orities to an extent through the use of “regional bonus credits” determined of marketing, which alone will not accommodate radical changes in the by consultation with regional councils. Still, it seems that more work is fields of energy, climate, the economy, etc. Many clients have realized that needed here. If a region has crafted a policy or practice that reflects its high-performance buildings are more marketable and are usually more own history and wisdom over time, and the local community is the most economical in the long run. This awareness has been spurred by several intimately familiar with its own resources over any other player, it seems building assessment and rating tools (such as LEED, Green Globes, CHPS, LEED should be in step with this wisdom to place sufficient emphasis on etc.) developed to help implement improved design and gauge how well it critical environmental elements, particularly if these elements are intiperforms. LEED for Newmately Cons related to preserving Arguably, the most successful rating system nationwide is the Leadertruct ion v 2.a2community’s identity and keeping a region’s gistewhich physical and cultural ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) ratingRe system, red Project Checklist fabric intact. Since rating systems involve the assignment of points to specific elehas become a benchmark in the industry. It was developed by the U.S. ments, another criticism being addressed in LEED 2009 is the way these Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit trade organization dediProject Name: points are weighted. The new version includes revisions garnered from cated to sustainable design through “market transformation”—meaning, a process of re-weighting and re-allocating credits, according to addithrough changing the perception that energy efficiency and environmenProject Address:
LEED
tion v 2.2
onstruc C w e N r fo
Project egistered
R
Checklist
Yes
?
No
Project Totals (Pre-Certific Certified: 26-32 points
ame: Project N ddress:
Project A
Yes
?
No
Sustainable Sites
ation Estimates)
Silver: 33-38 points
Gold: 39-51 points
69 Points Platinum: 52-69 points
69 Points ints
52-69 po tional qualitiesPembedded tal sensitivity equals higher costs rather than lifecycle savings. USGBC s) latinum: in an element, such as its long-term impact on 14 Points ts Yes ertification Estimate in o 1p : 139-5emissions orn its production of renewable energy. The impact-based members are mostly companies andPre ldCO2 Noprofessionals and Constructio ls (Pre-C from the3-3design a ts Goreq t Activity Pollution Preven in o ? o T p t 8 c n es Proje Ybuilding ver: 3continuouslyCredit weighting system, according to the USGBC,tio “represents a complex mixture Require industry, many whom also sit on committees Silthat 1 Site Selection d points 26-32 strategies : d ie if rt of qualitative analysis, rules, policies, and values” based on consensus refine existing and develop new sustainable to reflect the realiCe Credit 2 Development Density 4 Points 1 &1Commu from a pool of industry experts, public input, and “best available scities of the marketplace. The result is an ongoing evolution of LEED, which nity Con nectivi ty Credit 3 1 wnfield Red ence.”Bro Although thiseve tactic is quite involved, it will help make LEED more next year will be updated in an attempt to remain relevant to our rapidly lopment Required Credit 4.1 effective. Alternative Transport changing world. The new version, LEED 2009, is being developed to 1 ation, Public Tra No 1 nsportation Sites ? respond ofuurgency Cre tion Alternative dit n 4.2 e stainabbyleproffering changes demanded v 1 re Yes to an increased sense S P Transport ollution 1 rage & Changing Roo y Pcriticisms vitto by the pending environmental and energy crises, asnwell Ratings and Liability ation, Bicycle Sto Actias ms Credit 4.3 Alternative Transport 1 nstructio o C atio n, Low -Em 1out ittin of the rating system itself. Prereq 1 Several recent studies of LEED point between the g &discrepancies y Fue it l Effi v cien ti t c Veh e icles n n Altern o n Cre ti o dit c 4.4 C le y e 1 it S ative and Transp Site mun ortatio n, Parking Cap One from documentation actual performance of LEED-rated projects. In a paper Comfact 1 acit ty & the y Yes current criticism of LEED’s nsi Credit 1rating process derives Credit 5.1 Site Devel ment De p lo 1 e v e opm that contemporary versions do not recognize critical regional sensitivities titled “Green, Sustainable or High Performance? Knowing the Difference D ent, Protect or Restore 1 ment Habitat Credit 2 rtation edevelop o R Cre sp ld dit n e 5.2 fi ra T n Site within the larger environment. For example, in Austin, environmental and Managing the Risks,” Ujjval K. Vyas, PhD, asserts that most “green” 1 DevelopmRent ms Brow , Public ging oo , Maximize Open Space1 ortation redit 3 e & Chan g activists have spearheaded the Cpassage of city ordinances that severely Creydit or “sustainable” buildings are being portrayed inaccurately by designers. ra ve Transp ti to 6.1 a S Sto s e rn 1 rm e le cl wa lt ic ter h Quantity Contro De Ven, ntsig 4.1 A ie ation, Bic 1 user performance, “economic l fficenergy redit within limit development on tracts of Cland sensitive aquifer The efficiency, improved ransportrecharge & Fuel Eof gclaims Credit 6.2 ittinSto m rnative T 1 rm -E e wa lt w ter o A De L sig , n, Qu n alit o .2 y Con 4 ti a tro 1he cautions, are based on “the it l rt d o zones. Runoff inside these recharge zones, in addition to contributing to viability to adding green attributes,” etc., Cre ty aciat e Transp p v Cre a dit ti C 7.1 a g He rn 1 in e Isla lt ndnature Effect, of , Park rather flimsy Nomany n-Roofstudies,” and 1in fact may affect professional onthe Austin’s drinking water, often pollute such it 4.3 Aswimming holes ortatias Credbeloved e Transp abitatatIsla Creditest HHe 7.2 re rnativand o 1 e lt nd A R Eff iconic Barton Springs, a significantrenatural landmark part of Austin’s responsibility. (As an attorney, Vyas is concerned with matters of legal ect, Roof ct or 1 C dit 4.4 ent, Prote Credit pm lo ce e a v p 8 e S D Lig n social fabric. Acknowledging the local community’s desire to preserve the liability. His paper derived from a presentation delivered in 2007 at the 1 ht Pollution Reduction pe Site 1 aximize O Credit 5.1 ent, MBuilder essential nature of these critical areas, the Austin Green Defense Research Institute Construction Law Seminar. Vyas is a LEED l evelopm o DEnergy tr 1 n e o it C S antity 5.2 1 Creditin esign, Qu any Program disqualifies any development these areas accredited professional and an affiliate member of the AIA.) Vyas claims ter Ddisallows aand Ye ol s rmw tr to n ? S o C No ty li .1 a 6 u 1 it Q d , n re green rating for projects within these zones, even if the project complies that rating systems such as LEED are “not created to deliver measurable C r Desig tormwate S f o o .2 6 Wa -R with other, more stringent development requirements. This position results” and, furthermore, do not. Thus, he continues, any declarations 1 n ter Efficiency Credit ffect, No t Island E of a project’s a e H recognizes that the green label requires a broader awareness of improved building performance are merely aspirations geared toward of 5 Points Credit 7.1 Effect, Ro Credit 1.1 ddoes n la Is t a Wa overall environmental and social impact.itLEED, however, not make marketing efforts used by clients to help them sell their projects. If owners ter Efficient Landscapi He n .2 o 7 ng, Reduce by 50% ducti Cred on Recritical Credit 1.2 are any such nuanced distinctions. Development canLig occur inutithese seeking better performance, Vyas recommends that “green needs to ht Poll Wa 1 ter Efficie nt Landscaping, No Pot 8 it d able Use or Cre No Irrigatioas areas without affecting a project’s accumulation of LEED points. Needless firmly aligned with high-performance buildings” determined by n s t Credit 2 beInn in 1 ovative Wastewater Tec 5 Po logies measures the performance of the to say, developers wanting to build in these areas and still be perceived definitive methodology thathno accurately Credit 3.1 Water Use 1 ion, 20% as green would likely opt to seek a LEED rating and ignore this important project afterRed it uct is built. HeRed states that designers1and builders who make uction Credit 3.2 Water Use Red o uct manifestation of local community wisdom. In response to the need for claims that aren’t proven may be held liable for 1those claims, especially 1 N ion, 30% Reduction ncy ? y 50% ter Efficie b ce u Yes d e regional adaptation, LEED 2009 will tryW toarecognize environmental priwhen public money is being spent. Efforts to create a truly sustainable 1 R 1 Irrigation scaping,
32
t e x a s
a r c h i t e c t
Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 2
nd or No icient La otable Use Water Eff ing, No P p a sc d n icient La gies Water Eff Technolo stewater a W e v ti n Innova Reductio tion, 20% c u d e R n Water Use Reductio
1 1
Last Modified: May 200
8
1 1 / 1 2
2 0 0 8
1 of 4