Sustainability has become a critical factor in today’s commercial real estate, moving beyond a simple add-on. That’s because the understanding that greener buildings translate to substantial reductions in operating costs through energy and water efficiency has become paramount. This ability to minimize expenses (for both tenants and owners) is especially crucial given the persistent tightness of credit markets, making sustainable practices not just environmentally sound, but also economically vital. As such, they offer a compelling combination of environmental, economic, and social benefits, making them essential for businesses and communities alike — particularly as the market navigates the post-pandemic landscape.
So, to identify the best primary and secondary U.S. markets for green workspaces, we developed a ranking system to evaluate both the sustainability of existing office stocks (by certifications, energy efficiency and building policies), as well as the surrounding environment (mobility options outside single car usage, as well as CO2 emission levels). Detailed information on our methodology and scoring can be found in the accompanying section.
Keep reading for an overview of the top primary, as well as secondary green office markets nationwide, followed by a breakdown of top performers across each individual metric.
Measured Sustainability: D.C., San Francisco & Boston Set Standards for Green Primary Office Markets
Leading the ranking with roughly 68 points, Washington, D.C. was the best-performing among primary office markets in terms of its share of Energy Star square footage per capita (103). The capital also picked up vital points by placing third for the composite metric looking at the city’s LEED building score — thanks, in part, to a strong commitment from federal agencies toward leasing green workspaces. Further underscoring D.C.’s commitment to sustainability are its performances in terms of CO2 emissions and implementation of ACEEE Building Policies (ranking third in both metrics).
Next up, San Francisco garnered 67 points. In this case, the score it obtained for its share of LEED-certified office spaces within its stock was its standout performance. The city also boasts the highest share of LEED Platinum workspaces among primary markets (24%), in addition to the fourth-largest inventory of green buildings. At nearly 72 million square feet, it’s only outranked by New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Furthermore, despite the recent slowdown in office development, San Francisco continues to be one of the most active markets in providing state-of-the-art green workspace solutions with roughly 3.8 million square feet of office space currently under construction. The City by the Bay also had the second-best mobility score in this category — earning the top honors as the most walkable city — and the third-highest ratio of Energy Star office square footage per capita.
Meanwhile, a good showing for its mobility score and a string of fourth-place finishes provided a solid base for Boston to pick up the 60 points that secured the last spot on the podium. The city also ranked third for its Transit Score and Walk Scores — behind the likes of New York City and San Francisco — and fourth in terms of its share of LEED-certified buildings, as well as the percentage increase of these green office spaces throughout the last decade.
In fourth place, Denver’s performance in terms of its ACEEE Building Policies scorecard are worth pointing out: The city obtained the maximum number of points for this metric, which focuses on a range of strategies to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. Moreover, Denver’s Green Code plays a key role in the city’s sustainability efforts by setting high standards for new construction and renovations, pushing developers to adopt sustainable practices.
Then, due to its excellent mobility score and good performance for the ACEEE Building Policies category, New York City ended up in seventh place overall. Here, the pursuit of sustainability in the nation’s largest office market is significantly shaped by its continually updated building codes, which integrate the latest energy-efficiency standards and sustainable construction practices. However, a major challenge lies in the Big Apple’s vast inventory of older buildings. Therefore, alongside advancing codes, there’s a substantial emphasis on retrofitting existing structures.
Not to be outdone, honorable mentions include Atlanta; Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; and Sacramento, Calif., which are clustered around the 8th through 11th spots in our ranking. Of these, Atlanta had the second-highest square footage of Energy Star office space per resident at 8%, whereas Austin witnessed the highest increase of LEED-certified buildings within its office inventory between 2015 and 2024. Out west, San Jose ranked third for the same metric — behind Austin and Charlotte, N.C. — and boasted the second-lowest CO2 emissions, behind Sacramento.
Secondary Market Leaders: 2 California Entries Lead in LEED Office Building Growth & Percentage of Stock
With 66 points, Oakland, Calif., benefits from the strong sustainability culture that’s prevalent throughout the San Francisco Bay Area with its emphasis on environmental awareness and innovation. Specifically, it boasts the highest LEED score and the largest share of properties that have obtained Platinum certification (11% of its green office stock). The city also came third in terms of its increase in LEED-certified workspaces within the last decade, as well as its relatively low CO2 emission levels and balanced mobility options.
Up north, Minneapolis came in second with noteworthy performances in terms of its share of LEED- and Energy Star-rated office spaces. More precisely, the city has roughly 48 square feet of energy-efficient space per capita (compared to runner-up Tampa’s 29 square feet per capita), as well as the highest ratio of LEED Gold-certified office buildings among secondary markets (33%). On top of that, Minneapolis — which ranked highest for ACEEE Building Policies — is also pushing for the adoption of innovative green building technologies, such as solar panels, green roofs and advanced building management systems. Finally, the city also ranked first on the mobility index by being the most bike-friendly city on this list.
Then, at some distance, we find another entry from California in third place with a total of 52 points. Despite lacking any top-place finishes, Long Beach, Calif., nevertheless managed to secure important points for its performances in the expansion of its stock of LEED-certified office buildings between 2015 and 2024, as well as its ability to maintain relatively low CO2 emission levels (ranking #2 for both metrics).
On the opposite coast and in fourth place with 48 points, Miami was among the highest-ranking entries in terms of its Energy Star square-footage ratio. The city also topped the Transit Score and Walk Score lists to achieve the second-highest mobility rating.
Further down the list in sixth place, Raleigh, N.C.’s standout performance was for its LEED office inventory growth. Between 2015 and 2024, it expanded its green office stock by 8% to a current total of roughly 6.6 million square feet.
The LEED score is a composite metric that ranks entries according to the percentage of various certificate types across their respective green inventory (defined as properties larger than 25,000 square feet with a primary use type of office and some form of LEED certification). For more details on the different point allocation for Platinum, Gold, Silver or LEED certifications, please refer to our methodology section.
Primary Markets
San Francisco led the ranking for this metric by picking up 20 out of a maximum of 25 points. Notably, the city boasts the highest overall LEED score in this category and has the highest percentage of LEED Platinum-certified office properties (24%) on the list, which adds up to roughly 26 million square feet of space. In addition, some 40% of its green office stock (or 41 million square feet) is comprised of LEED Gold-certified, in addition to 3% of LEED Silver-certified workspaces.
That said, the share of LEED Platinum office spaces is surprisingly modest in some of the other Western coast entries in the list. For example, in San Jose, Calif., less than 3% of the inventory falls under this category, whereas it makes up a much more substantial proportion of available green workspace totals in Seattle (15%), Los Angeles and Sacramento (9% for both).
In second place, we find Chicago — the only entry from the Midwest in our ranking — with a LEED score of 18 points. The city’s inventory is divided as follows — roughly 19% LEED Platinum office spaces, 37% LEED Gold and 9% LEED Silver, with an additional 1.5% properties that earned standard LEED certification.
In terms of square footage, Chicago has the largest total of Platinum-certified office spaces across our ranking at 35 million square feet. That’s more than New York City, which boasts approximately 30 million square feet. What’s more, when it comes to LEED Gold-certified workspaces, Chicago has the second-largest inventory at approximately 70 million square feet behind NYC, which is head and shoulders above the pack with a whopping 188 million square feet of office space with this type of certification.
Washington, D.C. closes out the podium with a total of 17.5 points. Here, roughly 67% of the capital’s total office inventory is comprised of properties that boast some kind of LEED certification. Of these, some 13% have Platinum certification (17 million square feet), 41% have been awarded LEED Gold (55 million square feet). The Washington, D.C. office market also has the highest percentage of LEED Silver-certified workspaces on the list at 15% (totaling 20 million square feet).
In fourth place for this metric with a LEED score of 16 points, Boston has the highest percentage of LEED Gold-certified office buildings among primary markets. Standing at 43% of its green stock, that adds up to 37 million square feet of LEED Gold-certified office space in Boston. However, in terms of Platinum-certified workspaces, Boston has less than half of San Francisco’s stock — both percentagewise and in total square footage.
Secondary Markets
Oakland, Calif., heads the ranking for this metric across the list of secondary office markets after garnering a LEED score of 21 out of 25 points (nearly double that of the runner-up Minneapolis). To be precise, roughly 2 million square feet making up 11% of Oakland’s green inventory are LEED Platinum buildings, while LEED Gold and Silver office properties make up more than one-third of all certified assets.
At quite a distance, Minneapolis came in second with a score total of 12 points. Currently, roughly 40% of assets within the city’s office inventory have some kind of LEED certification. Yet, at just 3%, the proportion of Platinum-certified office buildings within its stock is significantly lower than in Oakland. But, in terms of actual square footage (1.5 million square feet in Minneapolis compared to Oakland’s 2 million square feet), the two cities are not that far apart. Furthermore, if we switch over to workspaces that have been awarded LEED Gold certifications, the Midwestern entry is the leader not just in terms of percentage share of its stock (32%), but also in square footage totals with 16 million square feet.
In third place, Long Beach, Calif., has 654,000 square feet of LEED Platinum-certified properties that make up 6% of its green office stock and 1.8 million square feet of LEED Gold-certified workspaces (representing 16%). It’s worth noting that only one-quarter of the existing office spaces in Long Beach hold any kind of LEED certificates — a significantly lower percentage compared to Oakland and Minneapolis.
Primary Markets
Between 2015 and 2024, Austin, Texas, increased its stock of LEED-certified offices by 8% to bring its current total to 24.8 million square feet. Among its most notable additions throughout the last decade was Block 185 (completed in 2022), which boasts 788,425 square feet of LEED Platinum-certified Austin office space. Recently, the property experienced a change of ownership as Trammell Crow — which originally developed the 35-story office tower in tandem with MSD Capital — sold the asset to Cousins Properties in a $522 million deal completed in the closing days of 2024.
LEED-certified office space also expanded by 4% in Long Beach, Calif., throughout the surveyed period. In this case, the 490,000-square-foot Freeway Business Center at 1500 Hughes Way was one of the standout additions. Owned by Omninet Capital — which acquired the asset in 2012 for $69 million from LXP Industrial Trust — the property’s tenant roster includes the likes of the state’s Department of Industrial Relations, as well as the Children’s Institute and the Long Beach Housing Authority.
Oakland, Calif.; Tampa, Fla.; and Providence, R.I., all experienced a 2% increase in their LEED-certified office inventory between 2015 and 2024.
Office buildings are significant energy consumers, accounting for 16% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and exceeding $190 billion in annual energy costs. Thus, by building workspaces that comply with Energy Star power-efficiency requirements, owners can save up to 35% of their energy costs, while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 35% compared to typical buildings.
While LEED certifications focus on a number of requirements within an office building, Energy Star certificates are awarded based on a property’s energy efficiency. As such, developers and owners of office assets generally aim for both, but they aren’t necessarily linked, insofar as Energy Star certificates aren’t dependent on LEED certification. That said, in order to obtain any kind of LEED certification, a property does have to obtain an Energy Star rating.
Primary Markets
With 103 square feet of Energy Star-certified office space per capita, Washington, D.C. is the uncontested leader for energy efficiency among the markets we reviewed. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the capital is also home to the second-highest number of Energy Star-certified buildings across all use types, totaling some 169 million square feet of total floor area and $220 million in energy cost savings.
Atlanta ranks second with roughly 88 square feet of energy-efficient office space per resident. The city further seeks to encourage power saving efforts by providing property owners with access to PACE financing. Additionally, the Better Buildings Initiative, a U.S. Department of Energy program, encouraged public and private building owners to improve energy efficiency by at least 20% within 10 years.
In third place, San Francisco currently has an estimated 72 square feet of Energy Star-certified office space per capita. According to data from the EPA, the city’s stock of green buildings — which includes all commercial property types — prevents the emission of roughly 239,100 metric tons of CO2 and results in $181 million in cost savings.
Secondary Markets
At 48 square feet per capita, Minneapolis had the highest density of Energy Star office spaces among secondary markets. Capella Tower (one of the city’s highest buildings), along with the Wells Fargo Center at 90 S. Seventh St. — a landmark of Minneapolis’ skyline — have been Energy Star-certified office spaces since 1999.
Next, three entries from Florida take up the following spots in our ranking. Tampa came in second with 29 square feet of Energy Star-certified office space per capita. Miami rests in third place with 22 square feet per capita, while Orlando sits in fourth place with 19 square feet of energy-efficient office space per capita.
ACEEE Building Policies are a key category included within the ACEEE State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, an annual report that ranks states on their energy-efficiency policies and programs. While the full report looks at everything from the effectiveness of utility-run energy efficiency programs; the stringency of building codes and standards; and the advancement of transportation policies, this analysis focuses on the building policies category.
Primary Markets
Denver headed the list among primary markets, having accrued the 20-point maximum for this metric. Notably, the 2022 Denver Energy Code requires commercial buildings to have a cool roof — which is designed to reflect, rather than absorb sunlight, in a bid to lower the property’s temperature and energy-use — as well as be solar-ready.
In second place, New York City picked up 18 out of 20 potential points for its building policies. Here again, new commercial properties are required to install solar panels or green roofs and provide tax abatements for energy-efficient upgrades.
Washington, D.C. came in third with 13 out of 20 points. Commercial properties in the capital are subject to the 2017 D.C. Construction Code, which includes a voluntary net-zero energy compliance pathway. Additionally, the Green Building Act requires that all office, retail or industrial buildings larger than 50,000 square feet qualify for LEED certification. In terms of financial incentives to implement these sustainability measures — including on-site renewable energy generation — commercial property owners can access C-PACE financing.
Secondary Markets
Among secondary markets, Minneapolis earned maximum points for this indicator. The goals set by the city’s Climate Action Plan call for a 20% increase in commercial buildings’ energy efficiency by the end of this year, and Minneapolis mandates that commercial and multifamily buildings exceeding 50,000 square feet must benchmark their energy consumption and submit the data to the city.
St. Louis came second with 17 out of a total of 20 points for ACEEE buildings policies metric. Like other cities, in 2020, St. Louis also passed a solar roof mandate for commercial and residential properties alike, while also aiming to have any new municipal buildings achieve at least a LEED-Silver certification.
Similarly, new municipal buildings in Aurora, Colo., have to be up to LEED-Gold standards, and the city provides PACE financing for commercial property upgrades that seek to increase renewable power usage and energy efficiency.
Measuring general mobility within a city is a complex task as it involves understanding how people move around to access various destinations, as well as how the availability of public transit and alternate mobility options can help relieve car dependence.
This analysis uses a composite mobility index that’s built upon three metrics — Walk Score, Transit Score, and Bike Score — each contributing to a better understanding of urban mobility.
Primary Markets
Unsurprisingly, New York City topped the mobility index by garnering 14 out of a maximum of 15 points. Its public Transit Score (the highest across the ranking) and excellent walkability were major contributors to the entry’s performance for this metric. Although officials have vowed to build more protected bike lanes across the city to make cycling safer, there’s plenty of room for improvement when it comes to making New York City a truly bike-friendly place.
With 13 points out of 15, San Francisco is the runner-up with outstanding performances across all three of the indicators included in the mobility index. Namely, the city boasted the highest Walk Score on our list and was second-best for public transit and cycling. Due to the city’s more compact layout — which is complemented by an extensive public transportation network that includes buses, BART and Muni — car ownership is less essential in San Francisco.
In third place, Boston’s pattern of performances is similar to that of New York City with high scores obtained for its public transit and walkability (third place), but a more modest showing (seventh place) for its bike score.
Special mentions include Portland, Ore., and Chicago. With some 400 miles worth of bike lanes throughout the city, Portland is by far the most bike-friendly city in this ranking.
Meanwhile, Chicago had the third-highest bike score and, thanks to solid showings across the other two indicators, it placed fourth overall for the mobility index.
Secondary Markets
Among secondary markets, it was Minneapolis that managed to earn the highest mobility score. The Midwestern city is the most bike-friendly entry in this category with the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway — a 51-mile loop that crosses the entire city — playing a key role in its success with bikers. Not only that, but Minneapolis has also been actively building toward this for more than two decades with initiatives such as its 2011 Bicycle Master Plan, 2013 Climate Action Plan and 2015 Protected Bikeway Update along the way.
In second place, Miami stood out for its Walk Score and Transit Score, where it outperformed all cities in this group. In terms of walkability, Miami areas like downtown, Brickell, Wynwood, and Coconut Grove provide a good environment for fostering a pedestrian-friendly lifestyle with easy access to amenities, high density and lower reliance on cars.
It’s worth noting that Miami’s public transit system includes an extensive bus network (Metrobus), a two-line rapid transit system (Metrorail), and the Metromover (a popular choice with tourists and commuters into downtown Miami and Brickell).
Closing out the podium, Oakland, Calif., was just a fraction behind Miami for its Transit Score and placed third for its Walk Score.
Otherwise, Long Beach, Calif., and Providence, R.I., were among the other top five secondary markets by their mobility points. The California city boasted the third-highest Bike Score, while Providence was the runner-up behind Miami in terms of overall walkability.
Measuring CO2 levels allows cities to understand where their emissions are coming from, thereby enabling them to create targeted strategies for reduction. By tracking emissions over time, cities can assess the effectiveness of their policies and initiatives to ensure that they’re on the right path to achieving their climate goals.
Primary Markets
Western entries stand out for the lowest ratio of CO2 emissions per square foot of commercial space. These range from approximately 0.6 million metric tons in Sacramento, Calif., (in first place) to 1.2 million metric tons in Denver (ranked sixth). Los Angeles just about makes the top 10 with 1.5 million metric tons. Overall, the performances of these cities are tied to the higher proportion of renewable energy sources (such as solar and wind) in Western states’ energy grids, along with the more stringent building codes and energy-efficiency standards upheld in their respective states.
Washington, D.C. ended up in third place for this metric, behind California’s Sacramento and San Jose. With 0.9 million metric tons, the nation’s capital maintains a relatively low level of emissions due to its dense and walkable urban core; its emphasis on promoting energy-efficiency programs (like DC Green Bank and DC Sustainable Energy Utility); and wide use of public transportation.
Notably, with the states of New York and Illinois much more heavily relying on coal and natural gas for electricity generation, we see a significant jump in the amount of commercial CO2 emissions associated with New York City and Chicago compared to other entries (13.3 million metric tons and 6.2 million metric tons, respectively).
Furthermore, although both have substantial numbers of LEED-certified and Energy Star-graded buildings within their inventories, they’re also home to a series of older building with less energy-efficient infrastructure (such as non-insulating windows, obsolete heating or cooling systems).
Secondary Markets
Across secondary markets, we see a similar prevalence of Western cities with the podium being exclusively comprised of California entries: CO2 emissions in Riverside, Long Beach, and Oakland are between 0.1 and 0.2 million metric tons.
On the East Coast, Rhode Island’s financial incentives and utility programs aimed at upgrading existing commercial stock, improving energy-efficiency standards and revising building codes has yielded results as Providence is among the entries with the lowest levels of commercial CO2 emissions at 0.3 million metric tons. Aurora, Colo., and Honolulu produced similar numbers across the surveyed period.
At the other end of the spectrum, several factors contribute to relatively higher commercial CO2 emissions in Minneapolis; Pittsburgh, Pa.; and St. Louis, Mo., (between 1.6 and 1.8 million metric tons). That’s because these cities have strong industrial legacies and still generate a significant amount of their energy through fossil fuels, coal or natural gas. As in the case of New York City and Chicago, older buildings may also contribute to higher energy consumption and associated emissions.
