Why I don’t do LEED.
I put a good bit of careful consideration into whether to post a series of blogs posting taking issue with ‘LEED’ and Sustainability. Such has become an over reaching orthodoxy that one must all but embrace it in order to seek design commissions or employment. One is realistic in saying that one would ‘cutting one’s own throat’ by taking exception.
It is very difficult to for me feign an enthusiasm for something I do not believe in. A prospective employer or client will naturally choose the enthusiastic devotee over the lukewarm one. As one who can only feign a lukewarm interest in LEED and sustainability I will lose out every time. Securing ‘LEED’ credentials would be a waste of money, time and effort in this regard. I would still lose out to the ‘true believer’.
So why bother?
There is also the matter of conscience and integrity. It is always better to be true to one’s self than give lip service to that which you do not believe in. The best I can say about ‘LEED’ and ‘Sustainability’ is that they are solutions in search of (true) problems. In spite of what the ‘greenies’ would say, the Western ‘capitalistic’ system of free enterprise and open competition has created a green and sustainable utopia never before seen in history. One may trust in a preconceived and inflexible matrix of rules as found in ‘LEED’ or in the wisdom and creativity of the free enterprise system. The great economist, Adam Smith best summed up the successful workings of the free enterprise system with the principle of ‘the Invisible Hand’. I choose to stand with Adam Smith, and in doing so, be true to my own conscience.
For all appearance ‘LEED’ is a an arbitrary set of empirical rules that define ‘green construction’. Much of the science it is founded on, such as man caused global warming, is specious. It creates an artificial environment for the designer, builder and manufacturer that impedes ‘The Invisible Hand’. The ultimate effect is to work against the goals of greener and more sustainable environment promulgated by the US green building council and the authors of ‘LEED’.
‘LEED’ gets in the way of my meeting a client’s needs in the best possible way. To achieve ‘LEED’ one must attempt to balance harvesting LEED points against doing what works best for project performance, the client’s needs and what is most cost effective. At some point in time compromises will be made that run counter to these goals. To not do LEED is to minimize a design professional’s liability exposure. As a non-LEED design professional I do not have to deal with the temptation of specifying an inferior product, system or technology just for the sake of obtaining a coveted ‘LEED’ point.
Avoiding LEED has payoffs with respect to productivity and quality assurance in the process that results in a set of drawings and specifications. To do LEED creates additional layers of arbitrary complexities that will be a source of errors and omissions. It is additional busy work that drains personnel resources and negatively impacts scheduling. The additional fee expended is money wasted and best left in the client’s pocket.
Becoming a LEED AP professional has become more important than one’s registration as an architect or engineer. Pouring precious time and money into training and certification for LEED and sustainability has become a diversion. It diverts resources from professional development as related to traditional components of the design profession. Time is better spent learning how to become a better cost estimator, specifier, scheduler, detailer, manager, marketer . . . and so on. There are other sources of continuing education and professional development. The Construction Specifier Institute (CSI) alone has a number of certifications that are far more relevant and practical than ‘LEED’.
I am not against being ‘sustainable’, ‘green’ or ‘energy efficient’. It is just that whatever is done must be appropriate and grounded in common sense and real science. To do ‘LEED’ is to ultimately let others think for me.
Nonsense!
I will think for myself and do what ultimately is best for the project and the clients needs.
Any questions?
I will flesh out the reasoning for not doing ‘LEED’ and my understanding, as an architect and designer what it means to do ‘responsible, organic design’ and be ‘The Good Steward’. As I researched this more profound philosophical issues arose. They will be addressed as well.