Bausteine - Referate - Jana Milosovicova - Urban Design English

documentation of LEED-ND.
Points vs. Grades
By using a generalized analysis, the results of the
Assessment Matrix are more subjective whereas
LEED-ND draws a bright line between what
achieves a point and what is not based on a specific
calculation. The Assessment Matrix allows
for more professional judgment in the rating
process however without more specific criteria
in some areas, it would be difficult to implement
in a certification process. The advantage to the
Assessment Matrix approach is that is rates all
criteria, giving poor notes to areas that do not
meet the rating system goals and also allowing
for a gradation between good and bad. LEED-
ND allows areas where rating system goals
were not achieved to go unaddressed, which
become areas where no points are scored. Additionally,
with the bright line drawn in the LEED
rating process there is no reflection of the gradation
between positive and negative attributes
that occurs in reality.
Main Categories
The neighborhood rating systems are organized
quite differently. LEED-ND has opted arrange
its system by a three-part process: choosing
a site, then creating a master plan for the site
and finally designing the building and site details
which reflects the development process of
most projects. This three-part system also corresponds
with three co-authors – NRDC, CNU
and USGBC – and their respective interests:
smart growth, urbanism and green building.
The categories of LEED-ND are:
I. Smart Location & Linkage (30 points)
II. Neighborhood Pattern & Design (39
points)
III. Green Construction & Technology (31
points)
IV.
Innovation & Design Process (6 points)
In contrast to LEED-ND, the Assessment Matrix
is arranged thematically. Since the Assessment
Matrix focuses on location choice, it is most
closely related to the first category of LEED-
ND however it does address issues raised in
the other categories. The main categories of the
Assessment Matrix are:
1. Mobility/Location/Reachability (30%)
2. Emissions (10%)
3. Microclimate (5%)
4. Ground & Area (new) Utilization (20%)
5. Nature (Flora & Fauna) (15%)
6. Water (10%)
7. Energy (5%)
8. Place & Landscape View (5%)
IIi. Comparison of rating system
criteria
In order to compare two systems which are organized
in completely different ways, new thematic
categories were developed. They are:
1. Location and Previous Use
2. Transportation and Reachability
3. Compact and Walkable Design
4. Conservation and Restoration of the Environment
5. Social Issues
6. Resource Efficiency
7. Pollution
Due to fundamental differences between rating
systems, the criteria don’t always align solely
within one category. The separation of “diverse
uses” and “mixed-use” is the best example: the
former is included in Transportation and Reachability
to measure the time-distance travel to
these common goals; the latter is included with
Compact and Walkable Design since it analyzes
the density of a particular place. Mixed-use development
is created by including diverse uses,
yet it becomes easier to distinguish between
the users’ experience and the planners’ calculation
when travel distances and density are measured
separately.
103