Inhabitat

Amazing building, but all that mesh makes me nervous about dust/grime collection. I wonder if there’s a power-wash system installed/integrated for cleaning.

It’s clear in many modern buildings that the basic maintenance of keeping it clean is often disregarded as irrelevant.

I feel sorry for the guys that have to wash the Seattle Public Library windows. They must feel like Batman. How many windows has Rem washed in his days?
Probably none.

Also, it seems like the LEED certification process is in need of an up-grade and a process to make it more affordable if not free. I keep hearing about how expensive it is to receive certification and that’s on top of the building costs.

Please visit my website regarding the development of an “organic steel” using banded bamboo strips. Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated.

Yes, Mayne is one of architects who are disagreeing LEED (I know he claims some protest in some architecture magazine, CMIIW). Come on, there is something we need to do to adjust LEED, let’s say with aesthetic aspect?

LEED is being reformed, it constantly is adjusting, but without details as to why this building doesn’t meet the basic standards fo LEED sounds like sour grapes to me like Tozmervo said. I’m also tired of hearing complaints about bike racks being a point that doesn’t seem as important as others. If you ride your bike to work and use a shower before starting then a bike rack and showers are quite important. LEED is mroe than an energy scorecard–there’s Energy Star for that. LEED is also about the environment and changing people’s attitudes–”market transformation” and of bike riding and recycle bins are left out–that’s a major missed opportunity–so the points are well-deserved.

Are we talking about Maine USA or Mayne B.C.? Proper spelling would help!

LEED does good things, but it also misses a lot, mostly because it is a prescriptive checklist and not performance based challenge.

Like Maine said, make it about energy, CO2 or habitat targets, not points for isolated measures.

I’m in love with this building. Everytime my bus passes by it, I just HAVE to look at it. It’s so amazing.

neither…. Mayne, Thom

It is a shame that something created to help the earth is unable to keep up with it. As an architecture student, I know that designers are continually challenging design and the factors that come with it. As we move into a time where environmental preservation becomes more of an issue it is ignorant to disregard it as a design factor. I believe Tom Mayne is a great architect, not only because he is USC alumni, but he is also forward thinking.

It is unfortunate that the LEED point system is unable to account for the technologies and systems he has used in the Federal Building to create an energy efficient building. The only good thing that I can say that has come out of it though is that it serves as proof for his ingenuity in sustainable design. Other buildings just follow LEED’s points to create a green building but Tom Mayne has found new ways to help the planet. It is encouraging to see that design doesn’t have to be compromised in the goal of sustainability.

The existence of the Federal Building make me wonder as to how many more buildings have gone unrecognized for their energy efficient design. Sustainability should be a goal the whole planet should be thinking about and putting into action but until then there should be a more current model and set of standards that architects and designers can follow. Currently LEED is a system that rewards buildings with certifications, but I am sure that in the future LEED will become a set standard for all building when the planet is at the end of its lim

As its been mentioned many times, LEED isn’t perfect. But that’s not really the issue here. As a federal building in SF, it was contractually required to achieve some sort of LEED certification (I’m don’t remember what level). Plus, the building has been hyped as LEED silver for the longest time. LEED points and the LEED rating system are very clear– there isn’t a lot of uncertainty about whether or not you’re going to get the points you’re attempting. Having not been involved in the project whatsoever, I can’t speculate as to when in the design process someone decided not to actually study the credit requirements. And if they thought LEED was an outdated, uninspired, disjointed system, why agree to build a government-mandated LEED building and then publicize its “LEEDness” to no end? Again, I agree that the rating system isn’t perfect, but I believe that the USGBC has done a whole lot more than any other agency in bringing attention to sustainable building on such a large scale. From everything I’ve heard, this is a great building from both a design standpoint and an environmental one. Does not achieving LEED certification smear its reputation a bit? Sure. But does it change any of the great features the building does have? Absolutely not.

First off, anyone who has looked into LEED in any detail will know that LEED is a mix of prescriptive and performance requirement. In energy consumption alone, there are up to 10 points available based on the energy performance of the building, regardless of the technologies used to get there. Apparently Mayne was not aware of this: “I’d much rather see BTU and CO2 requirements…” well that’s exactly what LEED already has (see credit EAc1).

Also, in addition to encouraging innovation and progression, LEED is also about making sure a broad scope of green design features are considered, not just energy.

I recently submitted a building for certification that did not have air conditioning. I optimistically argued for a couple credits relating to the innovative strategies used to avoid the need for mechanical cooling. Unfortunately, I lost those credits but still achieved LEED Gold certification for the building. This does point out a problem with the system, however, without LEED I would not have been able to prioritize many of the energy efficiency and green features in the building.

LEED allows owners and municipalities to demand measurable, fairly simple green targets for buildings. To me it is as simple as meeting building code. My interpretation is that Mr. Mayne’s team simply missed the ball. For the sake of other projects using LEED, I sincerely hope that San Fransisco does not let this project off the hook easily for their screw up. To claim the LEED system needs to get more sophisticated doesn’t make sense when you can’t even meet their simple requirements.

It seems that Mr. Mayne is a bit off. If he set out to meet LEED standards, then he knew the requirements ahead of time. There are many points in the LEED system which don’t even relate to energy. If I were the owner, I’d be having a serious talk with the Architect about why he didn’t deliver what was promised(and seemingly contractually obligated…).

I find myself agreeing with both sides. In any design, you have to make trade offs. The GSA (owner) may require certain things that cause it fail in other areas. LEED ratings should not just be a checklist. It should include, as architecture knows, trade offs. Cutting HVAC needs, may require using water/land in ways that fail a checklist.
Of necessity, there will be disagreements on the value of decisions. The climate of Maine, is not Nevada’s climate. Trying to treat them the same, is not realistic, or right. LV rarely gets close to freezing, for long, while Maine spends months below that temp. Maine rarely gets above the 90’s, while Las Vegas does most of the summer. They each have unique HVAC needs, and solutions. All they have in common is insulation to maintain desired _internal_ temps.

I think when Thom Mayne says that the building is too sophisticated for LEED, he’s simply making this point:
A one size fits all system based on points where you get a point for a bike rack and a point for a shower close by do not equal the environmental benefits of removing 70% of the HVAC of the building of this size. That’s like removing a small town from the grid! It’s also not a system that is balanced in a way that building a platinum house or small project scores higher than a bigger building that has larger contstraints. If you look at the overall impact of each, I think one is doing a little more work than the other even though the desires of both are with the best intentions to be good stewards of our environment. He’s not saying that LEED is not useful, or it has bad intentions or it doesn’t work at all; he’s arguing that there will be projects that require the architectural community to reasses the system for assigning value to environmental sustainabilty, which in will through questioning improve the way that we build in general.

As a whole LEED has atleast started the conversation within the construction industry and has developed it’s own cache so that clients now expect projects to meet certain performance criteria as it is good for their business, PR and the environment (not in that order.)

Any of you who build know that construction itself is a series of negotiations and compromises that are based on a set of shared values between client and architect and that those values inform the decision making process. In many cases you will find that a very sophisticated client will understand the LEED system, it’s pluses and minuses, and make a strategic decision to certify or not certify the project. In the end the certification is a simple and publicly recognized way to describe the building as striving toward environmental sustainability within the constraints of the particular problem. I don’t think the client would be upset if the project reduces the overall long term cost of energy consumption, provides a naturally daylit and ventilated workspace with 360 degree views of the city and doesn’t reach LEED platinum.

It’s great there’s a lively discussion among people who feel strongly about environmental construction, we may owe this to LEED too?

I am thoroughly enjoying the different viewpoints being presented in this discussion. A difficultly I am having is that no one in this discussion knows why the building didn’t achieve certification. I would venture to guess that they didn’t meet the energy efficiency prerequisite.

I think that the next step for LEED is requiring LEED-EB (Existing Building) certification within a couple years of operation or your building falls off the website list (you can keep for LEED-NC(New Construction) plaque). If Mayne’s building is such a marvel of energy efficiency they should commit to pursue LEED-EB silver certification after the building has been running for a year or two. The LEED-EB system is based on actual energy bills. If they achieve LEED-EB they would have a sound argument that LEED-NC has serious problems. Since I haven’t seen any actual energy number or an Energy Star rating posted, I would not be surprise if the energy bills speak a different truth.

Does the building have bike racks and showers? Generally they would need to sacrifice a portion of their underground garage, landscape, or ground floor for bike parking and put a shower on each floor or changerooms near an entrance. I have dealt with large office towers that do not pursue this credit because of such costs and space issues. I used to live in Brisbane where showers and racks are a code requirement for new buildings. I applaud LEED for pushing such requirements in North America.

I dunno, I look at the building and see the need for functionality and an appeal to the greener side of architecture, but this building fails to do both.

Sounds morel like arrogance with the architect than finding a happy medium between the two.