Opinion: New York Times article, “Don’t LEED us Astray.”
May 23, 2010
The New York Times Article, “Don’t LEED Us Astray” seems to have stirred up a lot of thought provoking discussion. One statement that enlightened me was: “Put simply, a building’s LEED rating is more like a snapshot taken at its opening, not a promise of performance.” That bull’s eyed it for me. I thought it was “A promise of performance.” This gives me a whole new outlook on LEED for New Construction Certification–actually one I can accept. It also propels me to learn more about LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance.
Like any pioneering program, whether it be the Gemini Space Missions of the 50′s and 60′s, taking us to the moon and its evolvement into the space shuttle, LEED has bugs to be worked out during its own evolution. I believe people are starting to come to grips with the fact that the occupancy operations of a building need some focused attention in order to close the gap between projections and reality. I believe people are realizing no two enclosed environments are operated the same way, no matter how good the projection program. You can standardize operational procedures, but you can not standardize the people operating them. The human element will always deviate from the model. This is where the collection of actual operations data is going to help close the gap between theory and performance.
Another point of the article gives credit to LEED for pioneering the change in the building industry forcing us to pay attention to Sustainable Building practices. Hear, Hear. It is true. It has been a highly visible, well-publicized catalyst and deserves a multitude of credit for that. LEED and Energy Star have brought national branding to the energy efficiency and sustainable building movement. As has been said, “Any publicity is good publicity.” Not necessarily so, but pro or con, LEED and the USGBC has forged that brand recognition.
The article statement that I disagree with is:
“To be fair, the council(USGBC) never meant for its system to be a seal of green approval. Rather it was to be a set of guidelines for architects, engineers and others who want to make buildings less wasteful.”
The majority of my experiences don’t reflect this in actual applications. It is not used as a guideline, it is used as a points system, and too often combined with ambivalent planning. Get the points and screw the results and the cost. Too many organizations in the design and engineering business get hung up on the points, not the goals LEED or other programs are meant to achieve. In reality the better the designation, the better the publicity, the better the reputation and the better the pay. Too many inflated track records and reputations have been built on the achievement of a higher LEED rating, without the results promised–all the while costing truckloads of money to accomplish. The LEED designation is a money making opportunity for many entrenched professional entities and unfortunately can be based on “The Emperor’s New Clothes” concept–magical, but invisible.” This excessive concentration on points has caused the High Performance Building movement to suffer some credibility gaffs and establish the generally held opinion that the process is “Too Expensive.”
Many professional entities, especially those with long term contractual relationships with National, State and Local Government, do whatever it takes to get a building certified, so as to maintain their continual contractual(money) relationship. The sustainable concept is being forced upon many firms, who have no experience with it, and worse, do not believe in it. They just do what is necessary, which usually means reactive planning, not proper planning or diligence. Many of these firms obstinately refuse to solicit experienced, expert advice from other professionals. Many times these firms have a fear of their clients coming into contact with other, more knowledgeable professionals, who, in their mind, could potentially take some municipality or government contracts away from them and the loss of continued revenue. Nor do they spend time educating themselves or their staff, they just specify whatever it takes to obtain the points necessary and the heck with using it as a guideline for energy and operational efficiencies.
For example: I have recently seen a specification involving water heaters, specifying Energy Star Electric Resistant Water Heaters–none existant. This will cost a LIHTC apartment project an additional $120,000.00 to fulfill by substituting Heat Pump Water Heaters. Hey, I prefer the Heat Pump water heater in this instance, but it is a little much to swallow when the municipal project has received the award for the project based on the cheaper specification. In another LIHTC seniors project, the architectural firm caused over $500,000.00 in added costs, resulting in delays, investor lament and difficulty in obtaining funding for the next LIHTC project, even thought it was awarded an allocation of credits.
The point is: Whether these sustainable, points focused buildings work is irrelevant to many. What could have been cost effective, sustainable building projects instead become an exorbitantly expensive building or buildings that do not operate as promised, yet meet a points requirement. The categories the points are awarded for are not being used as guidelines, but rather a means towards an end–certification. Unfortunately once a firm gets a building certified, many stake out the high ground as an expert with a track record and learn nothing from the experience. The expensive blunders are soon forgotten at the glad handing, politically correct Ribbon Cutting Ceremony.
These long term relationships are not subject to RFPs, but rather are automatically renewed annual contracts, regardless of competence. Many are political rewards and don’t have a thing to do with expertise or practical service. Until we come up with a system that forces government and municipalities to do their due diligence and not rely entirely on long term relationships, the difference between the snapshot and operational costs will stay miles apart in this particular building sector.
Any system based on points will always have those firms who’s measure of success is points, not results. Unfortunately I don’t have the ultimate solution at the moment, but overtime results will gradually take the day. The program is a gigantic step in the right direction from what we had previously and with continued national attention and financial incentives will become the standard of comparison.
Comments
Got something to say?