteful period. how can we fix that???
btw, what is the plaque made of and how is it adhered to the building? what a joke!
" Treehugger, an organization that clearly has an agenda aligned with LEED "- I am managing editor of TreeHugger and wrote that piece, and have no agenda other than objecting to the plastic and lumber industries trying to take LEED down, get it banned and replaced with the industry owned and funded Green Globes system. You can complain about LEED all you want but the alternatives are worse.
Dear Mr. Lloyd Alter, managing editor of treehugger.
It is a false dichotomy to say "if you are not for this, then you are against this".
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". -Bush Jr.
Because architects have issues and concerns about LEED, doesn't mean we are not concerned about environmental and energy impact of architecture.
My major concern is that LEED has taken away the debate, where the issues and innovations for green designs were once, abundant with new and/or controversial ideas.
Greenroof came before LEED.
Spectrally selective glazing came before LEED
Fully insulated house came before LEED.
Passive cooling, natural dehumidification... and so on.
All these innovations came before LEED.
Now, almost all the firm makes the same effort towards addressing the environmental and energy issues for their projects, by filling out a form and getting it stamped by someone with LEED certification in their office.
Rather then seeking unique and innovative sets of ideas and solutions for each buildings, architects who are forced to capitulate, open up a manual to see where they can score points on LEED.
I think my points are very clear.
I (we) are seeking debate about LEED, it's effectiveness across all boards, which cannot be easily measured by adding points.
And more importantly, how LEED has impacted energy and environmentally sensitive designs in our profession. Has the LEED improve innovations in green design (big question mark)?, or deter other grassroots efforts because of LEED's enormous public consent and political popularity?
Only through debate, discourse, and vigilant introspection, we can make progress for this, critical and dominant issue of our age.
Dimitri Damiel Kim, an architect, not working for oil, lumber, and plastic industry.
i second that dimitri, well said.
lest ye forget, before bush jr. (el, oh el!), Hillary Clinton said 'every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.'
http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/who-behind-leed-exposed-and-why-should-we-care.html
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.