Very interesting article in the New York Times today about LEED buildings falling short of green goals. One of the problems with LEED (though Slate spells out a few more) is that it just relates to how a new building is constructed and does not follow up with how the building actually functions day-to-day after snagging the silver, gold or platinum LEED seal.
The NYT writes: “The gap between design and construction, which LEED certifies, and how some buildings actually perform led the program last week to announce that it would begin collecting information about energy use from all the buildings it certifies.”
This is all highly relevant to Portland because just last week neighbors and city commissioners were questioning whether the new Albert Apartment complex on N. Williams will actually be a green building. After learning that some of the bedrooms in the building would be interior rooms with no windows, Commissioner Amanda asked, “How would you meet LEED silver if you constantly have to have a light on in the bedroom?”
One of the experts in the NYT article must have seen straight into Fritz’s heart! Look at this quote:
“Once a building opens, it may use more energy than was predicted by the design. And how a building is used — how many occupants it has, for example — affects its energy consumption. ‘If the occupants don’t turn off the lights, the building doesn’t do as well as expected,’ said Mark Frankel, technical director for the New Buildings Institute.”
Although Portland has some good examples of retaining existing/historic structures in LEED-certified projects, the most egregious misuse of LEED green status occurs in projects where usable, culturally valuable buildings are demolished to make way for “green” new construction. In some cases where increased density is imperative for the continued urban viability of an area this might be justifiable. But in many cases, the net result is at best an environmental wash, at worst, a cultural and urban loss no different from any other (“non-green”) tear-down and an environmental downgrade. The non-replaceable value–material and cultural–already invested in our historic structures has to be considered if one is to accurately assess the sustainability of a building an, more importantly, a neighborhood and a city.
This upcoming presentation in Portland by Donovan Rypkema (September 15th at The Nines Hotel) should be an interesting look into the phenomenon of “green-washing” cultural and resource destruction:
http://www.visitahc.org/content/sustainabl…
The financial crisis will likely force economic changes in every country that’s why this bad impact affects the architects and their work. But this whole matter shrinks the architect thinking. Architects have all capability but nowadays that is a growing trend in our society that owners try to change the plan after its completion and all working or of architect gets lost because of this step of building owner or investor.
http://www.bayut.com