STOCKHOLM FURNITURE FAIR 2010
NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL GIFT FAIR 2010
DETROIT AUTO SHOW 2010
POSTCARDS FROM ASIA, PART TWO
CES 2010
It appears that any and every new building sports a LEED badge, a shiny green tiara of sorts that lets us all know how "now" the structure is, a member of the environmentally conscious clique. But what's behind the crown? From any pageant contestant, we'd want beauty, brains, and a hope for world peace--change "world peace" to "a clean planet" and there you have a the perfect building. Unfortunately, "the growth of green design renders the loopholes in LEED more serious than ever," according to Slate. "The point system creates perverse incentives to design around the checklist rather than to build the greenest building possible."
The USGBC has tweaked its checklist in response to criticism. LEED's revised standards have added so-called innovation points, a catchall category for design concepts that go above and beyond the checklist. The new standards also disqualify any building that doesn't score at least a two out of 10 for energy efficiency. Horst says the next revision of the standards, due out in 2008, will be weighted to give even more importance to energy use.But closing the loopholes in the checklist will take the USGBC only so far. In Europe, which has had baseline standards for energy efficiency since the mid-1990s, all new buildings are green buildings, at least to some extent. So while American buildings are green by the grace of Goldman Sachs, London offices are green regardless of whether the client cares about the environment, or needs a shot of good PR.
1 Hour Design Challenge
Stockholm Design Week 2010
Core77 + AAVA Mobile
Detroit Auto Show
Comments
Really the certification should just be based on waste, emissions and efficiency measurements per person. Who cares whether they build out of recycled fiberboard, clay, or whatever? Checklist standards like this just don't let people be innovative.
For example, that new house by Mukesh Ambani I believe qualifies despite being a ridiculous monstrosity.
I disagree pretty strongly with the article.
Yes, people game the system to get certification. However, the LEED program raises awareness of green building principles, allows people to develop sound benchmarks for future construction, gets manufacturers up and down the supply pipeline providing alternatives to some very uncool materials, etc. Yes, many LEED certifications are done purely for marketing purposes, but for people who actually WANT to build green buildings the program has a greater impact than just providing the finished building with an 'eco-friendly' stamp. Where I work, I think most people would agree that there are problems with it, but that overall it does a lot more good than harm. And one of the big knocks against it is the cost of the certification itself, which certainly wouldn't be helped by making it more rigorous. ie, if someone had to go and research the full environmental impact of each individual project, taking into account all possible externalities.
It's vastly better than the do-nothing alternative, although it presents a bigger target for the h8ers. :)
I guess some people will never understand. This is all a ridiculous argument put forth by people that really do not understand what it takes to make a difference.
....All short-sighted criticisms