Green Building's Resident Curmudgeon

I got to know Metropolis magazine columnist Philip Nobel last November while we were on a press trip for a museum opening, the Ullens Center in Beijing. I found him to be a nice guy, if quite the chain smoker. We and a couple other journalists had fun scurrying away by taxi from a gala dinner with champagne and caviar held in a building with no heat (that's China in a nutshell). But in his column Philip has somewhat of a curmudgeonly reputation.

That's definitely true when it comes to green building. "And not only because it's boring," Philip writes in this month's column. "As saving the Earth has become the cause of all causes, I thought this might just be my usual knee-jerk recoiling from things earnest and popular. Now I know it's a deeply principled stand based on the defense of public manners." He continues:

"When one does something good, does one then crow about it, seeking gain? That would be the opposite of grace. But that is exactly what we see in page after page of project after project, each claiming to be LEEDier than thou. Here, planet, I've done you this kindness. Look everyone, I'm saving the planet!"

"Clearly there's a place for a specialized literature, a quiet little spot on the journalistic margins where green architects and clients can trade best practices and grow the field. It's the right thing to do. But that doesn't mean we need to hear about it."

Philip is really just 'taking the piss', as the English say, crowing in a provocative way that makes entertaining copy. I hesitate to dive into defending green building for fear of seeming too earnest and popular. And because green building doesn't really need defending from Philip.

Still, even if he's just joking, it's too bad if Philip or others who grow weary of green building talk think it's only about saving the planet.

Let's suppose for a moment that they discovered global warming wasn't happening after all, or that there was some infinitely plentiful new energy source that made efficiency and alternatives to fossel fuels less urgent. Even then, I'd take the chance to live or work in a green building in a heartbeat, because they're better places to be. Spend a day working in front of a window, then the next in an artificially lit basement. When were you most productive? Happy?

Philip is right, though, that green buidling needs to develop an identity based more on altruism and back-patting for meeting LEED strictures. How can we capture people's imagination with green buildings without just rattling off the points they score for recycling or low-flow showerheads?

Comments

[sut]

I find the implication from Mr. Nobel's quote that green building should be somehow 'marginal' offensive. I look forward to a time when it is taken for granted that architects should strive for energy efficiency and use of materials that have less impact on the environment in much the same way that we currently assume a building needs electric lights. It is natural, if sometimes unseemly, that people should seek recognition and accolades, deserved or undeserved, for their work. If he doesn't want to hear about it he should find a different profession.

That said, I can understand where he's coming from. The idea that we can save the planet through consumption is laughable. Driving a hybrid car still uses more resources than taking the bus or riding a bike.

[goose]

people have to pay money to get that LEED certification. there are plenty of green buildings which aren't labeled LEED simply because certification wasn't factored into the budget. in that sense, being certified falls within being justly boastful and having the means to boast.
i agree with brian that the point system is too static and does not allow much room for interpretation. i actually see the LEED system as a stepping stone which will soon become outdated and subservient to a more holistic approach to green building; one which does not conflict with other systems like the secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation.

[dyk]

As a 2nd year architecture student, I found your post to be eye-opening and thought provoking. Only being a sophomore in school, I always hear about sustainability and LEED but never realized how these factors affected real design. As a designer myself, I would have to admit that if I knowingly made efforts to follow LEED standards, I too would want to be rewarded with praise for my accomplishment. But after reeding this post, I take a step back to see that it is not about me or my design, but how the building will exist and affect the planet.

I agree that the spaces in "green buildings" are much nicer than spaces filled with artificial lighting. I am only a beginner in this field but I find it fascinating the way architects can create green design in interesting ways. I know that sustainability will continue to be a pressing issue in architecture and design. I also know that forward thinking architects will be able to find ways to make green buildings in other ways outside of the LEED points. Hopefully LEED will be able to change their standards in order to accommodate all green buildings.

There is one building that I have come across by Tom Mayne that falls into this category. His new Federal Building utilizes new technologies to create efficient energy design. It has won several awards already but LEED's point system currently cannot account for the systems in place in the Federal Building. I wonder if LEED is making any efforts to address this issue because I am sure in the future many other buildings will follow in suit.