The boom in architects

OG: The increase in new architecture practices is evident—when we look at the jury and participants in competitions, we often see unfamiliar names and wonder, ‘Who are these practices we’ve never heard of?’ This reflects the growing number of firms, largely due to Switzerland’s open and anonymous competition system. It allows anyone with strong ideas to compete, win, and start a practice, which has been a key factor driving the rise in new firms.

YB: And once you win a competition, you have to establish your practice here. If you want to build something you’ve won, you need to set up a local office, pay taxes, hire employees, and become part of the Swiss working ecosystem. Over the last decade, Switzerland’s economy has been very stable, with enough work for everyone, which attracts people who see it as an easier place to build a career compared to struggling economies.

JF: There are also many established firms, often led by architects now in their 60s or 70s, which has opened up space for younger architects to step in. I’d say we’re in a kind of "second wave" of architecture here, and competitions are an incredible opportunity. In Switzerland, the stable economy, good salaries (compared to the rest of Europe), and interesting projects are all factors that explain why there are so many young architects now.

YB: Another factor is the increase in people going to architecture schools. With, say, 150-200 students graduating each year from each school, and around 10 schools, that’s nearly 2,000 new architects annually. Some students return to their home countries, but most are Swiss and stay here, often starting a practice within their first 10 years. Every big city in Switzerland now has an architecture school. 

An organic start

OG: I think when the three of us were students, we each already knew we wanted to start our own practice one day. The drive to express our ideas and shape spaces people use is a big motivation for us. It’s about bringing our concepts into the world; for me, at least, that’s one of the main reasons.

JF: The first project we worked on was the Chalet in Samoëns. Oliver and I were both employed at different offices at the time—Oliver at Lacroix Chessex and I at Sylla Widmann architectes, both really nice offices in Geneva. We started drawing this project during our free time, working on it every night and building models.

OG: Yeah, we basically developed a project together while still working at other offices, often late at night, on weekends, and during holidays.

YB: However, you can't really say this project was the start of our practice. Having one project doesn't mean you’ll survive afterwards. It does give you visibility; people start talking, and then maybe you get one project after another. But, of course, it’s nice to have done something on your own before officially starting, aside from working in other offices. Having a side project gives you credibility when you finally quit or start something new.

OG: Yeah, you can tell potential clients, “Don’t worry, I’ve already done projects; this isn’t my first one,” which helps establish trust.

YB: Especially with your first clients, who are usually private individuals. They’re putting their trust in you, so you need to reassure them that you’ve done similar work before. You can say, “I’ve built this house; it’s standing, and people are living in it.” Otherwise, when you’re just 25 or 30 years old, they might look at you and think, “You’ve done nothing.” You might be a nice person who can draw, but they need someone they can trust with costs, timelines, planning, construction, and design. Once you have a couple of those, then it’s time to think about starting something concrete. Of course, competitions play a role, but you can't solely rely on them. You might do ten or even a hundred competitions, and once you win one, you can grow your office. However, many Swiss architects never enter competitions and still have successful practices; it’s a different economic model.

OG: There wasn't a clear milestone for us; it was a very organic process. Well, we officially started in 2021, which corresponds to the legal and administrative aspects of forming what’s called a SARL (Société à Responsabilité Limitée). So, that’s the official date marking the beginning of our practice. But we didn’t quit our jobs at the same time; we did so one after the other. We built ourselves up gradually. As Yann said, it was really organic. We had this project before we officially started a practice, and then we took on another smaller project. Eventually, one of us quit his job, but it wasn’t even a practice in the traditional sense. It just evolved naturally.

And we are quite different yet complementary. It's a challenge to leverage each person's strengths, and there's no clear definition of our roles yet. We are still figuring it out and trying to establish that structure. Since we’re a young practice, we don't have the experience of a long-established firm where one person handles costs, another manages planning, and another focuses on design. We're building that as we go. To answer your initial question, we have very different minds and profiles, which adds significant value but also presents challenges—it’s very interesting.

Navigating transitions

OG: We don’t always take the time to reflect on our work; we just tackle the projects that come our way and do our best to create good buildings. Maybe it’s time for us to pause and think, but for now, we are just focused on working.

YB: We are in a transitional phase. It depends on our workload and the size of our projects. The structure may change, or it may not; it’s uncertain. We can’t predict the growth of our office. We might win two competitions, or we might win none, which affects our growth. Older firms often have partners or associates—trusted architects—who help in restructuring. Since this is our first office, we don’t have a preconceived model, and no one teaches you how to organise a company. We share common interests, though some differ. Sometimes two of us may be interested in the same topic while the third is less engaged, but we work together to share interests and create something from them.

OG: Right now, we have very diverse projects. One is very technical, focusing on improving and renovating for safety—this involves a lot of administrative and engineering work. We also have several renovations and extensions of private homes, and the topics for each project differ significantly due to varying contexts, clients, and budgets. It’s challenging to maintain the same interest across these projects since they are so distinct. Additionally, we have an elderly home project—a competition we won a year ago—which is a new building on an entirely different scale.

YB: You could describe it as a social medical centre. It's a residence for elderly people where they can spend time and receive treatments for their conditions. It's a mix of a hotel and a care facility—not a clinic in the traditional sense, as it's not highly medicalised—but it has all the infrastructure needed for proper care.

JF: This will be our first time constructing a new building. When we started the office, we only focused on renovation projects for private clients. The concept we developed a year ago represents our first experience with a large, brand-new building, which is a significant change for us.

YB: A common driving force for the three of us is organising projects that satisfy our design intentions as well as the needs of clients and users. If we can successfully integrate the technical aspects, design, and user experience, and if everyone is satisfied at the end, that’s our goal.

OG: One thread that connects all these projects is the relationship between architecture and time. In each project, we strive to create something with lasting value. This focus can involve details, materials, or treatment—anything that contributes to longevity. It’s something we consistently consider, and it resonates throughout our work.

YB: Longevity can come from the quality of construction and design. We want to avoid creating something that, in 15 years, feels outdated and needs to be torn down. We aim to produce designs that transcend trends, ensuring that users and clients can appreciate the building for the next decades.

Ingredients for a winning project

YB: In a competition, there is one winner, but there are usually 10 or 20 other good projects, each responding to the topic in different ways. The jury, which varies for each competition, is composed of humans, making the selection a bit subjective. Luck also plays a role; sometimes a good project isn't represented well, and it misses the mark. Plus, the client is involved—and they’re not often an architect, but someone who has a vision of what the building should be and how their institution should function. This also influences the design. Our proposal was specific yet appreciated by the jury at the time.

OG: Our project provided a pragmatic response to the various constraints typical of this kind of building. A key aspect was the relationship between this large structure and its context, which we designed to appear smaller than it actually is. We focused on creating high-quality exterior spaces for the people who would use them. The program's layout, including the entrance and other elements, was designed with a pragmatic approach. Importantly, we aimed for the building's interior to feel domestic, resembling a large house rather than an institution. This sensitivity may have contributed to our success.

YB: That was actually the starting point of our design. From the beginning, we aimed to create a domestic atmosphere within such a large building. Before finalising the floor plan, we studied various models, images, and sketches. Our guideline was to make the building as domestic as possible. We conceptualised a design that incorporated both a straight bar and an open courtyard, blending different archetypes. This hybrid approach allowed for intimacy while remaining open to the outside, inviting participation from the village. I believe this aspect was what the jury appreciated most about our project.

OG: As for the challenges of building this project, there are many, especially the number of people involved in making it happen, like the engineers and the client—managing all these humans. It’s like a machine. Another significant aspect involves navigating various norms and constraints, such as fire safety and acoustics. We have to check all these boxes while ensuring everything is intelligent, coherent, and visually appealing—all within budget. This challenge drives us to think critically and continuously improve.

YB: One of the other challenges is finding the energy for this project and making it the best it can be, while also ensuring we follow through to the end without mistakes or complications. At the same time, we need to keep the office running. You can invest all your energy into one project, but eventually, that project will conclude, and you have to think about the future. If you want to win another competition or fulfil obligations to other clients, you need to satisfy them as well. In a less formal sense, you've given your word—once you take the job, you have to deliver and do it well.

JF: Fortunately, we have a fantastic team right now. We have three highly skilled architects on board, which has greatly helped us develop this massive project. I believe we are in a good position to achieve something great