From a traditional start to a solid foundation

DZ: The story of how we met is a classic one—working together at Herzog & de Meuron in Basel, a firm as renowned then as it is now. We were on the same team, working closely in the office and living just two blocks apart. Soon, we discovered shared interests beyond architecture, including cooking, food, and wine. This sparked a personal relationship and eventually inspired us to try out some projects on our own.

PP: That was the beginning. And here we are, a few years later, with an established practice. It's a very common route—to go from an established firm to your own office. My time at Herzog & de Meuron felt like a continuation of university studies while working. It created this sense of learning progression, and I think this is a great starting point for other practices. People don't see it only as an endpoint but, also, as an extension of their formation before moving on to something new.

DZ: This progression is well-known with firms like OMA with offices that stemmed from it, ranging from Zaha Hadid to MVRDV and many more, while at Herzog & de Meuron, it started in our generation or just before, more in the 40-something crowds rather than 50+. It may be related to the increase in international staff or an openness in Switzerland, or even a shift in the office culture that allows people to participate more and feel capable of going out on their own. For instance, when we began, we were in a shared office space filled with creative businesses, and at one point, there were eight or nine former heads now running their own offices in the same building.

PP: All competing for the same projects in the same place—I think it’s very interesting. It's one of the advantages of practices like these. They not only contribute through their projects but also foster discourse and growth in architectural culture. The approach we see here is like a masterclass, one that feels not only Swiss but also open to broader audiences. People tend to stay longer now; the average time used to be two to three years, but now it's closer to five or six. 

DZ: Back then, our perspective was completely different because, working for a big firm, architecture was our only focus. It’s a privileged position—you’re shielded from other concerns and can concentrate fully. But once you move to the other side, handling other aspects like securing projects and managing cash flow, your perspective changes. I can't pinpoint an exact moment of change in Swiss architecture, because our view shifted so much that it’s hard to say why. We saw colleagues who went independent and suddenly encountered the harsh realities of the real world. It was a shock for them to realise they couldn’t just make endless models, as it takes time and money. However, we also learned a lot about methodology and how to create architecture, which can be adjusted to different realities.

PP: Adjusting to what’s possible within your means and aligning it with your vision of architecture is important. I think many of us from that time reached a historical milestone in a way—the shift from a single-architect office to a collaborative model with a defined identity. This was a major takeaway from H&dM and one many of us carried forward. For us, as two partners, it was clear from the start that it would be a dialogue, and that collaborative approach has become essential.

DZ: It’s not just mine or yours, but ours together. This collaboration frees you from being overly attached to your own ideas and brings a wider discussion.

Architecture is like a marathon

PP: We both come from elsewhere, ‘a third place,’ and also from architect families. We understood that architects have the potential to work anywhere—not limited to a one-kilometre or one-hour radius. This idea was reinforced at H&dM, where we saw that with a strong network of collaborators, it’s entirely possible. It was clear to us from the start that projects wouldn’t be ours alone; they’d be team projects with many parties involved. From the outset, we were eager to take on projects wherever possible. Our first two were in the Netherlands and South Korea, reflecting this mindset. We’re always open to opportunities to contribute, no matter the location.

DZ: Yes, and that’s how opportunities developed—our backgrounds in various places led to connections, and we followed them. As Pedro mentioned, team infrastructure is essential for success, especially with local people on board. The first two competitions were chances we seized, and once things got moving, we thought, why not? We enjoyed the cultural interaction of visiting new places, studying them, learning, absorbing information, and contributing to them. It’s also a chance to challenge our preconceptions.

Winning our first two competitions was the pivotal moment that made everything possible, proving that our collaboration worked well. That initial success was a major stepping stone, and certain milestones along the way have been instrumental, each requiring us to take on new challenges, build the team, and grow in all aspects. Success in these competitions has also opened doors, allowing us to step into a higher league, like in football. Winning the Jerusalem Courthouse competition in 2014 and the Campus Bern project (with Wulf architekten) in 2018-2019 was particularly significant, and we're eager for what's next.

PP: Yes, and during the early 2020s, with COVID and everything, we completed our first two major buildings. This is a significant milestone as well. As Jacques Herzog said at the Philharmonic’s inauguration in Hambourg, ‘Architecture is a marathon, not a sprint.’ This resonates with our experiences and those of other practices we've seen, many of which eventually faded. Patience is essential.

DZ: Absolutely. Persistence is really important, especially in such a slow-moving profession. We’ve learned that simply by staying the course, insisting, and persisting, you can achieve quality and open up new opportunities. It’s not about speed.

Strengthening the vision, step by step

DZ: An important project for us was the Jerusalem Courthouse in 2014. It was actually the second competition for this building. The site changed after the first attempt was scrapped, even though a firm had won the competition. This time, it was an open competition with three finalists—us, an established firm from Tel Aviv, and Baumschlager Eberle Architekten from Austria. We went through interviews and a presentation to the president of the Supreme Court, ultimately winning in 2014. However, it took almost a year to really start working on the project. In that time, the building's plot shifted slightly, so we had to redesign the concept. Then, due to funding issues, the project went on hold for a few years until it was reactivated post-COVID. By then, changes in courthouse functionality and perceptions of the judge-courthouse relationship had evolved. Previously, each judge had their own court space, but they later realised a more dynamic system was more efficient. So, we had to rethink the program and redesign again, and with each iteration, the project became clearer and stronger.

PP: This process allowed us to refine and improve the project over time, without the pressure of building it too early. We didn’t appreciate that advantage back then of course, but now, we see the benefit. With most of the original team still on board, we were able to preserve the project’s history and knowledge, which has been invaluable.

DZ: Then came our second competition on a university campus, building on our experience with Tel Aviv University’s campus. We won this project in 2017, and the best part was how quickly it progressed—despite COVID, the building was completed within four years. The main challenge wasn’t technical but psychological: understanding that you can’t know everything upfront. It’s more about intuition, asking questions, and controlling the process as it unfolds. Rather than knowing precisely how everything will be built, it’s about saying, ‘I want it to look like this; how can we achieve that?’ This process requires constant communication—not only within our team but with contractors, consultants, clients, and users. Successful architecture is as much about effectively conveying the vision to all involved as it is about the idea itself. Getting everyone to envision and take ownership of the idea makes it happen.

From ‘flexibility’ to ‘free space’

PP: As architects, flexibility is essential because the final building is rarely identical to the initial concept. The university project presented a particular challenge: as mentioned, after winning the competition, the plot moved to a different location on campus. So, we had to adapt our original idea. That challenge led to the unique facade design we ended up with, a solution that emerged through research, design, and collaboration with our consultants. We don’t cling rigidly to an initial idea; rather, we embrace discovery through the design process.

DZ: One of the most satisfying parts of this process is when ideas evolve through a positive, open exchange. I might suggest something, and then Pedro—or another team member—could say, ‘That’s exactly what I envisioned.’ Or, they might see something totally different, but we discover that approach is great too. This ‘yes, and…’ mindset keeps the process moving forward. This openness is enjoyable and carries through to the construction phase in all aspects.

PP: When someone from our team suggests using a different material or method, you get into this back-and-forth dialogue that continues right down to the craftsmanship. Through this, you achieve the intended result, but it’s more refined and fine-tuned. That's the rewarding part. From the start, we’ve aimed to address complex architectural challenges simply, but never simplistically. This has been central to our discourse, and over time we’ve been refining it. We look at a project’s complexity, its form, program, and other elements, and aim to provide a solution that feels obvious, like ‘Of course, that’s it.’ This clarity is what we pursue now, and we’re drawn to challenging, demanding projects. We don’t shy away from complexity. Even when designing something unconventional, like a prison, we ask, ‘What makes this complex? How can we make it better, simpler?’

DZ: Yes, I think initially, our approach was more intuitive. Over time, we’ve developed a clearer methodology, defining what really interests us. Additionally, we strive to add an element of value that goes beyond the client’s requirements or the program brief—something that enriches the experience for users and the city. We look for ‘free space’––reading between the lines of the program and finding a space where we can make a positive impact.

PP: This idea ties closely to our understanding of public space, shaped by our backgrounds, experiences of the city, and how people interact with buildings and each other. It influences everything we do.

DZ: There are different levels of public space, from city scale to campus to building, each with varying degrees of flexibility in what you can propose. It depends on the context, program, location, and so on. Sometimes, a minimal addition—like a five-square-metre area between two functions—can create a valuable meeting point. At other times, there’s more freedom to implement broader ideas. For example, in Campus Bern (with Wulf architekten), we introduced a central inner street that concentrates public functions. This helps channel circulation and creates an additional connection between the building and the city. It wasn’t explicitly requested, but the jury appreciated it and recognised its value as a public enhancement. 

A new chapter

DZ: I think this next phase is crucial for us. We are starting to build our first major project here in Switzerland, which is very exciting. Finally, after all these years, we are seeing dirt, concrete, and wood start to move. This is a major milestone. 

This phase also comes with a move to a different space, which may affect our work because we believe that architecture influences us; the spaces we inhabit affect our creativity and productivity. We feel very privileged and lucky to do what we love, blending work and passion. We are grateful to pursue our interests and collaborate with the people we want, without compromising on what matters to us. One of the key lessons we've learned in recent years is the importance of the team, and I can confidently say that now after a few years.

PP: It's a moment of consolidation, a new chapter.

DZ: We have an amazing team that shares the same values, making it feel like a true group effort. This is the best feeling—knowing that many people are working together in the same direction. It's exciting to think about what we can achieve. I hope it goes well. We're optimistic.