Report a Comment

I credit LEED for trying to be comprehensive - as tsarchitect notes, it covers all sorts of items from energy to materials to water usage - but any rating system that boils all of those complex and interacting design choices into one rating is bound to have flaws.

The fact that the Times piece was comparing LEED buildings to EnergyStar is telling. EnergyStar, as the name implies, focuses only on energy and efficiency - and it tends to represent a totally different mindset in terms of sustainability. It's all about insulation and sealing in the conditioned air, etc. Many well designed LEED buildings (not just ones looking for certification) have a much more holistic approach that uses things like solar chimneys for ventilation, etc. These things represent a much more holistic idea about how the building functions, but it's not an easy point off the LEED checklist.

LEED's value, however, is derived precisely because it is so transferable and easy to adopt. It's far from perfect, but there must be some value in at least advancing these ideals and construction techniques.

In the end, however, sustainability requires a more holistic understanding that would be extremely hard to capture with one single index.

by Alex B. on Sep 3, 2009 10:27 am • link • report