« News Highlights of the Week: June 30 – July 6, 2007 | Main | Following the Times's architecture critics down the path of concern »
July 8, 2007
Emerald city
Time Out New York asks, "Just how environmentally friendly are all these “green” buildings?" Questions about the "green" Atlantic Yards that have not been answered include:
- Wouldn't it be greener to adaptively reuse existing structures?
- Why did we bother with an environmental impact statement if the only means of mitigating problems are solutions like giving away air conditioners to cover up the noise?
These days Hollywood stars drive their Priuses to show that they’re environmentally conscious, and builders too rely on a desirable label: LEED. The acronym (short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is the moniker of the U.S. Green Building Council’s system for assessing the greenness of a new building—that is, above and beyond the energy efficiencies and environmental requirements mandated by local building codes. But because, unlike in Europe, there are no federal policies here for green compliance, LEED has become the de facto standard in the United States. So over the past several years, having the Green Building Council certification has proved increasingly valuable to marketing a new construction. “It’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval,” explains MaryAnne Gilmartin, executive vice president for commercial and residential development at Forest City Ratner, the megadeveloper behind Brooklyn’s controversial Atlantic Yards project and the New York Times building.
...
There are also complaints about how all this affects design. “Some architects find it bogus, because a developer can get certification for doing things that aren’t architectural,” explains Bill Menking, editor of The Architect’s Newspaper. “Sourcing materials from within a hundred miles of where you’re building is worthy,” he says. “But you can still wind up with the ugliest damn building you’ve ever seen.”
Posted by amy at July 8, 2007 10:36 AM