top of page

BAU LÜTZ

Work in progress

The mobile version of the website is currently being developed.
For now, please open this website on a computer.

THE BAU LÜTZ APPROACH

SCENARIOS AND ALTERNATIVES

Choosing one solution too early conceals the compromises. Bau Lütz develops legible alternatives to compare what genuinely changes before a decision is made.

01

EXPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS

Each scenario separates confirmed data, working assumptions, and open questions. Source, date, and level of reliability are made identifiable so that repetition does not turn a hypothesis into a fact.

START A PRELIMINARY STUDY →

02

COMPARISON CRITERIA

Function, relationship to place, phases, impact, resources, indicative costs, maintenance, operation, risks, and reversibility. Criteria are selected for the actual decision rather than applied as a standard checklist.

READ THE METHOD →

03

BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES

Each alternative shows benefits, limits, dependencies, and operational consequences. Incompatibilities and missing data remain visible; they are not hidden to make a scenario appear more convincing.

DESIGN SUSTAINABILITY →

04

FROM COMPARISON TO CHOICE

The decision records who owns it, the evidence used, remaining checks and activities that may begin. It does not replace approvals or specialist assessments.

REQUEST AN INITIAL DISCUSSION →

COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK

THE CHOICE BECOMES LEGIBLE

A comparison proportionate to the mandate

01

SCENARIO

What it proposes and which need it addresses.

02

EVIDENCE

Which data and documents support it.

03

RISKS

Which issues and dependencies require study.

04

DECISION

Which choice it enables and with what consequences.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE · NOT A CASE STUDY

One empty building, three possibilities

An institution owns an underused building. Before choosing, it compares three scenarios: retain and reactivate it, transform it for a new use, or integrate new parts while preserving the valuable existing fabric.

What do we compare?

Use, indicative costs, timing, permissions, impact on place, maintenance, reversibility, and missing data.

What does the decision-maker receive?

A legible matrix that separates facts, assumptions, risks, and subsequent checks. Not an automatic answer, but a better basis for choosing.

EXPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS

Each scenario separates confirmed data, working assumptions, and open questions. Source, date, and level of reliability are made identifiable so that repetition does not turn a hypothesis into a fact.

COMPARISON CRITERIA

Function, relationship to place, phases, impact, resources, indicative costs, maintenance, operation, risks, and reversibility. Criteria are selected for the actual decision rather than applied as a standard checklist.

BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES

Each alternative shows benefits, limits, dependencies, and operational consequences. Incompatibilities and missing data remain visible; they are not hidden to make a scenario appear more convincing.

FROM COMPARISON TO CHOICE

The decision records who owns it, the evidence used, remaining checks and activities that may begin. It does not replace approvals or specialist assessments.

COMPARATIVE FRAMEWORK

THE CHOICE BECOMES LEGIBLE

A comparison proportionate to the mandate

SCENARIO

What it proposes and which need it addresses.

EVIDENCE

Which data and documents support it.

RISKS

Which issues and dependencies require study.

DECISION

Which choice it enables and with what consequences.

bottom of page