The Paradox of LEED for Mixed-use Development

There are compelling reasons why builders should commit to sustainability. The market increasingly seeks it. And it’s the ethical thing to do. However, I am not sure if seeking LEED certification is always the best way.

LEED certification involves a point system. That creates a situation where there can often be significant gaming to meet the requirements. More importantly, like any bureaucratic system, LEED has trouble recognizing nuance. This is a problem in complex projects where designers and developers may propose unique solutions which offer superior sustainability effects – but which the LEED system just doesn’t count.

For example, based on recent design discussions related to our efforts to implement LEED certification in a project, we’ve realized we could probably build a much more sustainable building simply by reinvesting the commissions costs into sustainable features in lieu of getting a LEED designation. We are also finding that it would be far easier to get points if we were building on suburban sites where it is easier to meet the requirements. A freestanding suburban building can get points for having four sides of glass for natural lighting. But in the urban core, where we work, we’re often attaching to other buildings on several sides. For another example, we get no credit for developing within or adjacent to the city core, where infrastructure and jobs already exist, while buildings on suburban sites do not get any handicap for developing on greenfields. At almost every site where we build, we remove abandoned tanks, industrial debris, and asphalt parking lots. LEED gives us no credit for that, while the suburban developer receives no handicap for developing agricultural land. All these things don’t appear to be considered or significant in the LEED point system, but they certainly affect sustainability and those of us who are focused on the urban core.

We agree with the intentions of LEED certification. However, its standardized rules reward people for finding points, not necessarily pushing the envelope on efficient technologies or appropriate site choices. Builders end up working a project to the point system instead of creatively maximizing the actual performance of what they’re building.

I hope alternate green-building guidelines and certification programs will be developed to address this contradiction. There are sustainability strategies that can be more efficient and cost-effective, as well as more flexible, than those LEED currently rewards. I also think that consumers will get smarter about what really makes buildings and communities sustainable. If I’m right, eventually all buildings will be built to higher standards, and maybe LEED can be retired, even as the goal of greater sustainability is accomplished.