Mission

Poponcini & Lootens started life as an architecture firm. But since our transformation into POLO we cover much more ground. This evolution brought with it a more proactive attitude, going beyond the typically reactive role of the architect responding to a client’s brief.

Yet “simply” designing good buildings will always be an indelible part of our identity. With an extensive track record of built projects, we find the time is right to put into words what consitutes architectural quality for us and how we go about achieving it.

Reflecting on our work and examining our motives and strategies is essential to keep evolving as a practice. This means determining the elements that shape our design process and highlighting some of the common characteristics of POLO’s buildings.

The following does not aspire to cohere into a manifesto or a set of design guidelines. This is not the final word on POLO’s architecture but a snapshot of our current thinking, of the ongoing open-ended discussion we are having in order to continue making original and innovative contributions to our built environment.

Context

As architects we are the middlemen between context and project. Every design at POLO starts with a thorough research of its circumstances. We show our identity as designer in the particular way we filter data and translate them into fitting form, rather than through any kind of preconceived architectural language.

Craft

At POLO we believe architecture’s ultimate value still lies in its materialisation in the real world. The spatial experience is a physical one, appealing to all senses instead of just the visual.

Structure / Poetry

We consider architecture a delicate mix of “structure” on the one hand and “poetry” on the other hand.

Flexibility / Identity

POLO is interested in the ways architecture meets the twin requirements of flexibility and identity. While not directly opposed, these two characteristics can be considered somewhat inversely proportional.

and... Style

Nowadays architects generally draw a blank when the subject of architectural style is broached. It is as if bad dreams of eighties’ postmodernism still haunt these discussions. Yet we fool ourselves if we pretend we are free from stylistic preconceptions.