Designing with Purpose: A Conversation with Eromosele Anetor

Part One

There are architects who design buildings, and there are architects who design ideas. The Nigerian architect, Eromosele Anetor, belongs firmly to the latter.

Over a career spanning more than three decades, the Founder and Principal Architect of Anetorplus Ltd. has built a reputation for architecture that is thoughtful, contextual and quietly innovative. His work resists the temptation to chase trends, preferring instead to respond to people, place and purpose.

Whether designing corporate headquarters, commercial buildings or institutional projects, Anetor approaches each commission with the same conviction: every building must first work. Beauty, he believes, should emerge from solving problems rather than decorating them.

In this first of a two-part interview with TEAMBOOKTU, he reflects on his journey into architecture, the experiences that shaped his thinking and the design philosophy that continues to guide his practice.

Finding Architecture

You didn’t set out to become an architect. How did the profession find you?

It was almost accidental. Growing up, I knew very little about architecture. Like many young people, I was more familiar with professions like medicine and engineering. Architecture simply wasn’t something I understood.

The first time it really caught my attention was through television. I remember watching programmes featuring Arc. Fola Alade and seeing the models created by Prof. Aradeon for Festac 77.  I didn’t fully understand what I was looking at, but something about it stayed with me.

The real turning point came during a career guidance session in secondary school. I was reading about different professions when I came across architecture. The more I read, the more curious I became.

I also had a classmate whose father was teaching architecture at the University of Lagos. I sent him questions—what architects actually do, what the course was like and whether it was the right profession for me.

Looking back, those conversations changed everything. Once I made up my mind, I never really looked back.

Learning from Scratch

Many people think architects are born with exceptional drawing skills. Was that your experience?

(Laughs.) Not at all. In fact, I wasn’t even in the technical class in secondary school. I was in the ‘grammar’ class, so I never studied technical drawing. When I decided to study architecture, I suddenly realised I had a lot of catching up to do.

At university, many of my classmates already knew their way around drawing boards and drafting equipment. There was no computer-aided design at the time. Everything seemed natural to them. For me, it was all new.

I had to learn from the beginning. It wasn’t easy, but it taught me something I’ve never forgotten. Drawing can be learnt.

Learning to think like an architect—that takes much longer.

The Education Beyond School

Was university where you really learnt architecture?

University gave me the foundation, but practice gave me perspective. I worked at Tropical Threshold Limited. That was where architecture really opened up for me.

The office had an excellent library, and I spent every spare moment reading. Books, journals, international projects—I couldn’t get enough. The more I read, the more I realised architecture was much bigger than what we had studied in school.

It wasn’t just about producing drawings. It was about understanding ideas. That’s when I began to appreciate that every building starts with a way of thinking.

Healthy Competition

Were there mentors or experiences that had a lasting influence on your development?

Very much so. After my Master’s degree, I joined the office of the late T.K. Sulaiman. It was an experience I’ll always treasure. There were four young architects in the office, and whenever a new project came in, each of us developed our own design proposal. Imagine four architects responding to exactly the same brief.

The client would eventually choose one scheme, but before that happened we all had the opportunity to see how differently each person had interpreted the same problem. It was one of the best learning experiences I could have had.

It taught me there is never just one answer in architecture. The same problem can produce completely different solutions—and all of them can be valid. That experience encouraged me to think more freely and to trust my own design instincts.

Building a Practice

How did Anetorplus come into being?

Like most architects of the time, I didn’t start out thinking I would immediately establish my own practice. You first need experience.

In 1993, four of us came together to establish Space & Place Development Consultants. Those were difficult years. The country was going through political and economic uncertainty after the June 12 crisis and starting a new practice at that time wasn’t easy. But we believed in what we were doing.

The practice gradually expanded into construction and real estate, and over the years we built a solid reputation. About a decade later, I decided it was time to establish a practice that reflected my own architectural direction.

That led to the creation of Anetor + Associates, which later evolved into Anetorplus Ltd. The name change reflected the growth of the practice. Today, we’re involved not just in architecture, but also in project management, construction and real estate development. It allows us to stay closely involved from the earliest design ideas right through to project delivery.

The Four Principles

You’ve mentioned four principles that guide every project your practice undertakes. How did those come about?

They evolved over time. After working on different types of projects, I realised there were certain things I kept coming back to. Eventually they became the foundation of our work.

The first is functionality. A building has to perform its purpose. If it doesn’t, nothing else really matters. The second is context. Every project belongs somewhere. The building should respond to its environment rather than ignore it. The third is expressiveness. Buildings should have character. They should say something about the people, the organisation or the place they represent. And finally, innovation. We should always be asking ourselves if there’s a better way to solve a problem.

Those four principles have remained constant throughout my career.

Context Is More Than the Site

You talk a lot about context. What does that mean in practical terms?

Most people think context simply means looking at the site. That’s only part of it.

We study the climate, the orientation, access, neighbouring buildings and how people move around the site. But we also look at the client, how the building will be used and, importantly, the available budget.

I’ve always said there’s no point in designing something the client can’t afford to build. The budget is part of the design brief. Once you understand all those factors together, the design begins to take shape almost naturally.

Design That Solves Problems

Your buildings are often visually striking, but they never feel as though they’re trying to impress. Is that deliberate?

Very deliberate. I’ve always believed that architecture should solve problems first. If you focus only on creating something spectacular, you can easily lose sight of the people who will actually use the building.

For me, a successful building is one that works well. If, in solving those practical challenges, it also becomes beautiful, then that’s an added bonus. Beauty shouldn’t be forced.

It should grow naturally out of good design.

Designing the Former Diamond Bank Branch, Lekki.

One of your best-known projects is the former Diamond Bank building on Admiralty Way, now Access Bank. What made that project unique?

The site. It was surrounded by roads on three sides, which meant there wasn’t one obvious front elevation.That immediately influenced the design. We treated each elevation as equally important because the building would be viewed from different directions.

There was also a subtle reference to Diamond Bank’s identity at the time. The geometry of the building drew inspiration from the diamond-shaped logo—not in an obvious way, but as an organising idea within the design.

That’s usually how our best work develops. The concept should come from understanding the project, not from imposing a preconceived style.

When the Sun Becomes the Client

The GTBank building on Admiralty Way is known for its distinctive green façade. How did that idea develop?

Interestingly, it started with the sun.

One side of the building received intense afternoon sunlight, so we had to think carefully about how to reduce heat gain while maintaining transparency. We explored several options before arriving at the idea of creating a planted screen in front of the glass. Our first proposal actually involved living plants with a concealed irrigation system.

It would have been beautiful. But maintaining it would have been expensive for the Client, so we developed a more practical alternative that achieved the same visual effect.

That’s one of the things I enjoy most about architecture. Sometimes the technical solution becomes the architectural expression.

Creativity Has to Be Practical

Can creativity survive within the realities of budgets, deadlines and client expectations?

It has to. Creativity isn’t about spending more money. In fact, some of the most creative solutions come when you’re working within tight constraints.

A good architect doesn’t complain about limitations.He works with them. Every project has constraints—whether they’re financial, technical or environmental. The challenge is to turn those constraints into opportunities.

That’s where creativity becomes meaningful.

What Makes a Building Successful?

When you revisit a completed project, what tells you that you’ve succeeded?

It’s not whether people admire it. It’s whether the building still works. If the users are comfortable, if the spaces function as intended and if the building continues to serve its purpose years after completion, then I’m satisfied.

Architecture doesn’t end when construction finishes. That’s really where its life begins.

Is there a project you wish you could redesign today?

(Laughs)The truth is that I wish I could redesign every single one of them and that’s why most times I usually don’t look forward to going back to the buildings, you know? Because you will see a detail that you missed or something you should have done. Unfortunately, the way we have been trained as architects is to see the errors and omissions where everybody is saying ‘wow, wow’. There is always something else you want to change or add but time is not your friend.

Looking Ahead

After more than three decades in practice, what still excites you about architecture?

The fact that every project is different. No two sites are the same. No two clients think alike.

Every commission presents a new problem to solve, and that’s what keeps architecture interesting. You’re constantly learning. Every project teaches you something you didn’t know before.

I hope that never changes.

In the concluding part of this conversation, Eromosele Anetor reflects on the future of African architecture, sustainability, artificial intelligence, mentorship, lifelong learning and the legacy he hopes to leave behind.

That’s in Part Two: Beyond Buildings: A Conversation with Eromosele Anetor

Photo credits: Tunji Ogunlana