What is LEED worth?

So I was sitting around talking with a colleague and friend of mine today about LEED. He is getting ready to take his LEED Green Associates test and I found myself flipping through a 100+ page test preparation manual gazing in utter awe at its simplistic, almost moronic content. I mean this quite seriously, my sixteen year old son could pass this exam with little more than a weeks preparation.

This $80+ dollar book is supposed prepare you for a test that will thrust you on a path leading, ultimately, to some kind of sustainable design nirvana. But before you get there you’ll spend more money than you can possibly imagine on books, workshops and let’s not forget the actual exam. Then you’ll have to maintain your certification with 30 hours a year of continuing education classes and of course, a fee.

In my humble opinion I think the entire notion of LEED accreditation/certification for a person or a building is an enormous waste of money, resources and time. I have read a 2003 report stating that the soft cost alone of choosing to certify your building will run from 1.3% to 3.1% of the cost of your building. I don’t know how many architects will actually read this but we are talking about a figure that approaches almost HALF of a standard architectural and engineering fee for the building! That was 2003 when LEED was young. Now it’s older, wiser – and charges more.

Before I digress into an absurd rant I need to get back to topic. Architects – design sustainably. Do it because you love the Earth. Do it because you’re going to now add the 3.1% to your fee and NOT give it to the non-profit USGBC for their “certification” of your ability to design. Do it because it’s how we, as Architects, should see all design. In harmony with nature, people and our surroundings.

LaurelHouse Studio

Demand More Better

Filed under: Sustainable Architecture

Are You Tired of the Green Revolution Yet???

I will postulate that the primary objection to supporting “Green Revolution” idea is the government; or more specifically, your political position. The sheer stupidity in rooting your support for anything based on a political party’s mandate is, well, bordering Neolithic.

It’s a material world and I’m a material, um, guy. So let’s analyze all these green-freak environmentalistic ideas from a different angle – you’re wallet. Times are tough so why not? Realistically, is your selected representative doing anything for YOU? So screw ‘em!

Green energy technologies are good for your pocketbook. It’s that simple. The classic example that seems to pass thru the heads of so many quicker than the Pale Riders right hand; the Compact Fluorescent Bulb or CFL as we Architects like to pompously call them.”

“But they are five times more expensive!”, you scream at me.

“Yes, they are.”, I calmly retort.  “And they last 10 times longer on average (US government says 35x longer), thus saving you, um…”, calculator pause, “twice the money!”, I slyly add.

“Not to mention the 75% savings on energy across that 10 YEARS!”

Yes, they contain traces amounts of Mercury. But for non-greenies/conservatives that should be a plus as you now have the potential to poison more people, yeah!  And for you tree-huggers/liberals you have saved yet another sq. inch of our 7.9 x 10¹⁷ square inches here on Mother Earth, sleep well tonite.

But in the end you have both saved money. Real money. If you changed out EVERY lightbulb in your house your saving 75% of your MONEY… not energy. Makes more sense that way. LED’s will save you even more money as they become widely available.

We architects refer to this notion as Life-Cycle-Costing.

The rest of the world just calls it common sense but, sadly, the rest of the world seems to be losing theirs.

LaurelHouse Studio

Demand More Better

Filed under: Alternative Energy, Sustainable Architecture, architecture, CFL's, Clint Eastwood, energy efficiency