New opportunities in Biel

EJ: There has been notable growth in the general influx over the past decade. Switzerland remained relatively stable through the 2008 economic downturn, making it a beacon of hope for architects seeking work during a challenging time. This likely fuelled the idea that Switzerland could offer steady jobs and a high quality of life. There's also an increasing chance to work part-time and join an institution that will support your career. Overall, opportunities seem to be expanding. By contrast, in neighbouring countries, opportunities for young architects appear to be shrinking.

OD: And on a more local level, in our city, the architectural school left 20 years ago, which created a gap in the emergence of new offices afterwards. So, while there are many practices here, a lot of them date back to that period and are now quite established. Recently, younger firms have started to return, partly due to the city's reputation for its authenticity, making it more appealing. Another factor is the high density of offices in Zurich and Lausanne, where the major schools are, making other cities attractive alternatives. We’re well-positioned here. We’re also looking forward to the school’s return, as we know of newer practices and are excited to see more emerging offices continue to develop.

EJ: If you connect those two parts, you could say Biel wasn’t significantly impacted by this large influx and stayed fairly stable until about five or six years ago. That’s when we started noticing new offices opening up, and people moving from other areas that had become almost saturated with architects. The city was ideal for us at first because there was enough work to go around. As a young office, not having to rely solely on competitions but getting direct client contracts provided us with an early stepping stone from university to building within just two years.

SG: For us, this balance between younger and more established offices here has its pros and cons. On one hand, we’re much more visible and face less competition than we would in Zurich, allowing us to make a real impact on the architecture scene here. On the other hand, there’s a smaller community of peers, so there’s less professional interaction. We’ll often look to other cities and connect with friends from university to find the balance.

OD: In all the urban areas of Switzerland, you see similar questions arising. However, Biel presents a different situation. The city has an abundance of industrial buildings and limited resources to develop these areas as proactively as Zurich, with its robust urban development plan. This creates a unique context where it’s challenging to advance projects that aren't purely driven by financial returns or housing demands. Yet, this pressure also brings a chance to develop our own perspectives—a dynamic we view more as an opportunity than a limitation.

MMXVI: A small, stable core

EJ: It’s important to start from the very beginning—our first day at ETH University. We were all in the same group and class. We even lived together at certain points. After completing our degrees around the same time, we got the opportunity to work on a project together. We had always talked about doing our own practice after studying, but when this chance arose, we decided to go for it, even though the project was small and not enough to sustain an office on its own. That became the initial phase of our office, tied to that one project and client. More opportunities followed, allowing us to establish a semi-stable foundation. Then, we received a call from a town needing a school extension. This became a milestone for us, expanding our work from private projects to public ones as well as our first taste of interacting with the community on a professional basis.

SG: Reflecting on it now, that was the point when our office went from semi-stable to something more solid. Our working style changed too; it was no longer just about designing buildings but increasingly about managing an office. Around that time, in 2020 or 2021, we won our first and only competition so far, which was in Germany.

OD: You could say that phase stretched from then to now. We’ve intentionally kept our team small—just the three of us, with one or two interns who rotate in and out. We’re the stable core of the office, handling multiple projects at the same time. Each of us is involved in every project, playing different roles without a strict separation of tasks. We maintain this collaborative structure, keeping MMXVI as the author of the projects. We each bring different strengths, and that diversity has proven valuable over the years. Some of us push forwards with ideas, while others reflect on them, creating balance. We initially developed a method where two of us would work more directly on a project, but we found that sometimes the third person would become less involved. Now, we're trying a new approach where we all work together in focused ‘sprints,’ then shift collectively to another project. This method has added intensity to the process, helping the projects grow.

EJ: By keeping our team small, each of us is not only designing but also handling project management tasks, which are essential but not purely creative. Generating plans for a submission, for instance, is more about organisation than design. As things get more professional and client interactions increase, we’ve realised the need to balance being architects with managing tasks. That's why we adopted this “sprint” methodology, where we all contribute fully, shift focus, and keep the creative energy alive—something we enjoyed as students and want to sustain in the office. 

OD: Our office is built around autonomy—that’s why we started right after university and chose a name that isn’t tied to any one of us. Having hardly worked in other offices, we had to build both the architectural practice and the organisational framework ourselves. But it’s also allowed us to work in a way that we believe supports the best architecture we can create for our projects.

EJ: We’ve never regretted starting our own office straight out of school. Up to that point, our experience in architecture had been predominantly academic, shaped by the guidance of certain influential professors. After graduating, it was both exciting and challenging to independently translate our education into professional practice. Moving away from Zurich helped a lot in this; stepping out of Zurich’s strong architectural identity allowed us to break free from the mould we had become accustomed to as students.

Aligning ideas, shaping architecture

EJ: The essential question for any office is: what are you doing, and why? As students, we saw other architects with clear paths, and we wondered about our own. Now, still searching for the answer but maybe a couple of steps closer, we’ve found that it doesn’t matter whether a project comes from a competition or a direct commission, nor does the project scale matter. What matters is the method we use to arrive at a result that drives a compelling idea. We’ve also learned that this works best when the three of us are fully focused and aligned, pulling in the same direction.

SG: In each project, finding the core idea that drives it is crucial. It’s something we communicate to the client, and if the idea is strong, the client is usually eager to embrace it as well. More importantly, since there are three of us, sharing something so fundamental to the project eliminates compromise and keeps us aligned throughout the process.

OD: We've realised that having a core idea has been part of our approach since the beginning, stemming from university. Today, with all the demands of modern architecture—sustainability, regulations, and more—this focus on a strong intellectual or spatial concept remains essential. Such an idea can resonate with the client and audience alike. Each project brings unique conditions, so the guiding idea changes, leading to distinct aesthetics for each project. Whether it’s a school for the public or a private project, our goal is to ensure the client feels it’s a meaningful pursuit. 

One interesting example of this approach is a recent competition for the Congress House in Biel. We were given three years to explore different configurations within the Congress House to determine what the space actually needs before beginning any architectural work. Our submission was a process-driven project based on four initial starting points—culinary, information, education, and open public areas. Each starting point was to be implemented temporarily, evaluated, and adjusted over time, to identify the most sustainable solutions by observing what was truly needed. After three years, we’d have the essentials of what works in this space and what doesn’t. This would form the core of the program for the final architectural competition. This approach allows us to adapt thoughtfully to the building, making sure that any permanent work aligns with its character and functional needs. Our approach focused on minimal architectural intervention to the building itself, maximising program experimentation instead. This is perhaps one of the most sustainable ways to approach a project: by identifying what’s essential over time, we build what will truly last. This concept aimed to respect the original intent of the building’s architect who envisioned it as a highly public and open space.

Innovating within constraints

SG: Our process isn’t linear at all. We use lots of tools from the start and all at once, like 3D modelling alongside physical models and sketches, rather than going step-by-step. We aim to find the right approach and flow for each project. For both private commissions and competitions, we always search for that core idea. Competitions let us push boundaries more since we’re not bound to strict guidelines, which adds creative freedom. We usually aim for three competitions a year. One notable win was for a hotel extension in southern Germany, in a former military base. Instead of replicating the existing military-style layout, we proposed a path through the park with ten unique, scattered units that offered varied atmospheres and spatial experiences, engaging more with the landscape.

EJ: The difference between competitions and direct private commissions is often in the first impression. With private clients, we get more time to establish a connection and explain the vision. In competitions, there’s only a short window to capture the jury’s attention. For this reason, as in Germany, we've adopted an approach to competitions that could be described as unconventional—sometimes straying significantly from the requirements, yet staying true to our vision in the hope of catching the jury's attention.

SG: This approach influenced another project, a kiosk proposal in Zurich. The brief asked for a replacement of the existing kiosk. But we noticed the main facade was unused and felt placing it there would activate the square more effectively. Ignoring the 25-metre security restriction, we proposed integrating the kiosk into the bank’s facade. Although this was grounds for elimination, it drew considerable attention, even being published in a few magazines, which rarely happened with strictly guideline-following projects.

OD: The jury apparently deliberated on that project for quite a while before it was ultimately dismissed. Still, it was meaningful to make such a statement in a public competition.