Our mid-year review of LEED rankings shows a definite slow-down in certifications. The Top 50 U.S. cities have increased LEED certifications by 8.34% by June 30. This translates to a 16.68% figure for the year, compared to a 19.99% increase in all of 2014. In fact, all of the metrics we examine show a similar decrease. Houston is following the same trend, aligning almost exactly with the national numbers with a mid-year increase of 8.40% (16.8% annual). This compares to the 21.3% increase Houston had for the entire 2014. We’ll have to keep an eye on this to see if certifications rally in the second half of the year or if there may be a real trend in the data. One possibility is that the initial class of LEED-EB projects is reaching their five-year expiration deadlines and some may not be choosing to renew.
To round out the national Top 50 U.S. city statistics for the first half of 2015, 608 new projects have been certified for a total of 7,900 LEED certified projects in city limits. Metropolitan area certified projects increased 1,114 or 7.38% to a total of 15,339. Project square footage in city limits increased 115.8 million square feet or 8.27% to a total of 1.518 billion s.f. and square footage in metropolitan areas increased 176.31 million s.f. or 8.10% to a total of 2.352 billion square feet. For comparison, the worldwide total of LEED certified projects is 26,954 and the worldwide area of projects certified is 3.868 billion s.f..
Number of Certified Projects in City Limits
Houston meets the mid-year adding 31 projects to its roster, an 8.40% increase to reach a milestone total of 400 projects. Houston is still ranked #5 and there are no overall rank changes until Grand Rapids falls three spots to #21 by adding no LEED certifications in the first six months. (This could be an error for Grand Rapids. St Louis and Kansas City both had no new data reported for two years until this month, propelling them by 111% and 189% to spots #42 and #60 respectively). Big increases were experienced by Los Angeles (12.42%), Philadelphia (12.5%), San Jose (13.79%) and Orlando (18.31%).
|1||New York City||618|
|32||Salt Lake City||79|
Number of Certified Projects in the Metropolitan Statistical Area
Houston added 44 projects by mid-year, a 9.63% increase, for a total of 501 certified projects in the MSA and maintained the #8 spot. Baltimore and San Jose moved ahead of Portland, up to #15 and #16 respectively. Two other areas with large additions were New York City with 155 projects (10.3%) and Los Angeles with 111 projects (11.4%).
|2||New York City||1,232|
|31||Salt Lake City||135|
Area of Certified Projects in City Limits (in MSF)
Houston retained the #3 position in area of certified projects in city limits, adding 6.5 million s.f. to a total of 115.4 million s.f.. There was more movement in this metric, with Dallas moving up to #11, switching with Las Vegas. Chicago had a substantial increase of 22.1 million s.f., an increase of 14.14%. Other cities with large increases were Philadelphia (16.53%) and Phoenix (18.26%).
|2||New York City||155.20|
|35||Kansas City, MO*||8.39|
|37||Salt Lake City||7.43|
Area of Certified Projects in MSAs (in MSF)
Houston retained the #6 position in area of certified projects in MSAs, adding 8.2 million square feet (6.88%) to a total of 127.3 million s.f.. Chicago was the big mover in this metric, reflecting its big gains in the city metric. The Chicago MSA added 28.5 million s.f. or 13.97%, gaining on Washington DC, closing a gap of 17 million s.f. to only 1 million s.f. in just six months. The Los Angeles MSA was another big growth location with 21.20 million s.f. added or 13.30%. Additionally, Los Angeles has the distinction of being the only city with double digit increases in all four metrics for the first six months of 2015. Other double digit growth MSAs for area of certified projects added were Dallas, Charlotte and Philadelphia.
|3||New York City||217.80|
|37||Salt Lake City||13.54|
* St. Louis and Kansas City had stagnant data in GBIG for about two years but have now been updated. Their data is not used in any comparison and percentage numbers in this article.