Alejandro Aravena: "Often in our practice we are too focused on our own work," he says.

Edyta Skiba

24 of December '24

Alejandro Aravena

Photo: Bartek Barczyk

...

+14

In a world defined by possessions, in which objects define a person and a multiplied image is proof of existence, buildings become further elements meant to define an individual's status and indicate the direction of his development. As creators, we try to communicate skill, creativity, artistry to the world with our work, proving our genius in the process. We talk, but we don't listen. What will happen to us and our work if we begin to be guided by humility, understanding of the needs of others and the boundary conditions dictated by socioeconomic realities? Will architecture change from a goal to a tool to help solve complex social problems? What does it mean to listen attentively, ask pertinent questions and reject the fear of limitations in the world of projects? The conversation preceded Alejandro Aravena 's Warsaw lecture as part of the #SocialArchitecture series, and is a modest addition to the thoughts he shared with listeners and listeners at the September meetings.

Alejandro ARAVENA - Chilean designer, founder of Elemental studio, winner of the Pritzker Prize (2016), the jury of which he is currently chairman. Curator of the 15th Venice Architecture Biennale (2016). Together with his team, he is responsible for the realization of social estates that have brought him worldwide fame and recognition, the most famous of which is the Quinta Monroy complex in Chile. At the invitation of Geberit, the architect visited Warsaw and Krakow in September 2023 with a lecture entitled "Alejandro Aravena and architecture that puts people and places that need it most".

Edyta Skiba: Is it possible to ensure economic freedom through design?

Alejandro Aravena:Of course, and this is also a fact. As an architect, I was educated to control the final form of the building as much as possible. The first sketches lead to a mock-up, which can then be transferred to the computer, in order to prepare the technical specifications at the end. The design process becomes a series of instructions that limit or even eliminate room for uncertainty. Sometimes it is necessary to guarantee a flawless result, but working with a residential function makes the process more important than the design itself. The moment when the work is complete, when you arrive to cut the ribbon, is the beginning of the project, not the end. That's why you have to learn to reject excessive control and tame uncertainty management. Design then becomes an open system - I know how to start it, but I have no idea how it will end. For such an approach, you need a completely different mindset, one that was taught to me by the realities of the profession, not by educational training.

Alejandro Aravena - theorist and practitioner of socially engaged architecture during his visit to Poland

Photo: Bartek Barczyk

Let's get back to the facts. It is estimated that 2 billion people will move to cities in the near future. The greatest degree of migration can be observed in developing countries, where the provision of housing needs has to fit into $10,000. At the same time, in these regions, the implementation of social housing is most often based on the provision of a housing unit under the assumption that this is an effective solution to the problem. Families expand the houses they receive up to about 80-100 square meters. This does not happen by design but rather in spite of it. The government subsidy covers the cost of the plot and allows the realization of a building of about 30-40 square meters. Thus, the subsidy received allows to cover the cost of only half of the necessary house for the family. However, thanks to the subsidy, they become the owners of the plot of land and the building on which it is realized. For the family, this means the largest transfer of public money they will ever receive in social support. It should be noted that the subsidy can be received only once in a lifetime. For most of us, buying a house is an investment - we assume that its value will increase over time. Social housing in its current form is more like buying a car: it is an expense, not an investment. Therefore, if the location of the project and its surroundings are not taken into account, if the right structure is not provided for the final and well-known development scenario, the family's resource will be wasted - the value of the house will decline over time. Therefore, if social housing is to act as an investment and economic tool, it is better to use the family's resources as part of the final solution. The role of design is to properly direct the forces in the project instead of controlling them. Can it be said, then, that this is an economy of freedom? I think it is. You have to be willing to let go and let yourself be carried away by this free, uncertain scenario. At the same time, the ability to design is very important, because it allows you to orient yourself properly in the process. Attention must be focused on what will be left empty, not on the final volume, as is the case every day in design. For the residential function, a scenario must be envisioned in which the potential of the residents to improve the space is utilized. When a variable such as identity enters the equation, social housing ceases to be a monotonous development realizing economic gain. One could also compare this relationship to the difference between medicine and poison - the effect depends on the dose. Through design, a framework can be created to guide individual actions while respecting the common good. In construction, the most limited resource is coordination, the scarcity of which wins out over financial shortfalls. In the case of our projects, each unit built has increased in value tenfold since its inception. The limited financial resources I mentioned are roughly $7,000 to cover the cost of the land, development of the site and construction of the house. Today, in the housing market, these buildings have reached a value of $70 thousand, which is the current resource of a family.

Social housing complex, Monterrey, Mexico, designed by Alejandro Aravena (ELEMENTAL), 2010

Illustrations provided courtesy of Alajandro Aravena (© ELEMENTAL)

Edyta Skiba: Observing the world of architecture that we live in today, one gets the impression that as designers we have become masters at blaming ourselves for the socio-ecological crisis. Are we capable of opposing it?

Alejandro Aravena:In my opinion, the answer to this question is both yes and no. Yes, because we have been trained to do so, and the core of our design body is a perfect knowledge of the very powerful tool that is design. We can use it perfectly, organize information, recognize key solutions and balance opposing forces so as to create a coherent effect. Guiding it properly will allow us to effectively operate and negotiate between all dependencies. So we are not only strong enough, but most importantly we have a tool that can be used for this. Every complex issue requires a synthesis that forms the basis of what we have been trained in - design. However, achieving balance is not the easiest task, because very often in our practice we are too focused on our own creativity. Instead, we should be more focused on finding solutions to common challenges and goals. For this, I think we need a different sensibility and culture that allows us to accept reality as it is. Equally important is to avoid the desire to find a solution too quickly. You have to stop talking, put off the need for causality. Until you create an equation, understand the question being asked, you can't talk about a solution. You have to start by determining the first question and organizing the underlying information. We architects think we know the answer before we even understand the question we are dealing with. It is rather that we should be blamed for this. At the same time, recalling the 2016 Venice Biennale, which I curated, the participating designers presented a variety of interpretations of the question posed, while at the same time being very effective in their statements. So I think it is largely a matter of looking in the right direction, from the right perspective, finding clues for the individual design situation.

Social housing complex, Monterrey, Mexico, pro: Alejandro Aravena (ELEMENTAL), 2010

Illustrations courtesy of Alajandro Aravena (© ELEMENTAL)

Edyta Skiba: The message hidden between the lines at the 2016 Biennale - Reporting from the front - indicated that most architecture is created without designers. Should this proportion continue?

Alejandro Aravena:I would consider this trend a fact. It is important to understand the role of architecture, which does not necessarily have to replace these forces, but rather guide them accordingly. As architects, we are sometimes invited to projects that require full control over the final product, but in other cases, our role is simply to properly navigate through the process. In such a situation, it is the path to the realization of the building that becomes the project, not the final object. The key, then, is to understand what task has been set before us and what problem we have been invited to solve. Comparing the design process to a team game - the role and position on the field is never the same. Sometimes you are a midfielder, sometimes a striker, and sometimes a goal scorer. The most important thing is to understand your role - when to let the other people take control, and when to let me hold the reins in the process.

"Koyaüwe" installation at the 17th Venice Architecture Biennale, pro: Alejandro Aravena (ELEMENTAL), 2021

Illustrations provided courtesy of Alejandro Aravena (© ELEMENTAL)

Edyta Skiba: Has the recognition you've gained made your proposed view of architecture better heard by politicians and business?

Alejandro Aravena:Again, my answer is both yes and no. After receiving the Pritzker Prize in 2016, our office continued to fight to make sure that the point of view we presented was heard. However, I also see that this award had a somewhat delayed effect. It is only this year that I feel we can reap the benefits of the potential of appealing to uncertainty and doubt when designing residential developments. However, it took us several years to get to this position. When investors come to us, they know what to expect and what to demand. Sometimes not all the inquiries we receive are the ones we respond to.

Edyta Skiba: If we assume that design is about asking the right questions, what distracts us from giving the right answers?

Alejandro Aravena:First of all, the rush to give it quickly. When you are approached by a client and start working on a project, for some reason that is difficult to explain, you want to give an answer right away, very often in line with our current creative state. Conscious procrastination of this desire is very important in my opinion, being patient. The answer should be given only after we fully understand what is required of us in a given project. Of course, there is a risk that such a process may take forever. Nevertheless, for the first few weeks it is necessary to calm down and listen to the other side, and diagnose the limitations, the basis for preparing the project. Our role is to create an answer through the project, to take the risk of being an author, not a consultant. The author takes full responsibility for the risks inherent in the potential answer. We cannot, as architects, go back to the investor with a collection of information - as a consultant does - expecting him or her to take the risks of the decision. This is the biggest difference between being a consultant and a designer, and it affects the way we provide answers. At the same time, the time required to seek it cannot be too short or too long.

Centro de Innovación UC Anacleto Angelini, Santiago, Chile, projet: Alejandro Aravena (ELEMENTAL), 2014

Edyta Skiba: Perhaps, then, the class of an architect should also be judged through the prism of the subjects he has not undertaken?

Alejandro Aravena:I don't agree with that. I think that if something hasn't been built, hasn't been created in reality, it doesn't count. It's very easy to give a great design answer when you don't have to consider the real world. In the real world we have to negotiate, we have to be able to live with good enough, not perfect solutions. Which is especially important when it comes to such difficult questions as social housing or bailouts. You have to figure out how to negotiate between opposing forces, how to use them to your advantage, how to operate them when direct control is impossible, when you can't ensure an ideal outcome. This is the area where we as designers are tested the most. Of course, for the purposes of learning and our own development as designers, we have to do a lot of projects that will probably never come to fruition. However, this is a way to develop our personal toolmaker, whose process of refinement and improvement is also a fully personal matter, developing over time and through testing in practice.