Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/566702
182 CULTURED H is practice has focused on projects that reflect his mission to use architecture to better serve society and address some of its most critical problems. Already, he has garnered international acclaim and attention for his achievements in the area of social housing. In addition to other public impact projects, his firm has designed buildings for universities and the Vitra campus in Germany, among others. A recipient of multiple international awards, Alejandro Aravena has taught at Harvard Graduate School of Design, published several books and has had his work featured in many exhibitions and biennales. He is a member of the distinguished Pritzker Prize Jury and an International Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. A few weeks before it was announced that he was appointed artistic director for the Venice Architectural Biennale 2016, Cathy Leff spoke with Aravena about the "battle to be won," which will be the focus of the Biennale, and the gap between architecture and social need. Cathy Leff: You have become recognized globally as a game-changer in the area of social housing. Alejandro Aravena: And yet, I feel that we haven't changed a thing. The mainstream keeps building millions of housing units with an approach that is business-as-usual, despite the fact that we have proven that better social housing doesn't need to cost more. In the built environment, incentives go to the "second mover." The innovator—the one who moves first—cannot protect his or her invention. If you succeed, everyone copies you; if you fail, you bear the loss alone. So, it's paradise for the conservatives. How and when did your interest and work in this area begin? In 2000 I was invited to teach at Harvard's Graduate School of Design. I was looking for a subject that would capture the positive moment Chilean architecture was experiencing. I learned that 60 percent of what was being built in Chile was state subsidized; but, I had no idea what that meant. So, I decided to make rigorous use of my ignorance, because sometimes—not always—in extremely charged and complex fields that tend to be paralyzed, like social housing, the stupid questions allow you to move forward. What were the forces in place that opened this field up to you? It was Andres Iacobelli, an engineer that I met at Harvard. He asked me, "Why don't we do something with social housing?" In my architect's mind, "do something" meant a book, an exhibition or a symposium. In his engineer and businessman's mind, "do something" meant founding a company that would follow exactly the same rules that everybody else follows in the marketplace, but prove them wrong: same budget, same policy, same time frame, same scale. Our point was, if the rules of the game are capitalism, let's apply them to everyone and not just to benefit the rich. Social housing in developing countries tends to be property- oriented, meaning the housing subsidy is the biggest transfer of public money into a family's asset. When buying a house, we expect its value to grow over time; that same premise should be applied to social housing. The problem is, however, today, social housing is more like buying a car than buying a property: its value depreciates. So we identified five design conditions that would enable social housing to gain value over time and become a positive family asset—enable it to have a parallel life as capital. This captured the attention of the government and the banking industry. Your company Elemental refers to itself as a "Do Tank." What's your process? We engage by doing projects. That's why we are not a "Think Tank" but a "Do Tank." The battle for a better built environment is neither a tantrum nor a romantic crusade. Locker room speeches aren't enough. It's worthier to take the risk for even a tiny victory—because when the problem is a big one, just one millimeter of improvement is relevant. Citizen involvement can be very complicated. How have you managed to work successfully with multiple agendas and multiple stakeholders? In the times we are living, with empowered citizens, inclusion is mandatory. But besides that, we learn things from people that we didn't know. Who, more than slum dwellers, know how to make the most efficient use of scarce resources? They, not us, know their priorities. Then, if they will be responsible for half of the built area, let's have them sitting at the table and split the tasks. The key is to understand that we don't ask people to come up with an answer; we want to identify the right question. Horizontality in the relationship is crucial. We couldn't care less if a majority votes for something that we consider professionally irresponsible. The same goes if they say something that makes sense, we don't have a problem changing our minds and recognizing that we made a mistake or judged something incorrectly. There seems to be tremendous innovation in urban thinking and urban solutions coming out of Latin America. Is this just a coincidence or is it really a hot bed of urban innovation that warrants more attention? We asked ourselves this same question and used the example of Volvo in Sweden and Bombardier in Canada. Are they smarter than we are? Is that why we are buying their buses and metros? That's always a possibility, but we thought they had the problem first. That is why they had to come up with a solution to move efficiently in urban areas. Once they addressed the problem, they were able to export their knowledge. Latin America achieved a rate of urbanization of around 80 percent from the 1970s. But, the newness was not in urbanization itself, but in dealing with the scarcity of resources and huge inequalities within our population as a result of it. That required us to come up with solutions that now have proven to be eye-opening for other parts of the world experiencing the same problems. Has being a Pritzker Prize juror influenced your ideas and practice? Absolutely. But it's been a blessing and a curse. The jury visits buildings on site. On one hand, this means that you are exposed to the highest level of architecture, which is incredible. At the same time, you are constantly reminded of how far you are from the peaks in our field, which humbles you, but which also eventually paralyzes you. I remember on more than one occasion having visited buildings that hit me in the face—and hard. I call them "F" moments; the first reaction is: Fuck! The second reaction is to call the office and stop everything that is on the boards. Start from scratch; we didn't understand a thing. Maybe the most important lesson has been to design to stand the test of time. What is most shocking is how so many buildings that were famous and trendy are now embarrassing. And how others that were under the radar are absolutely valid. It is crucial to avoid trendiness. Your firm has been described as one with a social conscience. Is there any type of project you wouldn't take on? A project that we wouldn't take on is one where the client is not willing to push the limits.