A transcalar approach

DD: When we started about three and a half years ago, one of our main motivations was to bring together diverse experiences from different backgrounds. Many of us are involved in teaching, research, or production, and we’d like to expand that range even further. 

We also wanted to lead projects differently from the typical linear approach in most architectural offices, where you receive a commission and then develop in a straightforward way. We thought it would be interesting to integrate approaches based on our work in different areas. This allows us to operate in both standard situations, where we handle traditional commissions, and in diverse conditions that involve a variety of stakeholders and contexts beyond just the client. Questions around stakeholders, authorities, and the public are of the highest interest, and by combining grounded practice with research, we believed we could create a unique way of working and share this with others.

Another major motivation was the need to reconsider the role of architecture and the architect as deeply intertwined with societal processes. Given the transitions our societies are experiencing, architecture has a role and a responsibility in that change. We realised we could not simply approach it as we always had, which brought us to fundamental questions: How do we practise architecture, whom do we involve, and with what resources? These questions and values were key when we started working together.

JG: I’d add that there's a general interest in expanding design and architectural thought into organisational structures, infrastructures, and the often invisible systems that shape how we live. It makes sense, then, to see our office and how we work as the first object of design. Rather than assuming what an architecture office ‘should’ look like, the cooperative model offers a more open, abstract way of collaborating. This approach emphasises a network of communication, a shared economic and legal framework, and flexibility for different applications and ways of acting in the world.

LN: For us, transcalar thinking is essential, as it spans from hands-on work with materials, to a broad understanding of an entire area's development. This approach helps us find the right solutions both in detail and the bigger picture.

AH: This transcalar idea also influences how we organise ourselves and how we envision society's organisation. We chose to operate as a cooperative because it's a natural fit for us. Despite our diverse backgrounds and specialities within architecture, we all wanted to collaborate non-hierarchically, share ownership, and work within cooperative values. This model impacts how we communicate, treat each other, and ultimately how we want our projects, cities, and communities to be treated. In Switzerland, cooperatives mean each member has an equal vote, regardless of financial contribution, which allows us to incorporate diverse people and perspectives. Some members are individuals, while others, like me, are architects or company representatives. This structure offers a flexible framework for uniting various activities under shared values.

DD: This setup also reflects our understanding of disciplinary roles. We call ourselves Architecture Land Initiative, encompassing architecture, land (broadly, not just landscape), and initiative. Within this framework, our roles are fluid.

An open set of tools

DD: Each project demands a unique design approach, so we tailor the process specifically to fit its needs. In public calls, we often propose how we would work, so we tailor our tools to the specificity of each context. We target specific moments with specific tools, sometimes just using fragments, like launching a discussion that may lead to deeper processes. Although many tools are used in research elsewhere, like forums, we’ve adapted them to include our experiences in teaching. For example, at EPFL, we developed the concept of ‘Metathemes’,  which proves to be very useful. Metathemes provide a transdisciplinary vocabulary that bridges different perspectives. A term like "horizon," for instance, can be discussed spatially or philosophically. This helps us break down disciplinary boundaries by proposing concepts and tools that facilitate cross-disciplinary dialogue.

JG: Across all these tools is a desire to open the process to external input and an element of unpredictability. Each tool addresses this in its own way. For instance, cartography registers the influence of external factors  on a specific point in space, while forums incorporate social dynamics. Alongside the metathemes, we also work with transcalar drawings and atlases. However, I would say that transcalarity serves as the link across these different formats. The scale can be spatial, temporal (with layers from the past and future), or immaterial, such as the legal and economic influences on a site. We develop tools that make these often invisible layers visible, allowing them to shape and drive the project forward.

LN: Another tool we haven’t put on the website yet but should consider is what we call voyage immobile or ‘imaginary travels.’ This concept guides participants on an imaginative journey without leaving the space. We use it in forums and workshops to stimulate discussion by providing context that’s not directly tied to the subject, which can expand perspectives.

AH: These tools (which are also listed on our website) are not a finite set, but rather a collection of methods we employ. They are like notes played at the right moment. Since our approach isn’t linear, we don’t follow a step-by-step process. Instead, our work is open-ended and dynamic, requiring us to stay responsive to how things evolve and adapt our methods as the project develops.

From bottom-up to Protoprojects

DD: One of our first major projects was a vision study for Jardin des Nations in Geneva, a neighbourhood around the United Nations that's like a microcosm of the world, with embassies, international organisations, and diverse actors. Here, too, the transcalar approach is literal, moving from material details and re-naturalising the river—to big-picture questions. We also aim to create a practice that can include very diverse participants, from diplomats to NGO staff, fostering a process that is not merely participatory but contributive. This means every participant is active, not just a bystander offering feedback to ideas but co-authoring in the process.

In Jardin des Nations, many concepts that became central to the vision were shaped by over 100–200 people through active discussions, walks, and forums. This level of involvement brought forward ideas that wouldn’t have emerged otherwise. Living this approach has been essential to us, which is why we organise projects in teams of at least two people.

LN: During the project design and development, we organise workshops where we gather to explore project topics together. We’ve done this for Jardin des Nations, Schlieren, and a project in Hong Kong. We create a core team working daily on the project and then invite a broader circle of people with different skills and perspectives to contribute, enriching the project with their unique insights.

DD: Jardin des Nations is a large area with various organisations, beautiful parks, and notable buildings. Instead of a top-down master plan, we reversed the approach by pinpointing small, key sites. These “pivot points” could link different groups—like the botanical garden and buildings belonging to different authorities within the canton. We developed ‘Protoprojects’—conceptual projects with conceptual indicators and potential collaborators, intended to bridge activities across these sites, such as linking botanical and cultural activities or collaborating with the canton’s landmarks department. This approach faced challenges; even where conditions seemed ideal, the internal processes within each agency were so complex that progress temporarily stalled. Nevertheless, we identified 60–70 sites and proposed Protoprojects instead of drawing up traditional building plans. Although implementation has been slow, the tool we developed is being used, and I’m optimistic that some projects will eventually come to fruition.

LN: We wanted to start from the bottom, with small projects on single plots or small spaces. We tried this with Jardin des Nations, but since that project had a client, there were limits. Now, we’re trying to begin projects independently, but the challenge of funding always arises. How can we support this work without a client or steady funding? The cooperative is now looking at new ways to pool resources for projects like these.

Beyond conventional limits

AH: One of our members, Andy, raised a question: we have this property, a heritage-protected building that’s part of the former Zurich gas plant in the city of Schlieren, on a leasehold for the next 20-plus years. Given its favourable lease conditions, what should we do with it? The site is situated within a complex context—heritage protection, contaminated soil, historical significance, and current housing pressures—making it a fascinating location for an architectural project. Starting with an open-ended question rather than a strict brief felt like the best way forward.

We began by researching this specific place, from the lavender growing between the tracks to the history of the site and its protected status. This exploration opened up broader questions, such as how this fringe area of the city should evolve. The project became a prototype, reflecting larger issues about urban development and not just the local context. Our work began in parallel with the cooperative’s inception, and the project naturally split into two directions: the immediate need to relocate the wood workshop (to allow for renaturalisation of the Limmat river) and the broader question of how this part of the city will develop.

JG: The open-endedness of our projects not only allows us to invent new approaches but also leads us to address broader, relevant questions. This building, for example, represents not only this specific site but also a general phenomenon found throughout Switzerland and globally. All the tools and ideas we develop here can extend to larger questions embedded in the project, turning it into a case study for a more global phenomenon. Each project ideally becomes a case study for wider issues, therefore inevitably touching on political dimensions.

DD: This project raises a profound planetary question: Should land ownership remain beyond public hands? In this case, the land is owned by the city of Zurich, and as pressures rise, this raises concerns about urban land often being sold off. Could we envision models where ownership remains public, allowing projects to be developed without purely profit-driven motives? We’ve organised discussions with authorities in Schlieren and Zurich to explore these ideas, particularly in areas where public land is increasingly subject to private, profit-oriented development. These new models could foster change on a small scale that, over time, might have a deep impact. It’s a bit idealistic, but I personally believe it’s essential to hold onto these values.

AH: We’ve been working on specific proposals for this project. Since we’re working on two scales—two extremes, really—one focus is on this specific object that needs to be realised soon. This wasn’t clear at the beginning; it emerged as the best solution over time. So, we have a very specific prototype of how this could work, but we’re often running up against barriers. These ‘walls’ only crumble slowly, due to the financial, legal, and organisational systems deeply embedded in layers of bureaucracy. For instance, in terms of financing, the 20-year lease timeframe has been a critical challenge. Banks aren’t set up to finance projects structured differently from the norm, so it’s been a struggle to work within the existing systems. However, each time we encounter one of these bureaucratic barriers, we try to turn it into a contribution toward the larger question, because each issue we face here is something that others around us, and even beyond, must confront too.

We’re also collaborating with banks to explore new financing models and speaking with city authorities about planning regulations. For example, a traditional building project might be completed in a year and then remain as-is for a decade or more. But if we’re considering a phased, gradual renovation, the usual planning regulations don’t account for that. We’re working to get authorities to discuss dynamic building processes in future zoning codes. While these changes might not benefit this specific prototype directly, they’re contributing to the evolution of the broader issue. Addressing questions on multiple scales really helps us tackle these challenges.

DD: Another essential factor is the rigidity of building codes and zoning laws. They’re often so inflexible that they limit any attempt at innovative approaches. This is a challenge not only for those proposing new ideas but also for the authorities themselves, who may recognise the limitations of the system but find it hard to do things differently. These legal and procedural structures have developed over a long time, and changing them isn’t easy, even for those who want to.