How effective are office building LEED standards? Maybe not so good....

The New Republic reports, "Bank of America's Toxic Tower: New York's "greenest" skyscaper is actually its biggest energy hog."  Here is what it has to say:

When the Bank of America Tower opened in 2010, the press praised it as one of the world’s “most environmentally responsible high-rise office building[s].” It wasn’t just the waterless urinals, daylight dimming controls, and rainwater harvesting. And it wasn’t only the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certification—the first ever for a skyscraper—and the $947,583 in incentives from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. It also had as a tenant the environmental movement’s biggest celebrity. The Bank of America Tower had Al Gore. . .

Gore’s applause, however, was premature. According to data released by New York City last fall, the Bank of America Tower produces more greenhouse gases and uses more energy per square foot than any comparably sized office building in Manhattan. It uses more than twice as much energy per square foot as the 80-year-old Empire State Building. It also performs worse than the Goldman Sachs headquarters, maybe the most similar building in New York—and one with a lower LEED rating. It’s not just an embarrassment; it symbolizes a flaw at the heart of the effort to combat climate change.

Buildings contribute more to global warming than any other sector of the economy. In the United States, they consume more energy and produce more greenhouse gas emissions than every car, bus, jet, and train combined; and more, too, than every factory combined. . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.

While there has long been reason to be skeptical about LEED standards--by the fact that they are a compromise between environmentalists and builders, and guess who wins--this article pretty well eviscerates the LEED's ultimate standard--Platinum.  Imagine how inadequate the lower standards are.

And Fairfax County doesn't even begin to "go for the platinum."  It sort of aims at the Gold standard, but gives a huge variety of outs for developers--including, of course, money.

Just another reason to be wary of seemingly well-intentioned plans for Reston's further development. 

LEED-compliant neighborhoods make an evironmental difference says NRDC's Kaid Benfield

Kaid Benfield, NRDC, writes in his blog that:

Confirming previous analysis, newly published research indicates that real estate development located, designed and built to the standards of LEED for Neighborhood Development will have dramatically lower rates of driving than average development in the same metropolitan region.  In particular, estimated vehicle miles per person trip for twelve LEED-ND projects that were studied in depth ranged from 24 to 60 percent of their respective regional averages.  The most urban and centrally located of the projects tended to achieve the highest shares of walking and transit use, and the lowest private vehicle trip lengths. . . .

Click here for the rest of his overview of this research paper.  

Yet, County planning staff continue to fight using LEED standards for residential development in Reston's transit station areas.  Here is (all) that the staff has proposed for the Reston Areawide Comprehensive Plan language concerning adherence to LEED standards--for commercial OR residential development:

Non-residential development in the TSAs should achieve LEED Silver certification or the equivalent, at a minimum, in light of the level of redevelopment potential proposed for the TSAs.  Residential development should be guided by the Policy Plan objectives on Resource Conservation and Green Building Practices. Achievement of higher levels of LEED certification is also encouraged.  (p. 26)

In our response to this draft language, we noted that residential areas should also meet LEED standards--and Benfield's post and the research article from which he draws highlight the reasons why, including those effects noted in his opening paragraph above.