Solutions forArchitects.

Late-stage value engineering, driven at forced pace at the end of tender or at the start of execution, is the dominant driver of architectural value destruction on complex projects. Reveals thicken, typologies regress, custom details are replaced by catalogue systems, the signature material disappears in favour of a lower-grade substitute. The architect looks at what was delivered and no longer recognises the project.

Our design integrity method is the response. It consists in arbitrating constraints simultaneously, structural, thermal, economic, regulatory, from the very first sketch phase, to push each constraint to its productive limit rather than to its default compromise. We price custom work at its real industrial cost so that it can be defended. We rationalise geometry through algorithms rather than through coarse panelisation. See [Design integrity](/en/envelope-engineering/design-integrity/).

Between the 3D rendering of a concept and the industrial reality of the envelope, there is a gap that few engineering firms know how to cross without diminishing the intent. It demands simultaneous mastery of parametric modelling, fabrication constraints (glass processing, aluminium extrusion, steel and stainless steel framing, glulam and CLT timber framing, architectural UHPC, pultruded GFRP profiles, mechanical assembly), installation tolerances, and the industrial logic of European factories.

Our computational practice is native, we work directly in 3D, generate geometries algorithmically, and prepare data for file-to-factory injection. Engineering does not intervene after the concept to constrain it, it works in parallel, to open what the supply chains can actually produce. This approach protects double curvatures, asymmetric skins, mega-scale compositions, which are often the signature DNA of the project.

Energy frameworks (Minergie, SIA 380/1, CECB, MoPEC, RE2020, décret tertiaire) impose thermal, air-tightness and carbon performances that may seem to limit architectural choices. The classic pitfall : insulation thicknesses that transform the mullions, sunshades added late that break the composition, glazed surfaces reduced to meet the requirements.

We handle those constraints upstream, by mobilising the right verticals, electrochromic or selective glazing to reconcile transparency and solar factor, BIPV to generate energy and soften the insulation demand, integrated thermal breaks aligned with the architectural signature. See our [Expertises pole](/en/expertises/). Performance is not won against the writing, it is won with the architect who holds it.

In competition phases, the architect needs fast and reliable facade advice to validate feasibility and to price scenarios, but the dedicated budget typically does not exist, and the calendar is measured in weeks before submission. Standard facade engineering firms are not structured to operate at that cadence.

We offer a competition framing that covers the industrial feasibility of the envisaged intents, the economic order of magnitude, the applicable cantonal or national regulatory constraints, and the SOTA verticals to mobilise. The conditions (scope, deliverable, commercial frame, sometimes without fees on projects where the atelier commits to the execution mandate) are discussed on a case-by-case basis. The rule is stable : a good competition submission is prepared upstream, not in the final week.