Image: Peter and Maria Hoey
In the middle of Los Angeles’s endless sprawl sits an unusual-looking gas station made of recycled materials and sustainably harvested wood. Its roof is an abstract assembly of polygons topped with solar panels. The owner, petroleum giant BP, calls it Helios House and touts it as America’s first “green” gas station, because it is certified according to the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the most commonly used rating system for sustainable architecture.
Of course, the building is still a gas station: it sells petroleum-based fuel that is burned in automobiles and thereby endangers the environment. The incongruity of a gas station being hailed as green is not strictly the fault of its architecture. Nevertheless, Helios House is emblematic of how hollow LEED certification can be as an indicator of a building’s environmental benignity. Too often LEED can reward building planners for taking some environmentally progressive steps while ignoring deeper problems.
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentMost of the green building and design movement is so that company's have a new product to charge a premium for. It's trendy and in demand (and morally weighted) and this article makes to point perfectly. No, I am not an anti-global warming wacko. But I know; you create a new market and people are going to get rich off it no matter what. Green building needs to not be a market and just be the way....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S. is a capitalist democratic country and thus every citizen, group, company and organization operates on the principle of economic self interest. It would be great if an overriding moral of environmental stewardship dominated the American psyche... but it does not, has not and will not unless imposed by extreme external forces. The U.S. Green Building Council uses the LEED™ Green Building Rating System as means to engage the American Public to produce architectural design, construction and operational practices that promote structures that are environmentally responsible, profitable, and healthy places to live and work. Keynote is "profitable". Why? Well perhaps because American's operate on the value of economic self interest. Although there are those American's that adhere to philosophical and moral norms of environmental stewardship, they are still subject to the same economy of those that don't share those values (which currently is the majority of the population). Thus if being "Green" can be profitable, its is more likely to become a mainstay of the U.S. economy and a norm of the Public conscience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall the 1970's and the crazy "environmental" ideas that were pursued in response to the Energy Crisis at that time. These were extremely misguided, costly and grossly ineffective. The fact of that matter is that if we seek to save the planet, we need to make it a major part of our economy. Yes people and companies will profit from it... but that is the point of saving the planet.. so that we all profit from it (economically, socially and environmentally). The U.S. is one of few places where economic self interest continually creates opportunity. I am glad that organizations like the USGBC and Green Building Initiative are seizing the opportunity to bring "Green" to places that would never consider it.
http://www.iswonline.com/ArticleLanding/tabid/67/Default.aspx?tid=1&contentid=13097&issueid=472
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would note that the greenest building is the that was never built. With this in mind, initiatial focus should be placed on identifying an effective workplace strategy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe results are quite astounding given that assigned office space is typically 50% - 70% vacant at any given time. As a management consultant, I am continually amazed at this oversight which would not be tolerated in a manufacturing context.
We've seen real estate portfolio reductions of up to 50%, reduced operating and recruiting and retention costs, improved work-life balance, drops in participating employee carbon footprints in the range of 20%, and increased organizational performance.
Bottom line, look at your culture, work flows, and work styles before thinking about expanding your existing footprint.
I've done LEED and deep green buildings. LEED is frought with problems. The biggest being it isn't climate specific. And, it's a measurement tool....NOT a design tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArguably, the most sustainable and 'greenest' building in North America is the Taos Pueblo. Over 1,000 years old, made from native earth, straw and logs. And, it could never be LEED certified..that's a problem.
Paraphrasing Einstien " the same minds that created the problems can't fix it."
The 2030 Challenge is right on ..as well as the Passiv Haus and Living Building Challenge
www.NewLeafAmerica.com