Are Piedmont Parking Deck’s ‘green’ features a sham?
July 2, 2009 at 3:21 pm by Thomas Wheatley in NewsEnvironmental news site Grist has an interesting post today questioning whether the controversial parking deck in Piedmont Park is as “green” — or LEED-certified — as its proponents have claimed.
But the pro-parking deck forces point to its green attributes, and even named it “SAGE”—for Safety Access Greenspace and Expansion. Per the Conservancy’s website, the garage was built to LEED standards, with shaded areas for cars to reduce heat island effect; increased access to the park for visitors; a “virtually invisible” structure within several years, when the potted trees finally blossom; special parking spots for hybrids and such; a top-level bike rack; and rainwater capture to irrigate the gardens.
Hm. Other than the last two ingredients, pretty much none of its touted green factors are particularly green, nor are they part of the LEED system. In fact, the U.S. Green Building Council has no record of the SAGE parking facility—it was neither registered (the first step toward certification) nor certified. And a parking garage isn’t eligible for LEED certification—a building, says Scot Horst, senior vice president of LEED, must have at least one resident to even be considered.
Foes of the parking deck weren’t mollified by the LEED claims—“Putting trees in pots on a concrete monstrosity didn’t transform the essential nature of the beast,” says [Friends of Piedmont Park board member Jack White]—but the even more troubling thing, at least to the folks who oversee LEED, is the misuse of their carefully crafted system. LEED has endured a lot of criticism in its 13-year history—for being too complex, not accounting for regional differences, costing too much to achieve, etc.—and has responded with a user-friendlier version, dubbed LEED 3.0, this year. But, says Horst, if a project isn’t officially certified, “you have no idea what [developers] mean” when they use the term. (The Piedmont conservancy did not return email requests for comment.)
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Kind of an odd Grist post. The writer seems to be accusing the park of doing something wrong by pointing out that the parking garage was not registered for LEED certification, then she follows up the thought by pointing out that parking garages are not eligible for LEED certification.
Well, duh — why would the park have registered the garage if they knew it was not eligible for certification?
I certainly wish a parking garage wasn’t necessary here, but the wacky Midtown MARTA bus routes, plus the relative low-density of the area around the park, plus the general auto-centric nature of the city make it so. A multi-level garage with trees and greenery certainly beats the heck out of a black-top surface parking lot, and we still have way too many of those in Midtown.
This garage only needs to last a couple of decades until the light rail line along the Beltline is finished (that’ll happen, right?). Or at least until I acquire a billion dollars and build the light rail line myself. Then we can tear down the garage and build a garden there.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
So the ABG and PPC got caught playing fast and loose a bit with other people’s approval….
Wonder what the reaction will be should the parking deck drive become a real road between Monroe and Piedmont, and all that traffic, in the middle of the park…. Ooops, not supposed to happen. Just like the City supporting the residents in opposition to Wayne Mason’s tower on the park, while now that’s exactly what they’re proposing themselves…
yep
always fun to play spot the flipflop
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
This might be splitting hairs, but the Park Conservancy site says the deck “will be built to LEED standards”. It never said it would be Certified LEED.
The LEED system basically provides a checklist of items that serves as a benchmark for projects to be considered green. If they were able to apply some of the standards to the deck is that a bad thing?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Who cares if the garage makes any environmental sense? It is there to allow us to park in Piedmont Park, not to reduce global warming. Plus, the Atlanta Botanical Gardens has put a lot of money into the Park. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want to do with their land?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
What does “built to LEED standards” mean? Nothing, of course. It was a sneaky slight of hand cooked up by the Garden’s PR hacks to help portray tons of concrete as if it were a return to Eden. LEED-like standards are not like an Underwriters Laboratory standard, which actually exists and is measureable. As for the Garden being able to do what they want with their land: First, the Garden took control of what was an acre of public parkland through many deceptions, including the LEED farce; and second, they are renters. That land belongs to City of Atlanta taxpayers. But the world will always be divided into two kinds of people – those who think the deck was a bad idea and people who are simply wrong.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I thought SAGE stands for “Special-interests Always Get Everything.”
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hey Jack White, that’ll be $273,000 please. You don’t get to make remarks about Mary Pat’s flowerpots. What do you think this is, a free country?
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
What a crock! The Conservancy and the Botanical Garden both lied and knowingly spread misinformation to the City and all its residents on the LEED certification of the parking deck. Who is accountable for lying to the public on this issue? Who is looking into the massive amount of extra concrete and paving the City and the Conservancy are doing creating a road to the deck from Monroe Dr….or is the road a LEED certified project also? SAGE indeed….Say Anything Greedy Egotist is more like it. These organizations make me SICK!
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
ABG, your critics will NEVER like you no matter what you do, so why try? As a member of the ABG, I love the new facilities and the dramatic expansion of greenspace they make possible.
Maybe some are upset that the Storza Woods will actually be used for something other than urban camping and cruising?
Lesson learned?
July 4th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Both you green Nazis and anti-deck nimby’s need to get a life. The deck was necessary for the reasons eloquently stated by Darin. Sorry, other people in the city get to use to park too.
Secondly, is it better that the deck be built with all the features that it has or not? Unless you’re against the project for purely emotional (illogical) reasons, its a no brainer.