New solutions, urgent challenges

JB: Open calls are a prevalent type of competition in Switzerland, offering an accessible opportunity for young architects to participate. What makes them particularly beneficial is that winning often leads to the realisation of the project. These competitions also serve as a platform for exploring emerging research fields—or rather, areas that have long existed but remain underdeveloped. For example, in Switzerland, there is a growing focus on rethinking how we live together, spurred by the pressing challenge of limited available space in our small country. 

This is likely part of the 'densification' process: finding ways not only to accommodate more people in a smaller territorial area but also to ensure it remains comfortable. As a result, there is growing interest in cooperative spaces, such as shared offices, home offices, or even communal laundry rooms—any form of shared space for people living in compact environments. 

Additionally, we are focusing on how we use resources and materials. The movement to reuse, repair, and rebuild is much stronger now than it was in the past. There are always exceptions—such as Barbara Buser’s practice, baubüro in situ—which has been around for quite some time but stood somewhat alone in this approach for a while. Now, however, it feels like this mindset is really gaining traction among emerging practices. As young architects, and also as young people, we are perhaps more attuned to the challenges posed by global warming. It’s interesting because we have the opportunity to create new solutions for building and thinking. 

AB: Global warming is important on the competition level. It’s urgent—an emergency—these sorts of important concerns are supported by local politics. So, in a competition, this might translate to using materials from the site, like wood and clay or recycled concrete. And it means taking this consideration into account when developing an entry, and making a less high-tech building. 

The road to becoming a practice

AB: Before I studied architecture, I worked as an apprentice, drawing for a small architectural practice in Lausanne. I developed skills and tools; I observed; I listened. These learnings continue to be very important for me, in the way I communicate with the clients, with Julien, and with my students. I also developed a skill set that includes hand drawing and more technical skills on the computer. 

I met Julien during my bachelor’s studies, and we were eager to collaborate, including with our former partner, Argjend Hasani. We started to enter competitions during our master’s degree, and we won a prize in one of the first ones we did together, for a very tiny project next to Lac Léman.

JB: One of our biggest milestones was winning the Centre Scolaire d'Ardon competition in Valais. We won this in collaboration with a more experienced practice and did the project together. This allowed us to open a practice just a year after we graduated from our master's program. Alex already had some experience and had worked at an excellent architecture office in Geneva. And I did another course instead of a manual apprenticeship. It was tough for me to open the practice with zero hands-on experience; everything was new. Plus, I found out, during my studies, that I was really more interested in voids than in the building or materials. So, I had this strong idea about architecture not being about buildings or using materials but the space between objects. But then we actually had to build ideas, and I had to dive in head-on. 

If you want to open a practice, you can also apply for a stipend, although it’s not very common. You still need to find work. I believe it’s far more typical to spend a few years working at an experienced practice to acquire some basic tools before attempting to win competitions in your spare time. This way, you can open a practice with some valuable experience. Understanding how projects function is essential, so having a solid background is helpful. It’s important to grasp all the phases of a project: What are you supposed to do at each stage? When is the work finished? When is it good enough? What should you research more or less? What should you retain as is?

Learning from mistakes

JB: I think it’s important to make mistakes. We learn a lot from them. We’ve learned a lot from doing—and not always in the best way. For example, learning about the financial aspects of a practice and project management. We initially made mistakes with our architectural contract; many factors impact how much money you receive from a project. And this is not something you learn at school. And suddenly, we had a project, so we had to make a contract and proposal, and we didn’t do it completely right. This ended up costing us a lot of money because the contract was not good for all the work we actually had to do, and we didn’t have enough resources. We had to work extra hard, and we didn’t even have the right infrastructure to do the work. It’s pretty funny—like not having a big enough scanner and having to go out to scan things somewhere else or give in and buy a machine. These are the little things that experienced offices don’t have to think about. But you find a solution and make it happen. Sometimes it feels a little like David and Goliath: the big firms can do everything digitally, and we’re here with our pens and paper.

Context-driven design

AB: One of the most important aspects for us is the concept of space: how can we construct this space, what materials should we use, what kind of structure will it have?

JB: We also have different ways of approaching architecture. First, we consider space and construction in the same thought. We don’t believe that good architecture is made when one person is thinking about space conceptually and the other person goes, ‘But how can we build it?’ As in, a space is already conceptualised, and then someone says, ‘Should we do it concrete or brick?’ Every space has certain concerns, needs: the needs of the structure, materiality, and concept. Sometimes, you can work from a concept, but this process can also work backwards. Sometimes, the structure makes sense in a special way, and it’s your task to make it work conceptually. It's just two different ways of looking at the same problem. And we always want to consider everything comprehensively: spatially and constructively.

Another important aspect in our practice is the balance between the needs of the client and the site. We believe that architecture should add value to a site. For example, for a competition in the Centre Scolaire d'Ardon, we did a school in a small village. We analysed the land and found things that the competition wasn’t taking into account and thought it would be a good idea to bring them to the competition’s attention. We proposed taking the town’s library—which was kind of off the map—and putting it in the centre of the school, connecting different types of learning in one place. And when the authorities saw this part of our entry, they thought it was really a good idea. I think we won that competition because we offered that idea. Now that the project has been built, we’ve had a chance to speak with the librarian, and she told us that since the library moved to the centre of the school, she lends out twice as many books as before. The library isn’t any larger; it’s just in a better location, and twice as many people are coming to it because of that fact. It’s really important for us to use architecture as a tool for making improvements in a place and for its people. It’s not just about responding to needs with nice design.

AB: When we talk about understanding sites, we’re not just talking about the site itself but the surrounding landscape. We look for the existence of a common language, a material language. Like here in Fribourg, we have a unique kind of stone, called “molasse”, and it’s part of what defines the city. It’s also important to think about how the surroundings have been built, and if there’s a specific way of constructing buildings. This helps us use the right materials in the right place in a construction. 

JB: These concepts are evident in another competition proposal we developed. We combined an analysis of the site and the structure, determining what we believed was best for the project's nuances. This involved timber construction, where we aimed to start with the optimal dimensions of a static system—a building system—and explore what these dimensions could offer or help us address in relation to the project's needs. We arrived at something quite simple yet effectively complex, featuring some appealing sequences, variations in levels, and spatiality. The process began with the structure and evolved towards the spatial design.

The intersection of teaching and practice

JB: For us, there is a strong, important connection between teaching and practice. We teach one course together, a course for students who didn't do a drafting apprenticeship but who want to attend a technical school. It’s interesting because it forces us to be super synthetic with the different tools that we can use. And it brings us back to our roots, preventing us from getting too in our heads and becoming disconnected from reality. Also, students are the best incubators for new ideas, and when you are teaching or following what they are doing, you always get to see new ideas. It's stimulating for a teacher to see all this production and be able to react to it. 

AB: It’s very exciting for us. It pushes us to constantly question the way we think about architecture, space, and structure. I’ve learned a lot from the students because they are just like a breath of fresh air; they think without any constraints and sometimes make very impressive things. Also, some students come to class with very good questions about construction: How can I use clay? How can I use recycled concrete? 

JB: They also have really strong technological skills, like working in 3-D. And they don’t seem as beholden to their professors as we were. I feel like we were the last generation to hear tough critiques from our professors and accept some trash-talking. But this generation won’t stand for that, and they’re right. There's no excuse to speak to another human being like that.