I do not believe in coincidence. That is not to say that I believe in predestination, but as Sherlock Holmes has said, "Universe is rarely so lazy." With that point of view, I cannot help but connect the recent announcement by the City of Chicago that the Chicago Center for Green Technology will close as of this Friday, October 31. Just yesterday, the US Green Building Council, whose LEED rating system spurred the City to assemble a team to create the CCGT, announced that they will not require their next evolution of that "industry leading" LEED rating system - which was developed in 2013 - to be in widespread use until October 2016.
A bit of background, for those who might not be as aware of the roots of this era of the green building movement. Back in 1993, the US Green Building Council was formed by a group of people who believed that business could be part of the solution to designing and constructing buildings that did no harm to humans at any stage of their existence. Since the early 1970s, we had become conscious of two major issues: That we do not have limitless energy, and that many chemicals used in common manufacturing could harm us. By the 1990s, builders and manufacturers were touting "green" products with no way to back it up. In forming a separate trade association (originally, at least) to provide a common standard, it was hoped that business would find a way to make non-harmful buildings and materials at the lowest cost possible.
To accomplish this, the USGBC created a rating system for building design called LEED for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Owners and their architects would keep track of the best practices they employed to create a building and receive credit for those activities that they could prove met certain standards for human health, energy performance, or other environmental metric. The system debuted in 1998.
Coincidentally, Mayor Richard M. Daley had recently seen the green roofs of Germany and wondered what Chicago could do to make such a bold statement. Many in his administration, especially those in the now-defunct Department of Environment (more on that later) pointed toward this new system that could document and award green buildings. With the help of local industry, the mayor decided to move forward with a trial of this system. From this was born the Chicago Center for Green Technology. It achieve, at the time, the highest level of performance any green building could achieve. With rainwater capture, geothermal heating/cooling, solar PV, lots of natural light, and many other features, it was a testament to what we could do. The mayor and his administration then backed this up by requiring that all new public buildings achieve some level of LEED certification. The City would become one of the largest green builders in the country.
Flash forward to 2012. The LEED rating system has undergone three major (and a couple of minor) revisions and improvements. In its wake, the system drove the improvement of energy codes, changed the industries associated with furniture and finishes (paint, carpet), and has contributed to the conversation around building people-centered communities. Buildings like the CCGT no longer represent the future or even the present. In order to remain on the front line of the industry, LEED needed to move onto the next challenges associated with green building, and so it released version 4.
And all hell broke loose.
Among other things, LEED v4 started to require that some (not all) materials used in projects disclose the chemicals in them, thinking that if owners/occupants knew what was in the building, they could make a rational choice. It would also drive architects and engineers to ask the question, and accept the answer. This drove the manufacturing and chemical industries crazy, to the point where they started supporting alternative rating systems to challenge LEED (e.g. Green Globes). They started lobbying cities and states that had adopted LEED as a standard, and even challenged USGBC with one of the Council's staunchest supporters, the General Services Administration. USGBC had pushed the edge and found strong resistance.
Meanwhile, just before this wild party around LEED started, Chicago's mayor of twenty-two years decided not to run for another term in office. His replacement would be a politically-saavy former Congressman and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Immediately upon taking office, Mayor Emanuel eliminated the Department of Environment and scattered its functions among other City departments. Given the times, he naturally focused on budget certainty, job creation, and business development. The previous administration's focus on delivering high performing buildings fell to the wayside...as long as industry could still deliver them, there was going to be no resistance from the administration, but they would not drive the industry. They had other fish to fry.
That brings us to today, and the coincidence. It is rumored that the City's building arm, the independent Public Building Commission of Chicago, was going to drop building LEED certified buildings because of internal assessments that showed it might cost more with the new v4 rating system. The vision of a new "green town" centered around the Chicago Center for Green Technology never came to fruition (even with the building of one of the largest green high schools in the country, Westinghouse, right around the corner). Chicago's green ambitions became more easily achievable to reflect the concerns over economic development. The Chicago Center for Green Technology, despite a legitimate effort to make it economically viable, no longer served a purpose as a public building with public programs. With previously staunch supporters, like the City of Chicago, waning in their interest with LEED, and attacks on all fronts, the USGBC had a choice: stand by their position that LEED needed to live up to the "Leadership" part of its name, or evolve into something more reactive to the market.
It is obvious what it has chosen.
In August, the USGBC announced a partnership with the American Chemical Council, apparently coming to a truce with one of its most ardent attackers. Then yesterday, after last week's national Greenbuild conference, USGBC announced that it was extending the date for LEED v4 enforcement to October 2016...a full three years after its original launch date and fully seven years after the last iteration of the rating system. After years of attacks in the media over real performance, and attacks from threatened industries, it seems that USGBC has changed its approach.
The question on both accounts is whether this spells the death knell for the green building movement or whether this signifies successful integration into the market. Twenty-one years ago, the vision was market transformation through a green building standard. With the chemical industry now partnering with the Council, and after withstanding a vigorous and well-funded assault, does a re-positioned USGBC see the opportunity to become less about leadership on the edge, and more about leadership from the front ranks. LEED has always been about moving the market forward toward a goal, not defining it, and with at least two other rating systems (PassivHaus and Living Building Challenge) defining the "end goal", should LEED need to worry as much about leading the pack.
In Chicago, with the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code, and the assumed adoption of its updates every three years, does a focus on the development of green tech industries really mean that the City will be less interested in the environment? Many of the human health concerns around buildings have become so well known, thanks in no small part to LEED, that a builder or architect who chooses to ignore them risks litigation, even if they are not fully codified in law. The economics of the energy industry recently forced the closing of the last two coal-fired electricity plants in Chicago, so even just by happenstance, the city's air will become better the breathe.
There is a chance that there has been enough "transformation" in the marketplace that cities like Chicago no longer need to lead, and organizations like the USGBC can become a place for more gradual change. Only the next few years will tell whether that is the case. I, for one, see the possibility, but cannot resist lamenting the loss. My life in green buildings dates back to the launch of CCGT. Through the energy created from that icon, I worked for years on green schools, part of a team that saw the design of some of the most student-friendly schools in the history of the city. LEED was the sword we - as well as thousands of others - swung to get through the thicket, and some amazing designers and builders swung that sword with us to establish a new standard for building in the city and across the state. At each obstacle, we proved that building structures that made all people's lives better were not only possible, but easier...especially when we trusted our own ingenuity. Many will continue to blaze this trail until every student, worker, citizen gets to study, work, and live in a building that completely supports their life and health. Until that day, we can all find strength in the knowledge of what needs to be done to achieve that.
And maybe we will no longer need entities like the City of Chicago or the USGBC to lead the way.
Update: November 3, 2014, 12:15 CDT:
Several people have pointed out accurately that the building housing CCGT will not be closing. It will continue to house the business tenants. The CCGT as a public building with education programs and resources is what will be closing.
No comments:
Post a Comment