Micro-home urban infill

[dwellsokc]

I was responding to this idea that if you are for green sustainable you are a "tree hugger" and greedy. LEED has been flawed, but so has a huge amount of architectural and development work that results in shoddy inneficient building. All who strive for preserving and sustaining are not "huggers" ...a generally derisive term usually intended to ridicule a viewpoint.

Actually, I'm attempting to highlight the difference between rational sustainability, and emotional environmentalism. I applaud sustainability that's predicated on reason and logic... I mock plaque-seekers and those that think reducing carbon footprints can alter climate change. Both approaches result in better buildings than the old, non-sustainable norm; so, if I were politically neutral I'd stop there (but I'm not). I use the term "hugger" to describe the emotional environmentalist. I use the term "greedy" to describe anyone taking advantage of hugger's ignorance.

I guess that is a little derisive.

[Rover]

Actually, I'm attempting to highlight the difference between rational sustainability, and emotional environmentalism. I applaud sustainability that's predicated on reason and logic... I mock plaque-seekers and those that think reducing carbon footprints can alter climate change. Both approaches result in better buildings than the old, non-sustainable norm; so, if I were politically neutral I'd stop there (but I'm not). I use the term "hugger" to describe the emotional environmentalist. I use the term "greedy" to describe anyone taking advantage of hugger's ignorance.

I guess that is a little derisive.

So what do we use to describe ignorant or greedy architects who use their leed training to con their client and the public to think they are actually doing what is intended? Most of the abuse of LEED I have seen has been by architects and developers who manipulate the design to get certified and get them or their client credits or a marketing advantage.

[Spartan]

I think any organization that is a strong institution has manipulation issues. I'm not sure that this is unique to LEED. I would compare it to OCURA, which could soon be replaced with some far less democratic. Obviously OCURA is preferable to the Alliance controlling urban renewal assets and dictating public redevelopment efforts. That doesn't mean I could ever 100% stand by OCURA, because we all know they screw up, a LOT.

Just because you can't stand by LEED 100% doesn't mean that it's 100% bad.

[dwellsokc]

So what do we use to describe ignorant or greedy architects who use their leed training to con their client and the public to think they are actually doing what is intended? Most of the abuse of LEED I have seen has been by architects and developers who manipulate the design to get certified and get them or their client credits or a marketing advantage.

Most of the LEED abuse I’ve seen is just the opposite: clients looking for the cheapest possible Certification to dupe the hugger public into believing they’re environmentally conscious If you researched it, I think you’d find that a surprising number of LEED projects are done for marketing purposes rather than because the owner wants to be good to the environment.

I can’t think of any examples of architects using their LEED training to con clients… that doesn’t make sense (con them into what?). Many architects advise their clients that good design is sustainable by default, and LEED Certification is a waste of effort.

[Rover]

Most of the LEED abuse I’ve seen is just the opposite: clients looking for the cheapest possible Certification to dupe the hugger public into believing they’re environmentally conscious If you researched it, I think you’d find that a surprising number of LEED projects are done for marketing purposes rather than because the owner wants to be good to the environment.

I can’t think of any examples of architects using their LEED training to con clients… that doesn’t make sense (con them into what?). Many architects advise their clients that good design is sustainable by default, and LEED Certification is a waste of effort.

I have worked with architects who used leed points in some areas to get design exemptions in other areas and had no interest in the sustainability of the project. I had a large project in LA where the architect gathered leed points in areas like packaging so they could get a variance on the amount of glass used in the building. That is a sham. I have had developers work with their architects and engineers to get leed so they could charge more rent by promoting leed, but in fact they didn't have any interest in real conservation or sustainability. I have worked with plenty of architects, engineers and owners who were more than happy to use the letter of the law and ignore the intent for their own selfish interests. The architects knew exactly what they were doing. I have had engineers tell me they didn't care what the equipment ACTUALLY DID as long as we could help them get leed points. And these were large international firms as well as some consulting engineers and leed certified designers.

This is why I agree that LEED certification isn't the end all and be all...it is very flawed. But, rest assured, this isn't just a tree-hugger issue, as has been stated.

[dwellsokc]

Rover,

I never suggested it is a hugger issue only. The whole LEED metric is meaningless for exactly the reasons you noted.

It’s not because of the architect’s “own selfish interests.” It’s because of the general business pressures driving the project. There’s more to it than just the poor environment… The very same thing happens with the myriad of codes, regulations, standards, laws, guidelines, etc., etc., that MUST be satisfied to build a building. It’s a very complex balancing act, and the last thing needed is a meaningless layer of irrational hugger requirements.

You’re damn right the architects knew what they were doing.

[bluedogok]

Rover,

I never suggested it is a hugger issue only. The whole LEED metric is meaningless for exactly the reasons you noted.

It’s not because of the architect’s “own selfish interests.” It’s because of the general business pressures driving the project. There’s more to it than just the poor environment… The very same thing happens with the myriad of codes, regulations, standards, laws, guidelines, etc., etc., that MUST be satisfied to build a building. It’s a very complex balancing act, and the last thing needed is a meaningless layer of irrational hugger requirements.

You’re damn right the architects knew what they were doing.

It amazes me how blatantly some developers try and get around codes and standards all in the hopes of saving a penny or two. Sometimes we have to try to convince some clients that they have to comply with the ADA which has been in effect for 20 years and building codes, just because your building met the current code in 1979 doesn't mean that you don't have to comply with the 2009 code in effect. It is just going to get worse as the new energy codes come into effect and the current lights and equipment they use will no longer comply. We had one client with an office suites building try and break everything into smaller than $50,000 construction cost projects so he did not have to submit ADA upgrades to the TDLR (Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation) to comply with TAS (Texas Accessibility Standards). I for one would have a hard time working on something that was intended to get around a standard like that but many developers seem to have no qualms about doing such things, luckily I didn't have to touch it.

If there was a way to market compliance and make money off it you know for damn sure they would be willing to do it but all they see is the perceived initial cost and not the cost down the line if they get sued for non-compliance. The fact they can market LEED Accreditation is one of the reasons the pressures exist to game the system. The USGBC has created a system that is ripe for exploitation and as long as there is a buck to be made exploiting any kind of regulation the business world will try and make money off it and find those people who will be complicit in attaining their goal.