Towards equal opportunities

JE: I think the openness of architectural competitions is something unique to Switzerland. It provides an opportunity for young architects to test and prove themselves. In Zurich, we’ve noticed a trend where many young people collaborate on competitions. It’s a way to share skills and resources while taking on these challenges together.

YC: These open competitions allow access to opportunities, even for those without much experience or many connections. It creates a chance for new, small offices to win projects. This system encourages young architects to take the leap and start their own practices. It’s a significant factor in the rise of many new firms here. 

JE: However, it’s worth mentioning that competitions also involve a lot of unpaid work. That’s changing a bit with newer formats. For example, some competitions now only require a concept submission in the first phase, which reduces the workload. This phased approach makes it less demanding and provides a fairer chance for smaller teams.

MB: Another factor is the ability to work part-time in architecture offices or universities. This flexibility allows young architects to earn a steady income while dedicating time to developing their own ideas or projects. It’s a balance that enables exploration and creativity.

Beyond the competition brief

MB: We recently participated in a two-phase competition. The first phase focused on the project concept, while the second involved detailed architectural work. What stood out about this competition was its collaborative nature—it was organised as a cooperative with workshops and input from various stakeholders, which reshaped the brief by each phase. This inclusive process might represent the future of competition formats. The approach you take also depends on the competition and the jury. Some competitions allow for more creative freedom, while others require strict adherence to rules. It’s important to choose wisely and assess whether the competition aligns with your values and approach.

YC: When we see opportunities to challenge or reinterpret the competition brief—whether by questioning demolition requirements or advocating for reuse and sustainability—we seize them.

Our goal is to stand firmly behind our projects. The shift towards reducing CO₂ emissions and rethinking the use of existing structures is reshaping architecture. It’s no longer just about creating iconic buildings; it’s about working with what’s already there, reinforcing its value, and designing with a sense of responsibility.

MB: Surprising or unexpected solutions often stand out. Delivering something beyond what’s anticipated can captivate. To do this, you need a deep understanding of the site, the context, and the norms.

Foundations of collaboration

JE: Our journey together started with a planned trip to Iran for the three of us. Because some of us didn’t get our visas, we somehow ended up in Morocco. While there, friends who lived locally asked us to develop a concept for them. It was a mix of working and travelling. After those four weeks, we realised we worked really well together, complementing each other’s skills. That experience laid the foundation for our collaboration.

MB: The friends in Morocco were living in Marrakesh, and they asked us to help them build a structure. We created something simple—a project we called 'Platform.' It wasn’t a formal commission, just an idea we helped them explore. Interestingly, it was never fully realised, and what was built has already disappeared.

YC: It became what we call a ‘built ruin’—a foundation that never progressed further. The structure remained just a platform for two to three years. It’s a funny anecdote about our first project—an unfinished, ongoing state that stayed abstract. But its flexibility allowed them to reuse and transform it into something different, which is nice in its own way.

Later, a client reached out to us, eager to work with an emerging office on a study. At the time, we weren’t formally an office yet, but we decided to take the opportunity. We reduced our workload at our other jobs to dedicate more time to the study. After our presentation, they appreciated our approach and decided to continue working with us. They were curious but also sceptical at the start. In the end, it turned into a great collaboration.

Turbines and transformations

MB: The Turbinenhaus project is deeply connected to its site, an old industrial area undergoing transformation near a historic water turbine plant. The site had already been named Turbinenhaus in a master plan developed years earlier, and we embraced that identity. The building’s form is directly related to the historic industrial buildings to the north and east and dissolves towards the southwest, towards nature. It was inspired by the idea of a turbine, with a central axis and blades rotating around it. This concept informed the floor plan, creating flats with multiple orientations. The building’s aluminium facade reflects its surroundings - from the historic industrial structures to the natural landscape. The reflective quality of the aluminium creates a dynamic interplay of light and shadow, allowing the building to visually merge with its environment while subtly highlighting its form and function.

YC: A key focus of our work is the relationship between private and public spaces. We often aim to shift functions traditionally private into collective or public areas. This concept is well represented in the Turbinenhaus, where we made the entire ground floor publicly accessible and added a rooftop garden open not just to the building’s residents but to the entire neighbourhood.

In another project in Dietikon, a client owned a plot of land that was too exposed to public spaces to function as a private garden. We proposed transforming it into a public square instead of creating a green buffer. Now, we’re executing a public square on private land, creating a collaborative space that redefines boundaries between public and private. This concept of in-between spaces—a hybrid of private and public—is central to our work.

MB: The space in between is extremely important. It is a place of constant negotiation of interests and thus becomes an action space for its users. It is a space that demands and fosters collectivity and inclusion. For example, in a competition we did in Basel, the focus was on thresholds—how to organise collective spaces alongside private ones. It’s not about strict boundaries but transitions, or thresholds, that act as filters. These boundaries, like public and private, aren’t closed; they’re interfaces where interaction creates new and interesting situations.

What was unique was a ‘loggia’ balcony running along the façade facing the settlement area, serving both as an entrance to the apartments and as a filter between the collective gardens and private spaces. The structure was simple—a basic grid—but it was designed to evolve through residents’ use, creating its identity and beauty organically, not as something imposed by us. 

The flexibility to explore

YC: What we appreciate about being a small team is the flexibility it offers. We don’t divide tasks rigidly. Instead, we share responsibilities, switching between different types of work daily, which keeps things dynamic and enriching. This structure motivates us and allows us to approach projects collectively. While one of us might take the lead on a specific project, every decision is discussed and made together.

MB: We also reserve a day every second week—usually Fridays—to work on self-initiated projects. One of these concepts is called ‘prototypes.’ These are experimental models or concepts that embody ideas in their simplest form. They’re not bound by the norms of complex projects. 

JE: A prototype doesn’t have to be a finalised object; it can be a thought, a research phase, or a step in an ongoing process. The goal isn’t completion but gaining new insights into a task or process.

YC: As an example, we created a garden chair from a common material—metal grid flooring. We took welding classes to build the prototype ourselves, which was a meaningful hands-on experience. The process was fast compared to architectural projects, making it refreshing. Eventually, we collaborated with a local metalworker in Zurich to produce the chair professionally. 

MB: Other prototypes are more exploratory, like strolling through the city and finding inspiration. It’s about staying open and recognising value in simple things around us, which can often be overlooked. Shifting our perception of these elements can transform them into something entirely different.

Scaling up

YC: We’re deeply interested in working across various scales and project types. So far, our work ranged from housing projects with commercial areas, to small interior renovations such as a Bagel Shop. We participate in large competitions and smaller studies, such as making a roof area accessible for the flats below. It’s this broad range of projects that excites us. We work interdisciplinarly between architecture, design, and craftsmanship.