Apple Stores certified by US Green Building Council...barely

Ok, Am I the only one who gets bugged by this?

Lawns are VERY wasteful.
Apple (and companies in general) gets a MINUS for not having a lawn so they could use innovative water recycling methods to be LESS wasteful.
I am really guessing that not having a lawn is less wasteful still.

It's like "I bought this ball-scratcher for $1000. It was at a 40% discount (full price $1700), so I really PROFITED by $700".

No, no, you didn't. You wasted $1000 on a useless ball-scratcher which you only bought because your logic matches that of a five year old.

I know you were just picking a couple items as examples, but I find it odd you seem to be singling out those connected with landscape/open space.

"Sustainable sites: Apple won points for for site selection and density, but was unable to earn points for protecting habitats since Apple Stores don't include a lawn, yard or other landscaping."

If the specific store earned the Development Density/Community Connectivity credit, then they can use a green roof to earn the Protect/Restore Habitat credit. They could also donate to a land trust.

If the store is part of a multi-tenant retail complex, they can also achieve the Maximize Open Space credit if there is a common open space that is adequately sized for the complex.

And it certainly has nothing to do with retail stores not having lawns or yards.

"Water efficiency: Again, Apple loses out on possible points towards innovative wastewater technology as its stores lack any significant landscaping."

Again, providing a native or adapted habitat in the form of a green roof would easily allow for the store to achieve this credit. Its achieved by comparing the water needs of a baseline case (what would typically be installed, probably a combination of sod and shrubs, irrigated with lower efficiency spray heads) with a native/adapted habitat, which requires less water and implementing a smart/efficient irrigation system.

Also, again, if a part of a multi-tenant complex, then the common open space would provide opportunities to achieve this credit.

Out of the 10 possible points for Water Efficiency, there is only 1 credit (4 points possible) that has anything to do with landscape. The Innovative Wastewater Technology credit is not directly tied to whether or not there is any landscape on the site.

Really, the landscape/open space portion of this is small. There are a lot more reason why they did not achieve a higher certification.

This is getting ridiculous. Being environmentally freindly is clearly important to Apple's employees and leadership, and they consistently do more than pretty much any other tech company to stay ahead of the curve. Its efforts are obvious in their products and packaging.

First Greenpeace bitched because Apple didn't sign some agreement or other to change their practices in the future, while ignoring the efforts they were already making to reduce waste and eliminate toxins in their products. Now these clowns want to apply their own arbitrary standards to a high-profile corporation like Apple, to get attention.

It's just absurd. Let these imbeciles play their little games while Apple actually changes the industry for the better. I'm just sick of hearing about it, and I wish they'd stop getting attention from the likes of TUAW.

Two Apple Stores in Chicago (North Michigan Avenue and Lincoln Park) have lawn-sized green roofs, along with landscaped areas at street level next to the stores.

Barely is irrelevant. Passing is passing.

Who really cares? Is Apple having a lawn really news? Who cares if some random group certifies them or not? People act like this crap is important. Guess what, it's not.

The news is noteworthy but the assessment is misguided. There are no LEED rankings, just levels of certification. Achieving a higher certification level is not intended to say one level of LEED is better than another. A project can only achieve a maximum certification level based on scope. USGBC would love everyone to go for platinum (because they would receive the most revenue) but that isn't practical or possible for every case.

The real take away is Apple applied for (via fees), went through the intensive LEED process to achieve certification and achieved a certified rating without any mandate to do so (unlike other industries). The achievement should be commended without nitpicking why they didn't go farther. Weigh the costs versus benefits. Unless a mandate for certification level exists, the 3 higher levels are just brownie points and USGBC revenue gains.

I was about to trash these guys as well. However, just remember as far as environmentalism is concerned, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

If Apple covets this award, or simply want to be greener they could work with or pick malls that have landscaping or solar panels. They could talk to mall owners about what it would make their malls more sustainable. Steve could take some time to stump for sustainable malls or something for the future, and he could dovetail it into reducing operating costs in his stores thus increasing his profits.

And this also highlights an issue in our society... are malls environmentally friendly? Is hot topic, Ambercrombie and Fitch, or Victoria secret being environmentally sound? Are we perpetuating a problem by insisting on malls which don't promote environmentally sound practices?

I'm just asking the questions one should ask to be sure before we start asking for heads on pikes here. Apple didn't get LEED retail certification because they don't have landscaping. Yup. So? Would any chain in a mall get LEED certification? Would that not say something about our malls? And wouldn't a company with the #2 market cap be able to have at least a little influence on that?

I think we need more reference frames here (like stores that aren't as environmentally friendly which got LEED certification) before we comment this to hell and back.

No landscaping? Horrors.

Jobs should resign.

From my experience on working with LEED projects, a certification is a good achievement, better than none.

Its difficult to achieve every possible point, since the requirements cover a large variety of project (from single shopping store locations to big box stores)

But I'm disappointing there was not many points gained in materials and resources, which could mean that the products used were not recycled, not low VOC, wood was not FSC certified etc. In other words, Apple decided to use flashy materials, without any regard for the environment.