Susan: excellent point, the link to ADA. You’re right, architects should have a public mission that couples good design with social betterment. Green and ADA and better cities fit those basic pillars of good design.

Too often, we fight as though green and aesthetics are not both components of design excellence. For years they were not - and apparently Gehry is waving that sad old flag. Yet Foster, Shigeru Ban, Murcutt have shown that the two are compatible. Gehry clearly is fighting that mandate.

Gehry’s comments show why green design should be mandatory. It should not be up to the whims of these arguments. Conservation and a healthy environment should be part of our mission, just like life safety.

In the meantime, these fights seem petty and short sighted. It’s tearing apart firms, organizations, and the architecture academy. The AIA was so late to adopt green standards and now they/we seem to talk of little else. It’s over-compensation and yet as a profession, we still fall miserably short. We still need to keep pushing.

In that way, Gehry has done a favor, expressing a pointless perspective that illustrates the silliness of this fight. Sad that he is so out of sync that he makes the argument sound irrelevant. Hopefully, others will say, how silly, we are all in the same boat, and good design includes sustainable buildings and cities.

best,
Cindy

Comment by Cindy Frewen Wuellner — May 13, 2010, @ 8:09 am

Perhaps we should also refer to Mr. Gehry’s follow up comments to BusinessWeek a week later explaining his remarks on LEED.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/04/gehrys_take_two_on_leed_architecture.html

Are you saying LEED posturing and inefficient LEED certified buildings are good for the movement?

Comment by Preston — May 13, 2010, @ 11:54 am

I believe Frank Gehry is right to some extent. In my opinion, it is every designer’s responsibility to become familiar with green technologies, similar to any other new application of construction or design. The LEED program has been great for rising awareness, not only for designers but also for consumers. The notion of “I’m not going to purchase unless it’s eco-friendly” has been helped create a new marketplace for individuals in our communities. As I’m sure you’re aware, the new marketing ploy USGBC has came out with is simply driven by money and perhaps politics. The result caused a huge rush of individuals to become grandfathered in as an old LEEP AP, mainly because they saw the ridiculous amount of obstacles you had to overcome to become a LEED AP in today’s standards. I’m not saying I’m not with the green initiative, I’m just saying it should be inherent in good design and more importantly, our generation.

Comment by Dustin A — May 13, 2010, @ 12:31 pm

Susan, Please take a deep breath and try to relax. Re-read Mr. Gehry’s comments. His issues are not with sustainability but with USGBC/LEED. By being first but not necessarily best, this proprietary juggernaut has become the “anointed leader” of sustainability by default and as your comments confirm, is now presumed to be synonymous with everything green.

Comment by Bob M. — May 13, 2010, @ 12:43 pm

Part of the problem with LEED is that it’s not a perfect system. While it currently represents the best way of documenting a building design’s consideration of the environment, it’s also a bit trendy still—a bit like carbon-offsetting. There are good intentions behind both, but these fall short in practice. In addition, many architecture offices chase LEED certification for their buildings (or accreditation for their staff) primarily as a marketing tool.

“Good design” should never be separated from “social betterment.” To put it another way, we should ultimately be able to do away with a separate rating system like LEED—responsible design should simply *be* the standard.

On a side note, why are we still paying attention star architects? Especially one whose work is increasingly irrelevant (post-Bilbao, anyway)?

Comment by Balazs Bognar — May 13, 2010, @ 1:05 pm

No, Preston. Don’t misread my angst about disconnected starchitects as blindly pro-LEED. If you actually read what I wrote, you wouldn’t jump to that erroneous conclusion. Anyone working with LEED or just watching it from the sidelines, knows that is not the end all, be all solution; it’s a flawed system. But it’s what we have now to help us get on the path to designing and building with a sensitivity to the environment and human health. And as you know, the rating system has gotten better with each new iteration. Note, for instance, the innovation points, in the latest version. You may want to stop looking for things to attack, and start looking for solutions that advance the cause of green buildings and expand our knowledge of living lightly on the land.

Comment by sss — May 13, 2010, @ 1:10 pm

Gehry is spot on. USGBC’s prescriptive checklist approach does not guarantee a more efficient building, nor necessarily healthier interior air quality.

Research undertaken by Henry Gifford

(http://869789182725854870-a-energysavingscience-com-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/energysavingscience.com/www/documents/DearChapterLeaders.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crYmdeR0Yge2MczM4oyW82SohV3R-lTY3z1e34RJZd1YDzNxAUKVpWVL8Yz5sY92gBtoIqq3o4xw9sUHhKIrIZ8YdbMniWQMOys3Qk51tXRp8tFedzPg-q4bBAU65hQxKog1bk9ipF717pho4Irbj9jdkFiIhWGjAaxRcrYnwOVjfLLvQSe2MFJ5WW7bckLK93-_uD5M9hMUZyMFZHB3c7n0OSLh5B0PAO0oFwOawbNGns0lW4%3D&attredirects=0)

shows that LEED certified buildings perform more poorly than the national average.

Gehry is right to call LEED bogus. The USGBC, after all, is a self-electing CLUB. More akin to a pop cult or religion.

Comment by Curtis B Wayne, Architect — May 13, 2010, @ 1:47 pm

Gehry’s is a prominent voice, but I am not sure that it is an influential voice. Sustainable design practices, many going beyond LEED and further broadening the definition of ethical practice, now seem to be more characteristic of leading and influential firms, and have become part of an embedded value set of emerging practitioners. Aren’t Gehry’s comments a little like those of Bob Lutz, as an example – illuminations of the faults of prior practice and proofs of an already momentous cultural change in process?

Comment by Jim Meredith — May 13, 2010, @ 1:49 pm

So by calling out the LEED rating system, Gehry said sustainable design is worthless? I mean, that’s what you stated in your article.

“…and thus the many efforts made every day by architects and designers to make our world less toxic, use available energy and water more carefully, pay mind to the site and its proximity to public transit, etc.”

Show me where he says sustainable design is not worthwhile, then you may have an argument worth writing an article.

Comment by ygogolak — May 13, 2010, @ 2:05 pm

Susan,

Frank is not wrong. His comments were reasonable and accurate. You are not a journalist but rather a proponent of political progressiveness.

Comment by Scott Anderson — May 13, 2010, @ 4:10 pm

I think Susan is right on with this piece. I wrote about this on our own blog some time ago:

http://blog.urbangreencouncil.org/2010/04/12/gehry-on-leed-humbug/

Gehry is a formalist, nothing more. And that’s not enough any more.

Comment by Yetsuh Frank — May 13, 2010, @ 5:10 pm

A big wide opened mouth…YAWN.
Thank you

Comment by phillip mcrevice — May 13, 2010, @ 5:32 pm

Who controls the controller? Think of the rating agencies and the finantial meltdown. One year ago the NYTimes was doubtful about LEED. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html

Comment by Fabrizio Gallanti — May 13, 2010, @ 5:33 pm

Gehry has to be against the environmental movement, he has no other choice. The energy and resources that flood into one of his buildings could build 10 simple, elegant buildings of the same type which all would perform better as buildings.

Comment by Greg Blain Architect — May 13, 2010, @ 6:52 pm

Would not we all be happier if Frank just called the head of the USGBC and talked out his feelings? The simple fact that he did not is very troubling. These comments could be his third attempt to prevent architects from expanding their practice beyond the 2% of the population that they currently serve.

Susan’s concerns are real.

Comment by Horace — May 13, 2010, @ 7:02 pm

Susan, I think you misunderstand Gehry’s position. He’s probably even further to the left on the green issues than you are.

He’s stated publicly before that he doesn’t buy into the idea of individuals acting alone via their own conscience to address these issues. He thinks it has to be done “politically” via government regulations. He argues that LEEDS is just a way for corporations to build a few face saving projects while not really being forced to do anything serious to combat global climate change. It’s a fair criticism.

Comment by Elliot Newman — May 13, 2010, @ 10:22 pm

And you can also read his view that it has to be done politically (via laws) as very similar to the exact point you’re making with the ADA rules.

You and Gehry are actually arguing for the same thing here, Susan.

If you left the ADA rules up to individuals and let them decide if they wanted an A+ rated accessible building, far fewer of the buildings we see today would be accessible.

Comment by Elliot Newman — May 13, 2010, @ 10:26 pm

It is evident that Ms.Szenasy has not thoroughly studied Mr. Gehry’s professional career and development. He started out using materials that no one else would have ever dreamed using, chain link fencing, 2 x 4’s bolted together to form acute and obtuse angles that form unique shapes that coupled with glass panels allows natural light to flow into the inner spaces in constantly changing patterns of intensity.
He has always been true to his belief that architecture should be fun, inspiring, functional, and make people think about the environments that they live, work, play, study and explore in. Ms. Szenasy should read “GEHRY TALKS” and watch “SKETCHES OF FRANK GEHRY” by: Sidney Pollock. In these two works she will see a much different side of this creative, innovative, sensitive and remarkably humble man. He is without a doubt a one of a kind that the architectural profession needs to be more like in these terms. He understands human nature and purpose probably more than any architect that I have come n contat with in the last 35 years. He is not pretentious, laughs at the word “STARCHITECT” when he is addressed as such by those who can think of no other way to describe him. As Corbu, Wright, Meier and all other forward thinking architects Mr. Gehry believes that architecture can have a positive effect on peoples lives. True his work is monumental and costs more to construct than the widely accepted belief that a pre-fabricated building is good enough for any project. How many of these type of buildings have inspired Ms.Szenazy? Very few I am sure,

At this point in history there is constant arguing about who is right and who is wrong in any subject that can be discussed. Our culture has been turned into a devisive one at all levels and this includes to be GREEN or not to be green. It has divided the design community and has played on the emotions of all others. All the rhetoric regarding GREEN being SUSTAINABLE is and will continue to be subject to debate. Nothing built is sustainable forever and if you think for one moment that Mr.Gehry believes that his work will last forever as well as all of this so called GREEN ARCHITECTURE will last forever you are only kidding yourselves.

Conserving our natural resources is most definately something all of us should do.
Architects have a huge personal moral and ethical responsibility to be a part in conserving natural resources in creative ways, not mandated ways. EVERYTHING in life does not have to be mandated people. All of us in this profession must make a personnal committment to design INTELLIGENTLY. GREEN is a color. It is not and will never be anything but that. Grass is green but turns brown in winter months and even dies at times, hus rendering itself unsustainable.

In conclusion Ms. Szenasy, take some time, study Mr. Gehry and what he really stands for and is. You can and will learn so much about yourself, for he has so much to offer you and you will be the better for it.

Comment by Randy Hickey, Architect — May 13, 2010, @ 10:44 pm

You may be surprised by this, Randy: I have actually seen the Pollack film, seen Gehry on Charlie Rose and in other interviews, and am very familiar with his work. I also admire his creative talents and have visited most of his buildings. In fact, loved being in and around most of them. I recognize his genius. What I have a problem with, as I said before, is that he doesn’t address the large issues shaping the designed environment to a public that hangs on his every word. Many architecture students, young practitioners, and a good portion of aging architects and designers idolize him. He owes it to them, as their artistic leader, to discuss how his work addresses their concerns, which center around environmental and social issues.

Comment by sss — May 14, 2010, @ 1:09 pm

Susan,

He has given lectures where he speaks to these environmental issues - he says that they must be addressed politically, via government regulations. That’s why he’s such a consistent unabashed Democratic supporter. You can view his political donations online.

In this respect, Gehry has made his personal views much more public than most people in the industry. Are your political donations available online for everyone to see, for example?

Comment by Elliot Newman — May 14, 2010, @ 2:17 pm

IF Frank created buildings that excelled in environmental performance (like Thom Mayne), he would have the moral authority to call out the USGBC as bogus. Alas, there is 2 decades of FOGA’s work that ignore environmental substance, beyond his excessive need for structure to support his exuberant forms (note the sarcasm).

Before I start listing the environmental failures of Gehry’s work (titanium!!??), my take on his comments are that he’s attempting to compensate for missing the sustainable design boat and is now trying to greenwash his reputation.

The parallel between LEED and the ADA is very apt - thank you Susan for calling a spade, a spade.

Comment by Barry Lehrman — May 16, 2010, @ 3:05 pm

Frank is right - architecture is a political act and no amount of caterwauling about humanism as a primary factor in how (or why) things are built will make it true. People are finally accruing to the environmental imperative. Building codes are the best place to realize and oblige the commitment to building green - the outcome of a publically vetted discussion of the degree of green. And more and more jurisdiions will codify. It will be a happy day when LEED is no longer the measure of sustainability.

Comment by Charles Higueras — May 17, 2010, @ 1:48 pm

I agree with Charles (above) here, as well as Frank. LEED is simply a business that forces Architects to jump through more hoops and pay more money for more classes.
“Green Architecture” should always be part of the Architects vision.
And before we strapped a name to it…It was still there.
I spoke with our lead LEED professional down in San Diego…Even he said it was a junk process, mostly unattainable, and expensive for everyone. It is mostly set up for a new organization that waves around a flag. Makes up a word “sustainable” (stupid word) and tries to get everyone to pay to become “accredited”. I honestly heard a chef on TV talking about “sustainable” food products while pointing to a chicken the other day. It’s so stupid. I don’t want a sustainable chicken…
Frank is totally right.
You want to build green?…go ahead BUILD GREEN! I’ll bet Frank wants to build green too. It’s the organization that has become the self proclaimed leader of the Green movement that is out of order.
I don’t want to have to be accredited and pass a test so that I can list Solar panels and Low VOC paint paint one the buildings I design. I want to build green.
Codes are the best place to start.

Carpet made from baby diapers…great…except it took more energy and released more VOC’s to break down the the diaper and turn it into carpet then it does to make new carpet. But we are proud of ourselves for recycling.
And that’s considered a sustainable product.

Frank is right…all the way.

Comment by David Gordon — May 18, 2010, @ 2:20 pm

Susan
I would like to open up a deeper question about position of architecture in society and sustainability.

Last year, I saw an article about an Indian tycoon who is building a LEED rated 60 storey tall tower as his family home. We may laugh at the meaning of the LEED rating in this context but perhaps someone who actually lives within their share of the global footprint would look at the work we do in the same light.

For example, one could question the ‘sustainable’ second home - beautifully photographed rural retreats with the water tank carefully composed in the background. This goes on to be celebrated in media and in turn fuels further consumption. A simple home is no longer enough. The architectural ‘system’ continually generate and expands desire.

Given that, the average person in a developed country lives 3-4 time the carrying capacity of the planet and architecture is typically located in the top tier of this group, how do we legitimise architecture?

Perhaps, this is not a new question. When the Sydney Opera House was being built, there were outcrys from the community that the money being spent on this excessive building should go towards hospitals where it can save lives. It’s difficult to argue for architecture when you are up against mums with cancer kids!

Now the building is embraced by the community as a symbol of the city.

Even in the works of the poster boys of sustainability such as Rural Studio and AFH, one can see qualitative design decisions such as playful construction that are beyond strict necessity. Even if this adds 5% additional cost, it means 1 less building for every 20 to the community that AFH is assisting. Who defends that decision?

As much as social and environmental agendas are important, where does the immeasurable qualitative aspects of what we create sit?
Given that many argue this is what make ‘architecture’ distinct from ‘building’, what is the position of architecture in sustainability?

Comment by John Choi — May 18, 2010, @ 11:45 pm

Gehry, and Meier, have made only very ugly buildings (how on earth can anyone see anything remotely fine in them? - this also says something about the state of criticism and the acdemics); and they have no agenda for architecture so that it can be able to improve the state that humanity is in, and thus acquire a little respect as an activity. With people like this as the “stars”, no one takes architecture seriously any more . Anyway, only a debased activity needs stars.

Comment by Kaveh — May 20, 2010, @ 6:54 am

Again, I also agree with the commentators above and also Frank: LEED is simply a “complicated” business to force architects pay more. But the worse part is that it is extremely trendy, and obviously following such deviously and corrosive attitude for dominating a huge “industry” like “design in architecture” is a MUST. LEED would dictate the way of design to architects and architectural firms and every year spend a lot of money (made from the architects money) to manage, redirect and control them. It is really horrible. It is far from democracy.

I believe they are like some strangers (GREEN MEDIATORS) many of them know nothing about architecture and having no other mission expect than reducing the whole industry to a TOOL in hand of LEED.

Shame on the architects who pay LEED and help them out to ruin the built environment by establishing exciting-free and ugly zero-carbon buildings …

Comment by kia — May 21, 2010, @ 9:02 pm

“(and thus the many efforts made every day by architects and designers to make our world less toxic, use available energy and water more carefully, pay mind to the site and its proximity to public transit, etc. )”

No, no, no. LEED itself is bogus. The intent to build well is not.

Anyone who knows anything about LEED knows that it DOES give you “points” for completely worthless stuff.
- Bike racks in a building you couldn’t bike to? Point!
- Put up a sign in a bathroom saying your building has a “no scent” policy? POINT! Even though you don’t have to enforce it.

Fundamentally sustainability should be more about buildings that last and are durable. Does LEED award you for deciding to tear down a building if you sort the waste? YEP! Is that sustainable?

Don’t take Gehry out of context and try to paint him with an anti-sustainable brush. LEED is a crock of BS. What we should really be doing is raising the standard dictated by the code so that we can’t use cheap materials, can’t create unhealthy environments, and so on, so that the law mandates a higher standard of healthy building.

Comment by twt — May 22, 2010, @ 10:16 am

FOG is completely correct. THIS IS ABOUT MONEY, PERIOD. Remember; the real Green Movement was in the 60’s, and it applied all things green to the earth- at a grass roots level. Don’t confuse ‘LEED’,’sustainable’, the new ‘green’- and the pocketful of capitalist terms with a real Global love for the environment.
How many of us would do it for free? Just FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Comment by Mick J — May 25, 2010, @ 1:58 pm

The problem with LEED, as “The Green Dean” said years ago is that it is built on being less bad, not on good design. I am sure this is what a careful reading of
Gehry’s comments might reveal.Architecture should begin with what are now billed as “Green” principles.They should be inherent in every design process and not a tiresome search for LEED points and/or certification!In fact Architecture (capital
A) should be about renewing not just sustainng!
Richard M. Beckman, Architect and retired professor of architecture.

Comment by Richard Beckman — May 25, 2010, @ 7:40 pm

people caring bout the environment doesn’t mean they do anything to fix it. LEED is the same way. ITS A FARCE. i have worked on leed projects and though they create the illusion of helping the environment its does not help architecture. ALL ARCHITECTURE SHOULD BE SUSTAINABLE, it should be a standard thing when we design, you should not have to pay and it should not be a title to boast about.

THE LEED PROCESS IS ONLY A WAY TO LEGITIMIZE BAD DESIGN.

im sure who ever wrote this article has never worked on a major LEED project.

Ghery comments have nothing to do against green architecture, hes only attacking the system, a system the does not work

Ghery has not been the only one to say it, i think theres a video floating around in the internet of tom maine commenting something similar.

Comment by carlos — May 26, 2010, @ 1:58 pm

Ghery is my new hero.

Comment by Art Donovan — June 12, 2010, @ 11:24 pm

Have you talked to Frank about this? Susan it sounds like you are re-blogging what someone heard from someone else and not doing any journalism. Tell us what you find once you’ve had a conversation with him. It’d be better to hear about that than some third hand information.

Comment by Arthur — July 29, 2010, @ 12:37 am

I fully agree with Frank Gehry that sustainable design is a political issue. Unfortunately, as Susan suggests, political engagement requires a completely different process than architectural design. It requires working on a systemic level, addressing the needs of multiple constituents, and getting down to the gritty details of policy writing. Which is what volunteers within the USGBC membership have done in the last decade! USGBC has members across the building industry - architects, engineers, real estate companies, etc. The work on the LEED rating system has jump-started the development of the Internation Green Building Code! And I think the argument that LEED costs is specious - good design costs even more, and it should at minimum meet a “lowly” standard as LEED before it pretends to be sustainable.

Comment by Ludmilla Pavlova — August 4, 2010, @ 5:13 pm

I hesitate to add my comments. I am struck by the level of emotion I perceive in many of them. But here’s my two cents: Many critics of LEED/USGBC are spot on with the facts but it’s the larger truth which I think Ms. Szenasy is trying to get readers to contemplate. Whether it’s issues such as ADA or sustainable design, what is the role of the architect as a member of, dare I say a professional in service to, civil society? And, particularly in a profession that seems to be as in thrall to our “starchitects” as teenagers seem to be to the latest pop princess, what does it mean (to architects) when those “starchitects” seem to ignore or even dismiss these more social aspects within design? We all have our criticisms of LEED and the motives of the USGBC, but I believe that without the efforts of the originators of LEED and those who see its value and support it today, we wouldn’t have the movement in the industry that we now see where design responds to those issues. Yes there is more, much, much more to be done in this area as in others affecting the built environment. But aren’t we all responsible to take action that makes improvement. And shouldn’t the conversation and debate be such that we are inspired and motivated to do those things we, collectively and individually, believe will do so.

Comment by M. C. Dildey — August 5, 2010, @ 7:37 pm

Recently I spent few days in a casino-hotel in Las Vegas. I was surprise to see by the check-in desk a big glass plaque proudly stating that the casino was LEED/USGBC certified!!!

The Casino was bigger than many European towns; the lobby was bigger than Time Square!! My room (a standard one) was bigger than many houses in Brooklyn, had three flat screen TVs! (including one in the bathroom). Expensive (think of just the shipping…)real marble floor everywhere. People smoking in many areas of the building. Wow!!!
LEED? USGBC? …no thank you! I’m going to stick with good old fashioned COMMON SENSE DESIGN!!! …it’s free, it’s real, and no politics involved!!

Comment by Antonio Larosa — August 13, 2010, @ 7:03 pm

There are some interesting time limits in this article however I don’t know if I see all of them middle to heart. There’s some validity but I will take maintain opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we wish extra! Added to FeedBurner as well

Comment by Erkennungsmarken — August 3, 2011, @ 6:27 pm

Great post, you have pointed out some excellent points , I besides think this s a very superb website.

Comment by projektowanie stron www — September 19, 2011, @ 2:44 am

Susan’s view typifies the new puritanism afoot.
There is no need, for instance, to “offset” “carbon”.This refers not to carbon but to one of the most precious resources for green growing things—carbon dioxide. As different from carbon as from water!…and no need to “offset” it….the need is to stop destroying the forests that need it and consume it!

No,types such as Susan are re!igious…not scientific. They wi!! make a re!igion out of anything at hand. She demonstrates the fundamenta! weakness—-human greed for the high ground of greater virtue. Somewhat ironic that it destroys everything it touches.

Comment by angus — February 7, 2012, @ 1:12 pm

It is necessary to use the tools available in our daily design processes for consideration of embodied energies used in the production of our products. It is good to question all the regulatory bodies and what they gain from their relevance. I believe it is also important to be responsible for being able to dream and allow your ideas when bringing them into fruition, to not impact on our futures to the extent where we have no consideration.

Comment by devacharn — March 21, 2012, @ 10:02 pm

LEED is a load of malarkey!! Think, people!

Comment by Christine Hill — October 16, 2012, @ 11:05 am

So, what would you rather have Gehry do, appease your allegiance to a political movement, or express a desire for people to design with environmental practices in mind? This seems to be the main issue. I haven’t looked, but I would be curious as to your thoughts on Al Gore’s expensive taste and chase of larger dollar amounts. Afterall, he was to “Green Movement” what Jared was to Subway, yet he didn’t seem to practice what he preached. I believe he had a television network that he sold recently to Al-Jazeera. What does that say about his feelings about this movement?

Comment by Josh — February 5, 2013, @ 1:03 pm