Building Foundations

JW: Before the kick-off of our practice, Mentha Walther Architekten, both of us gained our first work experience collaborating in two Zürich-based architecture firms. Both left their mark on our future approach to architecture—the work of Burkhalter Sumi Architekten had a significant influence on my approach to wooden constructions and working with colour and light. After a few years and some private projects, we both started to engage in open competitions individually. Over time, we began collaborating, and the third of those collaborations led to us winning the competition for the Garderoben und Clubgebäude Hönggerberg in 2017. This became the founding project of Mentha Walther Architekten. It was an open competition for a wardrobe building and a club restaurant for a football club in Zürich. Our contribution was a compact structure with a minimal footprint. The idea was to lead visitors and players on a public path through the building. There are no extra corridors – all of which are public spaces and outdoor climate. In hindsight, this building set the standard for us when it comes to careful construction in regard to detailing and the use of long-lasting and easy-to-maintain materials, as well as the reduction of grey energy and energy used for the operation of the building. 

NM: Also, this project paved the way for the foundation of our practice. Shortly after the win, we had a contract but no office space. Founding our firm, finding an office space and starting to work on the project all happened at once. But we never doubted that this is the right path for us. We were lucky, and we quickly found a beautiful little backyard house where we set up some painter's trestles, put a board on top of it, and called it a desk and a studio. From there on, things moved gradually. We were lucky enough to have another project at hand quickly thereafter (Forch I & Forch II), which helped us grow our firm. The project is an early example of a renovation of a private house—originally a single-family home, which we transformed into two units, making precise incisions and modifications within the existing outer volume.  

JW: Another key project for us was—and still is—the Schulhaus Wasserwerkstrasse in Zürich. It was a transformation of a protected building into a school and was completed in 2022. Originally, it was one of the first industrial buildings outside the city walls. The project opened new doors for us, allowing us to deepen our understanding of working with existing and sometimes protected structures, whether through alterations or additions. Working with existing, or even protected buildings, has always been a central focus of our practice and has evolved into one of its core themes. We have since had the opportunity to explore this approach in both public and private commissions. 

Layer by layer

NM: We are fortunate enough to live and work in a context and society which has a rich history and a general understanding of the worth of our cultural heritage. We believe this heritage must be treated as a treasure being passed on from generation to generation. We have an obligation to take a clear stance when it comes to the carbon footprint of the construction industry overall. Combining these factors, it is only logical that we see ourselves not only as builders of something new but also as advocates for what already exists. The times are long over when architects were the visionaries of whole new cities. Utopia is now a place where architects improve what is already here, where they carefully protect what is good, and where they adapt and repurpose where it is useful. 

JW: We find ourselves in this not-so-new but more-challenging-than-ever context. This is why renovating an existing home, making it more efficient, making use of unused space etc., is not an unattractive task to us and is not less important than building something new. The challenges are even more complex in renovations and conversions, because we must find ways of working with what is there. And what is there often does not correspond with the current norms or laws. When starting to work on a renovation or larger conversion of an existing building, it is crucial to get to know the building well first. We examine the core of the building with the help of a specialist; we learn about the structure, the layers, the plasters and paints used, the history of additions and removals, the defects and pollutants, and the space’s former glory. In other words, we treat the existing building as if it were a patient by scanning it, finding the pain points, and figuring out which joints and ligaments need to be fixed or replaced. This process can be slow and nerve-wracking. But only if we know our patient well, we can decide on a treatment plan. 

NM: If the building is protected, this work sometimes resembles more the work of an archaeologist. Only if we know the structure and its layers well can we start to weigh in on what is still functional or not. We then peel out two or three core themes and start working from there. We identify what needs to stay, what is good, what is the soul of this house, and then develop the rest out of these themes. All the design and technical decisions follow these rules. By learning about the used materials, we can more easily find technically suitable and ecologically sustainable solutions. Plus, by learning as much as possible about the building, we get a clearer idea of the costs and timeline, which is beneficial for the client. 

The vast competition ecosystem

JW: When selecting competitions to participate in, we choose what excites us—even if we don’t have previous references in a certain typology. If the project sounds exciting, we’ll go for it. But the composition of the jury is important to us as well. A strong jury, a well-thought and clear program and fair predefined key factors are important when choosing to participate. When there’s a pre-qualification process, we look at how our references fit the competition. But the project itself always needs to excite us first. Apart from open competitions, we participate in selective procedures like Planerwahlverfahren (literally ‘choosing the planner’) and study assignments (Studienaufträge). These competition formats imply a pre-qualification process where the jury will choose the most suitable teams to participate in the actual competition. The Planerwahlverfahren is usually applied to smaller projects, either in terms of budget or scope, where the design aspect is very limited. It is therefore often used for renovations or adaptations of existing buildings. 

NM: One of our most important Studienaufträge was for the renovation, extension, and reorganisation of the Marzli public bath in Bern. It is a historically very interesting site that was one of the first public baths in Bern/Switzerland, where people went to swim and wash up in a little part of the river. Nowadays, it is one of the most popular spots for recreation and swimming in the river Aare. Since we both grew up in or near Bern, this is a dear place to us, as it bears many memories. We were very excited when we got elected to participate in the study assignment. We were still a very young practice, and we didn’t have the perfect references in mind. But we were given the chance to try a new approach and showcased a future scenario where the whole area could become a public park open 24/7. (Although free of charge, the bath is currently closed at night.) 

JW: Therefore, we created a multipurpose wooden structure surrounding the existing and new pools. This offered extra sun decks and shade via wooden shutters that could be closed at night to keep the pools safe. It also incorporated protection in case of the not-so-rare floods that occur due to the proximity to the river Aare. We proposed that the wooden structure be built on an elevated pedestal that integrated a diverse sequence of benches, decks, little walls, and stairs, but also provided a solution to the flooding problem by protecting the pools and the fields from floodwater. Unfortunately, our project was not selected for further steps, but it was still a great opportunity to show how we try to find multipurpose solutions.

Public vs. private spheres

JW: Working for a private client has proven to be a different process. Private clients do not have a general expertise about the design and construction process, they don't know what happens when in the process and what they can expect from us in which phase. We have the responsibility to guide our clients through the process. With private clients, it is mostly about building trust, listening carefully and leading without overwhelming. We need to help guide and advise on when to make important decisions and be clear and transparent about the consequences. Working for a professional client such as a city or a community, the expectations of the clients shift and depending on the type of client, there will be specialists advising from behind the scenes. So, for us, the main difference is not about our approach to the task, on leading a team or on construction and cost management, it is about the means of communication. 

Although private commissions are mostly of a smaller scale, the work behind them is still the same, and there is no possibility for us to scale them. This leads to usually disproportionately higher expenses for planning, which then has a reciprocal influence on the design in terms of costs. So, in that sense, the design approach for private clients may differ a little from that of the larger-scale, public projects we work on.

Risks, contracts, and responsibilities

JW: I only realised in retrospect that dealing with contracts after you win a competition is a crucial part of our work. There are so many ways of handling the legal side of architecture. Right now, there’s a big demand for general planners (GP). Essentially, a general planner is responsible for all the specialists who work for them. On the legal side, there is a main GP contract with the client, and the specialists have sub-contracts with the GP. If architecture firms take on the role of the GP, this can lead to a lot of pressure. So, suddenly, the legal side can become a factor in the selection process of competitions to participate in.  It’s not just about typology, task and excitement; it’s about having an understanding of the legal side too. We need to be very careful here. I think we must share knowledge and talk with one another. Architects need to communicate because this system isn’t going to change.

NM: In my opinion, architects are still generalists; apart from the design aspect, we need to have a general understanding of statics, the physics of a building, construction etc., and we need to know when to bring in the specialists. I believe in the architect's role as the connecting point of all the specialists, and the project lead should remain with the architect. But what I am questioning is the consequences on the legal side of architects taking on the role of GPs. Young architects may not fully realise the consequences of this shift in the contract structure. And it’s part of the competition world because more and more competitions are set up this way. So we ought to be careful and knowledgeable, and we need to educate ourselves and each other.

JW: It’s not just about typology or whether it’s a selective or an open competition. Architects also need to consider the contract setup. I don’t think many young architects realise this in their first few years in the market, but it’s starting to become more apparent to us now. The longer we have our practice, the more experience we gain with problem-solving, and this issue becomes clearer. There’s also a shift in how we reflect on our work and our goals. We, as architects, want to create spaces, not perfect contracts, but it’s part of the competition world. Especially as a young office, we have to be aware that this is part of our work. We need to understand what we're potentially taking on when choosing which competitions to enter.

Becoming part of the bigger picture

NM: Due to the challenges architects face (the pressure on fees, rising construction costs, a tendency towards a lack of skilled professionals), it seems crucial to us to participate in the current discourse. Therefore, Jeanine has become involved with the SIA (Schweizierischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein) as a member of the BGA (Berufsgruppe Architektur). We feel like architects need to be more active and start having a louder voice in this continually harsher environment. We also decided to invest in the future by training draughtspeople in our office. We currently have a first-year apprentice. Sharing knowledge and having an active and supportive network of colleagues in architecture and related professions seems to be crucial to being able to change things for the better. We can ask for guidance when needed. After eight years, we see ourselves more and more on the giving end. Furthermore, we find it very uplifting and inspiring to participate as jurors in ongoing competitions—yet another way of contributing to culture. 

JW: Maybe we’re starting to see ourselves as part of a bigger picture. There are many ways of contributing to society and our future: by constructing and designing good spaces, by protecting and maintaining existing structures, by planning sustainable and resourceful projects, by fighting for our visions and ideas, by being political as jurors and members in associations, and by simply listening and caring for others. In the end, our goal is to be a part of the solution and not to complain about an ongoing change, which may or may not be for the better. We know that we are part of the change. 

The visible thread

NM: It’s interesting because, at the end of the day, I think we’ve always been fortunate as a practice. We’ve always had projects to work on, and we’ve always felt like we had a lot of work to do. So sometimes it felt like we weren’t necessarily reflecting on where we stand or our situation. But there have been moments, like opportunities for talks or interviews with people from outside, where we’ve had to pause and reflect on where we are and where we’ve come from over these eight years. And when I think about what’s important to us, I feel there is continuity in what we like to work on and what we value. When you think about it, there’s a certain visible thread that we can point to.

JW: It’s about our love for details, a search for continuity between old and new, a sensitive use of materials and colours and creating spaces that can evolve, transform, and last. There’s always some amount of risk or the unknown. At the end of the day, you don’t know who you will work with, who you’ll work for, or how things will unfold. But you also need to be willing to dedicate a few years of your life to the process.