Breaking into Swiss architecture

CL: Over the last 10 years, the Swiss population has grown by almost 1 million, from 8 to nearly 9 million. That’s a significant increase, and I believe Switzerland is one of the European countries with the highest growth in this regard. With this growth comes a demand for new infrastructure: schools, housing, and other facilities. This creates many opportunities for architects. 

I’m originally from Barcelona, Spain, where I completed both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees. I worked there for three years, but the market conditions at the time weren’t great due to the financial crisis. I wanted better opportunities, so I decided to look abroad. Fortunately, I found an opportunity in Switzerland, which brought me here in 2018. 

While Switzerland is often seen as a land of opportunities, for someone arriving from abroad without local experience, finding a job can be challenging. Once you’ve gained work experience here, securing desirable positions becomes easier, but breaking in initially can be difficult. One great thing about this market, though, is the system of open competitions. It prioritises good architecture over experience. If you win, even without much experience, you are paired with someone experienced to ensure the project is completed successfully.

GB: The open competition system allows young architects to potentially win a project, which often leads to the opportunity to establish a practice. That’s how it worked for us. After working in offices for a few years, we decided to try starting our own studio. Competitions were our only way forward, so we focused entirely on them. Fortunately, we won one, and that’s what made it possible.

I’m originally from Italy, where I lived until I was 19. When it came time to choose a university, I considered Mendrisio and the Politecnico di Milano. I initially didn’t get into Mendrisio due to my Geometra qualification (a technical diploma), so I went to Lugano instead to study at a professional school for architecture. After completing my bachelor’s there, I was able to pursue my master’s at Mendrisio. Shortly after graduating, I found a job in Zurich—it was relatively straightforward.

CL: It was in this office that we met. 

Betting on competitions: a year of risk and reward

CL: I went to university at ETSAV, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura del Vallès, near Barcelona, which focuses on sustainability, research, and innovative approaches to architecture.

GB: Mendrisio is romantically unique and has a studio-based approach. Each studio has a professor with a distinct perspective and way of working. One studio might focus on material-driven design, while another might emphasise urban context and typology. This variety fosters flexibility in thinking, which helps us remain open to discussion and collaboration in our projects.

CL: We always wanted to have our own office. We started working on competitions at night, but it didn’t work well for us. Eventually, I quit my job and decided to take two months to focus entirely on one competition before looking for a new job. During that time, Giulio kept working at another office. We thought, ‘Why not give it a try? Maybe something will come from this.’

So, we did. It worked well—we even won a prize. But even before we knew we had won, we decided he would quit his job too, and we’d dedicate a year to doing competitions full-time. We realised that if we didn’t try, we’d never know. So, we invested everything in this dream. Luckily, we won a competition by the end of the first year. 

We worked hard, knowing we’d have to return to regular jobs if things didn’t work out since we didn’t have much money saved. By February, we were working on what we said would be our last competition and planned to find jobs in March. Then, they called us to say we’d won. We couldn’t believe it, but here we are now.

GB: The competition was for an extension of an existing school in Bern. The site had four existing buildings, three of which are Swiss modernist masterpieces and protected as heritage. The fourth building, an extension from the 70s, needed to be addressed. The program allowed four options: keeping, reusing, extending, or demolishing it. Its placement created urban issues, so we proposed demolishing it to create something better integrated with the surrounding buildings. We addressed the urban flaws by proposing a new structure integrated with the logic of the original campus, which was risky since sustainability often emphasises reusing existing structures.

CL: We believe our proposal succeeded because it redefined the campus entry by introducing a new public space, a piazza. Previously, accessing the site was problematic—the main building was overshadowed by the 70s extension and its garage. The only way to reach the entrance was via a fire truck ramp, making it a truly unattractive situation. It felt disjointed. Our design creates a cohesive flow: you arrive at the piazza, enter the new building, and are welcomed by the main building directly ahead.

Challenges in innovating typology

CL: When we approach a competition, the first month is all about analysing the context, exploring various urban strategies and typologies. We explore various options, decide on a direction, and then go all in for the second month to develop the project.

GB: The relationship between our project and its context is fundamental to our approach, serving as a guiding principle alongside typology in shaping our design.

CL: One thing that defines our work is how we structure and optimise the client’s program. We strip it down to the essentials, reducing it to the core needs.

GB: With a school programme, it's hard to innovate completely. Everything here is so standardised; inventing a new typology or developing a new space experience for a school, is a real challenge. Recently, however, we participated in a competition where it was possible to try something less conventional.

CL: What was fascinating about this competition was that, unlike others where they typically want to uphold standards, they were open to new ideas. They even mentioned it explicitly in the brief. About half of the program they asked for was open spaces for students to create and experiment. That allowed us to experiment ourselves, particularly with the interior space of the building.

GB: You could see it in the results—every project that won a prize had something special. The competition gave us the freedom to experiment with something less conventional, and when you get that chance, you have to take it.

CL: It was exciting to explore the potential of the inside space of the building—things we usually can’t do because school spaces are so minimal. Typically, there’s not much room to play. The program is very prescriptive: 80 square metres per classroom, and those spaces must meet specific standards. Where you can experiment is in how you arrange them and in spaces like corridors and stairs. The magic in school projects is often in the ground floor—in shared spaces like libraries or dining areas. Those are the areas where you have more freedom to create something special, as we did in the project we won.

Finding balance after winning

CL: We had to face reality when we started the office. We had to learn how to manage a studio, hire employees, and handle finances. We had no prior experience in any of this.

GB: Managing employees, dealing with money, and working with clients are three major challenges. Handling clients is especially tricky because they’re investing a lot of money, and you have to deliver. It’s very different from competitions, where you can hide or ignore certain problems. In real projects, those issues need to be resolved, and it’s a significant shift.

CL: Starting the company was chaotic. We had to set up the business, find office space, hire employees, and simultaneously deliver projects at a high standard. We also wanted to keep doing competitions, so it was a lot to juggle at once.

GB: It’s a completely different life. Before, it was just the two of us. This bubble was our whole world—a very nice one. Now, we’re coordinating with 10 or 15 specialists—engineers, IT consultants, clients, general planners, etc. It’s a completely different world.

CL: We noticed something interesting about competition cycles. Some offices win multiple competitions in a year and then go years without winning anything, even if they keep participating. We wonder why that happens.

GB: Since we won our first competition, we’ve had fewer prizes. We realised it’s partly because we don’t have the same time to dedicate to competitions. When you’re focused on ongoing projects, the quality of your competition work can suffer.

CL: Exactly. When an office has time, they can pour all their energy into competitions and get great results. But once those projects start, there’s less time to invest in new competitions and the quality dips. It’s not that they stop trying—it’s just harder to maintain the same level.

GB: Now we’re trying to find ways to maintain quality in competitions while managing ongoing projects. It’s tough because the dynamic changes—before, we could focus completely on just one thing; now, we have to do more multitasking without lessening quality. Efficiency matters more and more.

CL: Winning the first competition is exciting, but then you have to figure out how to win the next one to keep the office running.

GB: One possible solution is collaboration. When two offices face the same challenge, they can partner on a competition, splitting time and resources. That way, they can deliver something strong without overextending themselves.

CL: Yes,  the first time we did this was for a very large school project, and we thought we couldn’t handle it on our own because it was so huge. Then another practice proposed to do this competition together. The collaboration went well, and we ended up with a second prize. I think this way of working is really interesting because you have twice as many ideas to work with and filter.

GB: When working with others, you have to listen and be critical—even of yourself. You must be self-confident, but you should accept constructive criticism from others. And in this case, constructive criticism made the work better. 

The road ahead

CL: In the end, the journey from competition to real-world projects has been both challenging and rewarding. Balancing the creative freedom of competitions with the responsibilities of managing a studio and delivering on client expectations is no easy feat. Yet, it's through these experiences that we continue to grow and refine our approach to architecture. By embracing both the risks and rewards, and learning from each project and collaboration, we remain committed to creating thoughtful, context-driven designs that push boundaries, while staying grounded in the practical realities of architecture. The road ahead may be uncertain, but we’re excited to continue exploring new possibilities and evolving as architects.