Our firm has been fortunate. We’ve had a long history with energy-efficient and sustainable architecture stretching back 25 years to one of California’s first green buildings, the Irvine Ranch Water District Headquarters. This facility showcases LPA’s early tendencies for resource-efficient design — tendencies developed long before we worked on the nation’s first LEED 2.0 NC project for Ford’s Premiere Automotive Group in 2001.

What is happening in the marketplace, despite the economy, is truly amazing, and we can all thank the U.S. Green Building Council. The USGBC has almost single-handedly brought a focus and awareness to sustainability that has changed the entire construction and design industry. Since even small amounts of change are difficult, the USGBC’s part in moving this giant industry forward is profound. We are no longer trying to convince our clients to do a sustainable project or having the discussion about the business case for sustainability. The focus has changed. Clients are asking for the highest LEED rating they can get for their projects.

Premier Automotive Group Green Roof: A vegetative roof at the LEED-certified Premiere Automotive Group North American Headquarters in Irvine, Calif.

While it is easy for me to state that this makeover is the best thing to happen to our industry in the 30 years I’ve been practicing architecture, I have a growing concern that we may miss the real opportunity if we continue to focus on green scorecards. There are thousands of definitions of sustainability, and I do not want to create another, but clearly we must find ways to do more with less water, energy and materials.

We must change the discussion and stop promoting projects that use what are now best practices — recycled content, walk-off mats and all the other low-hanging fruit on the LEED scorecard — which have modest impact on energy and water use. This must change. There is no way, going forward, that we can afford the luxury of buildings that don’t make real reductions in water and energy use. True water and energy reduction must become our priority, and I am not referring to buying renewable energy credits or other offsets. This is a building-by-building, project-by-project requirement to reduce onsite energy and water use in every possible way.

We must change the mindset where only a LEED building is viewed as a sustainable building. If, for whatever reasons, a client or a project team decide not to pursue LEED certification, it doesn’t mean that designers cannot deliver a highly sustainable project. In fact, given the freedom to pursue sustainability and not chase points or mandated rating requirements, design teams might discover some very unique solutions. I believe that scale is the key to our sustainable future, and we need every building to have a sustainable quotient regardless of if a LEED rating is achieved or not.

We must change the discussion from technology and systems solutions to sustainability, which begins with an understanding of climate and fundamental design principals. Before any system discussion takes place, start with passive design and conservation as a way to inform design. One may be surprised where this leads. A byproduct of this approach could be the beginning of a new regionalism where, in lieu of chasing fashion, an informed sustainable design shapes a project to be of its place and only appropriate for its place. LEED 2009 begins to address this regionalism through regional priority credits and water and energy accountability. It requires all LEED projects to share data, and these measures are just a start.

As we begin another year, I am sure that everyone is glad to have 2009 behind us. We have a great opportunity to open and honestly report the performance of projects and share lessons learned. We can collectively require meaningful reductions in energy and water performance for all sustainable projects, including ones that are not seeking LEED certification. I am hoping that in the next decade we embrace energy reduction and regionalism like we did scorecards because our future requires thousands of sustainable projects, versus hundreds, to make a difference.