LEED

I am plagued with having too many interests (hence the lack of focus on this blog).   Two of my older interests have been architecture and conservation.   If I had come of age either a little bit earlier or later, and if architecture paid a bit better, I could be designing many of the green properties that I just settle for reading about.

Over the weekend, the New York Times asked the question, “How ‘Green’ Can a Huge House Be?“, framed with the context of a 7,000 square foot home recently built as a model for a new “green” subdivision in North Stamford, CT.   It’s seeking LEED certification to confirm its “greenness”.

This leads to the interesting question of whether large homes can, by their nature, be considered “green”.

On the one hand, it’s definitely possible to design and build a mansion that is far more energy-efficient, and significantly less environmentally destructive than your average McMansion.

On the other hand, there is a large, and seemingly increasingly vocal movement which argues that large homes are symptomatic of an environmentally destructive consumption-driven culture.  The thinking goes that “we” want big homes to store and show off all our “stuff”.  The material required to build and maintain those big homes, and to acquire and assemble that stuff is destructive…and gee wouldn’t the world be a better place if we were less attached to our stuff, and therefore were comfortable in much smaller, more sustainable Ikea-furnished homes.    Under this school of thought, “big” and “green” are mutually exclusive.

The New York Times story mentions the compromise that LEED tries to strike:

The standards released in December settled on a “home size adjustment” formula that makes it progressively harder for homes larger than the designated average (2,850 square feet for a five-bedroom house) to meet LEED thresholds in categories like energy efficiency, indoor air quality and minimization of construction waste. Smaller houses, on the other hand, are rewarded with lower thresholds.

So, for example, a 2,500-square-foot three-bedroom house would have to earn about 30 points to qualify for the basic level of LEED certification (higher thresholds are called silver, gold and platinum), while the Windermere model home has to earn closer to 60 points to compensate for its size, said Matthew Nielsen, the project’s development manager.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that “big” probably isn’t “green”….in principle.   However, I think that green supporters ought to take a more pragmatic approach.

Right now, one of the bigger challenges facing the “greening” of America is, I think, the fact that “green” also means “expensive”.   Until conservation becomes second-nature enough to Americans to move beyond “green” being mostly limited to trendy, boutique marketplaces, that’s the way it will remain.

One of the ways to promote that trend is to increase demand to the point where supply ramps up, and marginal costs decline.   And, one of the ways to do that is to let the trendsetters set the trend with their larger disposable incomes, and watch the benefits trickle down eventually to the hoi-polloi.

Given current attitudes, those trendsetters are likely going to buy a big house when house-shopping.  If their mega-house is trendily “green” (ignoring its size), great!   However, I’d be surprised if too many folks in that market would opt for a smaller footprint in the name of greenness.

If demand for green features at the high end of the real estate market means that green features eventually start becoming standard in more of the real estate market…that’d be a net gain for all of us.

In that context, I think it’s best to somewhat overlook the fact that “big” isn’t very green.

Getting folks to think about how to make their current lifestyles a bit greener, is probably a better recipe for success than seeking to convert Americans en masse to asceticism in the name of the environment.

Seen in the AJC:

It is one of Emory University’s most environmentally friendly buildings, a hallmark of the institution’s efforts to “go green.” To hear John Wegner describe it, it’s also a slaughterhouse.

The soaring glass windows in Emory’s Mathematics and Science Center reflect the woodsy view, confusing hapless birds who smash into it at full speed.[...]

Buildings that earn LEED certifications, the brass ring of environmentally sustainable construction, are often largely glass. Klem said few architects take their feathered friends into account. They are an unintended consequence of light-filled structures.

Apparently, the new math building at Emory killed several dozen songbirds due to the reflective glass, before the university started putting up mesh netting during migration season.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again, it seems.

Jetson Green is running an article on a new skyscraper going up in Chicago. One paragraph in particular caught my eye:

There’s an interesting side-story to 300 North LaSalle: it received a building permit in 30 days. That’s pretty incredible. Chicago has a Green Permit Program provides for increased flexibility and shorter permitting times based on the greenness of the design. Developers submit LEED registration as part of the building permit review process, and they’re required to commit to certain green features. Here, Hines committed to LEED certification, with a design that included a green roof. Additionally, upon completion, the developer is required to submit proof of LEED certification within 180 days or risk fee reimbursement or permit revocation. On the flip side, if you’re committed to LEED design, you can get moving quickly without all the red tape and politics can cost developers big money.

There’s nothing like the promise of significantly less red tape to get folks to do the right thing, yes?