Frank Gehry, the Pritzker Prize-winning architect responsible for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and the Dancing House in Prague, has slammed the LEED certification, saying it is awarded for ‘bogus stuff’ and that climate change and sustainable design are “political” issues.
Frank Gehry, the Pritzker Prize-winning architect responsible for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and the Dancing House in Prague, has slammed the LEED certification, saying it is awarded for ‘bogus stuff’ and that climate change and sustainable design are “political” issues. This will no doubt raise a few eyebrows in the environmental and design sector, as ensuring buildings are as energy efficient as possible has the potential to cut CO2 emissions drastically. Currently, almost a third of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the construction and housing sectors. Inhabitat
16 Comments
i definitely won't argue w/ gehry's claim LEED is bogus, in fact i agree 100%. but to claim sustainable design and climate change are 'political issues' is a bit shortsighted... that's like saying potable water is a political issue.
i can see why he'd say it, though... let's look at a typical gehry project:
large volume
underinsulated
poorly detailed
poor glazing selection
poor material selections w/ large PEIs
largely unrecycled
i guess gehry thinks himself as an architectural bill gates, wishing away the energy issue or thinking we can just innovate our way out of it.
wait, and the cost of making green buildings is 'enormous'? what about titanium, there frank? stainless steel?
Oh my god. Don't even get me started. I don't have the energy for this right now.
I agree with his LEED comments. USGBC and LEED are a money making boondoggle that keeps getting suckers to sign up for their silly checklist and even sillier "certificates."
At the same time, I totally disagree with his sustainability and climate comments. Both are REAL issues that all architects should deal with and handle responsibly. We just don't need LEED to do this.
Instead, sustainable and responsible concepts should just be adopted into the building codes, i.e. the Green IBC that is in the works. That would put the USGBC out of business (thankfully) and put the onus on our local municipalities and governments to take a true interest in the sustainable goals. Plus, by it being a code, ALL architects and builders will have to comply, not just folks who have the means to pay USGBC fees, who only do this for marketing purposes anyway.
We don't see very many architects defining themselves as "fire safety architects" or "accessibility architects" and yet we see so many "green architects". Ecological issues should melt into the basic unglamorous set of responsibilities for architects. Its not an architectural movement. Its just your job.
Very well said Davvid!
agreed. LEED is a sham, pretending that LEED certification indicates or endows environmental responsibility is ridiculous, and Gehry sounds like a jackass pretending global warming is a political issue. LA's pretty close to the ever-rising sea, though, isn't it?
For Gehry to bash LEED seems to be a distraction gambit to avoid answering tough questions about the poor performance of every building done by his firm since his Santa Monica House.
Frank, please stop throwing stones at a target you can't even see!
clarification:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/04/frank_gehry_ask.html
Coming from a long history of clients that will gladly 'doze a site flat, push the envelope to include every square foot possible, VE out the slightest expense and expedite the cheapest materials, I posit that LEED isn't a silver bullet, but it's certainly no sham.
Achieving even basic tenants of LEED are difficult, indeed impossible for many corporations to swallow, but it isn't because there are dramatic design or budget issues associated with those tenants (and it isn't the price of certifying- that's a drop in the budget for them). Profit rules the construction industry as much as it does their clients and no one wants to blow it if there isn't a very short payback. Unfortunately, there's no solid reason other than ethics to put up a building that doesn't bleed energy, poison its inhabitants and increase the burden on the community. Short term profit is still strongly valued over any other consideration. A few would like to build or design sustainably but they often don't have the time, will or knowledge, so they green wash with a few visible highlights and call it sustainable. Without a measuring stick, there's no accountability.
LEED goes for a broad approach, with energy efficiency only making up a portion of the total minimum requirements. While they're usually less efficient than an Energy Star building, they're also more likely not to poison their inhabitants and more likely to make bigger improvements in the community. Some of the aspects are easily achieved, depending on the circumstances but irresponsible clients won't take the extra steps because there isn't a significant ROI. From what I've seen, the moment a low-aspiring client fails to achieve basic Certification these inexpensive aspects are immediately cut from the budget. Nor are there ever enough of these small but significant moves to achieve basic Certification on its own. Sacrifices (according to the accountants) do need to be made on every certifying project.
Even still, LEED is a poor measuring stick. There are too many ways to be sustainable that have varying importance geographically and there are a near infinite number of types of buildings. LEED can't even begin to apply uniformly to all situations, but this is the biggest problem with any certification system.
When fire safety and accessibility concepts first came out, there were fire safety and accessibility specializing architects. Eventually it got codified and folded into our SOP and eventually the IBC was produced. In the case of sustainability this is also already true- we have minimum codes regarding resource efficiency and occupant health, but they don't go far enough, nor cover enough subjects to really add up to any significant sustainable achievement. A Green IBC would be great, but even in it's most ginormous state, would it make everyone meet a five star rating or a bare minimum certification? Codes tend to dictate bare minimums and clients tend to force adherence to those minimums in order to cut costs. A Green IBC might, at best, raise the bar a bit but it's not going to force everyone to become seriously responsible designers or clients. Even if it were universally adopted (the IBC hasn't), we'd still need something to set those who really are making a difference apart from the bare minimum and the green washing crowds.
LEED certification (Silver or higher) does indicate a client who has made a special effort to be environmentally responsible, simply because the vast majority don't bother or merely want to green wash their product. How a client chooses to advertise their achievement will tell you their real motives, though, which is often enough simply to stand out from the crowd. Whether they apply the same philosophy holistically throughout their practices is the key question.
If you're interested in the new Green IBC (IGBC) check it out here:
http://www.iccsafe.org/CS/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx
It's a work in progress at the moment. Bottom line, when "green" becomes the law and mandatory, then everyone will have to do it and orgs like USGBC will become obsolete because everything will be sustainable by default.
They may hang around giving their certificates out as usual anyway; some people love to hang these things on their "I love me" wall.
now somebody is talking, at last...
it's such a shame that his words won't be taken seriously, just because his buildings are the "kings of inefficiency".
regardless of what he does and keeps on doing, there is real deal into what he argues. the trend of sustainability and ecology is -not only but limited to- the usual political tool for power and potency.
Dear Mr.Ghery,
Political indeed; as with so many of these non-architectural initiatives where non-architects meddle in our profession this is but one of a long line of government intervention, outreach and control.
I applaud your voice and encourage others of such stature to follow Mr.Ghery's red light on this and other such interventions.
We wonder at the banality of the built environment and think little of its roots.
Unlike other professions which push back we architects believe we have to be politically correct and for years simply jump on any "bandwagon" to suck up to the potential client and hands that may or may not feed us.
As one of the co-founders of Earth Day ( I was the second signatory of the petition to U-Thant to proclaim Earth Day back in 1970) I can add all of these progressive ideas are not only unconstitutional but a slow- creeping-virus which is unnatural to America. Americas great architects are those who make metaphors and lead the world by sound design and good judgment. We; not non-architects, should practice architecture. Other professions such as legal, planners, etc. have learned everyone's vocabulary and use these as weapons to whittle down resistance to their "political" agenda. Green, sustainable, environmental, are merely the tip of the (global-warming) iceberg.
I am grateful to Mr. Ghery.
Just one thing to point out bfbdesk, just to be fair, USGBC is NOT a government entity. They are a private, not-for profit (yeah right), organization.
The clever use of U.S. in their name is what makes so many people think they're a gov't agency and therefore should be taken seriously.
"the trend of sustainability and ecology is -not only but limited to- the usual political tool for power and potency"
@ intheoryitrust
Excuse me? Sustainability and ecology are the tools of power and potency? On what planet are you living?
The tools of power and potency have never included sustainability and ecology because neither have ever been part of the anthropocentric approach to living on the earth. Capitalism as practiced by 90% of the companies in the world do not consider sustainability or ecology in their business practices or models.
The fact is that anyone who has questioned the status quo of using natural resources without regard to the ecology is labeled with a myriad of rhetorical labels : eco-fascist, eco-socialist, eco-nazi, eco-terrorist says more about the people doing the labeling than those being labeled. If anything, those who would advocate for sustainability and ecology are advocating for even the merest attempt for those in power to consider the ideas of sustainability and ecology in what they do. And when they are considered, the level of acceptance is the lowest level considered.
Mr Ghery, you had may be a great designer but your comment (as many of your latest buildings) may have a point but is very arrogant.
Global warming, context and sustentability are for real, not just something in your way. Let's do not confuse the Leed certification with these issues.
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.