However, there are essentially two concepts of sustainability. Since the awareness of the climate crisis has permeated every layer of society, sustainability has become an ecological mandate for architecture, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy and resource consumption, land use, and waste to the lowest possible levels. At the same time, there is a broader, ancient concept of architecture that judges its quality by how well all aspects interact. According to Vitruvius, the quality of architecture depends not only on three main principles – firmitas (solidity), utilitas (usefulness), and venustas (beauty) – but also on their balanced integration.

This aligns closely with our holistic idea of sustainability. We believe sustainability demands that architecture equally considers social, economic, and ecological factors, relating them appropriately to one another. Traditional Vitruvian viewpoints have always recognized the highly synergetic nature of architecture. They naturally promote the interdependence of social and functional aesthetic quality, efficient and economical construction, as well as aesthetic and environmental factors. These interdependencies are precisely what dominate the current sustainability discourse.

This approach highlights and generates the inherent ability of good architecture to synthesize and integrate its individual aspects so effectively that a high degree of resilience and sufficiency is created almost automatically. In the past, before sustainability became a formal concept, resource scarcity necessitated sustainable building practices – there was simply no other choice.

Against this backdrop, it becomes clear why we prioritize the term “sustainability” above all other architectural aspects: we use it to represent the quality of all aspects of good architecture and as an indicator of their interplay and coherence. But why this words specifically, and not another overarching term like “quality”?

Because today it essential to evaluate architecture in terms of its ecological factors. We cannot and do not want to deny the importance and dominance of the word “sustainability” in this context. That is why we also use the term in its specifically ecological sense.

The following principles explain the aspirations of our architecture, standing alongside sustainability (in its ecological sense), while also falling under sustainability (in its holistic sense). Sustainability is both a criterion and the ultimate standard.

If the idea of how architecture serves people changes, then people’s position at the center architecture must also change. Where do they stand? Where should they stand?

The center of architecture – the position of people – is never fixed. Finding it time and again is the primary goal of our design process. The first ideational tool that caspar. uses to determine this position is what we call the “Scale:Human.” Our approach with this tool is processual, exploratory, and collaborative.

Our designs are created through dialogue, engaging with the specific location, the building task, and the ideas we want to bring to a place. Simultaneously, we hold many discussions with various stakeholders, including clients, users, specialist planners, administrators, politicians, and, of course, the public. For us, people are already at the center of architecture even while it is still being designed. However, they are not the measure of all things. Therefore, as long as they remain recognizable and true to themselves, our concepts are allowed – and indeed supposed – to be created in “track changes mode.”

Putting people at the center of architecture is a prerequisite for sustainable building. Today, this sentence is less banal than it seems. Focusing exclusively on sustainability in a purely ecological sense risks detaching it from people, the users, and the very purpose of architecture itself. On the contrary, the more strongly society connects with and allies itself with its buildings, the greater its respect for the built environment will be, ensuring its durability.

Our architecture aims to:

• Produce identity: As a cultural, and social value in itself, through harmony with urban planning contexts, and in preserving existing buildings as historical and intangible immaterial – their “golden” energy.
• Be intelligent: Achieving conceptual transparency by architecturally shaping the relationship between theoretical frameworks and practical possibilities.
• Be functional: Ensuring usability that is self-evident, comprehensive, flexible, and sustainable.
• Embody Beauty: In form, feel, and construction, creating an aesthetic and sensual experience of design.
• Produce added value: Not only for individual users but also for their social environment and society as a whole.
• Generate, embody, and spread emotion: Through the totality of its properties.

Why shouldn’t sustainability be at the center of our architecture, right next to the user? Because sustainability – at least by our current “Western” standards – starts with people and not the other way around. At the same time, sustainability is much larger and more encompassing than architecture. Architecture must be oriented towards sustainability, not vice versa. Placing architecture at the center of sustainability means negotiating its conditions and contexts and acting accordingly. Sustainability must not be associated solely with hard empiricism. While CO2 emissions, waste, and resource consumption can be quantified and ecological factors are indeed crucial for sustainable building, they are not the only considerations. The other two essential factors are social and economic. Without considering all three, there can be no truly sustainable building. These factors form the sustainability triangle.

Our architectural mission statement places architecture at the center of the sustainability triangle. We believe that social, economic and ecological factors must be balanced in the best possible way.

This doesn’t mean we always construct the same thing. Every building task is different because the social, economic, and ecological parameters are always unique. When designing, the sustainability triangle must adapt to each project’s specific context. While the triangle will inevitably always look different, it should aim to be as equilateral as possible.

Finding the center of the sustainability triangle – the position of the architecture – is the primary goal of our design process.

Our architecture aims to:

• Combine advantages: Balancing tradition and modernity not only in aesthetics but also in methodology. The design should integrate the benefits of digitalization with tried-and-tested building principles and materials.
• Minimize CO2 emissions: In construction, operation, dismantling, and reuse, while making all necessary considerations to achieve this.
• Be sustainability-based design: Not carbon-based design.

The principle of “Scale:Human” also characterizes our corporate culture. At caspar., sustainability begins and ends with our office community. By applying the “Scale:Human” to the quality and character of our office environment, we place the interests of our employees – both as individuals and as a collective – at the center, without making them the measure of all things.

Our corporate culture aims to:

• Respect and support employees: Valuing their self-confidence, identity, diversity, versatility, participation opportunities, and personal development.
• Challenge our employees:Encouraging self-reflection and continuous improvement, fostering a “positive dissatisfaction” that drives growth and development.
• Improve quality collaboratively: Enhancing our methodology and architecture through a principle of encouragement and challenge.
• Motivate passion: Inspiring all employees to work passionately, contributing to a thriving office community.
• Use resources wisely: Treating our employees as our most important resource and using their talents and energy wisely.
• Ensure mutual identification: Building a strong identity where the company identifies with its employees and vice versa (#wearecaspar).