An urban legend in the recent history of architecture tells that Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal - winners on March 16 of the award Pritzker, the 'Nobel' of Architecture - tired of not finding the solutions they needed at their School of Architecture in Bordeaux, found them by talking to their colleagues in the building across the street. Across the street, at the School of Agricultural Engineers, they were experts in the construction and maintenance of greenhouses.

Precisely the use of this design tool allows us to better explain and understand the dimension of work of these great professionals of architecture.

The media coverage award they have just received has generated a cascade of opinion articles. They highlight the social and environmental commitment component of their work. They speak of their work as artisans heirs of Jean Prouvé or the coherence between the Economics of project and the luxury of the generous space for the users of the building. There is even talk of their contribution to the "architecture of happiness" (Luis Tena) and it is commented, with accurate precision, that their work is "the realization that not all architecture students can make a Guggenheim, but they can improve people's lives" (Anatxu Zabalbeascoa).

All these testimonials are right: Lacaton and Vassal deserve the Pritzker and the many accolades that are lavished on them. However, this was not always the case.

When I met their work, back in 2002, they had not yet reached the halfway point of their degree program. However, the projects they had accumulated were not well regarded. They were labeled as 'French School', 'light architecture, ephemeral architecture', or it was said that 'building like this was not architecture'. In my case, I was fascinated by the construction, installation and energetic logic tools they used. Their way of transferring to architecture, or rather, to the construction of quality spaces, the criteria of budget adjusted and the premise of energy saving. All this by means of solutions coming from a traditionally reviled area : greenhouses.

In an interview conducted at the time (publishing house GG), Lacaton and Vasal commented on how every year they went to the Villepinte show to see the progress of agricultural greenhouses. It was these greenhouses that they made the most of. With the logic implied by their thermal behavior, they used them with proven solvency to accumulate heat and then introduce it into the dwellings. But they also took from them the prefabrication, the modularity, the replacement of the complex metallic carpentry for the glazing by the simple assembly systems of the facade polycarbonate; the passive ventilation systems and, above all, in my opinion, their reduced maintenance needs.

Lacaton and Vassal raised another fundamental question: How long should buildings last? And if they are not eternal, should materials with high durability be used? Or as they often argued: 'Do you spend on marble for the floor or do you use concrete and use the same money to provide more space for the Username of the building?'

The obsolescence of buildings that this pair of architects proposed in 2002 -and that they solved- is now, after the 2008 crisis and the pandemic of 2020, when it takes on its full meaning. It is now that the philosophical approaches of his work are more necessary than ever. A work that I have reread and reviewed to prepare this text and that has brought to my mind report the words of another master, the Navarrese Francisco Javier Sáenz de Oíza, when he said: "I am not going to defend the caste of architects because I am not interested in anything. The function of building is innate in man".