by kevin, on November 16th, 2009
The 2009 Greenbuild Expo drew to a close on the fourth day of activity. It was only a partial day for me with a morning session about building component reuse. Three presenters talked about various projects around the country where buildings were either being designed for disassembly, or were deconstructed. One fascinating example was a 275,000 square foot warehouse building in the Port of Oakland. On a property co-owned by the port and the Navy, the building was built in the early 1940s as a supply processing center to support war efforts in the Pacific Theater. The warehouse was constructed almost entirely out of salvageable wood. In an effort to recover as much value from the existing building as possible, it was disassembled rather than demolished. In the end a significant percentage was reclaimed. Stop Waste, a non profit organization, documented the process and produced a video of the Building 802 deconstruction. It’s pretty interesting.
Closing plenary sessions are usually anticlimactic and boring. At last year’s expo Janine Benyus was amazing, but this year was supposed to be Carol Browner – Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama Administration. Unfortunately she was not able to make it. Her replacement was Nancy Sutley, the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. She presented a run down of administration initiatives that align with green building development, but little of it was new material. I was looking forward to Carol Browner, so the closing was a little disappointing.
My 2009 Greenbuild experience closed with a quick tour of the bookstore, puchased a book by Peter Gleik about the state of the world’s water, and then an evening with friends. All in all it was a good conference. My primary complaint would be that the expo floor wasn’t open long enough. The event gets bigger each year and more product manufactures are added, yet the time available to visit hasn’t changed. Another day of expo floor would have been perfect. I’m hoping that next year’s schedule in Chicago will expand so that attendees can manage both the floor and educational sessions. What I found myself doing this year was ditching sessions I paid good money to attend so that I could see more of the floor. If nothing changes I may do an expo only pass and skip the educational sessions. I’ve heard it said about LEED that it is project based, not product based. And if that’s true, then it’s unlikely the USGBC will extend the expo floor time, but those products are vital to make those projects successful.
Also, I’m concerned that the US Green Building Council is trying too hard to own the green building conversation. Between the USGBC and AIA, USGBC has clearly taken center stage. Their open door policy and desire for inclusion has certainly helped bring that about. Early on, their approach seemed to say – if your are interested in green building, regardless of past experience or current profession, join us, you have a place at the table. The AIA, however, has taken a more exclusive approach suggesting that only architects are qualified to express opinion and steer the dialogue. The USGBC’s strategy has attracted a huge audience excited that the conversation finally has a robust forum and system for application. But current revisions may change the organization’s most attractive attributes.
For one, who is qualified, and how to qualify for LEED accreditation has changed and shifted toward exclusion. Qualifications need constant adjustment and improvement, but not at the cost of creating a private club. Also, some federal government agencies and municipalities already require LEED certification for public buildings. Because those buildings serve public needs, I don’t mind that obligation. According to USGBC numbers, all levels of certification add some cost to capital expenditure. Even with increased cost, better public buildings is a worthwhile pursuit. At this year’s expo I heard discussions, and there were educational sessions, suggesting that LEED become part of building code requirements for private buildings. This is a serious problem. No matter how positive the LEED program is (though I have some reservations with the current system) money generated by using the program goes to a single organization. Although the US Green Building Council is a non profit, it still generates revenue and attracts financial funding. Regulatory requirements shouldn’t be established that guarantees a USGBC economic bonanza. One company shouldn’t be the lone gate keeper of an entire green building movement.
The closing plenary had a very cultish feel to some of the festivities. I was struck by the thought that although we were all celebrating the growing popularity of a green building movement, we were simultaneously celebrating the economic prosperity of a single organization. Greenbuild is still the largest venue of it’s host organization. The conference and expo are not the green building movement entirely. We the members of this community need to make certain that LEED is not the only definition for sustainable design and the USGBC is not the only body with a say in its definition.
Years ago I was part of a volunteer organization working to generate financial incentives for community improvement in a historic neighborhood. Early in the process, we were trying to define the limitations of the neighborhood and brand it so that it could more easily be presented to the city at large, and while preparing some preliminary maps, a lawyer told me to be careful where I drew the neighborhood limit line. He suggested that if we were successful, property on one side of that line would potentially be more valuable than on the other side. Something so simple as drawing a line makes money for one group and not another. The US Green Building Council is drawing similar lines. Money will be made by some and not others based on where those lines are drawn. Membership needs to control those lines, not a group of elite few.
Next week I’ll be listening to all of my exhibitor interviews and posting some interesting material manufacturer back stories and personality profiles. Please look for those.
I agreed on almost what you said, green industries or movement shouldn’t be just for faceless bureaucrats and one sole organization calling the shots. Cultist feeling? I can relate to that since Al Gore started the GW, this has become more like a cultist movement, a religion where the messenger(Al Gore) get all the perks.
Hello,
Thanks for your comment. I’m very concerned that the green movement seems too interested in relying on someone or an institution to solve all the issues or be the principle voice. The only way we’re going to see meaningful change is from the ground up, not the top down. You raise an interesting point with the connection to religion. It’s interesting to hear people talk about climate change or environmental issues in terms of belief – as if it were a religion.