This post was written by our of our industry insiders, Sarah Jazmine Fugate who has just moved to New York from Boston and will be writing about her experiences in the green building industry for GLD NYC.

Recently, Frank Gehry–one of the most recognizable names in architecture—launched an attack on LEED certification of buildings, calling the process bogus and political.   Whether one loves or hates Frank Gehry’s work, he has undeniably earned the status of a leader in design.  The juxtaposition of Frank Gehry’s personage and the LEED rating system in my mind made me start thinking about the “L for Leadership” in LEED.

Most architects and green builders would tend to agree that some of the credits awarded in the LEED system are purely political–creating new markets for particular materials, for example.  The LEED credit systems also seem to create opportunities for buildings with unimpressive energy ratings to be included by making up for low EA (Energy and Atmosphere) scores through softer, fuzzier credit categories.  The USGBC’s defends their system—saying LEED is meant to include and encourage, not exclude or be so demanding as to be inaccessible.     Accessibility is a laudable goal in an industry as change-averse as the building industry, especially if LEED envisions itself as the first step toward a comprehensive green building code.  If becoming a part of the code is the future of LEED, then the “L for Leadership” will of course have to go away, because leaders, by definition, do more than simply follow the rules.

If, however, LEED imagines itself as a more lasting system of optional actions with intangible rewards of marketing through the LEED brand and no punishment for opting out, then is “Leadership” really the right word when the system is made to be as inclusive as possible?

Could a parallel be drawn between No Child Left Behind and LEED?  Are we trying so hard to encourage mediocre buildings to be a little better that we’re failing to distinguish and celebrate truly exceptional performance which might actually stand a chance of halting environmental destruction?   Why is no one stating the obvious—that every building activity that is not energy neutral is a step (however small) in the wrong direction?  To what extent do the different tiers in the LEED rating system distinguish true platinum-dipped leaders from half-hearted certified-only followers?

Frank Gehry, for his part, has an obvious stake in belittling the green building movement because his buildings for the most part fall short if measured for energy and material efficiency.  Still, I think he might, at this late stage in his career with a name and legacy already established, be again acting as a leader by reminding us that making buildings that way we currently make them is a gesture of environmental consumption—one that he implicitly accepts through the body of work he has produced.  What does radical design leadership look like if it doesn’t accept environmental consumption/destruction as one of its premises/side effects?

Here are some designers who think they might know; Philippe Rahm, Terreform ONE, William McDonough.