The Dominique Lyon Architectes office, created in 2016, employs a dozen people.
From 1988 to 2015 the projects were produced by "du Besset-Lyon architectes"
The office has developed and built many buildings in various fields : public buildings – mainly libraries and educational institutions – office and housing buildings, industrial facilities, interior design.
The office also conducts urban studies.
Each of these projects is particular and results from a clearly argued architectural position.
They are regularly published in the national and international press.
Dominique Lyon has been regularly invited to teach in French and foreign schools.
He is the author of several books and a good number of articles on architectural critic.
Our office constantly seeks to provide reasons for the architectural shapes it produces. How can a piece of architecture find its justification ? What are its cultural roots ? What links does it establish with the social reality ? What makes it sustainable ?
These questions arise differently with each project and we must find new reasons to produce. Everything comes under scrutiny anew since the situations of the projects differ and the principles of our buildings depend on our interpretation of their situations.
Since they adapt to the situation, the projects of the office don’t look alike : the architectural shapes we produce are diverse.
Finding reasons behind architectural shapes demands interest, interpretation and criticism of the amount of reality they face in order to better reassign it. That comes down to providing arguments and organizing them into some kind of comprehensible story that will often seem slightly unexpected because of the contradictions any amount of reality involves.
This emphasis on formulation and argumentation isn’t purely rhetorical, it’s the basis of a creative method - telling the story around a project and being able to discuss it calls upon language and benefits from the associations it allows. Language is the most flexible and richest tool when it comes to matching critical understanding of situations with architectural shapes. Making the most of that opportunity avoids relying on stock phrases and enhances the scope of architecture.
Apart from that creative method, argumentation turns out to be necessary to justify the presence of the buildings on public grounds. The reasons provided by the architect - as intelligible as can be - may be discussed by those who are interested, informed and have power of decision. Architects gain objectivity and authority by debating because they shoulder their political responsibility. That task is unavoidable as architectural shapes unfailingly uncover the state of our society, for better or for worse. At best, they express collective understanding and call upon common skills to rise above the ordinary and create stimulating premises. At worst, they reveal general carelessness and incompetence, culture of fear, and a taste for withdrawal and tropes.
As far as we are concerned, we try our best to understand what’s at stake in the situations and establish relevant arguments to create encouraging architectural experiences that will infuse meaning into our settling and way of living in the world. A world that is not only difficult to grasp but a continual issue that requires a novel glance.
Sophia Amrouche, Marina Amrane, Amandine Batselé, Laura Bellamico, Grisha Bourbouze, Julien Boursier, Jennifer Carré, Alain Chiffoleau, Guy Conand, Irina Cristea, Quentin Dejonghe, Charles-Henri de Rovira, Sébastien Duron, François Ehouarn, Jurgen Fallert, Vincent Feld, Lucas Froment, Gary Glaser, Svetla Grigorova, Capucine Gueguen, Cyril Hanappe, Alisa Kovalenko, Marie-Claude Leblond, Christophe Leblond, Éric Lehy-Meira, Selma Mikou, Giulia Moltisanti, Sun Taeg Nam, Pierre Niorthe, Pascaline Pobé, Maxime Potiron, Dong-Ha Qwak, Manal Rachdi, Anthony Roubaud, Barbara Salin, Anne Tellier, Simon Visconti, Christiaan Weiler, Clément Vignes, Xiang Wang.