Gehry vs LEED
Note: The original title for article was “Gehry vs Sustainability” and it was changed to “Gehry vs LEED” on May 22nd for accuracy.
Frank Gehry can usually spice things up. And, his recent comments about sustainability prove that the 81 year old starchitect still remains as provocative and shocking as he always was. In an interview with Blair Kamin from the Chicago Tribune, Gehry basically dismissed LEED and its efforts to make our built environment more eco-friendly. While his opposition may be targeted predominately toward LEED’s point system, rather than the overall green movement, his comments, like usual, stirred up some controversy.
Check out the interview and some responses after the break.
In the Tribune, Gehry was quoted as saying:
“I think the issue is finally a political one,” Gehry said. Referring to the LEED (for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system for buildings, which awards points for energy-saving features but has been criticized because some of these features (like bike racks) are superficial add-ons, Gehry said: “A lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff.” The costs of making a green building are “enormous,” he said, and “they don’t pay back in your lifetime.”
Editor of Metropolis, Susan S. Szenasy, fired back with her letter, “You are so wrong, Frank Gehry”. She feels that architects should take responsibility for doing something about climate change:
“With buildings known to produce more than half of the world’s carbon output, surely those who design and build them have to shoulder some responsibility. But not, apparently, Gehry. He cavalierly called out LEED ratings (and thus the many efforts made every day by architects and designers to make our world less toxic, use available energy and water more carefully, pay mind to the site and its proximity to public transit, etc. ) as “political” and “bogus.” This is unfortunate for everyone concerned, and everyone must be concerned. But I’m not surprised, though I am saddened no end.
“…How would the world look and feel if the stars of architecture decided to stand up for the good of humanity? What if, I kept asking, they admitted that great architecture could also be kind to people and the environment? Would such an act of involvement diminish their star status? I don’t think so.”
Hopefully, Gehry understands the importance of our environmentally conscious decisions and he is purely criticizing the LEED point system. It would be a shame for, arguably, one of the most well known architects not to see the benefit of the green frenzy that is taking control. And yet, interestingly enough, Gehry’s controversial statements did do something positive, as the scores of people reacting against his comments prove the strength and support of the green movement has attained these past few years.
Sources: Lloyd Alter Treehugger
Dont blame it on the architect, but rather those who have grown accustom to air conditioning, heat and electricity.
I think, personally, despite whatever motivation you have to be sustainable/green, sustainability is a good thing. I think there are lot of misguided people out there. However my point is, whether you are looking for some sort of superficial political gain, or you feel that you as a human being will save mother earth, or if you are attempting to respond to global warming, or if you are concerned with the dwindling availability of finite resources, that fact that you practice sustainability I think is morally significant, as it mean that you are looking to conserve and reuse both energy and materials. I think its good ethics. But IDK… I still don’t know much about it.
Gehry is right in one regard. LEED really is a crock. If you are LEED certified or are studying for LEED its simple to see that LEED is nothing more than product specification and stuff thats tacked on after the fact, however, that is not to say that designing sustainable building will not pay off in its lifetime or that its useless to design a sustainable building all together. There are many many low tech methods that aren’t extremely expensive that will save you energy and utilize low embodied energy materials. Psychometric chart? LEED, not unlike licensure, is largely a way to collect MONEY. If you graduate in Europe from architecture school, guess what? Your an architect!
when gehry says the building wont pay off in a lifetime is a fact cause though the materials used amy b sustinable but they always come with high pricing and high maintenance……so mayb v should go back to basics and jus come up with designs that are site friendly…….
100% agree
I believe in sustainability, but not in LEED, and also i agree with him that green buildings are way more expensive than normal
agree with u hunter i mean
LEED is full of it! The point system is flawed…
I could not agree more. LEED is a money making machine, misguiding the general public (potential clients)that only LEED certified professionals and materials are qualified to be GREEN building methods. Recently a new entity has sprung up from BPI (Building Professionals Institute) expects to replace LEED certification for contractors. RESNET is a money making simple certification program for contractors and appears focused more on revenue than actually educating. This movement in residential construction could result in poor attempts to improve energy this creating the next wave of “sick home” syndrome. As design professionals, we have a responsibility to not only design energy efficient buildings for our clients, but educate the general public through design.
Gehry wasn’t quoted saying anything we already don’t know. If we are really serious about sustainability, let’s look closer at LEED certification, or maybe not even depend on it.
LEED has some issues, but is not a crock. LEED is in many ways the best way an architect has to leverage actual sustainable strategies to a developer. It gives a measurable and quantifiable level to building for those who don’t know everything about it. Not all LEED buildings are really green, but it prvides a platform for making sustainability a true basis in our building culture to have a rating system attributed to it. The cost issues associated with going through LEED are questionable for a non-profit, but this is America who isn’t trying to make money?
They are updating LEED so that measurement and verification is becoming a larger part which is always good. If LEED isn’t enough for you you can always go for the living building challenge, good luck.
Anyone who has worked in architecture would not consider the comments shocking or controversial. He’s saying the same things architects and designers have been saying about LEED for years. It’s only “controversial” because he is a well-known starchitect (my mom even knows who he is, for chrissakes) and the idiots in the general public have not been a part of the discussions that have been going on among people in architecture for the past few years – so it’s “shocking” to them.
LEED is a crock (GASP!). Big deal. We all know it, move on.
Additionally, it is obvious that the criticism was directed directly at the LEED system and not the concept of sustainability as a whole. Susan Szenasy is an idiot.
You’re right. Perfectly summed up, thank you! All of the other comments by people on this story are worthless
Love all the Architects coming to the defense of Papa Gehry! We love you Papa.
I can’t stand Frank Gehry. He just happens to be right on this.
I gotta agree with Frank. BREAM way more stringent.
I think of all the people that shouldn’t make comments about “enormous costs”….Gehry is the top of that list. I really respect Gehry’s designs and creativity but he is not someone that can make statements about cost.
As a LEED AP, i could go and defend the merits of LEED but i’ll stay off my soap box. there is more than enough back up to LEED for anyone that does the research.
I would also like to challenge anyone that doesn’t like LEED to come up with something better. what’s your alternative? Energy Star? Green Globes? Cradle to Cradle? BREEAM? Living Building Challenge?
I have complaints about LEED but it’s the best tool out there.
What’s your source of “research” – the USGBC site?
why is anyone complaining about him? i mean if you actually look at leed
1: points are given for bogus things. a lot fals through the cracks, wind generators poorly placed, points given for bike racks where biking is clearly not an option, etc.
2:Gerhy isn’t saying that sustainability is bad, he’s saying that we can be sustainable without playing a game, without paying thousands of dollars for a plaque, without paying 10 dollars for a recycled notebook…..
3: the real issue is that people are sort of trying to privatize green: “you can’t be eco-friendly unless you give me your money”
so the lady who wrote the letter clearly didn’t listen to a thing gehry said. what a nutcase. who do you think is giving her money…..
Green is market making money generating verbiage that pulls at your heartstrings. Eat bread water wear a coat don’t move buy one professional object use it till it falls apart. Green marketing is for the asset holding class for the poor are already green. This is mostly an institutional debate. You could say this neg GDP global growth is the most in pact full environmental action none legislated and you would be right just. Green words coming from aggressive ambitious competitive tool and manufacturing individual is a bit funny. The big question is can investors still make money on the word green.
Karen Cilento,
Congratulations on being the next to misquote Gehry. Tell me where Gehry says the word sustainability and refers to it in a negative manner in the interview?
But the title of this story is “Gehry vs Sustainability”, not LEED, which is what he was directing his energy at. You must be friends with Susan from Metropolis.
Gehry is right. Probably old Frank Lloyd Wright would also think LEED is a crock too.
Gehry is right, he was criticizing the LEED system, which is flawed. Using the LEED system a new building can become silver certified using business as usual design practices and creatively specifying ‘recycled’ or ‘renewable’ materials. LEED does not challenge architects and designers to think of creative solutions to energy consumption the way a true sustainable grading system should.
Glad everyone here is in agreement. LEED is like NCARB, it has reached the point that it only exists to sustain itself and has become a disservice to architects. Not a Gehry fan, but he is correct. I’m all for green, but LEED needs to go.
Funny how the more advanced buildings and architecture, in general, has become, the less honest it has become in responding to sustainablility…All of the sudden if architects don’t accomplish a ‘gold’ or ‘plantinum’ rating via “hi-tech green” technologies in their buildings we’ve been brainwashed to think it’s not good enough…Even funnier- in my opinion the most honestly green buildings were built ages ago without the BS “green technology”…go wonder
Go Gehry!
Leed and usgbc are just like any other unnecessary outfit who is making a living riding on the backs of professionals. Educated professionals will design “green” whether they are LEED AP or not. How many green projects never get rated by LEED, does that make them less important? Do away with LEED, handle green design in education similar to site planning , or lateral forces. Gehry is right on, despite our differences in personal aesthetics.
Gehry is totally right, support sustainability … not LEED.
This is Gery vs Leed, not sustainability
The comments, in particular, Susan S. Szenasy’s should not have reacted in such vilified manner towards Frank Gehry’s opinions – they are completely misinterpreted, and ill-representations of Gehry’s stance on sustainability. It seems that by Gehry criticising LEED, it has made him dismiss sustainability completely. Since when has LEED been the banner of sustainability, and since when has it been wrong to make comments about a company and its practise?
I see this not as a debate on sustainability, as the media portrays, but a criticism of LEED.
eff LEED.
Sustainable practice is interesting, because it shows the disonance between architecture as a discipline and architecture as something lived in. A colleague of mine recently told me a story of how, in New Zealand, new sustainable building practice measures had resulted in an increase in energy consumption by building occupants because people could finally heat their houses effectively. This is anecdotal evidence, but made me think. I’m not familiar with the LEED system, but points systems like BASIX are truly insufficient to measure building performance because they forcibly remove the occupants from the equation. Just another example of bureaucracy taking precedence over common sense.
He actually makes a valid point – and everyone is actually overlooking his purpose. Anyone with any mind towards sustainability and positive development should read papers by Prof. Janis Birkeland. Current analysis systems are not up to scratch and merely certify, at a cost, buildings that are “less bad” and do not punish people for poor design and building practices. These buildings do not actually give back to the ecological base, and arent sustainable as we have already exceeded the earths carrying capacity.
People missing this point are actually doing more harm to the sustainability movement, as are these systems of analysis and measurement. We need new proactive, rather than reactive systems that ask why positive outcomes wont be obtained by the building, rather than measuring the damage buildings are doing after the fact.
LEED is something primarily created for the understanding and marketing of the Green Movement as it relates to the mass public, one who may not be at the forefront (or even interested) in thinking about design or architecture.
If architects design within LEED, they design to a system that is based on gaining advertisement and publicity for their building, while only taking a limited number of actions towards sustainable design.
Good architects design within LEED. Great Architects design beyond it, making it a starting point for all design solutions (that includes going beyond cladding your entire home in solar panels) and embedding it in driving design philosophy. I believe Frank is pretty much re-iterating this point. I also agree with other readers, as to the title of the article (Gehry vs. LEED) as well some assumptions people are making with his words, that this isn’t well written.
Gehry should definitely make sure his buildings back up this point though. I’m not a huge fan of his work, but if you’re gonna criticize, make sure you put your pencil where your mouth is.
ghery talking about sustainability is dumbo talking about ears… the waste of materials in almost all of his building is so significant that he should problably just keep his mouth shut…
agree.
am not agree. their expensives projects are so emblematic that justify the cost.
‘The costs of making a green building are “enormous,” he said, and “they don’t pay back in your lifetime.”’
Yeah, go Frankie! You can show the world what value for money design really is, can’t you?!!! I think what the world needs now is a bit more ego-driven, gestural, iconic architecture, most of which also happens to be disgustingly ugly. Step up, Frank!
GEH-RY, GEH-RY, GEH-RY!
FIRST, WE ARE NOT, I REPEAT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO SAVE MOTHER EARTH. THE EARTH WILL BE FINE. WE WONT. THE SUSTAINABLE MOVEMENT IS FOR US. WE ARE TRYING TO SURVIVE. THE HUMAN RACE MAY BE GONE BUT THE PLANET WILL BE FINE.
FRANK IS RIGHT ON LEED.
SCIENTISTS AND SPECIALISTS SHOULD WORK WITH ARCHITECTS AND CREATE A SUSTAINABLE BUILDING FROM THE GROUND UP.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CHECKING A LIST FOR POINTS.
please change the title of this posting to “Gehry vs LEED”
that’s what it is actually about.
Susan took Gehry completely out of context and put words in his mouth, and you took the bait. Make it right, please.
I´d rather say: Ghery vs LEED and sustainability.
He doesn´t care at all about the enviroment.
His buildings are the most expensive, all those titanium plates needs to be replaced off and on…
Ghery, come on!
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/04/gehrys_take_two_on_leed_architecture.html
if anyone has worked or is working in the places such as the UK or Germany know that much of LEED is written into the building code. its a given certain points are achieved.
LEED is an important marketing tool. not in all cases, but may offices want a LEED certified professional simply to state they have one, and they can spec a compliant paint or roof material.
i agree with Frank Gehry, furthermore i like to add that its not the buildings themselves but the attitude of people towards leading an eco friendly lifestyle. An apartment dwelling in Mumbai is a good example of energy conservation, where water and electricity is timed. People casually remove all the electric plugs before leaving the house. People hand wash their clothes to last long, sometimes they do use the washing machine but still dry clothes outside. These are just small examples, but in such small activities, we all can learn not to take our metropolis for granted.
It’s shocking to see how many replies Frank Gehry recieved for his comment. It is insignificant. He only stated that he does not agree with LEED. The future of architecture when it comes to sustainability, is not in Gehry’s hand or LEED. The young architects and future architects are the ones that will make the proper impact in sustainability and the built environment.
The point I think people are missing here is that LEED is a program (albeit a political one) by which buildings aspire (pay) to become more sustainable and ultimately less of a burden on the environment. Yet, while the intentions are probably well-meant, we are doing just that, buying into a system. This should not be something to aspire to, or rather buy into, but the concepts contained within LEED should be common practice amongst architects and builders alike.
LEEDS is like ‘Quality Assurance’ of a decade ago another self sustaining bureaucracy far more concerned with process than product.
I think Ghery was taken way out of context by Metropolis and anyone else ‘offended’. What he is saying is nothing new and shocking, for the most part, they’re facts. I definitely belive in sustainability but I also think a lot of LEED items are bogus and green washed. I am also LEED certified and dare I say…climate change is going to happen regardless to what we humans do, good or bad. Remember, we’re still coming out of an Ice Age…oh now I’ve gone and done it.
each side of the argument is sooo boring.
md
your boring
LEED does not equeal sustainability, LEED is just a brand
If LEED is like GBCA in Australia it is a crock. Points for this points for that, all about loopholes and chest beating. That said Gehry could do with a few more windows in his building.
Whos asking Gehry anything about `green` architecture…..? Sorry but this is too much…
My conclusion: LEED is just another BUSINESS where the environment is an excuse to inflate prices, get fees for an organization that found a venue to get a great income.
I doubt that the “points” are going to change what industrialization and waste are doing against the planet; still a “marketing” tool.
I’m surprised that Gehry had the courage to say what he thinks, against the “politically correct” LEED advocates. My respects.
Hahahaha, seriously? Reality is that even your favorite architecture firm is a business, just because something is a business does not mean that it can’t have other objectives than to solely make money. If you were to talk to the people who are in charge of LEED you would understand that they do actually care about the environment. Their system is far from perfect, but it does have its merits.
people caring bout the environment doesn’t mean they do anything to fix it. LEED is the same way. ITS A FARCE. i have worked on leed projects and though they create the illusion of helping the environment its does not help architecture. ALL ARCHITECTURE SHOULD BE SUSTAINABLE, it should be a standard thing when we design, you should not have to pay and it should not be a title to boast about.
THE LEED PROCESS IS ONLY A WAY TO LEGITIMIZE BAD DESIGN.
im sure who ever wrote this article has never worked on a major LEED project.
Ghery comments have nothing to do against green architecture, hes only attacking the system, a system the does not work
Ghery has not been the only one to say it, i think theres a video floating around in the internet of tom maine commenting something similar.
Besides what has been said, being that green is cool but the point system sucks. With regard to Latin America and other similar places -Don´t want to sound to Che Guevara- Leed becomes a design system that imposes architectural procedures, materials and methods through globalizing agents such as transnational corporations e.g. McDonalds, Ford, IKEA, Kraft, BP, Bayer, etc. Which at the end don´t answer to local architectural procedures, materials and methods, or even the climate. In Mexico City we had a project in which if we invested lots of money in a top of the line air conditioning system we got lots of points, even more points than just having a passive cross ventilating system. As you know Mexico City has a very mild and temperate weather, meaning using AC is almost unnecessary if a building is well design. Furthermore it makes a new architecture specialty. “The Leed certified architect” which in turn unjustifiably divides people in our profession, since having a certification means you earn more money, thus is capitalism at its worst!
LEED certification and its influence on a project’s design is only one of many design considerations. The problem is that focussing on the point system can override these requirements and result in inadequate attention to site layout, integration with adjacent community etc. It requires significant investment in computer systems for proper analysis, and can place excessive importance to building technical systems. This can be a problem for the smaller and less signficant projects that make up a large part of completed work. One may also be concerned about long term maintenance, and future obsolescence of some of the complex systems employed. An improved financial and tax structure that encourages improvement to existing buildings may provide a more significant benefit to the environment than emphasis on LEED certification.
“Yes, LEED is a little bit commercial – it is a business, after all. But then, so is Frank Gehry.”
damn it, Ghery is not just a starchitect… but the worst – he is American starchitect… just tasteless Americans could like nonsense what he did in for example Bilbao…
if your really concerned about architecture and sustainability, then why not quit being an architect………for one, think of all the hot air that’ll be kept out of the atmosphere thus reducing global temps….think of all the energy that would saved by not having the lights and computers on all night for worthless deadlines….and the inflated egos…whatever gas has expanded these f’artchitects is obviously toxic by the amount of garbage i hear comming outta their mouths.
sustainability shudn’t have a textbook definition. it is up to the architect to decide which aspect of sustainability is key in his projects.
nothing is absolute when it comes to architecture. if we want true sustainability or to begin to reverse the damage which we had done, we should begin to cap our population, reduce our carbon emission, reduce usage n wastage, and not build more. the active incorporation of very high technology gadgets in our built environment not only taxes the environment in the process, it also involves high costs which like mr. gehry mentioned(and probably NOT exagerated), wont be able to recoup within a lifetime.
Sustainability via rating systems such as LEED (or GBI in malaysia) does not represent true sustainability, but rather sustainability in the eyes and the pockets of politicians and big business conglomerates.
while it is important that our generation and that of the future take into serious consideration the concept of sustainability, particularly in design and most importantly in our lifestyle, sustainability in architecture should be up to an architect’s interpretation.
Look lets not be childish and put Ghery on one extreme and yourself in the other because then it’s an unfair fight. Obviously the man is referring to the LEED point system. I am sure there are many benefits and drawbacks with the program as with everything man creates. I rather there be a government building code that requires much of these environmentally friendly ideas. Plus no one should be doing it to get recognized by LEED but because it makes sense and it’s the right thing to do. Much of this “green” movement BS is very driven by capitalist who are looking to make money off the people that are always looking to be doing the “it” thing. True sustainability is balanced and is something we do second nature not something we got to work too hard at, otherwise with time we get tired of it and swing to the other side which then kills all the “progress” that was made. life is a fat pendulum kids.
PS have less kids if you really want to be good to the earth!
Gehry vs LEED
My instinctive comment would be that it is most unfortunate that a well known senior architect such as Gehry would find it relevant to point out negative aspect about a particular green building awareness system publicly. Surely he knows that all the green building rating systems such as BREAM, Green Star, LEEDS etc are really about creating an awareness. Further to this, they invite practicing architects and scientists to assist in improving continually. If I was part of his generation, who created buildings without much thought to the environment, sustainability or affordability I would certainly not have commented on those attempting to address their wrongdoings. If his generation was more conscious none of these systems and laws would have been necessary. Starchitects do not achieve their status through good design but through publicists. Philippe Starck is another example who once arrogantly exclaimed:”When I design a chair, I am not interested in chair.” When narcissism clowds responsible thinking processes, it is best to retire gracefully. I rest my case.
Mr. Smith:
I am not sure where you have been, but there is a huge ground swell of architects of EVERY generation who are pointing out the corrupt greedy nature of the USGBC. They have become a “profit” center. Richard Fedrizzi’s salary is probably nearing the seven digits with amazing increases over the past few years at a time when many architects are struggling to pay thier professional liability premiums. I am also of Gehry’s generation. I have practiced for over thirty years and have also been an adjunct architecrture professor for some of those years. LEED and the USGBC has become a beaurocratic nightmare and a “for-profit” education gateway system. It divides the profession politically and ethically. I am glad that a “star” architect has spoken out. There will be more and I hope that the USGBC becomes a victum of its arrogance. “I rest my case’!
Agree with Gehry , a lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff, and it is all political !!
Susan S. Szenasy should revisit her article and learn more about star architects, and see that the problem is not with their design philosophy, rather the problem is with the greedy developers who in most cases are in the “driver seat” for and their primary concerns is maximum profit not maximum environmental efficiency …
Mrs Szenasy clearly has a lack of understanding of the LEED system and the architectural community… architects don’t like LEED because it is money making machine for corporate America not because it is a tool to protect the environment…
How can building a new building when there are lots of existing ones be good for the earth in any case, whether LEED certified or not?
Sustainability is simply a more refined form of doing business.
I know it is annoying to accept, but the harsh reality is this.
Fortunately there are those who say “No”.
A big problem in North America, is that people(general public)don’t understand, or care about the details of design or sustainability. Since it is so complex. This translated into businesses, or corporations who dismiss architects who promote sustainability because of their ignorance and money concerns when paying for developments. So along came LEED a name to sell sustainability, with rating systems to simplify things. To sell design. But in its short years, it has been building it’s business more and faster than keeping its system accurate. Tones of fee’s and new barriers to force you to pay, regardless of you having courses you have under your belt.
4:51 PM May 23rd
glup! "Los costos de hacer un edificio verde son enormes, no podrán ser pagados en su vida" Gehry /vía @Arquitecturatv http://bit.ly/ayfaMB
5:39 PM May 24th
http://www.archdaily.com/61209/gehry-vs-sustainability/?f=featured
3:42 AM May 25th
일반인들에게 유명한 Frank Gehry(빌바오 구겐하임, 디즈니홀)의 건축은 반환경적이라는 얘기에 대한 게리의 반론. Gehry vs LEED http://j.mp/9WSMlO #archtrip
5:37 PM May 29th
[PERFORMANCE] Gehry vs LEED-He basically dismisses LEED & its efforts to make our built environment more eco-friendly http://bit.ly/b83r69
8:26 PM Jun 11th
http://bit.ly/9mHANe GEHRY VS LEED
6:39 AM Jun 15th
The costs of making a green building are “enormous” and“they don’t pay back in your lifetime.” F. Gehry via @archdaily http://ow.ly/1YDuB <!
10:30 AM Jun 15th
Gehry having problems with LEED/BREEAM, no doubt we need to be more responsible but I find the point system a farce http://bit.ly/9mHANe
12:52 AM Jun 18th
The LEED point system is a crock GASP! Big deal. We all know it.
'Papa Gehry' vs LEED http://goo.gl/lcI8
7:21 AM Jun 22nd
#TEC Gehry vs Sustainability : http://bit.ly/dCyAoz http://bit.ly/dkAs03
12:49 PM Jul 8th
Gehry vs Sustainability | ArchDaily http://bit.ly/d18C1S
2:58 AM Jul 20th
@SAlexander_UTS Mr. Gehry V Leed http://tiny.cc/cwy04
11:20 PM Jan 28th
(gundemdisi) http://www.archdaily.com/61209/gehry-vs-sustainability/ babani da sevmezdim gehroglan