LEED Platinum is not "the highest level of greenness a building can achieve." It's merely the highest LEED certification level a building can achieve. There are many other organizations that have certification or standards programs designed to award especially efficient buildings.

USGBC (LEED) is often regarded as the strictest (and some would say greenest) program, but aspects like cost and time consumption make building to LEED standards inefficient. Some architects think that LEED isn't green enough and build to even loftier green goals.

That's not to say that this building isn't cool, it is. And it's a great step in the right direction. I just wouldn't call anything the greenest just because it has a label on it.

Thanks arminda!

so arminda as i am understanding your statement that there are other organizations that rate "greeness" let me put it in terms that most lay people will understand...someone who wins an oscar or grammy as opposed to a golden globe or american music award....they are both the top of their rating system.... but lets face it the oscar and grammy carry more weight than the others....is the LEED considered to be the oscar or the golden globe?

regardless i can't wait to see the building in person..it looks amazing!

Ick. More and more LEED gets associated with ugly.

LEED is a great way to get people invested in sustainability and is a good guideline for buildings. But I do think that people should be less invested in getting the superficial achievement of LEED status.

yikes what an eyesore.

"But I do think that people should be less invested in getting the superficial achievement of LEED status."

What does this mean exactly? I have worked on a number of LEED accredited projects, seeing them through from design to documentation, and I don't see how the process could be deemed "superficial". I mean, if the project gets a point for reducing potable water consumption by 50%, it's actually doing that. Nothing is being artificially "greenwashed" unless the designers or contractors are telling lies to the USGBC.

And if you're talking about architects/developers who tout their LEED status as a selling point for a project, well, hell yes they should! If marketing is the way we get people to invest in the long term sustainability of the built environment, I say go for it.

Ugh I'm completely over the whole zaha hadid/frank gehry on crack design style. It's become a cliche in my book, but I'm sure it's the style the client wanted. Why bother putting all that money into getting a platinum rating if it doesn't stand out and doesn't get talked about, eh? Subtlety is a dying art.

And for all the flaws the LEED system has I'm at least happy that it's getting people to start making greenness a priority at all.

Yes I too am so over those spacey zaha hadid design. Most of her designs consists of irregular shapes, planes and whatnot that requires an excessive use of material. And I can see that with the Cooper Union building too. How much of the material from the original building was used? By the looks of this building compared to the grey building beside it - I think maybe just the structure - not so green that.
Anyway, I don't know what the original building looks like (lazy to google) but if its anything like that that grey building beside it then I'd say what a waste.

What a visual monstrosity!

That thing is horrendous.

The greenest building might be the one they didn't build.....and maybe they should have reconsidered this one.....but don't be down on LEED ATers!
I too am an "old school" HVAC engineer, and I applaud any design and construction team that achieves LEED Platinum. If it were easy, believe me, a lot more people would do it.

That's a serious eyesore! Those old buildings next to it are gorgeous. Too bad this place engulfs the whole block. What is this building? It just looks like a bunch of white hallways inside.

For those who asked, the old building was torn down. If you ask me it was ten times better looking (as run down as it was) then this new one, which doesn't look all that bad. I think what's ugly about it is the ground floor (absolutely nothing to look at as you walk pass the building) and the sidewalk around the building (it's just concrete).
There's a similar building to this one in Chelsea, Gehry' IAC building, which I find beautiful.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15434282@N00/3475050342/

Wow! What a visually stimulating building! I love the contrast with the building next to it. You see that in Europe all the time.

I prefer the architecture of the building to its left.

You don't have to like the building. They aren't going to take it down because you voiced that you don't like it. Most people didn't like Frank Lloyd Wright's homes when they were built, not that I'm comparing the two. But there's room in this world for all types.