Well, an article hit the Dallas Morning news criticizing the LEED building rating system was published just a little while back: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-brook_06edi.ART.State.Edition1.374a594.html
I like this because it makes several important points: (a) intended use of a green building and how it fits with the intent of the rating system, (b) associated costs with the rating system, (c) the ability to “game” the rating system; and (d) the commitment to sustainable design that has been reflected in North Texas.
Intended use
It starts with an example of a billionaire’s private high rise “home” consisting of 3 heliports and a 168-car parking garage for a family of six, is aiming to achieve a LEED rating (the article doesn’t specify which level). This is not the first time the issue of building use has come up with the rating system… There are probably many, many more, but one I will site is Helios House, a LEED Certified gas station. The USGBC has indicated that the rating system is based on the building itself, and not the use. I suppose this makes sense, but then again, it doesn’t. LEED has to draw its lines somewhere. However, sustainability is more about behavior, as I’ve blabbed about in the past. However, to fault the BUILDING system for not regulating the USE, in my opinion, is a little far fetched.
Associated Costs
Costs of having a LEED certified project are high when working with everyday projects in the $1-3 Million range. This is a point that I personally think is a very difficult one to overcome, as the environmental impact of the small projects, just by sheer numbers, is much higher than the occasional high profile project. However, using the building rating system’s principles as a guideline in everyday design can still be very powerful. I am working on designing and building a very small singl story medical office building. By using what I know from all of the education provided by the US Green Building Council, I can make decisions that will lower the impact on the environment, increase energy efficiency, and increase comfort without affecting the bottom line. LEED isn’t for every project (yet). However, the wide acceptance of the building system has brought on much needed education. Funny thing is, much of this “knowledge” is as old as the practice of building itself. It is knowledge that apparently was deemed at some time around the introduction of air conditioning as unimportant.
“Gaming” the rating system
This one I’ve seen before: a $250 bike rack gives you as much credit as a $2 Million something-or-other. The LEED system doesn’t care about costs, it cares about the impact of the environment. Energy associated with daily commuting is astronomical. I would love to find some studies on that when fuel, pollution, energy and resources expended to produce a car and what that breaks down to per mile of that vehicle, etc. Maybe that bike rack (which, by the way, is required to come with changing and shower facilities – no one reads that paragraph) actually is more valuable than that solar panel. The rating system is young and has been forced into the mainstream by our market conditions. It will be exploited – that’s just a fact of life. But, those exploitations will allow it to continue to improve.
North Texas Commitment to Sustainable Buildings
I thought this was the strongest point that the article made. It listed all of the LEED certified buildings in north Texas by certification level. Since 2002, there have been 13. It takes a long time for certification (about a year after occupancy), but still: ouch. We need to do better.
