In The New West magazine

The LEED Shade of Green

What Makes a Building 'Sustainable?' Good Question.

By Richard Martin, 2-12-08

 
  The Northern Plains Resource Council, a LEED leader in Billings. Photo by David Nolt.
When the U.S. Green Building Council announced in November a program to rate the environmental qualities of new home construction -- one based on the highly successful Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design requirements for commercial buildings -- it marked a watershed of sorts for the two-decade old sustainable building movement.

In the last year, public clamor for more responsible and energy-efficient ways of living, combined with the politics of climate change and the economic reality of soaring energy costs, has ushered the once-staid subject of how we build from the business section to the front page.

A flourishing of supposedly "green" design firms has made low-energy, sustainable building smart, cool and lucrative. The U.S. Green Building Council, the foremost organization for promoting and rating the environmental sensitivity of buildings in North America, says the green building industry was worth $12 billion in 2007 and will top that in 2008, barring full-out recession. In a cratering real estate market, the green sector is the industry's fastest growing piece.

In November planners for Los Angeles approved one of the most ambitious green building programs of any big city in the nation, requiring large new developments to be 15 percent more energy efficient. L.A. is now among more than two dozen big U.S. cities that require new buildings to adhere to the Green Building Council's LEED standards.

Leading the way in this new epoch are architecture and engineering firms in the Mountain West, where small cities are undergoing massive growth. Firms like High Plains Architects of Billings, designers of the renovated headquarters of the Northern Plains Resource Council (which was recently awarded the highest LEED designation) have produced award-winning, energy efficient and graceful buildings, many of them retrofitted historic structures.

The LEED certification (always pronounced "leed") has both tracked and facilitated the green-building surge, providing detailed step-by-step blueprints for developers and builders to follow. It has made the Green Building Council the de facto arbiter of what it means to "go green" in the global warming era -- and with its downtown D.C. headquarters, a powerful lobbying force in state capitols and in Washington.

That's also part of the problem. Even proponents of the LEED system, like Randy Hafer of High Plains Architects and green pioneer Bob Berkebile, one of the drafters of the original LEED standards, acknowledge in private that there's more than a little discontent with the LEED system and USGBC's status. With a host of small, sometimes competing sub-sectors like recycled materials and solar infrastructure, and scores of specialty architects and engineers, the green building industry is complex and diverse, and perhaps inherently resistant to a single arbiter.

Some architects and engineers complain about the money and time involved in obtaining one of the four LEED approval ratings (standard, silver, gold, and platinum), and say prescriptive standards don't always foment true innovation.

What's more, LEED now has competition: a rival rating system known as "Green Globes," promoted by the Portland-based Green Building Initiative, claims to be less expensive and less cumbersome than the LEED process.

 
  BEFORE: The Northern Resource Council building. Courtesy photo.
In some ways LEED, and the Green Building Council, have become victims of their own success. It took seven years to get to the first 4,000 projects registered and certified, says Tom Hicks, the Green Building Council's vice president for LEED certification. It took just 10 months to get to the second 4,000. That explosion makes the task of maintaining a rigorous and replicable system for rating buildings' environmental effects more and more challenging.

"The Council has a couple of challenges in regard to LEED," says Kath Williams, a Bozeman consultant and immediate past president of the World Green Building Council. "One is the delivery of all these products -- with the tremendous increase in interest, how do you maintain high-quality service when the demand goes up exponentially?"

The ratings themselves are being redefined, and the system is getting streamlined, largely with improvements to the Web-based application tools.

"With over 1,200 projects certified we now have this tremendous amount of information," Hicks says, on "what's working and what's not."

For a glimpse at both the triumphs and the shortcomings of the LEED system, consider two very different buildings: the Story Mill Center in Bozeman and the U.S. General Services Administration tower in San Francisco.

A redevelopment of an 1893 flour mill, the Story Mill Center is an 89-acre complex that will include 1,100 housing units and more than 200,000 square feet of retail and commercial space. It is one of the first projects to earn the new LEED "Neighborhood Development" certification -- which accounts for open space, relationships with nearby structures and so on, as well as individual building characteristics. The Story Mill Center received final approval from the Bozeman City Commission in early December. In approving the project, the commissioners went one better: they included the LEED neighborhood rating as a mandated requirement for the 10-year redevelopment.

That immediately set off alarm bells for many developers around the region.

"My phone started ringing off the hook," Williams says. "People were asking, ‘What does this mean for my development?'"

The problem is that LEED has always been implemented voluntarily. As Williams puts it, "you can't mandate leadership."

 
  AFTER: The Northern Resource Council building. Photo by David Nolt.
Once governments get in the business of requiring LEED certification, the entire playing field shifts.

LEED approval can add 15 to 20 percent to upfront construction costs, although many of those costs are more than paid back over the life of the structure. Many developers simply don't have those resources.

Then there's the converse problem: some projects are too cutting-edge to fit into the LEED system of points and ratings. That's the case with the new GSA building in San Francisco, which was designed by the avant-garde Southern California firm morphosis.

Equipped with a movable glass façade to ventilate the interior, the translucent, 18-story structure uses sunlight to reduce the energy for lighting by 26 percent. Air conditioning is virtually eliminated: more than 70 percent of the building will be cooled with natural ventilation. Hailed as one of the most radical office building designs in America, the GSA Tower has won an excellence in public-sector design innovation from the real estate association CoreNet. But it can't get LEED certification.

"I wasn't arrogant, but I was confident -- I just assumed we had the platinum rating," says morphosis principal Thom Mayne. "All of a sudden we went through LEED and it wasn't working."

The problem is that several of the morphosis innovations, such as nearly eliminating air conditioning, count for little in the LEED system of ratings.

"Under LEED the points system is equivalent to a blue book test," says Mayne. "It's not asking the architecture and engineering community to be innovative. It's just very prescriptive."

Tom Hicks of the Green Building Council acknowledges that the GSA building posed some special challenges to the LEED system: "We're looking to work with GSA and with Thom's firm in the next few months to better understand that building, and see where the issues are. We want to understand and learn from that, to improve the rating system as we continuously improve LEED."

At any rate, while LEED has been a powerful educational tool, many architects agree that as a design tool it's overly limiting.

"You either operate under that or you don't," as Mayne puts it.

Mayne, a well-known LEED critic who spoke at the Green Building Council's GreenBuild convention in Chicago in early November, supports a performance-driven ranking, based on buildings' energy use.

Making LEED more "place-aware" and more sensitive to energy consumption is a goal of the Council's board of directors, Bob Berkebile says. Two pilot projects are underway to bring that about: the building for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Bozeman and a new planned community at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon.

"Both of those suggested that while it's a good educational tool, LEED is not very useful as a design tool," Berkebile says.

The system is in a "constant evolutionary process," says Steve Brauneis, a sustainable design consultant at the Rocky Mountain Institute in Boulder, and the willingness of U.S. Green Building Council president Richard Fedrizzi to bring dissenters like Thom Mayne into the discussion bodes well for future adjustments to the LEED ratings. A 2006 program to poll the membership on the system will result in more refinements in early 2008, Hicks says -- including an effort to unify the various LEED classifications (core and shell, commercial, retail, schools, and so on) into one master rating system.

"We're thinking ahead," Hicks says. "There are some things we're doing well, there's some credits we can look to improve, certainly, but there's also ways we want to start to stretch ourselves, to bring in new ideas and new credits."

One goal is to promote "living buildings" that actually produce more energy than they consume.

"We're looking at doing something that moves beyond the notion of ‘less bad,'" says Berkebile, "to creating buildings that are restorative and ultimately regenerative for the environment."

At GreenBuild, in November, the Green Building Council announced the awards in the first "National Living Building" competition. The winner: the Omega Institute for Sustainable Living headquarters in Rhinebeck, New York, designed by BNIM Architects -- Berkebile's firm.

This story first appeared in the preview issue of The New West magazine. For more information on the magazine, or to subscribe, go to www.newwest.net/magazine. [End of article]
Comment By eden, 2-11-08

The Living Building Challenge is a program of the Cascadia Region Green Building Council. The competition at Greenbuild 2007 was organized by Cascadia and sponsored by the USGBC. Visit http://www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc for more information on the Challenge and to see the other recognized projects from the competition!

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-12-08

I am haunted by a vision of evergreen buildings lying deserted with no sources of supply...

Comment By mike, 2-12-08

Talking about architecture, without walking around and through it or getting sufficiently involved in it to understand how it functions under real world operations, is a dangerous thing. Even just seeing it, without engaging in anything deeper than a visual experience, is a lot like looking at fashion models and making an on-the-spot assessment of their suitability as wives. It might be fun for a moment; but, if you take it too far, you can sure get the wrong impression and buy yourself a lot of long-term trouble.

Most architecture is designed and built to function in the real world; but, some architects build their reputations and fortunes on designing for form rather than function. The history of the profession is littered with buildings that were considered masterpieces during the six months in which their pictures were featured in the Record, then damned by the facility managers who had to cope with them from that point on. In many cases, once the photographers leave, these architectural masterpieces are subjected to significant and costly renovations, simply to get them to function efficiently for the purposes for which they were intended. In some cases, these masterpieces are quickly sold or even actually demolished far earlier than the end of their intended service lives, simply because they can't be made to function efficiently.

The core essence of what we think of as "green" or "sustainable" building involves achieving the function needed by the occupants at the lowest "cost" to the environment over the life cycle of the structure. Pursuing this core goal entails a heavy focus on function with form serving that function and with great frugality in devoting resources to form for the sake of form. This approach can be hard on architects who build their reputations and fortunes on designing for exhibitionistic form (they often prefer the term "expressionistic" as a euphemism) and on getting the most play out of that first six months of photographs and incisive interviews that are the stock and trade of the magazines. The truth is, however, that these kinds of architects make their money on the latest architectural fashion. They certainly don't want to sound opposed to fashion when, as now, it goes the direction of "green" or "sustainable" and so they are forced to invent new terminology that can provide cover for their use of resources simply to create eye-catching form. They talk about "beyond green" and about things like "sustaining the human spirit" when they are truly focused on "sustaining" something much closer to home and far more mundane than other peoples' spirits.

So, in the end and long before you take their words as firm principles, you truly do need to walk around and through the work of fellows like Thom Mayne and Bob Berkebile, try to understand how resources were allocated and used in its creation and it probably actually functions under real world conditions. Then you would be prepared to assess for yourself what they are saying and how you might want to apply it, or not.

Comment By Dave, 2-14-08

A factual clarification: The Story Mill Project has been "registered" as a LEED ND Pilot Project, not "certified" as the author suggests

Comment By Lance Olsen, 2-16-08

A recent Financial Times article went through the plans and designs of new construction and ended with the question: "But is all of this sustainable?"

We are still in the muddling-through stage of planning for sustainability, and will likely have to do some learning via mistakes we make along the way. One such mistake lies in the emphasis on supposed sustainability of new construction, when even larger opportunity may exist for renovation of exising homes, offices, apartment complexes.

Then there are the usual and usually ignored questions of materials used in construction. And the resources that any building, old or new, will require.

For example, at a time when it has become abundantly clear that forest dieoff will constrain the wood supply and the industries dependent on wood, as most recently described in science journals including Annual Reviews and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the sustainability of wood supply is under a darkening shadow of doubt. So too is the availability of natural gas used to heat many homes.With even the head of Shell now citing the approaching limits on natural gas, how sustainable is the home whose furnace or stove that uses the stuff?

Similarly, the home dependent on a well for its water is left vulnerable to a climate that may not deliver the precipitation required to keep aquifer levels at sustainable levels. While water loss is currently recognized as a problem especially for the U.S. Southwest, drought is now sprawled northward all the way into the Canadian prairie provinces, and many Montanans have seen small communities' wells drying up.

What is sustainability? It is staying-power, the capacity to endure, to last, to outlive the current fad and fashion, to be there for generation after generation. On the face of it, buildings that could stand and remain usable for centuries would appear to fit the bill.
But a building industry reliant on finite resources will deliver building whose use is not sustainable if, for example, our new climate shuts off the water or our increasingly rapid depletion of oil and gas leaves that building uninhabitable or simply too costly for commute.

I'm all for sustainability, but it's become a suspect effort, not only shallow but moving into territory that has opened it to accusation of false promises and at least a little taint of fraud, and certainly to charges of leaving homework undone -- for example, Penn State's Dan Esty has found a correlation between unsustainable resource use and corruption, and I we seldom see that relationship disclosed when describing the materials extracted for construction of new buildings.

For small-town newspapers and general conversations between most citizens, the depths of the sustainability questions are still unseen. I suppose we have to be patient about this, and a bit forgiving, because societies are still caught in the mode of just muddling along. But patience is something else that can't be sustained, and I'm marginally hopeful that the discussions can take on some increase sophistication as time passes by.

Lance Olsen, Missoula

Comment By Jeff, 4-17-08

The article overstates the added costs of construction which meets LEED certification. At basic levels of certification there will often be no added costs; at higher levels, there are some additional costs, though few projects would require 20% more.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/magazine/article/the_leed_shade_of_green/C555/L555/