Southern Mexico: new opportunities 

IM: When I finished my degree, there were not so many opportunities to establish a studio. In our case, during our career, we wanted to generate new ways of knowledge, through research and making proposals for the few competitions that were published locally and nationally. It was the early 2000s and I think that at least until 2018, with the political change we have recently experienced in the country's administration, there has been a boom in investment in public infrastructure and equipment. 

RC: Public investment in Mexico has always been centralized. The big difference between this government and the previous ones, which has had a direct impact on us, has been the investment towards the southeast of the country. This has caused businessmen and investors to start looking south, not only to Cancun, which has always been an investment paradise, but also to other areas that have not yet been explored. Yucatan is one of them. If we add to this the fact that our region has abundant water resources, nearby coasts with crystal clear seas, a lot of biodiversity, historical monuments such as haciendas and cenotes, it is easy to understand why these new opportunities have begun to emerge. Yucatan has begun to be a focus of international attraction, experiencing exponential growth. As for Mérida, local people were moving to the outskirts, forgetting the historic center, but foreign investment has recovered old mansions and converted them into hotels, boutiques or restaurants, which has led to activity in the city that was not seen before. This process has favored the activation of urban life; however, the negative aspect is that much of this investment is not local, but foreign. 

Investment in large infrastructure has encouraged the development of rural areas and the revitalization of their public spaces. For the first time, infrastructure serves as a pretext to improve the conditions of rural and urban areas around these axes. These are positive mechanisms because they activate life in places that had been forgotten or with very few institutions present at the local level. In some cases, these urban centers are equipped with new public facilities such as markets and kiosks, which become transparent places with a universally accessible vision. Public investment in Mexico did not involve minorities before, but now this is a constant novelty, which I applaud. We have worked with some of these organizations or collectives that need better conditions. Supporting the most vulnerable communities is something we integrate into our practice. If we architects don't know how to identify these opportunities, who else would? 

Empowering communities 

IM: We are located in the Santa Gertrudis Copó town, which used to be a settlement originating from a nearby hacienda, and is a population with original Mayan ancestry. We are part of that local community. The villagers have become empowered and we are driving change with and for our community. This synergy has been possible because we have a presence in the territory and are therefore aware of the needs, potentials and deficiencies. The collaborative and participatory work that we have carried out with the community has achieved one of the projects that we value highly: the rehabilitation of the central park of the community. We understand that our role as designers provides important knowledge, but the other half of the knowledge comes from the community. They know better than anyone the challenges and conflicts, and they know how to improve livability in the environment. 

RC: At school we were taught that the architect is like the conductor of an orchestra. I don't think that's true. The architect is just another instrument. Who really conducts, as in conducting an orchestra, is the people who inhabit these places. The architect must know at what moment to enter and be one more component of that great symphony. In addition, there are other aspects: politics, regulations, economic resources, which on the one hand limit these needs and, on the other hand, must be clear and not follow simple whims. Sometimes the community itself may have certain preconceived aspirations and the role of the architect, with the knowledge and experience he acquires, is to show that there are other possibilities. The objective is to seek agreements and align these different components to achieve the best possible project among all. It is a complicated process, which requires time and patience. The design team faces many challenges. Sometimes a project may seem modest or invisible, but the real value is in achieving it under the circumstances and resources available, whether economic, environmental, cultural or political. These are the projects that enrich us the most, even when there is no direct assignment or resources secured. 

Transforming limits into opportunities 

RC: For us, among other things, the architect should be a professional with the responsibility and ability to make the best use of the resources at his disposal. There are many projects that need to be designed, and we must influence them because the profession has the capacity to transform realities. It cannot be that realities are transformed only for the sake of capital, but also for the collective welfare. Normally, investments for the community end up being cosmetic and not aesthetic or practical. They work from the outside, not from the inside. There is no knowledge of the reality from the inside, which ends up driving projects with no connection to the territory and a waste of resources. We are making small advances in this sense, but I also believe that each practice should be able to address these types of issues in their immediate environment. Living as part of the community of Santa Gertrudis Copó, we saw that there was no public space for community expression. It is from this demand that we made our proposal. You have to immerse yourself, you have to spend time in the territory and get to know the community to realize the needs of the site. 

IM: Every day we passed by this place and thought we could do something to improve it. That proximity to the territory led us to knock on the door of the municipal police station and express our interest and knowledge to contribute and work together. 

RC: We did something similar in another public space for a rural community in Espita in 2013, a town located about two hours from Merida. We were invited to propose ideas as part of a process involving other studios. Due to lack of resources, only one project came to fruition, and fortunately it was ours. It was to intervene in some historic wells: we saw it as an opportunity to transform a water infrastructure into a public landscape. We involved the neighbors and carried out the project with only $30,000 pesos (150 euros). Despite the economic limitations, we achieved a project of great impact. It was a residual space, about 40 by 50 meters, located before entering the cemetery and near the access to the village. It contained a historic well that we thought could become something significant. Creativity and the ability to make the most of every penny were critical. Architects are often thought of as unattainable professionals, but we have the tools to make those resources be used efficiently. 

IM: Sometimes it is necessary to do pro bono work. We are interested in participating in them because very often they are the ones that have a real impact. They are projects that often have a connection with our academic research and we believe it is crucial that students recognize the shortcomings of the city or the territory where they live. Our intellectual capital should be focused on those projects, which are much more interesting because they involve more people, represent a broader challenge, and have a greater impact. 

Plug and play, interconnected architectures 

RC: The term “plug” has multiple connotations for us. It comes from the interaction and connection between the three component parts (Research, Academia and Practice), but it also defines the way we operate. We are three individuals with different visions: Izbeth has a master's degree in tropical landscape, David in urbanism and myself in advanced architecture. These interconnections enrich each project significantly. In addition, the term 'plug' is initially inspired by USB devices, where, at the time when using them, a legend appeared saying: the device has scanned and recognized the system to which it is connected, followed by a confirmation that it is ready to use. This 'plug and play' concept interests us because the architecture is not static; they are pieces of a puzzle that are inserted into a larger territory and in an interconnected way. These principles define the way we operate, adapting and coordinating according to the needs of each project. For example, if a research project arises that interests both Izbeth and me, we both participate. In urban planning projects, there may be a collaboration between David and me or between the three of us. If there is a specific collaboration that interests only me, I focus on it. We always connect in different combinations, it's a working dynamic that we find very effective and healthy for every project we undertake. We strongly believe that every project, whether public, research or academic, must be fully integrated with the site, the program, the environment and the client's needs, also considering aspects such as technology and economics. For us, it is like a device that connects all these elements in a coherent way. 

We are deeply interested in exploring how to influence and address in the design the relationship with the environment we inhabit, for example: The owl that mimics the tree, the goat that merges with the mountain, the butterfly that adopts the texture of a wall, and other beings that integrate perfectly with their environment. This camouflage reflects evolutionary adaptations that have occurred over many centuries, aimed at protection and integration with the surrounding territory. It is not a disguise, it is an inherent part of their genetics. We strive to ensure that our projects have this same uniqueness and ability to fully integrate into their environment. We believe in mimicry and symbiosis, as well as in a positive cultural appropriation that recognizes and respects the locality where our projects are developed. 

Educating new generations 

RC: Since we were very young, both Izbeth and I have shared our passion for teaching. We firmly believe that the know-how accumulated over the past 20 years should be shared generously with the students. We should not be selfish with our thoughts, successes and failures. It is our responsibility to bring them into the classroom and show future architects how to structure a thought, read a place and synthesize a program. We want our students, in the future, to meet us on the street and share with us that they have transformed more people than we have transformed ourselves. We want to prepare individuals capable of working collaboratively to enrich practice. With our experience, we have traced a path and developed a synthesized methodology to approach the profession. Therefore, it is our duty to pass it on to our students so that they can get a head start and achieve more than we have. Conveying this passion that drives us is fundamental. 

IM: For the past 8 years, we have participated in summer courses and activities outside of Mexico, for example in Los Angeles and Brazil. We have also been collaborating for some time at Marista Universidad Marista’s Design-Bulit workshop where students face the challenge of designing and building ephemeral structures. In this opportunity, students develop a whole process that includes: conciliating, defining, executing, recording, deconstructing, compiling and concluding by working as a team. It is in this process where they discover how complex and delicate it is to devise a pavilion, not only in terms of design and construction, but also to think and test what will happen and how people will interact with it. 

The contest, a tool for experimentation 

RC: Since we were two students, we actively participated in contests as a way of learning and to test ourselves. We were involved in ENEA, ELEA and PANI, contests that still continue to have a significant academic impact. We used competitions as a tool to develop new projects and experiment with ideas. In Mexico, competitions are not usually well structured, in most cases they are organized by the government, with many deficiencies. Despite this, we have managed to stand out on several occasions, being finalists or receiving mentions on several occasions. At the time we actively participated in the annual ARPAFIL competition for young architects held during the Guadalajara Book Fair. 

Over the course of ten years, we decided to participate in several editions, since it promoted the realization of urban projects, it was well organized and curated, and the prize was very attractive since it was cash. We won on three occasions and received a mention in another. Although this competition no longer exists in its original format, it was a crucial experience for our professional development. We also took very seriously other competitions organized by specialized magazines, always seeking to improve ourselves and learn with each participation. At a certain point, we moved from idea competitions to building project competitions in other countries, since there were not many opportunities in Mexico. We participated in competitions in Korea, Costa Rica, Canada, Spain, among other places. Always where the theme is what is interesting and not the size of the project, for example in 2016 We won a competition for a very tiny pavilion-bench that questioned the urban furniture in the framework of the “Winnipeg Design Festival” in Canada, and in counterpart, the one that I think has been the most important for our studio was the one in Costa Rica that we won in 2011 for the headquarters of FUNDECOR -Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Cordillera Central- in a breathtaking location on the edge of the largest and most important national park in Costa Rica, it was the first international competition that has been held in that country, an opportunity that led us to carry out other projects and activities there until 2016. We have been very fortunate that over the last ten years, we have participated in more than 100 contests and awards, of which our work has been recognized in about 90. 

IM: We believe that in the construction of an idea it is crucial to have a solid argumentation and an effective graphic translation. Everything we learn in the competitions, we apply in professional practice, research and teaching. During our beginnings, we noticed a certain professional zeal among teachers and students. We, on the contrary, try to challenge this mentality. We believe in the importance of sharing our knowledge and transmitting our experiences to form more sensitive and critical architects. 

Building with impact 

RC: Intervening in a territory is an act of exchange: the region where we are going to build must, in the end, be enriched by what we find. It makes no sense to build something that harms the planet. This exchange must be well thought out, seeking to regenerate local biodiversity, allow wildlife to return to the project and encourage human interaction. It's not just about building, it's about creating a fair exchange. 

As mentioned above, an example of a project already executed is Espita, where we intervened in an area that concealed a public water well. It is a modest intervention from the point of view of scale and resources used, but very significant. Espita comes from the Mayan name “x p'iit há”, which means place of little water. That well was already dry, contaminated and abandoned. We chose a lot at the entrance of the town and, with very few resources and the help of the people, we began to work. At the back there was a cemetery, and the soil that was taken from the graves to make the holes was thrown in or near the well, turning the place into a mixture of garbage and trees. We first went to map the topography of the site and realized that one side of the lot was completely smooth, while the other was a mound made up of 'rubble'. 

Through research, we began to bring some references that we found in the art world, which were based on working with what you find in the territory, and with that to build something. We also explored the theme of the Mayan well, related to water supply. In the end, we used local stone and those that were already on the site, to create playful and meeting waves, which at the same time serve as a forum and areas for cultural events. With the landscape proposal we reforested the site. We worked together with the community, identifying their 'know-how', which allowed the neighbors to get involved and provide very creative solutions for its definition and construction. Wooden stakes were created to make the paths, and little by little the project materialized. Each interruption in the paths ended with the planting of a local tree. 

The result was a meeting place built with very few resources, an example of how a public space can be transformed with minimal means. From day one, the community received it with enthusiasm and to this day it remains an important reference. It is a work that we often use to show our students that it does not take great resources to make a significant difference in the environment.