This week I am writing my article in a hotel that shall remain nameless -- it is 40-plus floors high, with a complete glass façade, lights on wherever you walk and air conditioning blowing in each room. This building is LEED certified. For those of you unfamiliar with the LEED certification, it is 'an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies intended to improve performance in metrics such as energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.' The hotel labels itself a green building and advertises the fact in its marketing materials, building signage and even in the elevators.
This got me thinking about the sustainable-design movement that is now becoming such an integral part of our lives: the simple idea that by choosing materials and systems that do less harm to the environment, this hotel considers itself a 'green building.'
Story continues below
|
OK
Awesome
|
The Green Building Council (who developed the LEED system) has noted that in 2005, the green market represented just 2 percent of non-residential construction. By 2010, this grew to 28-35 percent of the non-residential construction market. The council projects that by 2015 that green building percentage could soar to nearly half of all new nonresidential construction.
While these ambitions are in the right direction, the reality is that even if we are taking less, we are still consuming. Buildings represent 72 percent of U.S. electricity consumption; use 13.6 percent of all potable water; and consume 40 percent of raw materials globally. The potential impact of truly green buildings on our environment is obvious: is what we are doing to address this enough and more than just a marketing stunt?
William McDonough is an architect who has built an international reputation as a sustainable design visionary. Among his better known accomplishments: he re-designed Ford Motor's River Rouge factory with a 10-acre green roof, built a grassy-roofed building near San Francisco for retailer Gap, and created furniture-maker Herman Miller's GreenHouse offices. His radical cradle-to-cradle philosophy demands that every product be designed for disassembly at the end of its lifetime, either returning harmlessly to the soil or going back into a "closed-loop industrial cycle" to be reused.
The buildings I have selected are more in line with this interpretation of 'green buildings' -- they show a glimpse of architecture where sustainability has been core to the values and process of design, rather than being lead by a more commercial thought of perceived value and marketing.
The future of the profession is clearly changing. Architecture of truly green buildings must incorporate a range of professionals including economists, biologists, chemists, and a range of social-science experts such as demographers, anthropologists and geographers.
Follow Tom Mallory on Twitter: www.twitter.com/openbuildings
Joanna Zelman: Green Hotels: Eco-Friendly Hospitality Must Strike A Balance
Jonathan A. Schein: U2 Malibu Project: Where Green Streets Have No Name
Sustainable | Whole Building Design Guide
USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council
|
Post a Comment
Somehow word "design" is getting lost. You can see it clearly from the slide-show.
Nothing (professional photography, Photoshop) can help to hide an unattractiveness!
Here's a cool piece: 'The ugliest in UK or so much for “green” design.' ( http://bit.ly/ch67cI )
It shows how the greenest building in UK got the Carbuncle Prize 2010 for being the ugliest architectural project of the year...
LEED fulfills an important need. What it does not address is the long-term viability of buildings based on their design and adaptability. Stewart Brand, the author of the Whole Earth Catalog and other books, wrote an extraordinary book, "How Buildings Learn." In it he explores how some buildings can be transitioned from their original use and continue to be wonderful, beautiful, and highly effective buildings, fifty, one hundred, two hundred years after their initial construction. They are not subject to what real estate agents call "functional obsolescence" because of inflexible structures, too many pillars with little spacing between them, etc. (Think of the contrast between the hideous baseball stadia such as Shea Stadium or Candlestick Park built in the 1960's and 1970's that have already been torn down and replaced, and jewels such as Wrigley Field and Fenway Park which have been wonderful venues for a century.)
The next step for the US Green Building Council is to determine some sort of recognition for those buildings that not only do not emit formaldehyde, waste electricity, and use geothermal or solar energy and low-e windows, but to certify public buildings that are able to transition from one use--say a Carnegie Library Building from 1904, to becoming a museum, or a performing arts center, or offices twenty, or fifty years later.