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

-Pat
http://www.intheleed.com

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.

Are there nuances to LEED? Yes, that is clear and has always been. I do not believe a design team should promise a specific LEED rating. Make achieving LEED a goal and do the right thing. Chasing points is not the way to go. Did the Federal Building do the right thing? Based on Mayne’s comments, no one can decide. Come to the table with suggestions on how to make the system better and specific reasons why it doesn’t work (specific meaning, tell us what caused the Federal Building to miss the certification and why it should have earned it). Otherwise, stop complaining. There are alternatives to LEED – this building could have certified under the UK’s BREEAM program (there is at least 1 building in the US that has done it). It could have certified under the competing Green Globes program or at least have gone after an Energy Star rating. I have a feeling, though, that no matter what program it pursued certification under, the designers would not have been happy with someone else telling them whether or not their building meets an environmental design standard. If it doesn’t get the approval of a third party review…smells like greenwashing to me…

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?

That said, the fact GSA began requiring a minimum LEED certified rating in 2003 does not mean that every building built under GSA since 2003 was required to meet that standard.

Having worked as a consultant to GSA, I know first hand the glacial pace at which that organization moves. While Mayne may be spinning the facts to his favor in anticipation of litigation, he may also simply be attempting to protect his reputation. His press release did state the building would be certified; in fact, he “assumed” it would be certified Platinum.

Short of litigation in a public venue, only the RFP for design of the building and the actual contract between GSA and Morphosis can provide the selection criteria for the design team and the contractual requirements for design of the building.

GSA might not, for example, have required that the design team include a LEED AP.

Like many others, however, I am most curious to know the number of rating points this building actually received and the point totals for each category.

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.

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’m reading a lot of admiration for the natural ventilation system, but I’m not hearing why this building is too advanced for LEED. Mayne signed on for a mandatory LEED Certified building by design and didn’t deliver. Now he’s complaining about the system and how the LEED system is broke. Well, that’s a little disingenuous, isn’t it?

I know there’s a ton of respect for Mayne, but these claims of “too sophisticated” and “too green” should be evaluated. Energy efficiency isn’t the only road to a green building. And I don’t mean to promote my own stuff, but I left a more thorough response to the situation on Jetson Green last night.