Growth through a state of crisis

XO: ​​In my view, one can say Mexico is currently facing a crisis in architecture, primarily due to a lack of depth, experimentation, and theoretical exploration in the field. While there has been significant growth in the sector recently, I believe this growth is driven by two main factors: First, Mexico's vast and predominantly young population has led to an influx of architects and university graduates. Second, there's considerable wealth in areas like Querétaro, resulting in a surge of construction. However, building a lot does not equate to improving how we inhabit our spaces and cities. Unfortunately, there's a noticeable absence of urban planning and critical discourse regarding the city's growth. 

CO: Although this situation reflects a noticeable absence of urban planning and critical discourse in architecture, there's an advantage to it: On one hand, it allows graduates to establish their practices immediately after school. On the other hand, it means that non-architects are also involved in construction projects. Conversely, lacking regulation allows many people to experiment with different ideas. So, while it's a double-edged sword, this lack of regulation opens up opportunities.

FP: The focus is primarily on the aesthetics and functionality of the projects. But it's never about envisioning how cities might grow. A friend of ours always contends that there is no architecture critique in cities like Querétaro. I counter that there is no critique because there is no architectural thinking. Hence, it's challenging to delve deeper if there's no depth to explore. 

Instilling a sense of critical thinking

FP: Architecture  schools in Mexico are still teaching very traditional practices around what architecture is (or should be):  solely architecture as form. This means nobody is thinking about architecture as a means of understanding the world rather than just building things. Our practices and educational backgrounds aim to teach that there are numerous opportunities for architects to engage in various fields. I'd like to emphasise the challenge of critiquing. If you're too critical of your colleagues who build, too critical of the academic institutions where you teach, and too critical of fellow researchers, it can be a lonely path. That's also why I believe there isn't much criticism; people are quite protective of their work. 

XO: This lack of criticism in some way is related to the fact that universities and suburban spaces, where most students and architects live, is dislocated from the actual city. Many of these students probably live in gated communities. So, when they leave their homes, they enter a bubble, their car, and then another bubble, the university. They never interact with the city or the sidewalks. This is a significant crisis because they don't realise there's a problem with architecture. That's why, despite the abundance of construction, projects, and money, they don't understand the impact of building individual houses or gated communities on the city itself. It's a major issue.

CO: I find it quite amusing how we learn about the practise of architecture in school, considering the type of education we have in Mexico. It's completely Western, where the architectural paradigm is presented as a Western or European, and later US centric, issue, one of order and cleanliness, with the architect seen as a saviour of sorts. So, all that remains is aesthetics, just cool-looking things, right? There's a disconnection not only from the city and public buildings but also from the public-facing side of architects. It seems we're often subdued to power, working for those in positions of authority. I think that's something we, as practising architects and students, need to accept, that we'll often work for those in power, whether it's governments or wealthy clients. And if we're fortunate, we'll get to build something with a greater impact than just a house or something similar. But you can also do research. You can also use architecture as a methodology to approach other things that are not buildings. And I think that's what we try to show students when we teach. But then you have that triple kind of challenge, right? You have to challenge students to know that the way they're living is not the only way. You have to teach them to challenge those idealised canonical conceptions of architecture. Also, you have to battle from the inside of the institution with a very canonical and orthodox view of the discipline How liberating would it be to understand architecture as a methodology to investigate the world and not only as this thing that you learn to do and that you replicate when you go on to be a professional.. 

Architecture as a means to change the world

FP: For a long time, our approach has been to allocate funds not just for designing and building projects but also for initiatives where there's no specific client. I often say that perhaps one challenge in Latin America, in general, is the lack of clients within the city. Citizens may be the users of the city but are not the clients of a project; despite being the most important stakeholders they are not usually responsible for engaging as economical or legal backers of a particular process. I suppose one thing we've been doing for the past 10 years is developing projects within our practice and finding alternative ways to fund these projects with no direct clients. Maybe Chucho, Ximena, or I, along with others who collaborate with us, have an idea or something we want to try, and we allocate funds internally to pursue it. If the idea grows into something bigger, then we seek external funding like scholarships or grants. Some of the ideas we've explored involve experimenting with different approaches to urban development, based on our own perceived needs of what cities and its citizens could benefit from. 

XO: It's very challenging. Not all of our projects are built; only a few are. Many involve urban interventions or temporary installations that last for weeks or months. Additionally, several projects revolve around publications, research projects, or exhibitions. We aim to broaden our understanding of the city and produce a final product. For us, architecture isn't solely about construction, it's also a means of comprehending the world.

CO: Whether it's commercial projects or those without a client, we tend to always ask a question or pursue an inquiry. For instance, “Can we build a house without air conditioning? Can we open up certain areas in housing to make homes more accessible to the street? How can we achieve this to enhance street visibility? Can we use architecture to change how streets should be lived?”.  

FP: Our approach is about challenging architecture and how people think how things should be or usually are. That's why we always talk about an attempt to "explore, understand, and inspire other (new) ways of living and thinking about life in cities."

Sensing the world around us

FP: Sharing our ideas and experiences can often seem straightforward and effortless, but in reality, we face numerous challenges. This, I believe, is partly because we are three individuals from diverse backgrounds. Ximena is an architect and an urban designer, Chucho is also an architect and an artist, and I am a psychologist who has developed a keen interest in urbanism. Our diverse expertise enables us to share and exchange energy dynamically.
This interdisciplinary approach has led us to explore an issue we have been grappling with for the past six years, now known as "Interfaces de lo Invisible", meaning invisible interfaces. This title reflects its focus on sensing the world around us. Giving a medium to things usually invisible or not so easily perceived.

CO: It illustrates how our projects interconnect to explore broader questions. We've also aimed to broaden the scope of our concerns. The goal was to blend infrastructure with environmental observation and measurement. For example: some cities refrain from measuring as it may lead to policy changes in undesirable directions, making it seemingly more practical to avoid measurement altogether. On the other hand, some other cities focus on generating and collecting lots of data, but merely collecting data with sensors or computational methods, often producing impersonal numbers or graphs, can result in ineffective communication. We see a gap in our ability to communicate effectively, but we believe this is where design, art, and architecture can fill a void. 

By appropriating sensors and scientific methods in a more inclusive manner, we strive to address one of the most pressing public issues of our time: the environment. Our approach still involves public life, design, and architecture methodologies but with a collaborative spirit, steering away from a singular focus. Our divergence from traditional aesthetics in architecture stems from our desire to understand public life and environmental issues through the lens of architecture and art. The various iterations of Interfaces del Invisible have allowed us to deviate slightly from conventional architectural methodologies and hierarchies within office structures, fostering a more inclusive and dynamic approach.

XO: Despite staying engaged with architectural practice and following some of the projects and experiences we’ve developed over a decade in Mexico, these are the kind of projects we aim to work on in the coming years. Currently, we are somewhat spread across the globe (Querétaro, Boston, Hong Kong). Once we are better settled, we look forward to shaping a scope that reflects our diverse experiences and aspirations, and we intend to continue working for many years to come.