The LEED Conundrum
Ever since I was an undergrad, I've been told that LEED was bullshit but never was it really explained, and never so clearly as in this week's reading of Scarcity contra Austerity.
Of course we're all on board with being more sustainable yadah yadah... but like a pop song on the radio, the buzzwords get so overused that they sit stalely out there - now used as branding instead of a push for projects to truly consider the environment in which they are built. And Jeremy Till has it right, these sorts of marketed sustainability efforts are great, sure, but they're focused on very specific parts of the problem that are only able to address one portion of sustainability with no thought that the deeper-seeded issues could be the reason this problem exists in the first place. If we were able to look at the bigger picture, we could go to the root of the problem, for example:
"one can introduce questions about that prioritization... by challenging the dominance of multinational product companies and the subsequent marginalization of more local or closed-loop systems of procurement."
To me, this fits into the concept of critical regionalism so well because it's again one of these catch-all methods that's supposed to make us more conscious designers, but in reality, it just turns into a thoughtless addition of a specific system in order to check off a box. It ends up having nothing to do with the actual project, which is a dangerous path to travel.
Obviously, that doesn't mean firms who are trying to achieve LEED certification are in any way less talented or less concerned with sustainability. I still maintain that this is a necessary standard that should be implemented across the board. But what I do take away from this is that environmental impact should not be judged by a checklist but by a thorough understanding of how specific projects react and integrate with their surroundings resulting in a truly healthier space overall at a variety of differing scales.
Of course we're all on board with being more sustainable yadah yadah... but like a pop song on the radio, the buzzwords get so overused that they sit stalely out there - now used as branding instead of a push for projects to truly consider the environment in which they are built. And Jeremy Till has it right, these sorts of marketed sustainability efforts are great, sure, but they're focused on very specific parts of the problem that are only able to address one portion of sustainability with no thought that the deeper-seeded issues could be the reason this problem exists in the first place. If we were able to look at the bigger picture, we could go to the root of the problem, for example:
"one can introduce questions about that prioritization... by challenging the dominance of multinational product companies and the subsequent marginalization of more local or closed-loop systems of procurement."
To me, this fits into the concept of critical regionalism so well because it's again one of these catch-all methods that's supposed to make us more conscious designers, but in reality, it just turns into a thoughtless addition of a specific system in order to check off a box. It ends up having nothing to do with the actual project, which is a dangerous path to travel.
Obviously, that doesn't mean firms who are trying to achieve LEED certification are in any way less talented or less concerned with sustainability. I still maintain that this is a necessary standard that should be implemented across the board. But what I do take away from this is that environmental impact should not be judged by a checklist but by a thorough understanding of how specific projects react and integrate with their surroundings resulting in a truly healthier space overall at a variety of differing scales.
I really like your last paragraph and the thought that although LEED may not be as stringent as it should be, and may emphasis some things more than others, its still very important to have a base level of sustainability that should be strived for. Because there are a lot of clients out there that really don't care how "sustainable" a building practice is, and having a bar set that they have to clear is still better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great take away from the reading. Sustainability is a larger issue than any checklist can address. It requires a level of deep understanding of a place to really, truly accomplish. It also looks different depending on where you are and what resources are available locally. Something that is sustainable in one place would not be sustainable somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteIt annoys me how architects succumb to trends and doing 'what's popular.' I feel as though we have a powerful voice that should have a voice that is greater than LEED and that requires a dedication to going above and beyond for the sake of curiosity and excellence not satisfying a client. Unfortunately I also understand the need to accommodate a client but I will definitely be the type of architect who understands how to converse with the client while acting on a deeper level within the office.
ReplyDeleteTying it back to Critical Regionalism, LEED has a very specific context in which it does in fact work. Urban environments where the materials encouraged are available. But it's always bothered me that you can get LEED points for installing a bike rack outside your office building on top of a mountain.
ReplyDelete