Habitat III: the anteroom. In addition to some physical setting and the metal fences that still surround the public space of the CCE, there remains the echo that left some great names and their speeches. "The bibliographies" that are read or referenced, a friend commented to explain the depth of those who came. The academic sector lived the experience with special intensity. Most of the local universities suspended their classes to hold side events and/or to listen to Alejandro Aravena, Saskia Sassen, David Harvey, Ada Colau, to name a few among a sea of personalities who fostered a strong and multidisciplinary debate . Inclusive, compact, resilient cities were some of the recurring adjectives surrounding the discussion on the New Global Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Resilience was present in several discourses as a result of the natural disasters that have alerted the whole world this year.
A Pritzker in the post catastrophe. Thus, a few months earlier, the earthquake in the coastal zone of Ecuador was the excuse for the coming of the Pritzker Shigeru Ban. After several attempts by the BAQ to have him as a keynote speaker in previous editions, Ban finally traveled to Ecuador to visit the affected areas and give a conference in front of thousands of attendees. He met with the deans of all the local architecture faculties and associated with a closed circle of professionals of the local Union of Architects (Colegio de Arquitectos del Ecuador) to plan contributions and prototypes in response to the catastrophe. A historical visit, rather than for its results, for its international media presence and its ability to convoke.
A Pritzker in the anteroom. The list of big names in BAQ is wide. However, I will only remember how in 2006 the BAQ "anticipated" to invite the Chilean Alejandro Aravena, current Pritzker Prize and curator of the Venice Biennale 2016, "Reporting from the front." At that time he had already captivated students and professionals with the book of his edition "El lugar de la arquitectura", and his project "Elemental" at a seminar, for a reduced audience, related to housing. However, other names sounded more then. The BAQ has gained international prominence, creating a demanding audience accustomed to see famous characters (I remember seeing Thom Mayne in video conference when it wasn’t as usual as nowadays). In the 2014 edition, for example, Juhani Pallasmaa attended the BAQ. He signed autographs everywhere. Even architects of modest reputation in their respective countries said they felt flattered while they were signing catalogues to hundreds of students. The BAQ has, consciously or unconsciously, positioned several characters, some of them recurrent in recent editions, which is logical, taking into account that unlike the biennials of other countries, BAQ’s several editions has been curated practically by the same people, with several recurring members that alternate between winners and academic commission. (1)
Due to its positioning, a relatively constant public, in considerable increase (between 1500 and 3000 attendees in the last years), observed this time, a little discouraged, not so recognizable names. But the criticism to the lack of more relevant names is bland. The presence of less sounded names is a positive aspect, taking into account that the architectural system itself is in crisis, in open rejection of the spectacular figure, the fame, the hegemonic, the masculine,(2) the North, to finally look to the South, with a symbolic (although controversial) (3) South American Pritzker Prize. This triggered, for example, that Ecuador, for the first time, had an official representation in Venice (Al BordE), and that "other" architectures in addition to the hegemonic (4) ones were exposed.
The reforms to education as a catalyst for debate. In a broader context, as mentioned at the beginning, it is essential to link this chronicle to the recent reforms to Ecuador's education law. This reform has affected a very high percentage of teachers who don’t have a fourth level degree: they had to leave the universities drastically. This has resulted in faculties of architecture that have been forced to sacrifice, in some cases, experience by title, in a radical reform with a little opportunity of transition. This situation has generated reactive responses and polarized positions, where lots of academics are attacked with scanty arguments, especially the ones that are more theoretical, more academic and more orthodox.
This means that the (mediatic) space is almost exclusively opened to the heterodox, to the strictly pragmatic, which paradoxically criticizes the system but has created a new one, framed in the "architecture of collectives", "social architecture", “useful architecture", among other tags. This new trend has been consolidated in the BAQ 2016, with small anticipatory features. This time it was more defined with a monothematic seminar where its keynote speakers, without exception materialized their ideas / projects either with the work of students or residents of the intervened space. The questionable (or questioned, as you see it) fact is that, surveying the most critical attendees, it was missed less naive speeches in certain conferences and in most of the debates. Others aspired to see "more architecture and better quality" from the traditional perspective of the profession.
Are there useless classrooms? It was the most famous question of the inaugural speech. The answer was affirmative. Reactions to the response were diverse and controversial. Finally, it is a dangerous answer because it gives rise to reductionist interpretations where, in particular, the younger student assimilates that everything that can’t be materialized can be declared as useless. It implies those classrooms that create historical-critical awareness, consolidate lines of thought, or strengthen methodological processes (without the need for the tangible), such as the classrooms oriented to science and research, also today part of the demands of the reform to higher education. It is dangerous because it can lead to a loss of perspective and multi-scalar analysis where the architect has little to do with the harsh structures and political, economic and social systems that cause inequalities and that are not solved with project patches. The city and the habitat are finally part of a tremendously complex system with urgent problems to be solved that have been forgotten in the speech and task of the strictly practical. This complexity is evident in the discussion topics of Habitat III and the ODS, and it is dramatically shown in the post-disaster needs. Here lies the importance of making this criticism in that context.
Perspectives and conversations. The monothematic line of the BAQ left several intense discussions on the table, which is remarkable, because it is important to generate debate and overcome conciliatory positions of simple self-validation. Other highlights were presented at the BAQ, which, apart from the central theme, showed perspectives on necessary subjects, but dealt with depth. This was the case of the lecturer Víctor Pérez Escolano (Spain) on the preservation and cataloguing of Modern Architecture, (5) or the lecture of Stefano Storchi (Italy) on the influence of the Gubbio Prize in Latin America and the Caribbean. Finally, I invite you to read in the next days the conversations held with two speakers at BAQ 2016: Andrés Maragaño (Chile) with a very solid and clear thinking and Santiago Cirugeda (Spain) with a critical view from his practical experience. What do they think about the monothematic line of the BAQ 2016? What happens if the altruistic values (6) of the social groups are questioned? Is it mandatory only the praxis in the classrooms, or is it necessary to keep the pauses required by the academy for reflection? Is there a new stylistic trend with its own iconography? These and other questions were answered by both of them in their own way and from different positions.
A Pritzker in the post catastrophe. Thus, a few months earlier, the earthquake in the coastal zone of Ecuador was the excuse for the coming of the Pritzker Shigeru Ban. After several attempts by the BAQ to have him as a keynote speaker in previous editions, Ban finally traveled to Ecuador to visit the affected areas and give a conference in front of thousands of attendees. He met with the deans of all the local architecture faculties and associated with a closed circle of professionals of the local Union of Architects (Colegio de Arquitectos del Ecuador) to plan contributions and prototypes in response to the catastrophe. A historical visit, rather than for its results, for its international media presence and its ability to convoke.
A Pritzker in the anteroom. The list of big names in BAQ is wide. However, I will only remember how in 2006 the BAQ "anticipated" to invite the Chilean Alejandro Aravena, current Pritzker Prize and curator of the Venice Biennale 2016, "Reporting from the front." At that time he had already captivated students and professionals with the book of his edition "El lugar de la arquitectura", and his project "Elemental" at a seminar, for a reduced audience, related to housing. However, other names sounded more then. The BAQ has gained international prominence, creating a demanding audience accustomed to see famous characters (I remember seeing Thom Mayne in video conference when it wasn’t as usual as nowadays). In the 2014 edition, for example, Juhani Pallasmaa attended the BAQ. He signed autographs everywhere. Even architects of modest reputation in their respective countries said they felt flattered while they were signing catalogues to hundreds of students. The BAQ has, consciously or unconsciously, positioned several characters, some of them recurrent in recent editions, which is logical, taking into account that unlike the biennials of other countries, BAQ’s several editions has been curated practically by the same people, with several recurring members that alternate between winners and academic commission. (1)
Due to its positioning, a relatively constant public, in considerable increase (between 1500 and 3000 attendees in the last years), observed this time, a little discouraged, not so recognizable names. But the criticism to the lack of more relevant names is bland. The presence of less sounded names is a positive aspect, taking into account that the architectural system itself is in crisis, in open rejection of the spectacular figure, the fame, the hegemonic, the masculine,(2) the North, to finally look to the South, with a symbolic (although controversial) (3) South American Pritzker Prize. This triggered, for example, that Ecuador, for the first time, had an official representation in Venice (Al BordE), and that "other" architectures in addition to the hegemonic (4) ones were exposed.
The reforms to education as a catalyst for debate. In a broader context, as mentioned at the beginning, it is essential to link this chronicle to the recent reforms to Ecuador's education law. This reform has affected a very high percentage of teachers who don’t have a fourth level degree: they had to leave the universities drastically. This has resulted in faculties of architecture that have been forced to sacrifice, in some cases, experience by title, in a radical reform with a little opportunity of transition. This situation has generated reactive responses and polarized positions, where lots of academics are attacked with scanty arguments, especially the ones that are more theoretical, more academic and more orthodox.
This means that the (mediatic) space is almost exclusively opened to the heterodox, to the strictly pragmatic, which paradoxically criticizes the system but has created a new one, framed in the "architecture of collectives", "social architecture", “useful architecture", among other tags. This new trend has been consolidated in the BAQ 2016, with small anticipatory features. This time it was more defined with a monothematic seminar where its keynote speakers, without exception materialized their ideas / projects either with the work of students or residents of the intervened space. The questionable (or questioned, as you see it) fact is that, surveying the most critical attendees, it was missed less naive speeches in certain conferences and in most of the debates. Others aspired to see "more architecture and better quality" from the traditional perspective of the profession.
Are there useless classrooms? It was the most famous question of the inaugural speech. The answer was affirmative. Reactions to the response were diverse and controversial. Finally, it is a dangerous answer because it gives rise to reductionist interpretations where, in particular, the younger student assimilates that everything that can’t be materialized can be declared as useless. It implies those classrooms that create historical-critical awareness, consolidate lines of thought, or strengthen methodological processes (without the need for the tangible), such as the classrooms oriented to science and research, also today part of the demands of the reform to higher education. It is dangerous because it can lead to a loss of perspective and multi-scalar analysis where the architect has little to do with the harsh structures and political, economic and social systems that cause inequalities and that are not solved with project patches. The city and the habitat are finally part of a tremendously complex system with urgent problems to be solved that have been forgotten in the speech and task of the strictly practical. This complexity is evident in the discussion topics of Habitat III and the ODS, and it is dramatically shown in the post-disaster needs. Here lies the importance of making this criticism in that context.
Perspectives and conversations. The monothematic line of the BAQ left several intense discussions on the table, which is remarkable, because it is important to generate debate and overcome conciliatory positions of simple self-validation. Other highlights were presented at the BAQ, which, apart from the central theme, showed perspectives on necessary subjects, but dealt with depth. This was the case of the lecturer Víctor Pérez Escolano (Spain) on the preservation and cataloguing of Modern Architecture, (5) or the lecture of Stefano Storchi (Italy) on the influence of the Gubbio Prize in Latin America and the Caribbean. Finally, I invite you to read in the next days the conversations held with two speakers at BAQ 2016: Andrés Maragaño (Chile) with a very solid and clear thinking and Santiago Cirugeda (Spain) with a critical view from his practical experience. What do they think about the monothematic line of the BAQ 2016? What happens if the altruistic values (6) of the social groups are questioned? Is it mandatory only the praxis in the classrooms, or is it necessary to keep the pauses required by the academy for reflection? Is there a new stylistic trend with its own iconography? These and other questions were answered by both of them in their own way and from different positions.
NOTES.-
(1) See BAQ’s history at: http://baq-cae.ec/historia/. Tom Wolfe would describe it as a “cultureburg”
(2) The BAQ presented a colloquium on architecture and gender. Some interventions showed a very general framework of the situation of women in architecture. Others did not show a true knowledge on the subject, which provoked, somehow, a naïve debate, full of clichés that reinforce the social construction that implies gender, where, for example, women are classified as sensitive and men as the opposite. The most interesting contribution was that of the sociologist Miriam Ernest. She emphasized in the structural issues of the problem. When betting on new perspectives, on the "alternative", it is essential not only to present more solid debates, but also to make women's work visible in the different spheres of the profession, for example through a greater presence of them between lectures and jury.
(3) See at METALOCUS: “Where are you going, Pritzker? Newcomer or Nobel? January 2016.
(4) See at METALOCUS: “Venice Biennale. Orgy of Celebrities” February 2016.
(5) Pérez Escolano was a key at a discussion table at SEK University on the preservation and cataloguing of contemporary local heritage that has been affected in recent years by the lack of historiographical control of the modern movement architecture. It is linked to a soft legislation for its preservation. This soft legislation and the power of the public administration combined with the lack of knowledge on the subject, places above the architectural and urban pre-existing, the interests of the real estate projects that respond to specific interests rather than to a city concept. The table consisted of Victor Perez Escolano, Stefano Storchi, Donn Holohan, Giuliano Pastorelli, Alvaro Puntoni and Verónica Rosero.
(6) Donn Holohan (Ireland), from the University of Hong Kong, closed the BAQ with a critical stance against architecture as an altruistic profession: “Humanitarian” architecture has no pure motive - the architect is not primarily an altruist. A more polemical view today is that the architect is inherently selfish and wants to build, to create – and that the profession of architecture requires this selfishness. The selfish architect benefits society - not in his or her charitable inclinations but in the fight to survive, to create architecture, to re-establish its relevance, and to take control once more of the building process. The architect's value is not, perhaps, as an ethical or moral authority, but as a practitioner who is capable of making connected decisions, of reconciling the interests of individuals with the goals of society. While our responsibility is to increase engagement with all aspects of the built environment, our tools are fundamentally material, spatial and technical.
(2) The BAQ presented a colloquium on architecture and gender. Some interventions showed a very general framework of the situation of women in architecture. Others did not show a true knowledge on the subject, which provoked, somehow, a naïve debate, full of clichés that reinforce the social construction that implies gender, where, for example, women are classified as sensitive and men as the opposite. The most interesting contribution was that of the sociologist Miriam Ernest. She emphasized in the structural issues of the problem. When betting on new perspectives, on the "alternative", it is essential not only to present more solid debates, but also to make women's work visible in the different spheres of the profession, for example through a greater presence of them between lectures and jury.
(3) See at METALOCUS: “Where are you going, Pritzker? Newcomer or Nobel? January 2016.
(4) See at METALOCUS: “Venice Biennale. Orgy of Celebrities” February 2016.
(5) Pérez Escolano was a key at a discussion table at SEK University on the preservation and cataloguing of contemporary local heritage that has been affected in recent years by the lack of historiographical control of the modern movement architecture. It is linked to a soft legislation for its preservation. This soft legislation and the power of the public administration combined with the lack of knowledge on the subject, places above the architectural and urban pre-existing, the interests of the real estate projects that respond to specific interests rather than to a city concept. The table consisted of Victor Perez Escolano, Stefano Storchi, Donn Holohan, Giuliano Pastorelli, Alvaro Puntoni and Verónica Rosero.
(6) Donn Holohan (Ireland), from the University of Hong Kong, closed the BAQ with a critical stance against architecture as an altruistic profession: “Humanitarian” architecture has no pure motive - the architect is not primarily an altruist. A more polemical view today is that the architect is inherently selfish and wants to build, to create – and that the profession of architecture requires this selfishness. The selfish architect benefits society - not in his or her charitable inclinations but in the fight to survive, to create architecture, to re-establish its relevance, and to take control once more of the building process. The architect's value is not, perhaps, as an ethical or moral authority, but as a practitioner who is capable of making connected decisions, of reconciling the interests of individuals with the goals of society. While our responsibility is to increase engagement with all aspects of the built environment, our tools are fundamentally material, spatial and technical.
