Frank Gehry apparently not the biggest fan of LEED
There's an interesting article in last week's BusinessWeek Apparently, Thomas Pritzker asked Frank Gehry what he would think if a client said he wanted a LEED certified building.
From BusinessWeek:
“Oh, great,” Gehry answered in a high, mock-excited voice, as the audience laughed. Then, back in his regular voice, he dismissed environmental concerns as largely political concerns. “A lot of LEEDs are given
He also said the expense of building to LEED standards often outweighs the benefits. On smaller projects, he said, “the costs of incorporating those kind of things don’t pay back in your lifetime.”
What does Gehry, one of the U.S.'s most respected architects, opinion say about LEED buildings? Is the 81-year-old stuck in a different period of time in his reaction towards LEED (he did, after all, apparently call it LEEDs) or is he right on?
I've discussed Gehry's general idea - on the value of LEED versus its cost - before. To address his concerns, first LEED has a number of subtopics, not all of which directly relate to energy. So it makes sense that not everything in a LEED checklist works towards that goal. Second, from what I understand, LEED can be done for the similar cost of a non-LEED building in many situations, if you start working on it right from the beginning.
What interests me about this exchange is that Gehry is saying it. Living in Seattle, I rarely, rarely, rarely hear this view espoused openly by architects. Am I just living in a green bubble? Is this still a common view?
After writing the above post, I noticed a second article Michael Arndt of BusinessWeek wrote about the above post. Turns out Gehry called Arndt to clarify his above comments. This from the second article:
“I’m not against LEEDs at all,” he said. “I think it’s wonderful. I think we’ve got to do this.” But then Gehry, who acknowledged that he is something of a cranky old man, got back on a soapbox to decry today’s automatic embrace of LEED certification. “It’s become ‘fetishized’ in my profession. It’s like if you wear the American flag on your lapel, you’re an American. That’s what I was trying to say. You get people who are holier than thou. I think architects can do a lot, but some of what gets done is marketing and doesn’t really serve to the extent that the PR says it does.”
What do you think about all this readers?
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- Old warehouse becomes cool new school
- BIG’s hilly courtyard tops a new gym
- The next big thing in energy conservation? Small commercial buildings
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
Recent Comments
- Dollie on Is green building dangerous?
- Sylvester on At Living Future! Stay tuned for updates
- www.aztecontainer.com on New home on Whidbey Island made of cargo containers
- Passive Solar on Frank Gehry apparently not the biggest fan of LEED
- Jon Silver on BIG’s hilly courtyard tops a new gym
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events
April 16th, 2010 - 15:25
I think that’s a fair claim. What he’s missing is that LEED becomes a reason to build a building right. A LEED certificate, like any certification, shows that your building is at least a certain level of “good”. If nothing else, this adds value when selling or renting out your building, therefore justifying some level of extra expense.
Sure, great buildings don’t require LEED to be built. But it’s a great way to at least keep value-engineering from killing the best parts of your building.
April 20th, 2010 - 09:49
I think you will find that there are a lot of architects in the northwest (too) who don’t think all that much about LEED, as a rating system, and we generally stay quiet because its not the current party line. I’m not familiar with the newest version of the rating system, but the USGBC takes itself so seriously that the renewal requirements for a LEED designation are more onerous than the licenseing requirements for architecture; and the data about handling its trademark runs over 20 pages.
My biggest issue with LEED however, is that if a city or munipality wants to enforce a LEED rating, then they have to be prepared to take responsibiblity for it. currently. Its not appropriate for a jurisdiction to require standards that they aren’t able to enforce, and to pass that enforcement off to a third party.
as for Gehry, a few of the projects in his office were required to be LEED rated while I was working there, and that requirement was passed off to consultants. In general those projects had absolutely no problem meeting the LEED ratings required, with the exception that we had to use a much inferior roofing system than we intended to use. A well designed building will meet LEED easily; but there are certainly a lot of buildings designed to meet LEED that are anything but well designed.
April 20th, 2010 - 14:08
The reason that LEED is not sustainable are several. One major reason is that the application fees are hefty. If there was a way to use those fees to purchase local energy efficient or other technologies the local benefits could possibly match the benefits from being rated LEED. Furthermore, if more and more buildings within the state are being certified, it could add up to millions of dollars being sent to LEED locations for the reviewers. Also, I am not sure about the quality of reviews that are being undertaken. Are the reviewers senior professionals well versed in engineering, planning and architecture?
For LEED to be truly sustainable it has to fix the holes that permit a net outflow of local wealth.
April 22nd, 2010 - 13:29
I am glad to finally see some people getting off the LEED-wagon.
Build Smart. Build Right. Build Green. If you need a certificate or “award” to do what you are supposed to do as a building professional then do so but don’t do at the sake of thinking you are building a better buidling.
The design and structure and ultimate performance and PURPOSE of the buidling should be the priority not the number of LEED points.
I have said for some time that LEED is great educational and guidance tool but its not the be all and end all in Green.
August 26th, 2013 - 15:13
It would be one thing if the LEED Green council was a non-profit. Plus allowing any untrained tree hugging joe schmo take the test and become an inspector, part of the LEED SS, is just ridiculous.