My workplace is a LEED (Gold) certified building. I do hope they did a better job engineering that hotel than my workplace. The "tick off the check boxes" LEED certification process doesn’t necessarily mean you actually end up with a more comfortable, efficient, or environmentally-sound building than one built with rational design decisions.
For example, here in the Great Lakes region we sip a tiny fraction of the flow through the St. Clair river, direct it through our our houses and workplaces and, when we are done with it, we clean it up and send it back to the same water system. In this LEED building, however, the designers felt it better to use waterless urinals, which still produce liquid waste that needs to be treated, but also use disposable cartridges and produce solid toxic waste that are disposed of in our overflowing landfills as well. Does that make sense? To Sloan, the vendors of the disposable cartridges, it does.
LEED is an admirable notion, but the execution desperately needs to be tempered with a serious locale-dependent cost-benefit analysis.
Leave a Reply to beezer232 Cancel reply