There are plenty of green buildings out there where most people have their own office. Sounds to me like someone is using going green as an excuse for a whole other set of business decisions about flexible space and reorganization of work process. Too bad.

Also the point about "space age materials" is misleading -- last time I checked bamboo, wood from sustainably harvested forests, flagstone, hemp. polished concrete, bricks, etc. are all pretty mainstream materials. And the idea that somehow you can't have color in a sustainably designed building is preposterous.

Somebody please tell me what is "stark" about one of the greenest buildings in the country: the southern California headquarters of the National Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica:

cnn.com/2003/...redford.building.reut/

I've been inside this building and it is a very warm, inviting space.

Another example: the new LEED Gold building for applied technology at Cape Cod Community College. You can find lots of photos from the architectural firm here:

cirenew.info/...Green%20Building.pdf.

Space age? I don't think so. Just smart design.

At least you can say this much for "Green buildings make employees see red": tucked into one of the last paragraphs, there is passing mention of natural light and its advantages.

"No employee is more than 65 feet from natural light," Pegnato says of NSOF. "We have five large courtyards and skylights."

NSOF is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Does anyone else think it's pretty ironic that these folks are complaining about green design? Pretty pathetic.