Lost in objectification – how quantification undermines the meaning(s) and public relevance of sustainability in the built environment

This paper critically examines the dominance of quantification in sustainability practices in cities and buildings, particularly in sectors like construction and urban building practices (and urban agriculture), and its impact on broader societal and ecological dimensions. It explores the limits of data-driven approaches and multi-level average scores like for certification and KPIs, arguing for a more “holistic” understanding and communication of sustainability. “Holistic” is meant here as additionally considering both, emotions and narrations. Emotions are elementar for (1) constitution of personal meaningfulness and also (2) intersubjective sharability. That is valid especially in the age of social media communications. Narrations (3) are expressions of first-personal or cultural contextualization of information or experience. Incorporating such perspectives demands conventional measurement frameworks like life cycle assessment (LCA). This contribution first traces the historical shift from a broader “cultural” to a purely quantitative understanding of (ecological) sustainability, proposing that this transformation may represent a "tragedy of sustainability", that can be defined as the shift from a culturally and sensually “rich” orientation (“good intention”) to a mainly technical and quantitative practice (“reversing the initial value of striving for a better, multi-relational life”). After discussing objectification epistemiologically, regarding insights of linguistics and embodiment, it points out a need not only to accompany KPIs and ratings by narration focused interviews and real-life-storytelling in architecture and urban planning, but also priorizing them. Relevant perspectives of empirical aesthetics, cultural science and hermeneutics are suggested.