Donovan Rypkema: LEED stands for "Lunatic Environmentalists Enthusiastically Demolishing"
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 05.31.08
Donald Rypkema is a powerful and passionate speaker who had the crowd at the 2008 Heritage Conservation conference on their feet. The President of PlaceEconomics, a Washington D.C. based consulting firm specializing in the economic revitalization of city centers and the development of historic properties, is also deliberately provocative, challenging a wide range of sacred cows in the green design world.
He starts it with an elevator pitch/ "if you can't write it on a business card then you don't have a clear idea" and summarizes it in five points:
1. Sustainable development is crucial for economic competitiveness.
2. Sustainable development has more elements than just environmental responsibility.
3. “Green buildings” and sustainable development are not synonyms.
4. Historic preservation is, in and of itself, sustainable development.
5. Development without a historic preservation component is not sustainable.
Perhaps he is such a good speaker because he practices his pitch; I found an almost perfect transcript from a previous presentation here.
In his blog, he Rypkema is particularly critical of architects and developers using LEED as an excuse to tear down perfectly good buildings; the 40 storey hotel in Lexington, Kentucky shown above is to be built on the bones of 14 historic structures built between 1826 and 1930, all of which could be easily integrated into the structure.
"The idea that this development couldn't be a mix of old and new suffers from a paucity of the imagination. And their stick to justify the demolition? "Yeah, but we're going to be LEED certified."
He suggests that LEED stands for "Lunatic Environmentalists Enthusiastically Demolishing."
We can be provocative too, and I asked him what he thought of TreeHugger Emeritus Ruben Anderson's comment to a previous post:
"Most old buildings merely slow the wind down. They are abysmally hard to heat, as any reading of period novels will tell you. I cannot support using energy to heat sentiment."
WARNING: Strong language.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Convince Your Family Contracting Business to Go Green
- Steve Thomas Goes on Tour, Talks About Woodworking and Father's Day
- Meet Change Maker Christopher Raeburn of Raeburn Design
- What Tools Should I Get Dad for Father's Day?
- Holter Visits the Homestead National Monument of America, Thinks Your Should Too
- Renovation Nation Gets Experiences Coldest Production Ever
Man this guy is very passionate. Thanks for the article
This is another attempt by the press to create "sellable drama" to the public by taking 2 groups, who essentially have the same goal in mind (saving our planet) and pit them against each other. He's taking about a specific situation where a historic building was torn down and the "excuse" given was the replacement will be LEED certified.
So now he's against LEED certification all together? Please! Everybody, let's join in on the ignorant bandwagon! Neither the USGBC nor the LEED certification program promote tearing down historic buildings, and this article is trying to make people believe that they do. The existnace of LEED certification for existing structures proves that point right there. For all historic structures, and I mean early 1900's or older, we should always try to save them first, not destroy them. All the buildings that those of you getting ready to collect social security developed and built back in the mid 50's thru 90's should be destoyed. They are garbage and you know it, and those of us in Gen X now stuck with having to deal with these toxic money pits should continue to get rid of them and rebuild on their existing foot print.
Bottom line, there is no reason to tear down a historic building in the name of LEED, you should be able to save the building using LEED prinicpals. Stop confusng the facts and jumping on the bandwagon to prevent progressive and sustainable changes. Gee, I guess this makes me a "Lunatic Environmentalist"?
Mr Rypkema:
please take note. I am an Arizona based Developer.
My projects do practice:
Historic preservation is, in and of itself, sustainable development.
Furthermore, my projects are LEED certified.
Be careful when generalizing about LEED. Although, I agree more attention needs to be placed on historic preservation.
Well this guy is a bit annoying and overly provocative (he DOES say that he gets carried away...), but I really agree with him. There's more to sustainability than just helping nature. There's the social and the economic aspects as well, and they are just as important. If you ignore any major aspect, then you won't completely be solving any problem.
Maybe he's right. But then, LEED may not be about only buildings for very much longer. People build landscapes too.
I agree that some heritage buildings should be saved but often I find it goes to far. In Victoria BC there are many heritage buildings that will fall into the ground before anyone will spend the serious capital to bring them up to code(acting as a owner I looked into the cost in detail of the "Northern Junk" building) . I think that the requirements for what must be saved should be balanced with the need to use good urban space.
in Vancouver there are some gut rehabs of heritage buildings and the heritage guidelines REQUIRE them to use single paned windows, I think that is ridiculous and I feel heritage campaigners fail to see the bigger picture sometimes. I think it is important to use old buildings but a reasonable balance must be struck.
Laws by their nature strip down the issues involved to a few simple rules.
Obviously, one can misuse rules and bend them in ways never imagined by those penning the laws.
When the goal is short term $$$ then often long term benefit is not considered.
Some things are worth preserving as "heritage" but not all. Do we insist farmers plow with horses because their ancestors did? I think not. Insisting on single glazed windowing is insane.
We should keep the parts that work, and upgrade what does not.
Whatever we do, the most important thing is to keep taxing everyone and everything into the ground. People under never-ending economic stress generally put the environment first, it's only common sense.
Gotta agree with his comments about Seattle going for density at the expense of all else. To site a specific example in Ballard, what used to be a street of single family homes with unique character and engaging gardens has been turned into a row of nearly identical town house developments with 6' tall fences right up to the sidewalk. It really doesn't matter if some of those townhouses are green built or not. Yeah, it's 4x the density, but it's no longer a place I enjoy walking, and you never see anyone, so it kills the community. To all things there is a balance, and a way to do them right vs. cheaply.
Mr Rypkema's presentation was simply awesome. i cant understand the criticism thats felt required by the author of this article for the use of the same speech a second (perhaps more) time, it was so perfect in the point it was trying to get across that it would be hard to re-write and not destroy. actually, i would love to hear the whole thing again. one of the most thought provoking lectures of the weekend, and perfect for "landmarks not landfill" the title of the conference.
the plastic "energy saving" window (virtually jammed down the necks of everyone since the 70s) has had a terrible effect on the environment... how can creating, shipping, installing (with masses of sealing foam used), such a costly window make sense, when in 15 years it will be in the landfill, and unusable? we have windows in our house that are 170 years old, and when twinned with storms and well mainted have a comparable thermal rating. makes no sense! its pure lazyness, and architecturally a disaster for old buildings.
i could rant on for ever.
congratulations Mr Rypkema, good work that man.
As a long-time practioner and sustainable development consultant, I joined the USGBC and obtained my LEED accreditation because I found the system to be in compliance with the spirit and many of the principles of sustainability. It is not a perfect system. LEED for new construction is just one component of an entire system of standards, and it also emphasizes saving existing structures as much as possible. It is interesting how the media picks up on one extreme side of an issue or the other to sell ads, I guess. The extreme statements by Mr Rypkema did catch my attention, because I knew his comments must have been based on some misunderstanding of the purpose and objectives of LEED. A quick check of the USGBC website and its portfolio of examples will show an array of preserved and improved existing buildings. Why? Because that is always the first choice from the standpoint of sustainable development.