LEED gold

The LEED rating system was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, and it has several different standards: LEED for residential, commercial, for new structures, existing structures, commercial interiors, retail, schools, etc.  LEED is a third-party certification program that can be applied for after completion of construction.  Anyone can apply for LEED status on any structure, but if LEED certification is to be achieved there are two important types of qualifications.  First, the structure must meet all of the prerequisites for certification.  Second it must achieve enough total points throughout the catagories that LEED assesses.

If any of the prerequisites are not met than the structure is disqualified right away.  These can include things like ventilation systems to construction site pollution.  If the structure meets all prerequisites then it must achieve a minimum number of points.  For new commercial building (version 2.2) certification requires 26-32 points.

Here is where LEEDs ranking system comes into play.  LEED commercial silver status requires 33-38 points, gold status requires 39-51 points, while platinum requires 52-69 points.

The rating system is finding acceptance worldwide, but will it work?  The LEED system is developed by committees and these committees have agendas.  Some of these agendas are being criticized.  One such criticism is that LEED encourages too much use of fossil fuels.  Another concern is that LEED’s requirements for older homes isn’t economical or affordable for the majority of Americans.  Is it the sustainable path to encourage all Americans to remodel their seventy year old bungalows to qualify for LEED certification?  These homes, build by the thousands all over America, have innately poor circulation, and this is an important prerequisite for certification.

It certainly seems that the LEED system is here to stay.  A positive for the rating system is that it should be able to flex and adapt affectively as more people become aware of it and participate in implementing it world-wide.  Find out more at the U.S. Green Building Council’s page.

EcoUrban Home for sale in St. Louis

But… there are still several hurdles that are plaguing the pursuit.  The most obvious to me is property prices.  EcoUrban is working in St. Louis.  With urban lots going for under $10,000, keeping the overall cost below $150,000 becomes possible.  But what if you don’t want to live in Detroit or Cleveland?

Second, there is labor.  I am encouraged to see more and more contractors and builders increasing their repertoire of green products and processes.  But still, paying for skills in more sustainable building practices can be cost prohibitive.  Some apparent “silver bullets” of sustainable building run into trouble with labor costs as well.  I am a personal fan of earthen building because the basic materials are dirt.  I have some basic building skills and a job that doesn’t pay much (so my labor is cheep).  But for most, it just isn’t affordable to pay people for hundreds of hours of labor to ram earth or lay adobes.

Third, there are materials.  It is still more costly to build smart than to build the “Home Depot Special”. (Home Depot is getting better about its products, and I am impressed that they are partnering with LEED to develop “Affordable LEED” housing.)  Of course some of this is simple supply and demand.  Until new products take over a significant market share they will be more expensive to produce and harder to find.  But even prefabricated modular style homes falter, in my opinion, when it comes to material cost.  In most cases it makes no sense to me to pay $50,000 to $100,000 for a modular shell that has to be transported to the sight, and then have to spend another $100,000 to various contractors to finish on location.  Often I feel like the true cost of the materials is still not being represented in the final price tag.  Yet, there are some people working to use actual sustainable materials and lower the prefab costs far enough to make modular a possibility.

Lastly, we have to overcome indifference toward the poor.  Mostly, the “green” building industy is focusing on making money.  I understand this, and at a certain level, endorse it.  But, if we are going to make a real move toward sustainability it can’t be just for the rich.

Personally, I think the answer to the $100 a sq. ft. dilemma lies deeper in the cultural values we use to define home and our deeply guarded individualism.  Maybe if we valued community and relationship in slightly different ways we could find answers to our housing woes without killing the planet.