Founded in 1982, A+A architectes has forged a singular path within the landscape of Parisian private architecture for more than forty years. In 2025, Antoine Morizot took over the leadership of the firm. More than a simple handover, this transition became an opportunity to instill a new vision: that of a situated architecture; “architecture shaped by place.”

“A project never exists in isolation,” explains Antoine Morizot. “It must be rooted in a context, engage with the history of a place, its landscape, its uses, and sometimes even its fragilities.” It was on the basis of this conviction that Graphéine stepped in, using the change in governance as an opportunity to redefine the brand strategy.

Naming challenges: Apax

The preliminary assessment highlighted the weaknesses of the name A+A architectes. France’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) lists hundreds of trademarks containing the terms “A+A” or “A plus A.” Within the field of architecture alone, around ten firms claim a broadly similar type of name. A+A is both generic and abstract, lacking any real semantic depth. Although the name has become firmly established over forty years among a loyal historical clientele, its recognition today resembles inherited notoriety more than genuine brand equity.

The name ‘‘apax’’ quickly emerged as a relevant evolution. It derives from the Greek ‘‘hapax’’ (ἅπαξ), a term used in linguistics to describe a word that appears only once within a body of work. In architecture, an ‘‘apax’’ refers to a building without equivalent; the Pantheon in Rome is a canonical example. The term therefore perfectly embodies Antoine Morizot’s vision: every project is an apax.

At the same time, the name does not reject the firm’s heritage. One can still read within it the idea of “A + A × …”  “A plus A multiply by…” becoming ‘‘ApAx’’. The notion of transmission is embedded in the word itself.

The logotype extends the logic of the name itself. Built from a single module (the circle) it repeats and adapts this form to construct the letters “a” and “p,” creating a minimal graphic grammar. The “x” disrupts this system. Derived from the same circular forms, it recomposes them differently. It is no longer repetition, but transformation. It becomes the precise point at which architecture takes shape.

Where the repeated module represents context, the “x” represents intervention. At the scale of a symbol, the logo expresses what the agency seeks to achieve at the scale of a territory: starting from what already exists and extracting from it a singular gesture.