Stan­dards: in­fra­struc­tu­re or ca­ge?

Testo in italiano al seguente link

Introducing a standard means, first and foremost, to classify: to define criteria, establish thresholds, and translate quality into measurable categories. It is a necessary operation, yet anything but neutral. Deciding what is assessed means deciding what counts, and every selection entails a reduction. If a standard has become indispensable, as Luca Gattoni observes, it is because the sector has failed to render structural – and therefore almost invisible – those environmental and social responsibilities that today must be made explicit. The Standard Nachhaltiges Bauen Schweiz (SNBS) – like other European standards – emerges from this gap: it aspires, potentially, to remedy not a technical deficit but a cultural one. Yet its very necessity raises a more radical question: why must sustainability be certified? If it requires grids and indicators, perhaps it has not yet been internalized as an intrinsic responsibility of the project. The question then becomes, if possible, even more uncomfortable: have designers still not fully absorbed the weight of the 40 % of global CO₂ emissions attributed to the sector? Or does 
sustainability remain an external constraint rather than an ethical premise of the discipline? One might hope that standards were already implicit in the earliest stages of every 
project, not laboriously achieved targets pursued in order to obtain a label to display. The risk, therefore, is that classification turns into compliance: one builds to satisfy parameters rather than to generate value. The standard thus becomes an ambivalent device. It can guide decisions and render choices legible, yet it can also reduce the project 
to verifiable performance. The issue is not to reject it, but to prevent measurement from replacing judgment and conformity from supplanting a «culture of building».

Environment, society, and economy are no longer separate or sequential domains; they are brought back within a single decision-making framework. This is a shift less neutral than it appears. It requires the project to declare its priorities and the client to assume them. As the contributions by Mobiglia and Raveglia show, the standard operates above all as a process structure: definition of objectives, dialogue among stakeholders, verification across the life cycle. It does not automatically produce quality, but makes the quality of decisions explicit. Here a second tension emerges. Every system that guides a project must translate complexity into criteria, and every translation entails simplification. The problem is not measurement per se, but its hegemony. Muck Petzet has made this clear: certification devices privilege what can be quantified, leaving in shadow less compliant categories such as Suffizienz, the physical and cultural longevity of a building, and the capacity of existing structures to endure. This is not an indictment of SNBS, but a disciplinary warning. When calculation replaces judgment, sustainability is reduced to technique and loses its critical dimension. The confrontation with the existing makes this friction evident. Embodied energy is neither abstraction nor deferrable variable: it is already embedded data. The emissions contained within buildings operate in the present, within the horizon of climate neutrality. To reduce, reuse, maintain are not nostalgic options but operative strategies. Yet such choices struggle to find representation within assessment systems that reward optimization more than restraint. SNBS addresses this limit in a non-linear way: the integration of tools for the building stock indicates growing awareness, but does not dissolve the underlying tension between efficiency and Suf­fizienz, between performance and permanence. Gattoni specifies it: not to rigidify thresholds, but to elevate the quality of decisions. In other words, not to multiply parameters, but to refine judgment.

Against this backdrop stand the three projects presented in this issue. Not as exemplary applications of a protocol, but as distinct interpretations of a shared demand for responsibility. Three linguistic regions, three Baukultur, three ways of understanding the relationship between norm and project.

The Raiffeisen bank in Savosa by celoria Architects works by subtraction: sustainability is not thematized but integrated within a rigorous constructive and spatial discipline. The building takes root in its context with measure and authority, rewriting a fragment of the city with precision both elegant and open. Environmental quality is expressed through typological coherence, distributive clarity, and the balance of adopted expressive means, embodying duration and urban permanence.

Herzog & de Meuron’s project for Lombard Odier addresses a greater scale and programmatic complexity. Here sustainability enters an articulated system of institutional representation and corporate responsibility. SNBS coordinates environmental requirements, comfort, corporate identity, and urban presence, ordering a coherent organism that integrates interior and exterior without displaying the sophistication underlying its design choices, assuming sustainability as a component of organizational culture and collective space.

With Oxid Architektur + Scheitlin Syfrig Architekten, attention turns to the existing. The transformation of Buck 40 is selective, almost surgical, inserted within a logic of transformation and continuity: reduction, reuse, and progressive adaptation are operative tools rather than declared principles. Architecture assumes the built as active matter, restoring a coherent organism in which design decisions reveal latent spatial potentials, introducing, for instance, a generous atrium where anonymous slabs had fragmented the space.

Placed side by side, these three works show that sustainable building standards do not necessarily produce an aesthetic nor a replicable model. They can, however, render different processes comparable, imposing transparency in decision-making. The question remains open. A standard can sustain different Baukultur or flatten them; it can become an infrastructure of thought or an automatic procedure. The difference lies not in the instrument, but in its use. At a time when sustainability risks coinciding with conformity, architecture must maintain a critical distance: not against standards, but against their neutralisation. Sustainability is not a certifiable outcome once and for all. It is a responsibility renewed with every project, in the choice of what is built – and also of what is deliberately left unbuilt.