LEED or Follow?

Steve Mouzon wonders if LEED is shooting themselves in the foot with the design winners they've announced.

The LEED for Homes Awards program did a bone-headed thing by awarding projects that didn't even get the basics right. How can a building be sustainable if it's built in an unsustainable place where you have to drive everywhere? Or how can a building be sustainable if it's so ugly that people want to bulldoze it?

This points to two distinct problems that need to be addressed.

1. LEED is being used by some to legitimize sprawl.

2. The juries are stacked in favor of modernist design.

The system is being used by those wishing to maintain the status quo of unsustainable urban patterns. The availability of tax credits, rebates, and other financial incentives will lead to tax dollars artificially inflating the market. Since the infrastructure and urban pattern of these developments is subsidized by tax revenue there is a double dip leaving somebody holding the bag. Most likely it will be borne by these same homeowners at some inconvenient time in the future. While I understand that it's better to move people towards the green light gradually, there still should be some warning label on these houses from LEED describing how the underlying urban pattern may be hazardous to their health.

As per the design winners, I can imagine that there are competing goals for the jury. Rewarding those in the production housing industry to keep them enthusiastic, while also showcasing innovative design solutions. Hence, normative conventional suburban development winners with a few refugees from Taliesin West sneaking in. It would be far better to take the case of Original Green and Solutions Rooted in Tradition to the public at large then to curry favor with those prejudiced with a negative bias towards traditional and classical architecture.

Posted via web from Kenneth Hitchens: Architect