By most accounts, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program — LEED — has been a great success. Since being launched in 1998 by the US Green Building Council, LEED has expanded impressively, influencing more than three billion square feet of building space. LEED certification programs are now offered for new construction, existing buildings, commercial interiors, building cores and shells, and schools. Additional programs are on the way — for homes, campuses, retail, laboratories, and health care.
Yet until the pilot phase of the LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development) program got under way in July, the LEED system, which defines high-performance green buildings, struck me as woefully incomplete. How could anyone believe that improving the energy performance of individual buildings is sufficient if the buildings are in locations that require enormous quantities of oil for transportation?
The fact is, transportation devours a large part of the energy consumed by Americans — more than the quantity consumed by housing or commercial buildings. In 1973, transportation accounted for 24.6 percent of US energy consumption. Since then, it has grown — to 28.5 percent in 2006, according to the US Department of Energy. DOE says consumption of energy for transportation — 60 percent of it in cars and light trucks — is increasing twice as fast as residential energy use. Reflecting this, in 2005, transportation accounted for 33 percent of total US energy-related carbon dioxide production emissions, and contributed substantially to global warming.
LEED-ND can help. If a large proportion of American developments were designed to LEED-ND standards — in compact, mixed-use, walkable, and transit-oriented configurations — environmental degradation might be lessened. The participation of 238 development projects in the LEED-ND program is a step toward this important goal.
NOTABLE IMPROVEMENTS
Many of the projects in the pilot phase have been reported on previously in New Urban News, and generally they appear to be notable improvements on the conventional way of developing. It will be fascinating to see how discriminating the rating system turns out to be. A chief problem, as I see it, is that LEED is really not an urban design program. Participating architects can score many of their points through techy gizmos. Even if a project brings a variety of uses together, in a relatively dense form of development, it will not necessarily work well for pedestrians and for the character of its town or city.
Bruce Becker, head of the development firm Becker and Becker, boasted recently in the New Haven Register that his LEED-ND project in downtown New Haven — which has encountered strong citizen opposition — will have “landscaped roofs, geothermal wells, photovoltaic panels, high-performance windows and extensive use of recycled and renewable materials.” It will also mix uses — a 31-story apartment tower will be accompanied by a child-care center, a few stores, and a small park-like area.
But it will be a hulking structure, out of scale with century-old buildings nearby. It will cram 631 enclosed parking spaces onto its site, and vehicular access will likely be handled by means that interfere with the comfort of people using an existing nearby commuter rail stop. Its ground-floor shops will sit beneath several floors of parking, deadening Chapel Street, a major downtown street that has been reviving. The New Haven Urban Design League sees Becker’s project as a threat to the downtown’s positive qualities.
LEED at this point seems to lack a focus on good contextual design. The technically advanced aspects of LEED may reduce damage to the natural environment, but we need something more than that: buildings that fit their cities like a glove. LEED-ND is a good concept , but there’s still a distance to go. u
This article is available in the September 2007 issue of New Urban News, along with many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. |