Some Thoughts on LEED

A lot of the links I've posted in recent weeks merely describe new projects that intend to apply for LEED certification. While I think it's instructive to monitor the types and locations of new green buildings, my intent in keeping this blog was also to discuss and critique the LEED system as it now exists, mostly because constructive criticism of LEED (no pun intended) is virtually non-existent. So, when I saw this article, which not only discusses a massive green development just north of San Diego but also offers up some of the heaviest criticism of LEED that I've seen in quite some time, I thought it was definitely worth a post. Some architects say that LEED is not what it's cracked up to be. They agree that environmentally sensitive designs are crucial, but that the LEED program rewards points for things that don't necessarily enhance energy savings. "LEED is important and we need it, but it's not perfect now, and we need to fix it," said Auden Schendler, director of environmental affairs at Aspen Skiing Co. Schendler is one of the more outspoken critics about the Green Building Council's implementation of the LEED program. "If I had to synopsize the argument in a succinct way, I would say you can build LEED buildings that are not green," said Schendler, whose most recent essay, "Raise High the Green Beam, Carpenter," argues that LEED is itself standing in the way of more innovative, environmentally friendly architecture. "You can build a LEED building that has no energy efficiencies at all," he said. "I did one. We built one of the first LEED buildings in the world. It didn't beat the energy code." LEED awards points for having bike racks, for example, he said. It allows builders to get away with overstating their building's efficiency, he said. "A friend of mine just built a building that he says isn't a green building. It's (LEED) certified, though," he said. "People get focused on certification, not on building a green building." Of course, encouraging people to walk, bike, or take mass transit to work is a good thing, and LEED should reward developers who take active, and documented, steps towards reducing the number of tenants who drive to work every day. However, because so many of the rating systems award points up front, before there is any real operational data about how the building performs, LEED certification doesn't really provide a very accurate portrayal about a building's environmental sensitivity. (Of course, the LEED-EB system, which I will write about in more detail in the coming weeks, is an exception, as it requires three months of performance data as a prerequisite to certification). I think this assumes, though, that we only care about how green a building is in terms of its energy-efficiency. While this is obviously an important aspect for rating a building, particularly to a developer interested in improving his or her bottom line, there are so many other reasons why we should care about how we construct our buildings. Choice in materials, for example, has a profound, though unseen, effect on the natural environments from which those materials are procured. LEED should make materials-efficient designs a prerequisite to every rating system, similar to the energy-efficiency prerequisites required for LEED-EB. It should be noted that LEED for New Construction awards up to four points for alternative transportation, while offering a possible seventeen for energy and atmosphere. Up to ten of those points can be awarded for optimized energy performance, so at least in theory LEED does accord heavier weight to energy efficiency than bike racks. All of the LEED rating systems are available for download from USGBC.