Towards collaborative architecture

MC: Is architecture practice growing in Switzerland? Absolutely, particularly in terms of the increasing number of young practicians and the expanding professional networks that have developed over the past 15 years. This growth can be viewed from other perspectives. On one hand, there’s been an influx of foreign architects in Switzerland. For example, 15 years ago, around 30% of architecture graduates from Portugal left the country, with many relocating to Switzerland. Now, only a small percentage of them are returning. Similar trends exist in other European countries. On the other hand, I think we’re witnessing a turning point in the architectural profession. Over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been a shift from architects managing large offices with big commissions to a new generation of practitioners, not necessarily younger ones, who are interested in specific architectural themes that need to be explored and open to the idea of collaborating as a working process. This generation is more focused on working in smaller structures that address and explore specific subjects. This allows for greater flexibility, and when larger projects arise, these offices collaborate. In some cases, metaphorically speaking, collaboration serves as a lingua franca, providing a common ground for the project and allowing us to work together, leveraging the differences in our backgrounds.

The ability to adapt is inherent in human nature. I believe that, at a certain moment, our generation felt the need to change and that this shift in practice is a key reason for the emergence of so many new offices. I see myself reflected in this approach to architecture. It’s perhaps less about ego and more about conscientiousness and responsibility. I am convinced that our generation recognises that architecture is no longer practised within the traditional hierarchy of a single leader and team. We perceive the value of joining skills as needed and recognise the importance of collaborating continually—not only with other architects but with specialists, other professionals, artisans, and sociologists.

Trends in Switzerland: recognising the value in what's already there

MC: In Switzerland, there are one or two topics that come up frequently. We, like much of Europe and even beyond, are all moving towards a similar direction. But in Switzerland, we are particularly focused on sustainability, with significant attention also given to incorporating participation into architecture processes. What's also intriguing is that we are very focused on the future but through the lens of the past. It's like a constant exchange between looking back and looking forward. We're interested in materials, construction methods, ecology, durability, and self-sufficiency, but not necessarily in developing new technological solutions. It's more about learning from the past to shape the future and then, doing architecture with the existing ingredients (specific circumstances, qualities, or even constraints) that are inherent in a landscape situation or object. These are key topics in Switzerland right now.

‘Sustainability’ is a word that everyone is using, and sometimes it can mean everything or nothing. Mar Atelier and other architecture colleagues are developing two approaches right now. The first is the idea of being sustainable using what already exists—what we call le déjà là in French. It's about asking: Should we build, demolish, and rebuild? Or should we recognise the value in what's already there and work with it? The second approach is using local materials. For example, in Joud Beaudoin Architectes, they have a very local approach, implementing not only participation but also the literal use of local materials. Sometimes it’s more successful, sometimes less so, but that’s perfectly fine. We are in a period of transition. We haven’t yet reached a point where we can say, ‘Now we are successfully participating’, or ‘Now we are effectively using local materials.’ Right now, we are pushing ‘the limits of the norms’ to use local materials and encouraging participation because we believe it will lead architecture to positive changes in the future. In Mar Atelier’s case, we try to pursue projects that engage with what already exists. Instead of demolishing, we propose dismantling and reusing structures, which is contextual, in a sense of continuity. I’m not sure this approach would work everywhere, and our ideas are still evolving. Switzerland, however, is open to exploring these kinds of opportunities.

Theory and practice nourish one another

MC: From my perspective, theory and practice are complementary. A few months ago, at EPFL annual presentations, a head teacher from the research labs emphasised that, for him, theory and practice are one and the same—they continuously nourish each other. Theory informs practice, and practice in turn brings new ideas that feed back into theory. This dynamic exchange is central for both teaching and practice approaches. In the same discourse, he also highlighted that all members of his EPFL team have their own practice. This constant exchange between research and office work is foundational to their teaching.

Personally, I share this vision, that the relation between edification (practice) and research (theory) is deeply intertwined. There is always a trajectory from theory to practice and the other way around. This close relationship between theory and practice is an essential element of Mar Atelier’s work. In 2018, I decided to complement my studies by doing research at EPFL with Professor Bruno Marchand at the Laboratory of Theory and History 2 and Pedro Abreu at FAU Lisbon. The theoretical research on Portuguese architect Fernando Távora’s work was centred around how architectural interventions can engage with their contextual environment and pre-existing structures. He valued adaptation and transformation over demolition or complete reconstruction—a topic I feel very connected to. In the same year, I became involved with the Forum d’Architectures Lausanne, with which I have been committed to architectural exhibitions and talks. I was drawn to the idea of combining theoretical research and teaching. I participated in Porto Academy in the summer of 2021 and later applied to be a teaching assistant at the Fribourg Architectural University. Since then, I’ve maintained this synergy between teaching and practice because I believe that one cannot exist without the other. In Switzerland, this integration is quite common—many research lab heads also manage their own practices while doing research at the university.

The journey to Mar Atelier

MC: Besides coming to Switzerland, which was, as for many, a key decision, one significant milestone that shaped me as an architect was working for several years at an office in Geneva, mainly focused on affordable housing. This provided me with a strong foundation in the evolution of dwelling in Switzerland, which has been a topic of considerable importance. The concept and the structure of living spaces (typologies) as well as the housing type and construction, have marked the first steps of my professional journey. In that period, getting housing commissions was possible by participating in competitions. This was fundamental for my understanding of the importance of open competitions. Around that time, while still working at the office in Geneva, I started doing architecture competitions with colleagues. Competitions were always a goal for us to establish our practice. In 2017, with Alexandre Berset from Berset Bruggisser, we got a fourth prize. It was a housing competition for the reuse and transformation of an existing building in Geneva. This gave us the spark to continue. Two years later, my former partners and I won a two-phase competition for the new Meyrin town hall, which allowed us to officially co-found the office. This was a great experience, as we worked closely with a municipality deeply invested in participative projects. It was an intensive learning process in which I was personally and directly involved. 

At that time, I was already involved at EPFL under Bruno Marchand’s guidance for Fernando Távora’s research. Looking back, I realise that this period was a significantly inspiring moment in my practice—a gentle introduction to a second turning point. On the one hand, I was constantly learning, reading, and writing for the research and the discussions I had with Professor Bruno Marchand and Pedro Abreu were a continuous enriching process. I feel that the period with the LTH2 laboratory was crucial for me and had a significant impact on my future choices. On the other hand, beginning my journey into teaching, first in Portugal and later in Switzerland, had a relevant lasting effect on my later path. A second turning point came two or three years later when I realised that working differently, focusing more on collaboration as a methodology, became a particular interest in my practice. Founding Mar Atelier allowed me to explore this approach, with which I identify far more and, in parallel, provided me the freedom and the opportunity to evolve my teaching practices at the office. I’ve realised how much I enjoy working this way. For now, I have found a balance in my work—engaging in teaching and working between associative and collaborative projects is where I truly thrive.

From dismantling to simplification

MC: As a new firm, it's not easy to focus on one area of interest, especially if you're a curious person who wants to explore different fields. However, I'm trying to stay aligned with the scientific research I started at EPFL and FAUL, which focuses on dealing with existing structures. Whenever possible, I engage in projects that involve working with existing buildings. In 2023, Mar Atelier was a finalist in a two-phase competition in Geneva, which addressed a similar theme. The focus was to reuse the existing building and assess whether it could be adequately dismantled to reuse its elements. For this study, we collaborated with Materium and Ingeni Structural Engineers, which have departments for existing structures. Another example is the Mar Atelier study for the Meyrin municipality, where the focus is on the adaptive reuse of their main building (the current town hall). Once they move to their new building, they plan to repurpose the current one for associations. The municipality’s primary request was to study how part of the building could be dismantled, as they no longer need it, and then reuse the dismantled materials to rebuild elsewhere. For instance, in this project, we collaborated with atba, a Geneva-based office specialising in reuse by dismantlement. It's not just the architect saying, ‘Oh, it would be nice to dismantle this building.’ It’s about gathering experts and assessing whether dismantling makes more sense than demolition and disposal. With the experts from atba, we analysed the structure and found that the part of the building to be dismantled was a newer addition. The main building was from the 70s, but the newer part, added in the early 2000s, had a wooden prefabricated structure in excellent condition. These factors allowed us to propose a dismantling process, because it required fewer resources, and the wooden elements could be reused elsewhere with minimal effort. These are the kinds of opportunities we pursue.

We can’t easily say, ‘Dismantling is better than constructing a new building,’ because it depends on how you dismantle it, whether it’s possible, and what resources it will take to do it. And what are you comparing that with. It's not only about dismantling; it's the process leading up to the decision that is most important. The primary work involves collaborating with experts in other fields before determining if dismantling is the right approach. So, the terms ‘dismantling and reusing’ need to be applied carefully. It’s not a working method, but rather, the result of specific conditions that make dismantling a more viable and resource-efficient option than simply demolishing and recycling. We see many practices that are interested in this approach, such as In Situ, a Basel-based office, that have been implementing this approach for over 15 years.

Sometimes edifications are conceived, even, with dismantling in mind. And sometimes the opposite happens. Some structures are built as being ephemeral, and then they stay up for 10 years or more. I don't think we're in a time when we should be talking about fixed methods. I believe we're in a period of adaptation and transition, where ideas are still evolving. Integrating the possibility for future modifications is not only practical but also extends the building’s lifespan, reducing the need for demolition. In Switzerland, what I sense is gaining value is the simplification of buildings—not necessarily with the thought that they'll be dismantled in 50 years, but with the idea that in the future you might want to expand the program or reconfigure the space. This approach could certainly change how we think about architecture, not just as a physical structure, but as a dynamic part of the community. It also raises interesting questions about how buildings can inform future generations. I don’t believe we should design buildings with the explicit goal of dismantling and rebuilding them elsewhere, as is often done in the U.S., for example. But I do think it’s important to incorporate a mindset of simplification in our design process, making construction and techniques more visible and straightforward so that buildings can be adapted more easily in the future.