Recently in the blog of La Ciudad Viva have appeared a couple of post that I am provided that to think and wanted to transmit an attempt of relation of concepts that me have appeared.
Everything begins with interview by Stepien y Barno to Alejandro Aravena, where they ask:
Question: It is clear that the model Elemental works excellently in Latin America do you believe that it might move also to Europe? What questions should be born in mind?
Response: My response is “yes”, the intuition says to me that it is possible, but it would be necessary to study “how”. In addition, instead of making concrete it as a methodology in abstract, the real response is going to come after having realized a concrete case.
In fact, we are developing now a project in Portugal and the response is going to come after having realized it. In case of Elementary, we did not know a priori, that instead of doing a cheap house, it was necessary to do the half of a good house. Solving the case of Portugal, we give response to situations seemed in other European cities. Across this project, we are trying to solve a nproblema to which no public politics comes at this moment.
I am lucky to have lived through an exchange as student in Chile and to have attended one of the conferences of Aravena where it was explaining the ELEMENTAL project.
Curiously it is the same question that I did to myself in his moment, but that I could not do in this moment. My particular conclusion is curiously that is not removable, or, correcting me, not in a direct way.
And I explain. In the context of Chile the particularity gives itself that questions like the autoconstruction in this company it is to the orden del día (specially in the sector of population which it is directed projects as that of Iquique). In this context, the architecture happens for eliminating the superfluous thing and offering a good foundation. This is, more that to construct a cheap house, is constructed by the economic possibilities of those that there arranges that one that in the future allows the economic revalorarización of the construction. Anecdote, recollection like Aravena was speaking that with the same surface in a bath and with only a certain placement of the facilities, the user might change a shower into a tub, without with it to do big economic efforts.
For this motive the buildings of elementary appear without finished interiors and without completing in its entirety with the expectation of which he is the own user who finishes the construction throughout the years.
Nevertheless, if we think about the social housing inside the Spanish context (or European) everything changes: to begin the sector of population which it is directed (very concrete as elderly or young sectors in rent), the typology, they eliminate the topics of autoconstruction, etc.
And even I could be said that what is looked on the market they are, in contraposition to the Chilean case, “the” “good” finished some” (or perhaps it is not the only thing that a real estate agency leaves to choose to his proprietary futures).
To where can one direct then the housing? Following another post of La Ciudad Viva (Open Building at the s.XXI by Israel Nagore), a solution can happen for the development of an industrialization of the components of the building that grant flexibility to the construction and to possible later reforms. The idea is not bad always and when they overcome a couple of topics.
First. How many times we have heard the critiques to systems as the carton – plaster for which “hollow sounds”? There exists a widespread trend of which certain prefabricated systems are unable to compete with those of humid work, and if they do not remember the famous slogan of “walls of brick, walls indeed”.
Second. Does user decide how much before the purchase of the housing? It is important to eliminate also that the collective housing is something that alone is bought and the users do not decide anything on her (except already mentioned ended). Jorge Toledo (@eldelacajita) in his PFC was creating a fish-pond of inciativas architectural that there had as object rethink the model of management – production of the private housing.
In his text Proposed for an architecture 2.0, Jorge comments that one of the fundamental points happens to be the participation of the user / promoter, where “the user would happen to be an active and irreplaceable part of the process of putting in march and design. This, valid enough from always for particular traditional orders, has not been extrapolated correctly to the collective housing”.
The solution, possibly, not only happens for making it understand to the company the validity of the use of certain technologies, but also for making unlearn the client who is a foreign element of the process of production of his housing.
If it is evident that numerous current speeches allude that alone from a position it activates as citizen can generate city and condition of community. It would be nice to be able to move it to the collective housing, where more than the binomial Client – seller, we could speak in terms of collectivity.
Pedro Hernández · architect
ciudad de méxico. january 2014
Soy arquitecto por la Universidad de Alicante, pero mi interés sobre esta disciplina se encuentra alejado de su papel tradicional de diseño de espacios. Más bien, me interesa entender cómo las representaciones de la arquitectura, el paisaje, el diseño o el territorio construyen y materializan determinados discursos ideológicos, imponiendo posturas, subjetividades y formas de acción sobre los cuerpos que la habitan.
En mi trabajo edito estos discursos –sus imágenes, sus historias o sus restos materiales– y reelaboro comentarios críticos que ponen en evidencia sus controversias y contradicciones, formalizándolos en diversos formatos como textos, fotografías, vídeos, objetos o instalaciones, muchas veces entrecruzados entre sí.
He publicado artículos y ensayos en diversos medios de Estados Unidos, Italia, Croacia, España, Chile y México. Desde enero de 2013-2018 residí en la Ciudad de México donde trabajaba como coordinador de contenidos en Arquine. Actualmente resido en Madrid.