World wants to go Green, than Green wants to go LEED

In the past decade, the thought of developing ‘green’ has sprouted globally – the so called ‘Green revolution’. As years passed by, 1 could see this revolution gradually turning into one of those temporary trends set up to support marketing of related fields of construction activity. Nowadays, the term ‘green’ is undoubtedly abused and misunderstood by most of the engineering empire.

Truthfully, the natural living systems on our planet are the only designs we know of that are triumphant in their sustainability since they relate with the environment in holistic, integrative, and reductive processes. On the contrary, a lot of of the current green developing rating systems like LEED are structured to endorse solutions that are in majority additive and encourage consumption over conservation. This is just due to the fact the rating systems are initially conceived to have particular set of sections which cater to sustainability that are then packed with technologies, systems and items to obtain it. Architects now depend a lot on these intelligent service systems to make up for their neglect in the simple developing design. If buildings are based on a sluggish design method, 1 would be naturally strained to use the so referred to as ‘Green’ or ‘intelligent’ engineering techniques to supplement it.

It is unfortunate that valuable rating systems such as LEED have converted Architecture into an accounting physical exercise. This has totally digressed from what could have been a healthy physical exercise in coming out with genuinely good architecture. We are missing an chance to develop such architecture by permitting these accounting or statistical procedures to dominate our logical thinking and creativity. Targeting maximum LEED points particularly in GCC countries need far more widespread sense and deeper understanding of the effect. The prospective rewards of solely achieving a certification should not be the motive of the design method.

Advocating bicycle tracks or attempting to invest in a rain-water harvesting system in the Middle East are some examples. Inexperienced individuals making use of LEED do not understand that contemplating these in GCC countries is a waste of wealth, effort and energy considering the facts that lay prior to us. Enable me to explain. By trying to harvest the little rain we obtain in the Middle East, one does not collect water truly. It turns into a scenario of collecting mud, dirt, contaminated water. This water then requires additional  treatment for reuse -  basically meaning one needs to use adequate chemicals and systems to treat it one needs to invest income for this treatment system much more water is important just to backwash the filters  electricity is needed to operate this pumps and trained manpower to maintain the tanks. In short it’s an endless burden. Whilst it might fetch you extra points in the LEED ratings, the whole initiative if analyzed is a wasteful one.

Even implementing huge-scale solar driven technologies are of extreme risk due to the amount of atmospheric dust and harsh sunlight – both being predominant aspects that reduce solar cell efficiency. Recently, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technologies, in Saudi Arabia was declared to be among the worlds top green buildings. While it is a matter to be appreciated I hope they have discovered an energy no cost-price free of charge remedy to keeping all the solar cells cool and devoid of dust, to run their envisaged roof panels and solar-powered wind turbines for all the years to come. People in the Middle East can only imagine and estimate how much money water, energy and effort are needed to keep all the solar panels and glass clad surfaces of all buildings clean – every year. The statistics are upsetting.

I also wonder why a majority of the LEED credits are weighted equally, when it is plainly clear that some points have a lot more environmental rewards than others. ‘ Why would I install effective HVAC equipment for a few extra points when I could get the identical points by adding few bicycle racks in the college campus?’, asked an Architect. Even though installing the effective HVAC system would quantity to saving a massive amount of energy and add environmental value on a massive scale, according to LEED rating system – it still equals the notion of having bicycle racks inside the educational campus. The remedy here is to make a careful study of all the critical credits that add superior environmental value and make them mandatory. Then, the playing of points can be completed by experts inside the feeble credits.

It is a reality that the development and construction of Green and Sustainable buildings will initially cost a lot more than a conventional building. This is irrefutable. Practically in addition to this price, all associated procedures for LEED certification will add up to one more 1% – four%. I do not know why design consultants break their heads generating up fake reports and statistics to show clients otherwise. The hidden expenses will show up ultimately as the project marches towards completion and will cause clients havoc. Let us be brave sufficient to acknowledge that they price more and are undoubtedly worth it.

Somewhere along the line, organizations such as USGBC have realized it could profit of the LEED system. The organization has undoubtedly advertised it globally, when compared to other rating systems like Greenstar (AUST) &amp BREEAM (U.K). The USGBC charges high fees for commissioning and even for becoming a LEED Accredited Expert. The fees to attempt this test is around US . Yes, if 1 fails yet another has to be shelled out. In my opinion, if the organization is genuinely concerned about the environment and creating buildings globally green, they need to make it cost-effective. Additionally, the LEED AP certification is being converted into an ‘elite’ profession – gradually threatening the importance of trained professionals in the architectural and engineering arena. I am forced to question the significance of paying for and passing this test as all LEED APs – go back to referring the LEED handbooks again, even though managing or commissioning all aspects of a project. Any professional can manage and refer the handbook as and when required, so why have this costly and superfluous testing system in the very first location? Orientation modules and training programmes would far more than suffice in this regard.

Instead of converting the commissioning and certification into a technocratic exercise, the procedures ought to be far more involving and also contain a subjective approach. Points really should be granted for innovative approaches that are not included, coordinated or valued in the LEED handbook. USGBC professionals I suppose, are trained enough to make such judgments and subjective decisions proficiently. The LEED handbook need to be treated only as a guide.

Instead of LEED APs judging buildings solely by way of paper and electronic media submissions – normal visits to analyze project sites, inspections of supplies and goods need to also be conducted. Clients and consultants pay a lot of cash and spend effort for LEED commissioning purposes and just analyzing a project via mere paperwork submitted via couriers or e-media, does not justify the whole system of USGBC at all. Decisions can be produced on project websites via discussions with clients, design consultants and contractors collectively. This is how innovative and fresh LEED can evolve itself to be rather than just becoming a mundane system of compiled information on which buildings are rated on.

To conclude, handbooks for rating systems are not to be employed as the encyclopedias of Green and sustainable designing. Architects and Engineers should possess ample knowledge on analyzing climatic data and geography, studying human comfort levels, including passive design techniques, careful use of materials/resources and incorporating effective building services. These fundamental principles really should drive our design procedure. Determining regardless of whether a constructing is rated green or not is one of the smallest of problems we ultimately face at the end of a project. A rating system such as LEED, BREEAM if needed, can serve as a useful check list or a medium to refer alternate solutions to our evolving design concepts.

The world wants green buildings a lot a lot more than green buildings require LEED certification. If certifications such as LEED, BREEAM continue to cost too a lot income, time and effort – we will not stop creating green projects we will just quit certifying them.