LEED rankings 'bogus': Frank Gehry

LEED us into temptation
how about this - leed points for having eco-friendly carpets..... but should u choose no carpets.... no points Thats how it was when I was dealing with them... wonder if its still the case!

LEED certification
I'm glad about this discussion and hope that it will be on bigger scale since this is happening every day in our business. I agree that LEED system is not perfect and there some parts can be better, but as many has said, it shed lights on many environmental and energy/water efficiency issues and now designers and contractors are giving better attention to these important subjects. However, we all should be careful not to think only about the credits and forget the main target of having green and efficient buildings. I worked for 18 years in this field and we have seen many successes and saved millions of energy/water units and carbon emissions.

LEED Standards
Frank Gehry is an architect and a very good one. He is not a building engineer who translates his art work into solid mass. He made a contentious remark, I believe, in order to get people thinking and talking about the subject! Many, so-called "green" buildings are, as he quite rightly states, not as green as publicity departments would like to tell us. Green is a bottom line cost. There are many ways in which a "green" building can be made such design, engineering and conversion. Yes LEED standards do need to be updated regularly, yes a company must look at lifetime of a building. As a producer of SIPS buildings there is, in my opinion, nothing as economical or as green so readily available. I would also be the first to say, though the technology has been around for about 100 years, we have a little way to go before we can build a 1000ft tall building! It is a very green way to put a lot of facilities on a small footprint.

Green Buildings
As a good designer, the basic principle is to provide the facility required at the best price and this way of working has a big element of LEED and Green in it. Many people seem to overact when they say that this design must be green, why not look at designing a project with the best engineering practices using the most energy efficient equipment to provide the optimum requirements. I feel if these principles are followed the design will automatically have lot of LEED specifications. I do not believe in designing a project just for the sake of attaining a LEED rating. Instead, all the designs must be sustainable weather you get a rating or not and this what I call sensible design.

Green
I was building green in California where all this started. Like a lot of other people I thought it did not make sense; however it opened my eyes on ways to make a building more friendly to the environment and to the people who used the building. It is not just the bike racks.

The bigger picture
Please stop this nonsense. Are we still saying LEED is useless/arbitrary/bogus because of the bike rack credit? That argument is so 1996. Yes, there is a point available to add a number of bike racks and showers based on occupancy of the building. If one bike rack means that one less car is driven two and from work for a five day work week, over the course of the year, consider how much gas and CO2 emissions that offsets. Now please reevaluate the impact of a bike rack. Just because its easy to do, doesn't make it less sustainable. Sustainability is not just about the building, but the extended radius of the occupants of that building and their effective footprints. Still, we all agree that the most important measure is energy efficiency, there are up to 19 points available for energy efficiency measures (Wbrook) and up to 5 points for innovation (WMC). LEED started from a few people in a room with an idea and grew into a global standard that has transformed the construction market. Even with the room for improvement that does exist, what else can you say has done that? And the energy codes that are being considered by states all over are based on ASHRAE 90.1 standard, which LEED made relevant as it is the energy standard that LEED uses to measure efficiency. As the energy codes evolve, so will LEED, always pushing to a better standard in order to be better than the pack (fultoff). The whole point was to change to market. It has done that and now GBCI has gone through an in depth internal LCA, which refocuses the credits in the 2009 versions (dwight). While the motivation to have a LEED project may reside on PR and marketing, at least there is now a system that breaks the ice with developers and gets them to consider the environment, a conversation topic that rarely existed before. Unfortunately, the smartest argument anyone can make is how will it save money. And after working on dozens of LEED projects, from start to finish, I can say it does save money, it does improve the profession of design, which was once riddled with extravagant formalistic indulgences. A PV array that will provide my building carbon neutral power for at least 30 years, or a curvy facade that leaks? I apologize for the lengthy response, but while greenwashing is dangerous for us all, and there are certainly those who will work any system for its loop holes, it is important to really know about a process before criticizing it, especially one like LEED, that has added true measurable value. Oger International jp_arc

LEED rankings 'bogus': Frank Gehry
Regarding LEED certification for buildings, I feel that it should be continuously upgraded through the life span of the building, rather than just implementing it for the sake of certification. Also we need to have some local content in LEED, particularly which is suitable to the GCC region. Over-designing of MEP services needs to be curtailed or at the end we will end up with a white elephant as some of these services turn out to be an engineer's nightmare. Simply aping the west will not lead us to LEED. We need what is good for us.

Green Brown Red and dead
I am glad to note Gerry's comments. I have been crying hoarse as to this hoax ever since I came across this accreditation. We have been consciously practicing architecture which optimises values of all aspects of the built environment in a holistic manner involving the built and the unbuilt spaces. Our card has been green for over FOUR decades.

leed
I would certainly agree with Mr Gehry. We have also executed a interior project with Leed specs. The cost nearly doubled for HVAC, electrical. But the expected pay back is not satisfactory. I would still think that we are capable of designing green homes without Leed specs using 100% local materials.

Leed Application requires more common sense
I do agree to both, Mr Gehry & the concerned Engineer. Leed vision shall not be generalised for the entire world as is the practise of today. It should be climate specific to a particular region. Then & only then sustainability can actually survive & give returns which are promised during the start of a project, be it money or the sustainable living conditions.

Basic Concepts to design a comfortable environment
I completely agree with Concerned Engineer of Dubai. It seems people have forgotten that there were good buildings/designed environments before also. We forget basic concepts to design a comfortable space nowadays. Look through the emerging skyscrapers around us and extensive use of glass. First of all we don't really need so many high-rise buildings here. Then why do we use so much of glass? Use of too much glass means inviting trouble. We should first create an environment which will be comfortable naturally and then do stuff which ensure more comfort. A good example is Abu Dhabi Cultural Centre at the junction of airport road and electra street.

LEED rankings 'bogus': Frank Gehry
I do not think LEED is perfect. But we all have to know that the high costs of sustainable designs are the real costs we should be paying if we really want to enjoy using these buildings. Otherwise we are making future generations pay our bills today.

We are in a Sorry State
It's a pity we a need rating system to ensure ensure the survival of human species. LEED/BREEAM or any other ratings will not be remembered when your home is sinking in water or future generations can only see butterflies in museum. I think its human greed that we have to keep in control here while maintaining a simple self-sustaining lifestyle. With a relatively short lifespan in comparison to the age of our planet earth, we have become cancerous to it. If we carry on leading this life and be proud of the credit points we've accumulated without real benefit to environment, nature's chemotherapy will certain act upon us that no sustainability point can put a stop. Rating system is good but if it's more about commercial motives behind it then we've again failed to look at the bigger picture and continue to repeat the same mistake over.

green buildings
I know that the cost of making a "green" buildings is huge and takes a long time to get a return. However that doesn't mean we stop doing them. I mean maybe we make our projects more sustainable instead of making "green" buildings. However for the earth's and humans' survival maybe "green" buildings is the way to go.

Frank Gehry
As an architect, I certainly agree with "Mr Legend" and "Concerned Engineer of Dubai". There are number of ways to achieve sustainability without any additional cost. It only requires good architectural approach to the project.

Frank Gehry
LEED has surely evolved since the days of receiving points for bike racks and the rating system does have more "teeth" in it then it had in the previous models, however I still feel that the numbers can be, and often are, misleading. We can not deny that there are technologies available in the market place that when installed consume less energy. This is true and applicable to both new construction and existing buildings. I often see newly constructed buildings that have sub-standard equipment installed that is not the most efficient (ie: installing a 10 SEER unit when a 15 SEER is a viable option) or even seeing a new gymnasium with 400w metal halides vs. a hi-bay T8s. LEED does ensure that the best option is implemented, however when you begin to get into RECs and sustainable materials that is where is gets very grey. As written by "Concerned Engineer in Dubai" the true costs of several technologies/solutions are never fully assessed, therefore providing a false sense of sustainable accomplishment. All in all, clever branding and government support is what has allowed LEED to grow, not always true quantifiable results.

Frank Gehry
You're a legend Frank. Keep it up.

LEED application require more common sense
I really do agree to Mr.Gehry's statement. Targeting maximum LEED points specially in GCC countries require more common sense and deeper understanding of the effect. I also urge those clients/developers to be open minded pertaining to their LEED vision. One good example is the rain water collection system. Most of the overwhelmed individuals I have worked with before keep on insisting to collect the rain water for reuse specifically for flushing and irrigation. Inexperienced individuals didn't realise that considering this in GCC countries is a joke and a waste of money and energy considering the actual climatological status. Further understanding the fact, rainfall in GCC is very less around 25mm/hr. Ok, I do agree that sometimes rain intensity is higher as experienced somewhere in year 2009. But this is not enough basis. You are not collecting water actually. You are collecting mud, dirt, contaminated water. This require treatment for reuse, meaning you need to spend chemicals to treat it, you need spend money for treatment system, you need more water just to backwash the filters, you need electricity to operate this pumps and you need manpower to maintain the tanks. In short, there's no benefit for this idea but burden. I do agree to the vision of LEED system and the benefit of this to people and environment. However, people must do realise the appropriate implementation of this in the right place and at the right time.