Not easier, but more engaged

MB: a-platz is founded on the collaboration of four partners with diverse backgrounds. Jérôme and I have experience in large offices, working with teams of 25 to 30 people, while Márton and Emőke have always been involved in smaller, more domestically scaled practices. We gained experience working on long-term projects, many of which, unfortunately, we didn’t see come to fruition. This might be part of why we wanted to be more involved in the entire process of architecture and construction. It’s something that probably resonates with other emerging practices as well. Additionally, larger projects are becoming less frequent, and we feel that we can engage more deeply with small-scale interventions, not only from an economic standpoint but also from an environmental one. 

This explains our desire to establish our own independent collaborations through a-platz. As for the name of our practice, its origins aren’t entirely clear, but it evokes something about the city—particularly the European city. ‘Platz’, in German means ‘square’, so for us, it connects to the idea of European culture, of public space. But overall, we feel the name is open to interpretation. It’s not about a single definition but the feeling it conveys. 

Long story short: a beginning rooted in friendship and collaboration

MB: We worked in different offices before founding ours. Márton and I met while studying in Romania, and later, we became colleagues. Jérôme and I met while working in an office in Paris, and Márton and Emőke also had international experiences—studying and interning in places like Budapest and Basel. This variety of experiences seemed natural for our generation, where we travelled and studied in different places. We got along well in architectural projects, and that evolved into a strong friendship. It felt right to work together.

In the beginning, we didn’t have a structured office. We started with competitions, as many do, and we were fortunate to win Europan13 in Graz, Austria. These small successes encouraged us to keep going, and after the Europan, we became more confident and realised we wanted to pursue our own practice. Our collaboration started around 10 years ago, but the official office, a-platz, began in 2021. So we are approaching our 10th year, but the practice itself is only four years old. Before that, we worked on projects in our spare time while still employed in other offices. In that phase, it was easier to take a more experimental approach, feeling free to draw and propose ideas that we might not have explored in our day-to-day jobs. Over time, everything came together to form the practice.

Crossing borders: two places, one practice

MB: We are located in two cities and two countries: Paris, France, where I collaborate with Jérôme, and Miercurea Ciuc, Romania, where the other two partners of the practice, Márton Tövissi and Emőke Forró, are based. There are two entities for organisational reasons, but the name remains the same. The reason we have two locations is simple: we live in different places, and we mainly develop projects in these two regions. At the time, we found that working together, despite the distance, was working well. We had strong communication, both in practical and architectural ideas, and we made the choice to live in different places. It felt natural to continue collaborating because what mattered was not being physically in the same place, but how we worked together. Technology allowed us to stay connected, and the COVID crisis validated this way of working. What once felt rare has now become quite natural. In the end, working from a distance doesn’t feel strange any more; it feels like a strength. When you're in your own head, it can be easy to get overwhelmed by problems and lose perspective. Having someone from the outside offers fresh insight, which is quite valuable.

JC: It’s really valuable to get fresh perspectives on each project. Sometimes, when working on a project in Romania or France, one of us might not fully grasp the translation of regulations or cultural specifics, and that can open up new ideas. It’s like being free from the weight of regulations, which can sometimes be constraining. We can step back, propose ideas, and draw without worrying about every detail. This distance gives us a new way to look at things and helps the creative process.

MB: The division of work is very different from project to project. It’s clear that when working in a certain context, the local team understands it best—they’re in contact with clients, administration, partners, engineers, and so on. So, they’re naturally the ones managing the project. We only focus on the architectural proposal and don’t get involved with regulations. Step by step, we join in, but the idea is to stay free of that. It’s great when you can look at the project from an architectural, social, and cultural point of view. While we work together on projects in different locations, at some point, as the construction process unfolds, we take charge if the project is local. We only ask for advice when necessary.

JC: France and Romania are both similar and different contexts. In France, especially in recent years, we’re involved with many public commissions, and there are competitions or selection processes. We also have a few private projects, which sometimes involve competition as well. So, in France, competitions have become a way to get projects.

MB: In Romania—at least, for us— the process is different. It’s often about meeting clients directly without a competition. We have a few public projects there, though none have been realised yet. The volume of public projects there isn’t as high as in France. The territories are also different—here we’re working in denser, urbanised areas, while in Romania, we’re in smaller cities with a larger countryside. But overall, the type of work we’re doing—transforming and extending existing buildings—is similar in both places.

Transforming the existing

MB: Our involvement in transformation projects has grown significantly over the years. Five or ten years ago, transformation projects accounted for maybe 20 to 50 percent of our work, with the majority being new projects. Now, that ratio has flipped, and I think this is a broader trend. 

Transformation projects come with their own challenges. You have to understand the existing structure, not just from an architectural perspective but also from an urban one. Working on a dense site often affects the surrounding buildings and community. You must assess what is important to preserve in the building, even when fragmentation complicates things. Regulations can also limit the possibilities, but the challenge is finding the balance between regulation and the potential improvements for the building. It requires a lot of analysis. The technical diagnosis is one thing—checking the structure, the air quality, materials used in construction, and their safety. This part is more straightforward because there are clear rules. But there's also a cultural diagnosis, understanding the building's history, how it’s evolved, and whether some of these changes are worth preserving or improving. In Paris, we work on transformation projects and rehabilitation. Right now, we’re dealing with a Haussmannian building from 1912—Rue Jules Lefebvre—and with a garage building from the beginning of the 20th century in Cours de Vincennes. The first project is more of a renovation and has a patrimonial dimension, and the second one is about transforming an obsolete programme and its structure in housing.

Simplification is a central objective, and a common aspect in our projects. In transformation projects, this is crucial. Over time, buildings undergo multiple interventions that can dilute their identity. Finding the original identity or creating a new one involves simplifying the structure. From an economic perspective, simplification is crucial because budgets are often under pressure. The risk of not simplifying is that the project may not be feasible. This approach is also important for new projects—clarity and simplicity in the system are key.

Beside renovation projects in Paris, sometimes we join other teams and collaborate to propose ideas through competitions. We participated in one in 2024 in Geneva together with Acte architectes from Lausanne. Unfortunately, we didn’t win, but it was a valuable experience. The competition involved transforming a site to accommodate a new nautical centre and create more green space. Our approach was to work with the materials found on-site, including an existing building and nearby metal structures. The challenge was to reuse these materials creatively, almost like a ready-made object. It was a valuable exercise. Although we didn’t win, we learned a great deal, particularly from collaborating with a team from a different context.

Miercurea Ciuc, Romania

MB: Transformation projects are more and more common in Miercurea Ciuc, as well. While one of our first built projects in the region, a small ski pavilion, was a completely new structure in a natural landscape, since then, almost every project has dealt with extending or renovating existing structures.

The region has a history of building in timber, which we like to integrate into our projects as well. The ski pavilion is built completely in timber, combining traditional details with contemporary ones. We have a house extension project close to completion in Pirickse, where an old country house is completed with a contemporary wing, consisting of a clear structure of concrete and timber, and the essence of the project is the dialogue between the two. Formally, there is a contrast between them, but they share similar materiality, only in different proportions.

Working with the existing is even more central to the renovation project of a city house in Miercurea Ciuc, on Marton Aron street, where our studio is. It is an ongoing project with an unusual nature: it’s a long-term planning and realisation process, and the building is being used while undergoing the transformation. The needs are also changing with time. It is also a really interesting process of understanding traditional building techniques and improvising to find the optimal solution for every situation that arises, often working with reused materials from the site. Working practically from the construction site is an important side of it; it’s a hands-on experience.

The value of research and print

MB: We are interested in theory, but so far, we do not have a dedicated department for research activities. Our focus now is on the practicalities of starting and delivering an architectural project. It might sound simple, but providing quality architecture today is a challenging process with many variables. It's a difficult task to deliver a project as you envisioned it, and that's something we’re learning to navigate. Alongside that, we’re interested in construction techniques, materials, social phenomena, and typologies. But this isn’t formal academic research; it’s more of an ongoing exploration focused on structuring our practice.

We’re also interested in publications and books, and in 2023 we published one, titled Paris to Stockholm, Views from the North. It came from a cycling trip we took from Paris to Stockholm in 2019, where we visited architectural sites and explored social and collective housing along the way. I always carry an analogue camera, and after the trip, we thought it would be nice to put everything together into a book. It wasn’t planned, but it came together as a shared experience.

JC: When we saw the photos and realised how they captured the essence of the trip, we thought it would be worth sharing. It wasn’t about making a publication; it was about sharing the experience and understanding the process behind. A book is like architecture—it has form, presence, and details. It was a great learning experience, understanding how the world of publishing works and seeing how books are made.