Building step by step

IR: Many architects moved to Switzerland, partly because the country wasn’t hit as hard by the economic crisis in 2008 as others and partly because the profession is well-respected here. Switzerland’s economic stability and growing cities created opportunities for us to work in an environment that allowed us to establish our practice.

EO: The demand for architects hasn’t kept up, so countries like Switzerland import architectural talent. That was the case for our generation—when I arrived in 2011 from Valencia, I worked in a company with about 40 people, and 10 of them were from Spain, with others from Germany, Italy, and beyond. This trend has only grown stronger over the years. Beyond the workforce, foreign architects are also influencing Switzerland’s architectural style. While Swiss architecture is generally introverted, architects from abroad bring their own experiences and cultures, which they integrate into their practices. 

IR: As for our personal experience, after spending several years working in other offices, we eventually decided, we would start our own practice after preparing for two years. When the time came, it wasn’t the perfect moment—we were in the midst of our professional lives—but we went for it anyway. It was a somewhat crazy decision. 

EO: Yes, we took the leap and tried. Three years after opening the office, we won our first competition. That’s when the company started to grow from two people to its current eight.

IR: At the beginning, it was just the two of us, and since we were also a couple in our personal lives, it felt like we were working 24/7. Those first two years were tough. Even though I completed my studies at the Architecture Academy in Mendrisio, I am originally from Milan, so we began with some projects in northern Italy, which made us realise how challenging and different it can be to work as an architect in Italy. After that, we decided to refocus on competitions in Switzerland, where the process is very well-organised.

EO: We relied on our savings and hoped things would work out through small projects and gradually winning prizes in competitions. We built things step by step, moving from smaller commissions to larger ones. In 2023, we won two important competitions—the project for a school and the refurbishment of a housing settlement. That was a big leap for us.

IR: I think we were lucky to have had long experience in other offices in Switzerland. We learned a lot and applied that knowledge early on. I remember sitting down in the first year, even though it was just the two of us, to establish a clear structure for how we wanted to work and grow sustainably.

EO: We had a vision and a mission from the start. We even had a financial plan, though it didn’t work out exactly as expected—financial plans rarely do—but having one was important. Over time, we’ve adjusted, and overall, it has worked. At first, most of our projects were smaller, like interior design. We actually enjoyed those because they allowed us to focus on design—a big part of what we learned in university. Now, we’re working on larger-scale projects, like the renovation of a residential complex of 13 units. The focus is different, but we try to bring the same design sensibility to all our projects. We’re especially interested in socially committed projects, which is why we often take part in school competitions. We see this as a way to contribute to society and future generations.

Tradition meets sustainability

IR: The refurbishment of existing buildings is another typology we are focusing on our practice, and it fascinates me, partly because I come from Italy, where preserving the past is a significant cultural value. Destroying heritage buildings and replacing them with something new means losing a part of history. There’s also the sustainability aspect—rethinking what and how we build. In Switzerland, this mindset has been evolving over the past decade. There’s much more debate now about whether it’s worth demolishing buildings and replacing them, or if there are better alternatives. This new mindset also led to changes in materials, like using wood for structures instead of just concrete, or combining the two.

EO: Architectural innovation in Switzerland can be slow because there’s a preference for proven systems that stand the test of time. However, universities here are strong in research and are pushing boundaries. For example, Ilaria completed a continuing education program, focusing on ecological materials like earth, wood, and hemp. These are sustainable, low-carbon, and non-polluting materials. We try to incorporate these into our projects, but there’s often resistance from clients because such materials are less established in Switzerland. Still, we believe in the importance of integrating sustainable technologies into our work wherever possible. For instance, the school we are currently working on features a wooden structure, with insulation made from straw, and interior walls out of earth bricks.

IR: It makes a lot of sense. This technique isn’t even new; it’s been around for centuries but was forgotten. Yet people still ask, ‘Why are you using this experimental new method? Does it even work?’

EO: There’s a lot of hesitation because it’s considered new, even though it’s proven. However, for clients in Switzerland, examples from other countries, such as France, often carry little influence. Currently, we are also working on a personal project: the refurbishment of a house built in 1927, with an extension added a decade later. The house has largely remained unchanged since then. Our goal is to preserve its volume, character, and essence while adapting it to contemporary needs and expanding its usable space. As this will be our future home, we see it as an opportunity to experiment with new materials. We aim to use materials that are close to their natural state rather than synthetic or industrial ones. For example, we’ll insulate the old façade and roof with wood fibres.

IR: By doing so, this project enables us to demonstrate how it works to others and to learn ourselves—particularly in terms of how the materials perform over time. It’s a risk we’re willing to take because we’ve spent the last two or three years researching and building knowledge on these materials.

From concept to clarity

EO: In the past, we have participated in various types of competitions—both open and invited, single- or two-phase, with intermediate presentations or anonymous submissions. Each format has its pros and cons and often requires a different approach.

Currently, we prefer to take part in named competitions with an intermediate presentation. We've had mostly positive experiences with this process. It allows each team to present their ideas and motivations face-to-face with the jury, creating an opportunity for dialogue. We appreciate the chance to explain our thoughts directly and engage in meaningful discussions with the jury.

IR: Sometimes, it can be amusing—or even risky—since written feedback can easily be misunderstood, steering you away from your original idea. This happened to us once, but fortunately, when we presented to the jury, we realised they had liked our initial concept better. It’s always about interpretation. Written feedback can be unclear—people may mean one thing, but you understand something else. Face-to-face communication makes it much easier to understand each other.

EO: In the end, we went back to our original concept but adapted it to incorporate the feedback we received during the second round. Interestingly, it seemed like their favourite project at first was the one that eventually came second. However, they changed it based on the feedback they received , and the result wasn’t as convincing. On the other hand, by adapting our project to better align with the client’s preferences, we managed to win in the end.

IR: One very interesting aspect of the competition system in Switzerland is that, after every competition, the jury presents the winning projects, and all participants have the opportunity to see the submitted proposals, talk to the jury, and receive feedback.

EO: We always try to participate in this open round of feedback where you can ask for critiques and learn from others. This feedback has been incredibly helpful, and it shows in our results—our success rate in competitions has improved significantly. In the first years, we might win one prize per year, but now we achieve two or three annually, depending on the number of competitions we enter.

IR: One thing we’ve noticed is that jury decisions are often about how they perceive your project, not just the architecture itself. Sometimes their interpretation is entirely different from what you intended, which highlights the importance of clear communication.

EO: Over time, we’ve shifted from focusing purely on conceptual design to refining our communication strategy. We try to make our presentation panels very clear and accessible, avoiding overly complex architectural drawings like exploded axonometric views or too technical way of representation. This is something we’ve also learned from working with private clients. In juries, there are usually a few architects, but many members are not architects and can’t fully understand complex plans or drawings. You have to find ways to communicate your ideas effectively so everyone can grasp them.

Bridging cultures

EO: When you leave your country, it's often because there are things you don't like. However, it's not about rejecting our home countries—on the contrary, it's very important for us to have the chance to give something back. That's why we're always interested in potential projects in Italy or Spain. Last year, we had the opportunity to design a single-family house for a couple living here. One of them is from Spain, and they wanted to build a holiday home there. It’s a three-level house with a split-level design and a large central atrium for climate regulation. This atrium acts as a solar chimney: it has a glass roof that can be opened or closed depending on the weather. It’s a passive system we found particularly interesting, especially because it’s suited to certain climates. We have also experimented with similar low-tech solutions for indoor climate regulation here in Switzerland. For example, in one project, we designed a large, unheated corridor functioning as a winter garden, with glass and roof windows that can be opened and closed depending on the climate. 

IR: In Italy, we have a couple of ongoing projects, but they’ve been in progress for a very long time. It’s been much harder than we expected. We knew bureaucracy and permits would be a challenge, but we didn’t anticipate it being this difficult.

EO: It’s still exciting, though. For instance, Italy’s cultural heritage is fascinating, especially with its Roman and Renaissance history. There are so many beautiful, historic buildings that need renovation. One of our projects there involves a 2,000-square-meter building being transformed into a private villa. It’s very different from what we do in Switzerland, but working with such a historic structure is incredibly interesting—it requires a completely different approach.

IR: Early on, we realised how challenging it is to manage projects across multiple countries. We had a project in Italy and quickly saw how hard it was to travel constantly and juggle work in two or three different places. That’s why we decided to focus. Switzerland, Italy, and Spain—it was just too much.

Preparing students for the future

EO: This is my fourth year working as an assistant in Mendrisio with Axel Paulus. It’s a theoretical course, and I got involved because I did my MAS (Masters in Advanced Studies) at ETH with him. The course in Mendrisio is called Leadership in Architecture, and Axel has been teaching it for over ten years. My master's focused on project management for building projects. The course is not just about management; it’s designed to give final-year master’s students an understanding of the professional world they’re about to enter. It aims to instill an attitude toward the profession and prepare them for the challenges they’ll face.

IR: It’s something we’re experiencing ourselves now—transitioning from architecture to the real world of work is a big change, and sometimes you can’t fully prepare for it.

EO: The course gives students insights into the processes involved in a project’s development. For example, if you win a competition and get a commission, you’ll move through different phases, like preliminary design, building project development, tendering, and so on. We don’t teach them how to do these things step by step, but we provide examples and point them to resources. For instance, we explain how to calculate costs roughly, how to determine fees, and how to decide on the services they want to offer. The goal is to give them an understanding of their options—whether they want to be generalists, specialists, or even move to a different sector, like working on the client side. There are so many possibilities in our field, but universities don’t typically teach these aspects. This course helps fill that gap. We also discuss how to organise a team. For example, in Switzerland, you don’t need to be licensed to practice architecture, so some students in their final year enter competitions—and sometimes they win. When that happens, they might suddenly need to open their own practice, but they may lack experience. In those cases, we encourage them to organise their team strategically. They could bring in experienced specialists and engineers to help. For instance, they could include someone as a sparring partner who takes responsibility for the project and handles client communication, while they focus on their strengths, like design. It’s up to them to decide how to structure their team, but it’s important to understand the possibilities and make informed decisions. Of course, no one expects a fresh graduate to know everything, but they can prepare by building a strong team and seeking support. This approach might not come naturally to everyone, but it’s crucial for navigating the challenges of the profession.