An organic start

VM: I think many young architects under 35, with maybe two to five years of experience, are opening their own practices. I’m not sure exactly why, but right now, in France and across Europe, there’s a strong political and social crisis. Young architects want to be part of this moment and contribute their ideas. Maybe it’s not the perfect answer, but it’s different from what previous generations have done. 

CG: It’s another kind of crisis—personal and social. We want to get involved and find new ways of doing things. It’s not an existential crisis, but everyone wants to contribute to building a different future. We’re aware of ecological and economic crises, and COVID really changed how we live and think. That’s what drives this generation—we want to work and think differently, prioritising life over work. Starting our own firm means being part of that shift, embracing a new way of living.

VM: For us, joining forces was a natural step after our studies. With an open mindset, we wanted to bring that spirit into our professional work. Even during school, we enjoyed following every phase of a project—from design to realisation and communication—so continuing this after graduation felt seamless. We didn’t want to be just another typical firm; we wanted to do research and take our time. We sought the freedom to explore—even without always knowing exactly where we were headed. It was about testing, exploring, and fully engaging in the process. 

CG: That’s also why we didn’t want to join an existing office. It might sound naive, but we wanted to keep dreaming. It was scary to imagine the gap between our school ambitions and the reality of working for rigid developers on housing projects. We feared losing our vision. 

VM: Even now, after more than four or five years, we’d make the same choice. Gradually, the way we work—and especially how we communicate with clients—is helping us create projects that truly reflect what we believe in.

Renovation as a way of thinking

VM: At first, the firm’s name was Atelier Par—“par” because we’re a duo, a pair. But everyone called us Apara, so we thought it might be easier to just use Atelier Apara. We think it’s important not to develop architecture in our own name, but rather as a way of thinking.

CG: Today, we mostly work on renovations with private clients. That’s been a big part of our work from the start. I was alone the first year because Victor was still in school. The first project was for family friends. Over time, Victor joined me, and we did more and more flats and houses. We see renovation as a relevant response for the architect’s role tomorrow.

As the years pass, we gain experience, and we just won our first public contract for a public building in Normandy. At the same time, we do a lot of research, teaching, and experimentation—which has built our practice over the past five years.

VM: From renovations we are now moving into small-scale public projects with a social dimension that reflects our commitment to renovation. One example is a library with a shop and two flats in Normandy. Most of our work is still in Paris, often through word of mouth, which allows us to experiment while staying financially afloat. We're also expanding our network across France, collaborating with other architects, municipalities, and friends of friends to grow beyond the capital.

Pedagogy through practice

VM: We’re interested in working in other territories, especially rural ones, because there’s more freedom to explore. The attention we bring to projects is also very different in rural areas—the stakes, the context, the contact with people—and our approach to creating the project changes too. I think a good project comes from a good client. We see now, especially in rural areas, projects with intention and a genuine care for the territory.

CG: This is where we can develop meaningful projects rooted in craftsmanship—something increasingly rare, especially in Paris and Île-de-France. By returning to essential constructive principles, we bring clarity and richness to the process while reconnecting with local know-how. In Normandy, for example, we often work with stone in renovations, collaborating with artisans who are familiar with traditional materials. In Île-de-France, we're rehabilitating a brick house, learning from craftspeople who understand the material’s specificities and even exploring natural solutions like straw insulation to allow the walls to breathe. It’s about understanding each building's needs and working with the right materials and skills—often within tight constraints. Rather than avoiding these challenges, we embrace them, using them as a basis for deeper reflection and innovation.

VM: In one of our projects, Convention, we aim to highlight the materiality of construction—not just for its aesthetic value, but to reveal its fundamental role in architecture. This clarity allows the client to truly understand the design. It’s not about complex theoretical research, but about something direct, tangible, and essential. The architecture should be approachable by the client. That’s a really important part of our work—making sure the client understands and feels connected to the project. 

CG: We’re trying to make architecture simpler and more comprehensible. It’s also necessary to help people understand what architects actually do, what the constraints are. There’s a whole pedagogy to build around that. This helps everyone involved develop better projects, because when everyone understands the different constraints for each role, the project benefits.

VM: There’s a strong connection between our methodology and the pedagogy we develop with clients. When we talk about making a project simple, we’re referring to a focus on the essence of architecture—an economy of means. To support this, we use models as tools for communication. They offer a level of clarity and engagement that plans alone often can’t. By inviting clients to interact with models, we make the project more accessible. This seemingly simple approach helps us move away from technical language and toward something more pedagogical and intuitive. 

The same approach applies to public commissions: We aim to help the client understand, embrace, and take pride in the project—not just as a client, but as a representative of the wider community. In our Normandy project, for example, the client is the mayor. While it's a public commission, the relationship remains personal; he wants a meaningful building for his village, not for himself. The project involves the renovation of a large, 350-square-metre house in the village. It includes a library managed by a local association, a 150-square-metre space for an ornithological group dedicated to biodiversity—part of a historic foundation active in the region—and, on the fourth floor, two social housing units for low-income families.

Minimal means

VM: Our first project in Paris that truly reflects our approach is Chuquet—a small flat organised around a central functional block. Previously a two-car garage, the space was transformed into a flat at the owner's request. We focused on a clear concept: placing the functional core at the centre, so the living spaces unfold around it.

CG: When we say this was the first project to truly reflect our intentions, we’re referring to an approach grounded in material economy—where every element is durable, functional, and essential. Nothing is superfluous. We aimed for pragmatism and simplicity, using minimal means and materials to get back to the basics. This focus on function and durability is a recurring theme in many of our projects, especially small flats we design for rental. Constraints like economic and functional requirements push us to think carefully about projects. This methodology truly reflects our way of doing architecture, not only economically but also as a sustainable approach in terms of time, materials, and function.

VM: This methodology is still new for us, but now we begin projects by carefully studying the construction, methodology, and structure of the existing elements. This step is becoming increasingly important.  This reflection on working with the existing structural—and therefore essential—building continued with the project Hugo. The renovation of this house was carried out using traditional methods in the 1960s: cheap hollow brick walls and beam and joist floors. We exposed the exterior walls and floors and highlighted their irregularities as a strength for the project. This responded to an economic point, but also to ecological and aesthetic ones.

An opportunity to evolve

VM: In the coming months, we see ourselves becoming much more involved in public competitions in rural areas. Until now, our work has focused mainly on flat renovations in Paris, but our practice is evolving. We’re opening up to new types of projects, and this shift is accompanied by a strong interest in research, which continues to nourish our work. We’re at a real transition point—keen to continue flat renovations while deepening our involvement in rural projects, research, and teaching. A key thread in our research is the relationship between energetic or climatic qualities of a space and its use. We’re exploring how to connect these aspects across scales, especially in existing buildings—working with what’s already there, while rethinking and adapting it to contemporary needs. This focus on renovating rather than constructing new buildings is crucial. There are many architects working this way, and we believe this approach needs to develop in other territories, especially rural areas and cities. With a multidisciplinary team—architect, landscaper, urban planner, and social designer—we submitted a proposal to Europan 18 in Julouville. The site is a 15-minute bike ride from our Normandy library project. By submitting this competition, we are keen to become even more involved in this area, to better understand its landscape, its challenges, and therefore our potential role. We certainly hope to win; it would represent a real milestone for our firm. On this project, our objective was to intervene wisely and even possibly to deconstruct to leave more space for the living world. However, the central focus of this work lies above all in our commitment to better understanding human and non-human lives. Giving back to this area, which allows us, through our first public commission, to express ourselves and better reflect on a grounded project. 

CG: We also collaborate with other architects, such as Stéphanie Boufflet, one of our former teachers at the School of Architecture of Paris-Val-de-Seine. It’s a way to experiment, ask questions with students, and develop reflections. They provide a framework to explore questions we don’t yet have answers to, fostering real dialogue. This framework helps us develop our own thinking.

We also respond to open calls and write articles on themes important to us. This allows us to step back from daily practice and enrich what we do. For example, we contributed to Polygone, an architecture publishing house, and Year Book (School of Architecture of Versailles), which asked us about the future role of architects. This helped us question how we want to continue with renovations. We try to answer these requests because they fuel research and reflection on our practice.