盖里与LEED

弗兰克·盖瑞通常可以使事情变得更加有趣。最近,他对于可持续性的意见就证明了这位81岁的建筑大师仍然像以前那样有煽动性,而且一如既往地令人感到震撼。在接受芝加哥《论坛报》Blair Kamin的采访中,盖瑞基本上不再谈论LEED,及其使我们的环境更加环保的成就。而他的反对意见可能主要针对LEED的分数制度,而不是整体的绿色运动,他的评论像往常一样,引起了一些争议。

在《论坛报》中所引用的盖瑞原话:

“我觉得这个问题最终还是一个政治问题,”盖瑞说。谈到LEED(领先能源和环境设计)建筑物的等级制度,它给建筑物的节能特征加分,但却因一部分特征(例如自行车架)其实是华而不实的而遭到恶评,盖瑞说:“许多LEED都授予了名不副实的建筑。”“建造一座绿色建筑物的成本是庞大的,”他说,“在你的有生之年它们都无法偿还。”

《大都市》的编辑Susan S. Szenasy在她的信中还击说:“你大错特错,弗兰克·盖瑞。”她认为建筑师们应该对他们所做的使气候发生改变的事情负责:

“人们都知道,建筑物所产生的碳排放量占全球总量的一半还多,当然那些建造者和设计者必须承担一些责任。但盖瑞显然没有。盖瑞傲慢地宣称LEED的定额制度(以及每天建筑师和设计师们为使我们的世界少受污染而付出的努力,更谨慎地使用可利用的能源和水资源,也考虑到它的地点和公共交通的距离等方面)是‘政治工具’和‘造假’。这对于每个关心它的人来说是不幸的,但是每个人必须关心。尽管我非常担忧,然而我并不感到惊讶。

……如果建筑大师们决定为人类的幸福行动起来,那这个世界会变得怎样呢? 我继续问道,要是他们承认伟大的建筑也应该对人类和环境有益又会怎样呢?这样的参与行为会降低他们的大师地位吗?我不这样认为。”

如果一切顺利的话,盖瑞能理解了我们做出的环保决定的重要性,他只是在单纯地批评LEED的分数制度。可以这么说,对于一位最著名的建筑师来说,没有看到占主流地位的绿色风暴的益处,这将是一个耻辱。不过非常有趣的是,盖瑞具有争议性的阐述的确做了一些积极的事情,因为大量反对他意见的人们证明了在过去几年里绿色运动的强度和获得的诸多支持。


Frank Gehry can usually spice things up. And, his recent comments about sustainability prove that the 81 year old starchitect still remains as provocative and shocking as he always was. In an interview with Blair Kamin from the Chicago Tribune, Gehry basically dismissed LEED and its efforts to make our built environment more eco-friendly. While his opposition may be targeted predominately toward LEED’s point system, rather than the overall green movement, his comments, like usual, stirred up some controversy.

In the Tribune, Gehry was quoted as saying:

“I think the issue is finally a political one,” Gehry said. Referring to the LEED (for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system for buildings, which awards points for energy-saving features but has been criticized because some of these features (like bike racks) are superficial add-ons, Gehry said: “A lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff.” The costs of making a green building are “enormous,” he said, and “they don’t pay back in your lifetime.”

Editor of Metropolis, Susan S. Szenasy, fired back with her letter, “You are so wrong, Frank Gehry”. She feels that architects should take responsibility for doing something about climate change:

“With buildings known to produce more than half of the world’s carbon output, surely those who design and build them have to shoulder some responsibility. But not, apparently, Gehry. He cavalierly called out LEED ratings (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. ) as “political” and “bogus.” This is unfortunate for everyone concerned, and everyone must be concerned. But I’m not surprised, though I am saddened no end.

“…How would the world look and feel if the stars of architecture decided to stand up for the good of humanity? What if, I kept asking, they admitted that great architecture could also be kind to people and the environment? Would such an act of involvement diminish their star status? I don’t think so.”

Hopefully, Gehry understands the importance of our environmentally conscious decisions and he is purely criticizing the LEED point system. It would be a shame for, arguably, one of the most well known architects not to see the benefit of the green frenzy that is taking control. And yet, interestingly enough, Gehry’s controversial statements did do something positive, as the scores of people reacting against his comments prove the strength and support of the green movement has attained these past few years.