Many conversations with high-profile interlocutors such as Johannes Eisenhut (Senn) or Dr. Peter Wuffli (Elea Foundation) about impact and sustainability inevitably lead to a discussion of values:
Sustainability is a matter of personal priorities. One person may place greater emphasis on returns, another on architecture, and yet another on CO₂ or social responsibility.
The motto is: free from dogma.
I believe this premise is flawed—but not because sustainable construction would be the “more correct” choice. Rather, because the alternative, which is presented as neutral, is itself an assumption that simply isn’t recognized as such.
Long read by Andy Keel:
LBD-1 Solid Clay-Wood Floor by Cancret Materials
Our professional community does not operate in a neutral space
Anyone who says, “I don’t have any preconceived notions about wood, hemp, or clay—architects and engineers handle the calculations,” is simply shifting the question of value down one level—to the standard. The standard measures the impact.
KBOB, ÖKOBAUDAT, and other established databases provide key environmental metrics . At the same time, such systems inevitably exert a steering effect. System boundaries, lifespans, replacement cycles, allocations, credits, and the treatment of biogenic carbon sequestration all play a role in determining whether a building component looks good or bad on paper.
This can lead to results that contradict our intuitive understanding of sustainability. In a particular calculation, a plastic window may suddenly appear more sustainable than a wooden window—not because plastic is a more sustainable material, but because the calculation model has defined which properties count within which system boundaries.
—————————
Why should a building consume more energy when it can generate its own? Why should it emit CO₂ when we can permanently store some of it? Why should we use finite raw materials when renewable materials can serve the same purpose? Why should people live in inferior indoor environments when we can build healthier ones?
These are not, at first glance, moral questions. They are questions about finding better solutions.
A standard or database is not a law of nature.
And a life cycle assessment is not a complete description of reality. It is a model of that reality—indispensable, but dependent on history, assumptions, system boundaries, and data availability, as well as the fundamental question of which effects we choose to consider at all.
We have to be careful not to optimize buildings to fit our evaluation methods,
rather than optimizing our evaluation methods to create better buildings.
The crucial question is not whether we want to build in a more environmentally friendly way. The question is much more fundamental:
What do we leave behind after we've built something?
Sustainability was an important step. But sustainability is, at its core, defensive; in technical terms, we describe it as “sufficiency.” Less energy. Less CO₂. Less material. Less waste. Less damage. That was necessary. But “less bad” is still not good enough.
Regenerative construction turns the perspective on its head.
It doesn’t just try to reduce a building’s environmental footprint. It asks: What positive contribution can a building make? We’re building anyway. We’re moving thousands of metric tons of material. We’re investing millions. We’re transforming landscapes and cities. We’re creating structures that will last for several generations. Why should the goal of such a major undertaking be merely to cause as little harm as possible?
Hemp-Lime Exterior Wall by Cancret Materials
Module D should actually be Module A
Today's life cycle assessment follows a linear logic: First, emissions are generated; later, potential environmental benefits are taken into account. These appear in Module D—outside the actual life cycle assessment.
Regenerative construction turns this way of thinking on its head. Carbon removal, long-term storage, and recyclability should not be considered only at the end of the process. They must be considered from the very beginning of the planning process and guide the choice of materials, construction methods, and the entire building system.
What is currently being outsourced in Module D should, conceptually, be the starting point: Module A of a regenerative construction industry. The starting point should not be minimizing damage, but rather making a measurable positive contribution.
And then there's the economy.
Regeneration can only work in the long term if it makes economic sense. A building that is ecologically outstanding but unaffordable will not create a new normal (see Openly’s “Idiot Factor” for biogenic building materials ).
That is why ecology, health, architecture, and economic viability go hand in hand—not as four competing goals, but as a single system. Openly is working toward cost neutrality in “building differently.” It is an illusion to believe that we will ever have a tax on CO2-intensive building materials such as glass and concrete.
Why stop at zero?
If we’re going to build anyway, we might as well generate energy. Store carbon. Create habitats. Promote health. Improve communities. Create value.
Then a building becomes more than just a piece of real estate.
It becomes part of a system that gives back more than it takes.
Renewable.
September 18, 2026 ak
LBW1 Clay-Based Drywall Interior Wall by Cancret Materials, fully renewable