FEDERICA ZAMBELETTI/KOOZ First and foremost, thank you for taking the time and for trusting us with your voice. It means a lot. Let’s kick off by finding out about the Holcim Foundation.

LAURA VISCOVICHThanks, Federica. Our full title is the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction; we're a non-profit corporate foundation sponsored by Holcim and created in 2003. Our mission is to support people who are change accelerators for sustainable construction. I think that's quite important to put that out there; back in 2003 there were not as many not-for-profit organisations talking about sustainability in the built environment. What we do, put simply, is to build bridges: building bridges between designers living in different parts of the world, through the Fellowship between different disciplines within the built environment, and also building intergenerational bridges between experienced professionals and emerging talent coming into the industry.

One of our main initiatives is the Holcim Foundation Awards; this is the world's largest competition focused on sustainable design and construction, which has been running for twenty years. Originally, it ran every three years; we’ve accelerated that to every two years, with five regional juries across five continents, and it is open for self-nominated projects — which is quite different to other awards out there. What we aim to do is to uncover projects — and the people behind them — that are truly innovative in terms of sustainable design. Several previous winners have gone on to have illustrious careers; for instance Diébédo Francis Kéré, Alejandro Aravena, Mariam Issoufou Kamara and many more. When we speak to recipients about the importance of the Holcim Foundation Awards, what we learn is that it offers a platform to accelerate their projects and to get their ideas out to a much broader audience.

KOOZ I'm curious to understand how the framing of sustainability might have changed. As one of the first nonprofits to highlight the importance of sustainability in construction, could you share your approach to sustainability and how it has developed over the last twenty years?

LVAbsolutely. The first thing that the Foundation did twenty years ago was to hold a series of round tables with professors from different universities around the world, and encouraged them to come up with principles or “target issues” for sustainable construction. They came up with five: people, planet and prosperity — but also place, obviously, and then progress. Progress covered innovation and transferability, so it was actually very broad. When I joined the foundation, we reviewed these terms with the board. The underlying principles of sustainability haven't changed; we have to reduce impact on the planet. We have to find a way of helping communities to thrive through places that are uplifting, — but we also have to make sure that how we build is viable economically. Once we had refreshed these goals for sustainable construction, we found several meta-principles that arc across and over these goals.

KOOZ Saba, I would be really curious to know more about the scope of the Fellowship, following the framing of the Awards.

SABA MEIDANYSure. When we were putting together the Fellowship and we were curating this, initially, we considered what the aims of the Fellowship might be. We were able to identify three key themes which are impacting the built environment and are stopping the progress towards more sustainable outcomes. First, we would like our shared project learnings across key developments within regions to change the way we view knowledge transfer between entities and across projects. Secondly, we want the Fellowship to create a more collaborative mindset in the market, as it is sort of commonly known that practitioners in our industry work in silos. Finally, we want to develop an overall competitive advantage within the industry value chain, as we then also learn how to tackle risk-averse tendencies and a general fear of failure — which in turn stifles innovation.

We always ask the Fellows — who we view as the future of our industry — to keep these three things in mind from the beginning of each Fellowship, while they engage in their learnings with the prominent practitioners and stakeholders. We select Fellows from across the region in which we are operating. Our first two programmes were in New York and Mexico City, while we will have two more iterations coming up for Europe. In this instance, we will be selecting from across European universities, across built environment disciplines. The programme is structured in such a way that it also facilitates learning across the generations: not only established practitioners teaching the next generation, but also learning from them. We want to facilitate intergenerational, interregional and interdisciplinary dialogues in a process that we believe will address these three key themes.

If I could also add to the question about the evolution of sustainability: the themes are really the same, but what changed is our approach to learning through trial and error. Projects and initiatives don't move forward without shared dialogues looking at the key principles; really, the best way to approach sustainability is across the value chain, and in a collaborative manner.

KOOZ Thank you. Over to one of the parties who are engaging with the Fellowship: Arno, can I invite you to discuss the potential of engaging your academic chair with the Fellowship — perhaps expanding beyond the walls of the academic institution?

ARNO BRANDLHUBERSure. At ETH in Zürich, our main focus is teaching and research; it’s quite scientifically oriented. The Department of Architecture is one of the bigger parts of the ETH; at the moment, we number around fifty professors, organised in different institutes, from theory and history to technical departments. Maybe the biggest group of which we are a part is the design chairs. In our role, we are very interested in analysing narratives that are around us when we talk about the making of or the valuation of architecture; the next step is to create our own narratives. That's basically our task in the studio.

We started by widening the design field for architects. As you can probably imagine, architects normally complain that the building code is so bad, therefore we can't design better buildings. Yet it's also a design process to build those constraints, to make the building codes themselves. Why can’t architects get much more engaged in co-designing those frameworks that normally limit us so much? Our first publication on that was Legislating Architecture — which is especially interesting because being based in Switzerland, there’s already a strong idea of direct democracy. There are a lot of tools for people to really react towards the built environment, to make decisions around whether the state should build something or not; they have a long tradition and experience in public engagement with the built environment.

Within the Department of Architecture, over the last five or ten years, there have been two really big shifts in engagements. One is about caretaking, notably when it comes to parity, questions of gender and how to really take care of and within the working environment. And that was a rather interesting process, establishing this notion of caretaking not only at a top down level, but also from the bottom up. In terms of caretaking when it comes to the environment, there was a real departmental recognition of the fact that we — as architects, as engineers, together with industry and the whole sector of building — are part of a system that produces 40% of the worldwide CO2 emissions. That enabled a complete shift on the curriculum within the last five to six years. When I started at ETH eight years ago, all the students were more or less designing new buildings, meaning that every implied building process is part of the global temperature rise. Now, we have reached a point where most student projects are about adaptive reuse. We had to face the fact that before, we didn't train students — nor even ourselves as teachers — with the knowledge to work with the existing fabric. We cannot continue with pure design of the architecture object, or in providing the industry with graduates who are merely able to work in offices to produce more of the same. We have to face our own role.

That was also one of the points of when the Holcim Foundation reached out, to engage with this Fellowship programme — also because the foundation is part of the industrial complex. Lafarge Holcim, now known as the Holcim Group, was one of the biggest producers of concrete and cement, and which is one of the main drivers of CO2 emissions. Already in 2003 — 22 years ago — they had the foresight to establish a foundation as part of the industrial complex, to address sustainability. This makes it so interesting for us: we are close to the problem with the industrial complex of Lafarge-Holcim, but also dealing with the entity of the foundation which is aware of those questions. That's the interesting part, also for the students on this Fellowship to learn about a wider, more systemic thinking of what design can reach.

KOOZ Could we explore that relationship between the Foundation and the industrial complex? We know that the building industry contributes to 40% of CO2 emissions. How does the work developed with the foundation potentially feed into the industry side and vice versa?

LVIt's a really important question. I was looking back at the history of the Holcim Group, which actually started its sustainability journey before launching the Foundation. In 2002, the company published its first sustainability report; the following year, they created the Foundation, with a primarily independent board of directors. In fact, the very first board convened thought leaders who were working in the sustainable development field, including the president of the WWF and Mohammed Yunus, who had pioneered his micro financing project with the Grameen Bank. There was a real acknowledgement of being part of the problem within a difficult sector. We wanted to get some external perspectives on what sustainability could or should look like in the built environment.

From that moment on, the Foundation has acted as a different lens for the company to look into through, providing insights on emerging ideas for sustainable construction. For 20 years, Holcim has been focused on decarbonising its cementitious materials through changing its industrial processes and developing new formulas for its cement products. The Foundation — with its input on topics like circularity and urban mining — inspires the company to explore other ways that it could contribute to decarbonising the sector — one of which is to recycle construction and demolition waste. Currently, a big pillar of Holcim’s strategy is to continue leading the market in recycling construction and demolition materials. Last year, they recycled six million tonnes of construction and demolition materials; the aim is to raise that to twenty million tonnes in 2030, in addition to continuing to decarbonize their operations and products. So the Foundation helps to look around the corner and to be inspired by all of the amazing thinking that is out there about different ways to build; when they can incorporate that into the wider company strategy, that happens too.

KOOZ Thank you for clarifying. Focussing on the Fellowship itself, you mentioned moving beyond the design of buildings, towards the design of certain infrastructures — indeed, the Holcim Foundation Fellowship is called Designing Incentives for Change. Engaging Fellows with ideas of adaptive reuse can work on both horizontal and vertical planes. How might the Fellowship tackle realities such as, on the one hand, trying to reduce the sealing of open ground, and on the other hand, engaging with broader policies of adaptive reuse.

AB To briefly follow up on this note of recycling: in waste valuation, there are essentially three stages: reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycling is still the worst of the three positions; if you have something to recycle, you have to demolish it before rebuilding it, so a lot of new emissions take place. But at least you recycle. This leads us to European legislation and the export of waste. In Switzerland, 80% of waste is from the building sector. Across Europe, it’s around 50%. You see that it's not only the most CO2; it's also the most waste coming from the building sector, and it will soon be forbidden by EU law to export this waste.Right now, you can find our plastic bags somewhere in Asia; from next year, we won’t be able to export our problems to others. That's already one example of how legislation comes into the game.

Coming back to the valuation of waste, it starts with demolition. Now, in the building sector, you can say that whether it's a small housing project or a huge office complex, approximately 50% of CO2 emissions is spent in the initial construction, and the other 50% is created through the building’s performance. Meaning that if we throw buildings and used construction materials away, we already have spent so much CO2 — and it’s almost impossible to compensate for that later. These are lessons that we have to spread towards a broader part of society. We know that fossil-fuel driven cars do harm to the environment; we’ve been discussing that for thirty years now. Yet this is not the case with the building sector and the awareness of its responsibilities when it comes to CO2 emissions and waste.

In fact it's not only the knowledge that is missing; adaptive reuse is also at a huge disadvantage, structurally speaking, compared to demolishing and building, due to a lot of disincentives. Since World War Two, the European ethos was mainly about rebuilding; the question of adaptive reuse or waste didn't arise at that time. And from that time, the success of a nation states is evaluated by the rise of economic performance; all nations evaluate themselves according to growth. Essentially, demolitions makes for faster growth to build anew, so a lot of the incentives that were introduced are embedded into the idea of exponential growth.

KOOZ Is there also a relationship with soil consumption?

ABSoil or ground is not an endless entity: we can't produce it. That’s what makes it so interesting to witness something like Stop Béton or ‘stop concrete’ movement in Brussels; that means that you shouldn't seal more ground than is already sealed. That is directly leading to adaptive reuse, but it's one of the rare cases in the European Union where this is addressed so directly. The sealing of soil is also a topic where we know that it's leading to flooding; the environmental discourse is a little bit ahead in terms of what it means to seal soil, especially within cities that do not have drainage for water. Also what does it mean for water, if it doesn't go into the ground, but rather into sewage systems.

But to come back to the core of the relation between demolition and building anew, compare that to adaptive reuse: all the incentives we know about are for new builds. There are more or less no broader incentives for reuse; the tax system is basically focused on building anew. If you have an existing piece of land that has already been in use for so many years, you can attach much more financial security by removing what's there and building anew. There's a lot of tools embedded in the system that disadvantage the adaptive fields. On the other hand, we know that a lot of CO2 emissions would be saved — as well as materials;, a lot of sands would not be used — if we go more for adaptive fields.

That's why we founded the station.plus, plus our chair HouseEurope, which addresses that topic in the European Union on a legal basis: to give more incentives for adaptive reuse, and to make it at least fair, when it comes to a comparison between demolishing and building anew or choosing adaptive approaches. That's somehow the frame and where we are headed. The European Citizens Initiative is a tool on a European level to bring a proposal directly into the European Commission, based on people’s voice. It is a direct democracy tool — not in the sense that it will be automatically implemented, but to bring it to the European Parliament to be discussed. We need a threshold of one million signatures, across member countries of the European Union, with separate thresholds to reach in at least seven countries. It's not just guided by the interests of specific countries, but really in the interest of the European Union. That means that we have to build up a huge apparatus now, a cooperative programme with national partners, with ambassadors — even volunteers on site to collect those signatures.

We also know that when it comes to decision making in the European Parliament, there will be voices against the implementation of what we propose. We propose only three things: a reduction in VAT — which is an incentive that already exists in Italy, for example, but only for private homes. If you do renovation, you pay less vat for the same window than if you build anew. Secondly, we asked for fair valuation when it comes to this report being used by banks to finance a project. Right now, most European countries have a system where a new build is evaluated by its potential earning or profit, whereas adaptive reuse is evaluated by risks. So we ask that there is a fair evaluation, both with risks and potentials. The third proposal might be familiar to those who have ever bought an apartment or a house; that is to note how much energy will be consumed, from green to red. There should also be a CO2 metric, to see how much carbon is already embedded in the apartment, in the building, in the high rise. We should have that knowledge; we should learn about how much is already in there. The next step, when it comes to comparison, would be for existing buildings to have a CO2 valuation, because that carbon is already embedded in there. Meaning that if you are calculating CO2 emissions and compare a demolition and new build, you would have to calculate the cost of that embedded CO2 that you’re discarding — right now, that is not accounted for anywhere in the European Union. We have laws prohibiting the production of plastic bags; we’re not allowed to cut a tree after it reaches a certain maturity — but you are allowed to throw away buildings, mostly without permission. Something is wrong. If we could introduce a better accounting for CO2, the whole calculation would shift completely towards adaptive reuse. We have a few examples of that already at a local level, in Barcelona.

It's not only the financing; the whole chain of construction means that certain people won't be in favor of it, and that’s in Brussels alone. You have all the lobby groups; everybody has to have a lobby group because they know how dependent businesses are on decisions made by the European Union. This really makes it so interesting for us to work with Holcim Foundation, also being able to address these topics to a player in the field which is aware of pros and cons on both sides: on sustainability, which is the basis of the foundation, but also the industrial complex, which by its logic, has to follow other interests.

LVHolcim has been adapting its strategy to be able to not only provide lower-carbon materials for new constructions but also solutions for repair, refurbishment and renovation. The company now has roofing, walling, and flooring solutions with a very clear vision to serve the customers who want to do adaptive reuse. It's important from the industrial perspective; it’s not about a trend, but rather that there is a need — from a sustainability perspective, it’s what makes sense, which makes it relevant from a business perspective too.

ABThat's basically what will happen. In any case, it might mean shifting business to other sectors: less material, but maybe more technology. This kind of shift is very interesting, and it cannot be from one side; it has to be a cooperative process. That's also why it is so clear for us to collaborate with the Holcim Foundation. It's the basis of this collaboration: to raise these questions.

SMIf I could add one thing from the perspective of the Fellowship: one point to note is that the Holcim Foundation is material agnostic. Each project really has its own specific constraints, requirements and needs. In that spirit, we wanted each of these Fellowships to be a unique journey of their own. So in New York City, during the pilot programme for the Fellowship, we looked at how different innovations could deal with decarbonisation at a mass scale, which is what would be required to move the needle in the North American context. In Mexico City, we looked at the basic elements of soil, water and materiality, working with the constraints of that region: we asked how these conditions could help to nurture systems of design and care that are more rooted in place. Again, that was very specific to the Latin American region.

When we looked at Europe, there were two concerns that really tie into each other: the interplay between regulations and incentives — the carrot and the stick. We know, of course, that each lever can provide a positive impact in the built environment. So the first Fellowship in Europe is in London; there we are looking at how regulations lead to innovation; we also know that there is a need for new buildings to deal with the challenges of social housing, economic growth and overall productivity.

In Brussels, we wanted to create a space for participants to learn about the power of incentives and advocacy in driving change in the industry, focussing on refurbishment and adaptive reuse. The Fellowship is an opportunity for participants to step outside their everyday roles and to engage in these specific questions about sustainability, equity and transformation in the built environment; to learn from each other's perspectives, from different disciplines and from different professional peer groups. In the context of Brussels, we will be sitting in the heart of EU legislation. The complex and rich urban fabric will be a real-time testing ground from which to learn about different forms of incentives that shape the future of building industry in Europe.

ABMaybe to add one thing: to designing incentives as an architect — it's an architectural design question, and not one about a door handle that looks different. It means that we design the systems, and then bring it to the many. When we had incentives for electric driven cars, their purchase surely went up. Such incentives can help industries to change their production, to find other modes to engage and to also fare better economically. So interesting to talk about incentives. It's not about punishment or forbidding demolition, not at all. It's about how to work with incentives to bring about that change that we all know is necessary: we know that we have to act for that.

When I mentioned that the Department of Architecture at ETH has changed, that change was not just from the professors; it also came from the students. They are very much aware that, for example, the temperature has risen since the end of the last century, within their own lives. They are much more aware than I was; they come with the awareness of this problem in their field. They’re asking: how can I engage with that knowledge? How can I face it and still be a designer in the field of architecture? That makes it so interesting, to bridge the doubts and the fears around the capacity of design capacity.

KOOZ I'm interested in understanding the work of the Fellowship in relation to the wider network. You mentioned that to be able to gather these one million signatures, HouseEurope has developed a large infrastructure of local partners and ambassadors. How will the Holcim Foundation Fellows engage with the network of HouseEurope!, what other stakeholders are involved?

OLAF GRAWERTA lot has been said already. Yet when we then speak about partners, it somehow becomes very real. The local context in Brussels is, of course, a very specific one. It has a past, where once we thought this would become the capital of Europe — indeed in some sense, it is the capital of Europe. But much has been built for this future that never happened, which makes this context so interesting. There is so much vacancy; it is almost the perfect case for adaptive reuse. Because of this very specific context, it is actually happening there already. The partners we have on board include very different stakeholders: architects, developers, material engineers, financiers, legislators, lobbyists, advocacy bodies…

It’s very interesting, because only if we have these conversations with diverse partners — who are honest about what is possible or not — can we hope to understand what needs to change. One then needs to be honest about these big topics and the knowledge we’re gathering: why is this not yet part of a common conscience or an everyday reality? We also need to be honest about comparing and evaluating the different things — which is, of course, a very difficult matter. Due to our living standards, a reused brick in a European context has more emissions than a new brick produced under horrible standards in the southern hemisphere. This is a shocking reality. How do you deal with it? Even if one has the best intentions, how do you value these different things? As Saba said, mass timber, in the end, is not the answer to every problem. If we use it to build more speculative real-estate, it is just a better wrong answer after all. How do we deal with this complexity? The broad network that we have and the partners on board are so important, because only if you have partners who are willing to be open and honest — including students and Fellows — can this project be productive. This is why the idea of designing incentives is so much more interesting; it's not as easy as forbidding one thing or another.

KOOZ The Fellowship period in Brussels will be focused on engaging with physical projects and stakeholders alike. Can you share more about what the Fellows can expect in terms of building design, as well as the realm of politics, economics and legislation?

OGDefinitely. It's a ten-day programme; essentially two weeks. For the first week, the idea is really to understand the context; there are tours and moments to really comprehend what Brussels is and why is it the way it is. We’ll then meet firms doing adaptive reuse projects; they will share why it's maybe not possible, as yet, to have a practice focusing on adaptive reuse. They can also tell us why certain projects had to be demolished as well as discussing ongoing ones. We’ll visit finished projects as well as ongoing construction sites, of various scales — from the scale of a building to the reuse of industrial complexes or office buildings of a bigger scale, also going into the developers’ and material perspective. We’ll be testing if it’s possible, under the current legislation system, to really reuse all building parts — because this is also a reality that we face. It's not easy to reuse a brick that loses all of its certificates and it takes a lot of time, people and therefore energy to bring it back into the legal cycle. Adaptive reuse involves questions of liability, too; it's a complex topic and really interesting to understand where we need a change in the system to make it the norm.

Going into the second week, we will speak about liability and risks; about the financing of these projects from a corporate or fund perspective, but also from an architectural perspective. Why do we see so much risk in existing buildings, and what constraints are born from a responsibility towards shareholders? Banks state that reuse projects are not possible due to the responsibility to take care of the money of their investors. We will also engage with the policy side, which is super interesting. The Architects’ Council of Europe represents the interests of architects and architectural associations from all European countries — so how do they act in the interest of the building industry, architects, engineers, everyone involved in the building chain? How can they negotiate or advocate for our interests with policymakers on a European level, with public affairs, or even with representatives of the Holcim Group? Hopefully, these questions reach the commission and the new Housing Commissioner, which would be the top level actor in terms of how this topic is addressed. What value and potential do you see in the existing building stock, to address the housing question in Europe?

KOOZ Ultimately, HouseEurope! is advocating for the role of the architect as an active mediator for an infrastructural change, across various stakeholders. So if a million signatures are reached, what is the potential in changing how we view the figure of the architect in contemporary society?

AB Let's start with a very basic point. All EU nation states are under European legislation that is committed towards a certain level of decarbonisation until 2050 — which is in 25 years. At the moment 25% of the building stock is renovated, meaning we have to renovate 75% within this time. That means we should have a renovation rate of 3% a year to reach the goal of decarbonisation in the sector by 2050 — yet the average In Europe is 1%, meaning that all architectural offices ought to triple their office sizes. That’s a guaranteed market for work, not only for our Fellows but mostly for smaller offices; it will provide a local market for architects to work within. That's something that Ruth Schagemann, the President of the European Architectural Chamber, is addressing: architectural offices will have to grow, which opens up a huge advantage for younger practices to start their careers.

This change will come anyhow. It's just that with House Europe, we would like to give it a little to push. More incentives will come into the play, but we would foreground the role of the architect. Right now, the top stars in architecture have been people involved in making museums, designing new congress buildings and masterpieces in architecture. Nobody talks about all the architects that are dealing with function; this is treated as minor work. That will change a lot; those people who are doing this sort of work will be required and will be regarded more favourably. This change will need highly skilled architects, young architects, and the Fellows will be working in the right field to engage with those topics.

There is a huge shift to come, and maybe it will be in the construction sector itself — though we’d have to ask the teams of the Holcim Group rather than foundation. What does it mean for their own future? They know that it's coming; the whole building sector knows it. Holcim is already working on that change. For sure, every change is a painful process — but maybe that's something we can discuss with the Fellows.

SM When I was at architecture school, I remember the idea we had about the role of the architect as a solitary, visionary figure, essentially, acting within the architectural community to come up with solutions. What we will see as the future role of the architect will be one that is more collaborative, more interdisciplinary than before, and more versatile, where they'll be able to shift between different types of scales, different types of projects and learnings from different sectors. One of the aims of the Fellowship is that they can also be good stewards of the planet, of resources and of their own relationships with other individuals.

KOOZ You mentioned how the Fellowship seeks to empower people, and this is truly a kind of empowerment: addressing that systemic thinking that constrains the ability to act even at the scale of a single building. On the other hand, we can recognise the possibility of designing not only buildings, but the infrastructures of change.

ABA side notion: do you know how many architects are part of the European Parliament? Zero, none. We have nobody. There are a lot of agriculturalists and farmers sitting there. There are a lot of lawyers. Why is it that architects don't view this kind of engagement as worthy? One could regard decision making in a parliament as part of architecting our future, and if any of the Fellows take that into consideration, it would be a good outcome of this programme.

KOOZ The reality is that in school, you're taught about form, weight and structure; no one really prepares you for building code and fighting for systemic change — which can lead to a lot of frustration in the real world. The work that you are doing with station.plus approaches that direct confrontation, and we are excited for the Holcim Foundation Fellows to expand their horizons. Thank you so much for your time.

+++

Information on the Holcim Foundation Fellowship "Designing Incentives for Change" can be found at this link

Bios

Arno Brandlhuber is a German architect and urban planner known for his interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to architecture and urban planning. In 2006 he founded Brandlhuber+, focusing on working with other practices and disciplines, now renamed as bplus. In recent years, Brandlhuber’s practice has been dedicated to the idea of legislation in architecture, this approach resulted in three films: Legislating Architecture (2016), The Property Drama (2017), and Architecting after Politics (2018) – together with architect Olaf Grawert and director Christopher Roth. This engagement with the medium of film and its political and spatial potential led to the founding of station+, the chair for architecture and design at ETH Zurich in 2017. Brandlhuber is the co-initiator and campaign manager at HouseEurope! (houseeurope.eu), a non-profit policy lab and European Citizens' Initiative for the renovation and against the demolition of existing buildings.

Olaf Grawert plans, writes, and talks about architecture. His work focuses on the political and economic conditions, as well as the imaginaries and narratives that shape the built environment. Collaborating with a network of individuals and institutions across Europe, he develops projects that bridge theory and practice, including building design, campaigns, exhibitions, films, publications, and teaching. He is a founding partner at the collaborative design practice b+ (bplus.xyz), which focuses on the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. He is the co-initiator and campaign manager at HouseEurope! (houseeurope.eu), a non-profit policy lab and European Citizens' Initiative for the renovation and against the demolition of existing buildings.

Saba Carmel Meidany is a real estate development professional with a background in architecture and urban planning, and over 15 years of experience delivering more than $1B in high-rise and large-scale urban development projects across global markets. Based in Zurich, he leads the design and implementation of new programs at the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, advancing sustainable practices and supporting the next generation in the built environment. His work is informed by a strategic lens to project lifecycle planning, urban policy, public- and private-sector collaboration, and long-term investment value.

Laura Viscovich is the Executive Director of the Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, where she leads its mission to support people who are change accelerators for a more sustainable built environment. Laura drives the Foundation’s impact through the design and implementation of a strategy which is focused on the efficient transfer of innovative ideas and best practices. Prior to this role, Laura has collaborated with non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and impact investors across continents to steer actions towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Federica Zambeletti is the founder and managing director of KoozArch. She is an architect, researcher and storyteller whose interests lie at the intersection between art, architecture and regenerative practices. In 2022 Federica founded KoozArch with the ambition of creating a space where to research, explore and discuss architecture beyond the limits of its built form. Prior to dedicating her full attention to KoozArch, Federica collaborated with the architecture studio and non-profit agency for change UNA/UNLESS working on numerous cultural projects and the research of "Antarctic Resolution". Federica is an Architectural Association School of Architecture in London alumni.