What gets ignored in green building?
This week, I wrote a story in the DJC about the Sustainable Sites Initiative. The initiative has been in the works since 2002 and is geared to be a comprehensive certification similar to LEED but focused on landscape, rather than efficiency.
I spoke to Deb Guenther of Mithun about the initiative, as she's been working on it
since the beginning. When I asked her whether site treatment was just touched on or ignored in green building certifications, she said "a little bit of both."The idea that green building certifications ignore critical development considerations is a constant complaint. Here are some of the most cited aspects of what people say green building ignores:
- The historic value of a site or building
- The value of keeping a building - and recognizing its embodied energy, rather than demolishing a structure to build a new one
- Accurately measuring how well the building works
- Indoor air quality
- Beauty and aesthetic value
(For more information on what your colleagues think is most ignored, check out my poll at right.)
But a green building certification cannot be all things to all people. And LEED has a great track record of appealing to different projects in different regions, states, climates and cities. How then, should new certifications that deal with in depth, important topics only touched on by LEED - like the Sustainable Sites Initiative - be dealt with? The initiative, by the way, will be considered in future versions of LEED, though it is unclear how it will be incorporated.
Should this initiative - and future ones like it - become a part of LEED or be developed as separate certifications?
A single certificaiton might be easier, but would force those who don't care about things like sites or historic value to consider those aspects, and would also likely raise the certification's cost.
But if new certification's aren't incorporated into LEED, they might never get off the ground or gain market value. And would developers really want to go get multiple certifications for multiple things, just to prove they have a green project?
What do you think?


January 7th, 2009 - 16:36
If there wasn’t such a consumer appeal to having “LEED” and other popular statuses attached to projects, or laws requiring them, developers would drop things in a heartbeat.
Developers care about profits, not certifications. Whatever gets the project approved and sells to customers is what goes. (Generally speaking, there are exceptions!)
January 20th, 2009 - 14:27
That’s exactly what we need: another green certification program. Just one more to muck up the already convoluted field.
January 20th, 2009 - 14:30
I don’t think developers would want or seek multiple certifications just to prove they have a green project. Consider what is flutter is across the whole country’s shelter industry: how green can we go? We want more regulations, mandates, not harder ways to prove we’re green. By the time the economy picks up again green will be expected, therefore developers won’t necessarily have to market it by showing how green they are.
I do like your blog, though.
January 31st, 2009 - 09:59
I think LEED is doing well in the commercial sector but is not that excepted in the residential. I like what the NAHB is doing with their Green Building Program. But I doing think green should be forced, it need to be through education and making it a simpler process. Many builders don’t push green because they don’t understand. Again more education from manufacturers, suppliers, associations and state or federal programs.