The appeal of Swiss architecture

VM: Academic institutions and universities, which have been growing steadily over the years, are attracting more and more students from across Europe. What often happens is that many of these students stay in Switzerland after their studies to practice architecture. Another reason, in my view, that might explain this new wave of architects is the country's geographical position. Switzerland acts as an attractor due to its accessibility and central location in Europe. Over the past decade, especially, it has become easier for people from neighbouring countries to settle here. For example, someone with family in France or Italy can live in Switzerland, remain in contact with their family, and still benefit from Switzerland’s connectivity to the rest of Europe.

There’s also a focus in Switzerland on planning and managing territorial growth, which is very forward-looking. Architects are deeply involved in this process. Public administration recognises the importance of architecture and actively engages architects in shaping the country’s towns and cities.

MM: This phenomenon is also tied to cultural factors. Switzerland has long been characterised by a deep respect for both private and public spaces. Within this cultural framework, architecture plays a key role in city development. Architects are seen as professionals with the knowledge, experience, and tools to shape the spaces where people live. In this context, architecture isn’t just about designing buildings—it’s viewed as a force that can influence society and cultural development. That’s why the role of architecture is so significant here; it’s seen as a way to improve and transform social and cultural conditions.

Different stories, converging paths 

VM: I studied in Mendrisio and graduated in 2007. To me, it was a unique experience because what I learned there was not just how to be an architect, but how to be a thinker. The most important thing was learning how to approach a project—whether it's a building, object, or master plan. The school emphasised thinking and philosophical approaches to architecture. We worked with great architects from all over the world, like Aires Matheus, Heinz Tesar, Mario Botta, and Peter Zumthor, each with a different approach to the project. Despite these differences, they all aimed to teach us how to develop a strong concept that fits the city, the place, and the area we are working in. The technical aspects are important, but Mendrisio strongly focused on concept development. The goal was to form individuals who are thinkers, capable of working in interdisciplinary teams, but always with a strong foundation in project concepts. This was my academic path. I studied and lived in Switzerland for 20 years before moving to Italy.

The move was more of a logistical necessity because when I became a mother, I needed my family’s support there to continue working. Italy became essential for my personal life, but professionally and emotionally, I always remained attached to Switzerland. I often say I was ‘born twice’—once as a person in Italy, and once as an architect in Switzerland.

MM: My story is entirely different. I studied at Politecnico di Milano in Italy, which I think is quite different from Mendrisio, as it’s more technical. I focused on the conservation of architectural and landscape heritage, learning a lot about the relationship between buildings and landscapes. I came to understand that we need to see both elements together. I also learned about the design process and the importance of working in teams, which I believe is crucial for our work. While I had many professors, I had only one international guest—Kazuyo Sejima. She left a significant impression on me, in particular concerning the design of architectural spaces in which the internal/external areas can relate to each other profoundly, thanks to the correct choice of materials and shapes. So, after university, I moved to Tokyo to work with them. My real professional experience in Switzerland began with OLOS ATELIER. I immediately noticed the differences between Italy and Switzerland, particularly regarding the role of architects and how opportunities arise. In Switzerland, there is a strong meritocratic system. Competitions are the primary way to secure projects, which is great for younger studios like ours. Here, it’s about the project and the idea, not just the architect’s name. In Italy, it’s a very different situation. The lack of such a structured competition system makes it harder for emerging studios to find opportunities. Switzerland’s system, on the other hand, has opened doors for us and other young architects.

The benefits of diverging perspectives

VM: Maria and I are ten years apart, and although it’s just a decade, it brings a distinct generational perspective to our work. This difference is valuable and complements us perfectly. For example, I’m good at creating concepts and projects, but she taught me how to present them effectively and demonstrate why they’re the right approach. She’s also very capable of managing a process from start to finish. I tend to get lost in many ideas, and without her, I wouldn’t be able to bring my ideas and projects to fruition on time. She’s excellent at organising and focusing, knowing when to stop thinking and start working on the graphics.

MM: And Valentina is very dynamic, so she often comes up with new ideas. It makes our process always evolving and never quite finished. From the very beginning, we had a lot of respect for each other. Even though we didn’t work much together before 2020 when we started OLOS, we got along well from the beginning, with great communication, transparency, and respect. 

VM: We met in a landscape studio in Lugano. In that office, I was a project manager, and she was an intern. After she moved to Tokyo, I had the opportunity to work on a significant project in Azerbaijan. However, I was practising alone at the time and felt overwhelmed. Remembering the strong rapport we had in Lugano, I reached out to ask if she would be interested in collaborating. She agreed, and from then on, we began working together. We initially opened our practice in Italy, where we had some opportunities, but things shifted when we won the Castel San Pietro competition alongside architect Massimo Frasson. That was a big turning point and an opportunity to return to Switzerland and work here again. 

A multiscalar and multi-generational approach

VM: My journey began working with Durisch+Nolli Architetti in Lugano;  then, I had the opportunity to participate in a year-long research project with Laboratorio Ticino, led by architect Michele Arnaboldi. During this time, I had the chance to scale up my work and focus on larger projects. This year was crucial for me because I realised that working on bigger scales was what I enjoyed most, and perhaps what I could do best. When you work on a house, you're designing for a small number of people, but when you design for a city or a landscape, you have the potential to impact many more. From that point on, I focused on landscape architecture. Even though I didn’t formally study landscape architecture, I gained knowledge through experience, working with other studios and architects. I learned to approach landscape design as a blend of urban spaces, natural areas, cities, connections, and mobility—it's a mix of many elements, which became a fascinating challenge for me.

MM: I also discovered my passion for landscape architecture at university and later confirmed it during my internship at a landscape studio in Lugano where I met Valentina. I realised that working with public spaces and landscapes was about addressing human needs—many different people will use these spaces. The challenge is to find a balance between nature, human history, and urban development. 

VM: Our goal is to improve the well-being of the people who use our spaces, whether they are in a home, a garden, a park, or a city. The space itself contributes to that well-being, especially when it incorporates nature. Nature is an important component because it’s constantly changing, unlike materials like brick or cement. Sustainability is also very important to us, which is why we prefer to focus on restructuring or working with open spaces—such as parks and nature areas—rather than building new structures. Our aim is to be as sustainable as possible. We also see our work as having a social role, not just a design function. This social aspect is fundamental to us.

MM: I would add that we like to approach projects with a multiscalar mindset. For example, when working on a garden, it's part of a larger context within the city. We always need to consider how to create harmony between the small, medium, and large scales—starting from the private dimension (like a house or garden) to the public spaces (like parks, squares, and cities), and even the broader scale of the territory, including infrastructure. Every scale should be considered in the design process. A concept we often explain is ‘open space’, both public and private. We start with context analysis, studying the identity and location of the site. From there, we define the concept and work to transform it into a real architectural sign. 

VM: While we frequently work on outdoor spaces, we also have opportunities to create landscape projects indoors, particularly when incorporating plants. However, designing a completely mineral piazza, for example, still falls under the realm of landscape architecture. So, we prefer to describe ourselves as architects who design open spaces—everything from small-scale gardens to large landscapes. Last year, for instance, I was in New York, and when you look at the cityscape from Staten Island, you see a perfect mix of architecture and landscape. The parks, the bridges, the cycle paths, the green spaces, and the urban fabric—they all come together as one. This is landscape architecture in my opinion, where urbanism and landscape are inseparable.

Landscape and architecture in dialogue

MM: One key aspect is the complementarity between architects and landscape architects. In competitions, we like to study the urban context together from the outset and develop the solution as a team with the architect. It’s really interesting because we don’t have to work separately—thinking only about the landscape or the building. We combine our efforts. This could be a strong point in a project.

In fact, in all the competitions we participate in, we often share our thoughts on architecture, mainly from an aesthetic perspective. We aim to find, alongside architects, the best solution for creating a harmonious dialogue between landscape and architecture. 

Regarding our current activities, we have projects in both Italy and Switzerland. For example, we are working on a project in Chiasso, where we’re renovating interstitial spaces within the streets and public areas. It’s a different scale, as we have to focus on selecting the right vegetation and urban furniture to create spaces where people can relax or meet on the street. This is an interesting scale because it’s a real human scale, and we need to think about the details of the project. We hope to work on school projects soon as well, which presents another exciting challenge, as we need to address children's needs and create spaces with different functions.

VM: The interesting part of the project Maria mentioned earlier is that we’re removing asphalt from the streets and replacing it with permeable, rain-draining soil. It’s a small intervention, but it’s meaningful because it’s about improving this part of the city with small-scale changes. It’s one of the challenges we face, changing the appearance of a nondescript street.