BAU LÜTZ
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 ASSUMPTIONSEach 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 CRITERIAFunction, 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 CONSEQUENCESEach 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 CHOICEThe 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 SCENARIOWhat it proposes and which need it addresses. |
02 EVIDENCEWhich data and documents support it. |
|
03 RISKSWhich issues and dependencies require study. |
04 DECISIONWhich 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.
Use, indicative costs, timing, permissions, impact on place, maintenance, reversibility, and missing data.
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.