 So for years, I have been working on the idea of the kitchenless house, as many of you might know, because there's something provocative and at the same time kind of revealing of this act of eliminating the kitchen from the house. The actual generalized social refusal that this action often provokes allows us to understand the deep affections and assumptions that this domestic space arose. The kitchen has been one of the pieces that culturally has constitute the core of what Western culture understands by domesticity. Ideologically speaking, it has had a main role in the capitalist definition of the idea of home. So as I was saying that ideologically speaking it has had the main role in the definition in the capitalist definition of the idea of home as well as I as the ideological construction of the notion of family and subsequently in the creation of gender biases relations within the domestic sphere. This space-gender relationship has changed and evolved alongside the evolution of this social economic system and it can be traced back to its origins, to the origins of capitalism. The transition from feudalism to capitalism and I'm referring here to approximately the time span that goes from around the 15th century to the 18th century was characterized by the so-called primitive accumulation as Karl Marx defined it, which was based on the progressive concentration of land along with the appropriation and the formation of the idea of independent worker. A worker independent from the land who no longer pays the tax for working but think about the tides but becomes a wage earner. This with the separation of the wage, the image of the man as productive force was built. As Sylvia Federici indicates in her book titled Caliban and the Witch, this proto-capitalist process required the transformation of the body into a work machine and the submission of women for the production of the workforce. In that sense, primitive accumulation required not only the accumulation of goods but also the accumulation of differences and divisions within the working class in which hierarchies built on gender, age and race became constitutive of the formation of the modern proletariat, the one that we know. The idea of home was gradually built in the image and likeness of these structural changes progressively dividing and separating productive work spaces which were occupied by men from residential places of pre-production work occupied by women. This process of gender-based relational classification was reinforced with the first industrial revolution, especially during the 18th century and first half of the 19th century. At that moment what we can perceive is how homes were gradually stripped and liberated of workplaces, shops and other similar spaces of economic production. And they were already defined as places of care. And here recalling the terminology of Federici again, places of labor of love, which is basically work and thinking by women in the domestic sphere with no economical retribution that supports the other world, the productive labor. In that sense, we can see how this transformation, suddenly the house became detached from direct economical production and at the same time became an extension of the female body. From there the following industrial changes and technological revolutions, the second, the third and the actual fourth revolution had an effect on this space-gender relation, redefining and reinforcing this heteropatriarchal relation and influencing consequently the way the house has been designed and perceived. If during the first industrial revolution, the space of reproduction was progressively secluded from the space of production. During the second industrial revolution, which happened from the late 19th century to the 20th century, the emerge of new forms of energy, electricity among others, boosted the signification of the house, which became the space of efficiency housekeeping. In that sense, the redefinition of the kitchen and consequently of the home shows how the notion of efficiency was introduced to the domestic sphere. Tailorism and other productive methods related with efficiency and mass production were implemented into the home and it coincides as we will see later on with the emerge of the so-called domestic engineering. In other words, after productive labor remains detached from the domestic sphere, its ideology, efficiency and so on, is progressively introduced within the home. It is precisely at that moment, at the beginning of the 20th century, when productive labor started to be presented all of a sudden, not as a bargain, but as an effortless activity, especially thanks to this operation of new domestic appliances that brought the promise of the elimination of domestic labor. Of course, this was totally unfulfilled and this unfulfilled promise has to be understood in a moment of gradual introduction and incorporation of women as a labor force. This new almost magic and almighty devices defined the modern house and was supposed to solve the progressive inclusion of women into this productive labor. From then onwards, women were allegedly able, and I'm saying this between question marks, to do, the women was able to do both labor at the same time, productive and reproductive, perpetuating in that way and assuring the original system of power, despite contradicting precisely its initial gender space labor division with this promise productive and reproductive labor and started to converge under highly biased asymmetrical gender asymmetry. I don't want to stand myself too much on this, but something similar actually happened, technologically speaking, happened during the third industrial revolution. In that case, related with the appearance of media and their centrality in the house, think of the TV, for instance, as the main domestic object of this new capital power. If you want to read farther, I highly recommend Pornotopia by Paul de Prefiado, the book titled Pornotopia, where alongside media, Prefiado points out which extend the pharmacopornographic control of the body and its sexuality started to to travel the traditional relationship between gender, sexuality, power and domestic space. Obviously, race is still not yet there, as you can see in this image. Of course, all these changes that I'm presenting today are never progressive, neither evolutive, neither linear. History is more closer to a roller coaster with a lot of tracks and a lot of disruptions, not that close to a clean climb. And despite general tendencies, there are always exceptions and resistances. It is precisely during this moment of industrial change, every time that we change one industrial cycle to another, when most counter narratives emerge. Projects and proposals that try to re-envision and reshape this capitalist space gender bias relationship and other forms of exclusion. However, capital has permanently been able to engulf this stand, which ends up being swallowed by the very system it fights against. The system has the ability to see value in resistant architectures, and often then as well as engulf them. Today I will present how this happened in New York during the Second Industrial Revolution, and it's parallelism with the actual Fourth Revolution, the revolution that we live in, boosted by the merge of Internet. The following lecture is focused on women, but these processes of capital colonialists have affected the management and production of the body at large. As Poucault told us, it's really important here, there is no politics that is not a politics of bodies, bodies with race, with gender, sexuality and age that have been part of the construction of actual structures of power. So this narration, today's narration does not deny other colonial processes, this is just one of them, and it's really important to remember that. A few days ago, Polve Preciado, whom I just mentioned before, published in an article in El País, I totally recommend reading it. Describe how its society can be defined by the epidemic that threaten it, and by the way of organizing in front of it, organizing the society in front of it. So we could compare this, a similar question can be extended to our discussion today. Its society can be defined by how reproduction labor is understood and the way of organizing it. In these days, during which a space of care and heal are more needed, visible and built in a daily manner through Internet, it is a good time to once again question the state of historical, the state of historical conflict between productive and reproductive labor and its related architectures and economies in the actual digital and mutating a sin. The simple exercise to describe reproductive labor and its bodies and architectures and builds a lot from a particular society. Maybe it would be good to do, or the first step could be to eliminate the old labor dichotomy between productive and reproductive. So the content of this lecture will be published soon in a book, so stay tuned please, and it's actually a result of eight years of research that ended up being a PhD that I finished in 2014, some of six years ago already, and it deals with this particular typology that birthed in New York. So on the verge of the 20th century, a city's night in New York were full with apartments, with apartment buildings with no kitchens instead. So these kitchenless apartments that were equipped with collective housekeeping services such centralized vacuum systems, nurse series, sharemates, collective kitchens, and so on, and meals could be served either in each apartment or in a common dining room usually. The disappearance of the kitchen from the physical space at the time, from the physical space of the house at the time involved a whole reconfiguration of the domestic realm, really finding the spaces of reproduction labor and its economic value and the role of women at home. So the story, the history of these kitchenless apartments dates back to the economic depression that followed the American Civil War. We are in 1860, 1865, when due to the lack of land and the lack of housing stock, most of North American cities needed to build apartments at lower costs for middle class tenants. Working families with median salaries as teacher, artist, vendors, and so on, could neither afford to buy it or rent the existing townhouses, neither accept to leave in a tenement building which at the time lack of facilities, bathrooms, and so on, and which were usually overcrowded as the units that you see as well as they usually had a lack of healthiness and therefore there was a lot of stigma against them. At the time, in the US, tenement was the only existing collective for housing typology, so there was a huge niche, an urgent niche of new type of multi-development building. So in the moment different housing typologies have started to appear and be tested. In fact, for very different reasons that I will explain later on, many of them include features that can be tracked to the domestic formulas and ideas that were proposed for certain ideological groups at the beginning of the 19th century, including the so-called social beauty of these visions that claim among other things the collectivation of housekeeping among other things as well, the kitchen. A moment led by Ari de Saint-Simon, Jean-Fourrière, Etienne Calvé, and Robert Owens, among others, that emerged as a response to precisely the first industrial revolution and tried to reformulate, among other things, labor and social structures that were established in the emerging capitalist system. So we have to have in mind that at the time in the States in the early 19th century was a hive for new and radical ideas. After decades it is still relevant, even if this project was passed long time ago, it's still relevant to go back also to books such as Seven America Utopias or the famous book titled Grand Domestic Revolution by Dolores Haydn to get the flavor of the complex of that map of alternative ideologies of the 19th century in North America, some of which were introduced consciously or unconsciously in the core of this fast growing capitalist system. We have to have in mind that precisely Robert Owens, an industrialist and social reformer, came to the United States in 1824, really to put his theories in practice after having successfully led the community in New Lanark. Together with the architect, Stanman Whitewell, founded New Harmony, the one that we have in the picture, which they designed a multifamily housing building with community service and collective kitchen. Despite the fact that the building was never built, it had a greater social repercussion and around 15 similar communities appear soon after in Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, et cetera. 10 years later, in the 40s, in the 1840s, socialist enthusiasts gained ground again, full above all by the spread of foodies through the New York Tribune. A movement that reached a greater impact that Owens and influenced the formation of around 30 communities in northeastern territories of the United States. The research on this 19th century social utopias in the United States has been very extensive and very well known, in particular the relation with the feminist movements, and I'm recalling here again Haydn, but also Ungers, among others. However, some ideas contained in these utopian projects have been sometimes presented disconnected of their operational nature, as if there were more radical speculation without direct consequences on capitalist society. Bringing them today allow us to visualize the existing sometimes buried links between these two apparent unrelated walls, socialist and capitalist, and also help us understand their intimate connection. Of course, the threat is really fragile and never linear. Links are often silent and conscious or simply have disappeared. In fact, on many occasions, the principle that founded socialist projects were deactivated and idealized upon arriving in Manhattan. But it is already known the prevailing appropriation of ideas of the various origins, sometimes antagonistic and conveniently neutralized that capital reuse in its favor. Almost actually going back to New York. Most of these New York buildings with shared domestic infrastructures were presented as a combination of the European apartment type with the American hotel type the denying totally its socialist influence and claiming it's a lack of ideology or its notality as if that could happen. When the kitchen as topology is emerged, despite some critics among the conservative ideological sector for its excess of collectives, it was successfully received. Thanks to these, this apparent neutrality, especially among those who did not meet the strict profile of the prevailing family standards at the time consisting of a married couple with several children. This apartment with collective domestic services, probably called family hotels or apartment hotels, were considered as to social progress and attractive alternative for reduced families, couples without children and singles. Paradoxically by means of eliminating the kitchen, these new apartment types were able to cover a wider social range. The promoters understood the house as a domestic machinery of comfort composed by a spaces and services on demand, which were able both the spaces and services were able to redefine to be redefined permanently and restructure in order to answer to a 19th century society in permanent change. The collective house with shared spaces was understood not as an apparatus to distribute wealth as the social utopists considered, but as a commodity and very into navigants were understood not as equal bodies, but as consumers. In 1971, one year after the first apartment building was built in New York, it opened an apartment building with auto services. It was an adaptation of an old family into a multifamily, the wedding for 20 family and several bachelors. The building was called a house is the one that you have in the picture and it had five floors for the voted to family apartments and five on the fifth floor devoted to virtual apartments. In the basement laundry and a collective kitchen's could serve through a system of them voiders to the different apartments meals could be served in a common dining room or in each apartment on demand. And all the apartments were actually connected thanks to pneumatics to an electric bus to this to this kitchen and the reception of the building. Right after the, the head house, the students and the cross banner were built this last one. It was actually the first one to open its restaurant to the public becoming a urban institution in between so with a given character in between the mess and domestic and the public as fair. And expanding clearly its commercial capacity through the restaurant. It was through consumers that the inhabitants could be easy merged with citizens blurring intimacies and publicities. After this one after these first cases hundreds of them were built in Manhattan. This technology between apartment hotel was extremely successful. They not only reduce significantly the cost of living but also eliminate private housekeeping and consequently redefine as I was mentioning before the role of woman at home. Life in this new apartment therefore constitute at some point an alternative that had more to do with increasing comfort than lowering cost, especially for women or families that simply saw and try to find to leave behind productive labor. Some of these diversity. And the diversity of the, of the dwellers is presented a diverse range of apartments we can find from small ones as the one that you have on the image to with just to run to the bathroom to extremely large ones as this one the after apartment house that contains their two apartments per floor, many many diverse rooms but no kitchen. And also it's interesting to recall that we know through the press that the success of these apartments, not only occur in New York. So the story that I'm spending to here today could be expanded to other cities. And it's interesting to see that the arrangement of most of these first kitchen less apartments is very similar to this to this division of a pre-existing detached house. They usually were distributed into floors. It was an important convention for the middle class of that time to distinguish hide in the public area from the most private rooms, making an acceptable for instance to arrange bedrooms next to living rooms or dining rooms. Therefore the first apartment buildings used to be distributed in different heights. So if you imagine that in that sense is easy also to understand that the kitchen could be easily removed to another floor out even outside the house or even shared in order to avoid this mix of uses. It is also interesting to see how usually in this first apartments, they use simple tricks as placing the few stairs to divide these users per high. So with these high tricks, we understand how despite its collective or a patterned public condition, this new typology emerged clearly as a well to perpetuate class distinction, differentiating its middle class inhabitants from those from the low income working class. That usually the well in the so-called tenants. It was then therefore also an architectural apparatus for social class construction and representation based on sharing. During this year the years examples were built around five avenue as you see on the map, but after opening the elevator, the elevated railroad along an avenue in 1879, most of them were built in the upper west side area, one that you really know. The bear sport when completed in 1889 was totally isolated and so from the last floor. One could enjoy a spectacular spews from center park suddenly access easy accessibility thanks to the elevator and be used that were offered thanks to this hybrid buildings. The top force were of desire. And started to be covered in and change into an attractive place to provide public rooms and gardens on the decks. The best for place here it's dining place and it's restaurant and as the bear for the many other building and started to open its roof. For social engagement spaces that were considered to be public and obviously public and however obviously with a lot of racial and economic biases. In contrast to the hide house this upper west side buildings were much larger and most of the apartment's lack of kitchens and had flexible and had some sort of flexibility as you see in the images they were extremely large most of them. And I was saying the flexibility was valued. So, they start composing the apartments in order to have that and rooms could be added or subtracted depending on the need. I will tell the one that you have an image for instance offer different size apartments. The key was this, these rooms that were halfway in between two apartments and communicated both simultaneously, allowing to as large, either one or the other or connecting both. Then Sonya also in the upper west side still built and existing and also offered some flexible apartments and there was a room that could be extended that I joining to the different apartments on demand. And, and you can tell that the potential for such buildings to offer apartments of different size was considered an asset in satisfying the demands of a wider demographic range. In the end Sonya for instance, the offerings a span from one bedroom apartment to with no bathrooms and no kitchen so just one room to 14 apartments bedroom with several rooms, both with or without the kitchen. So the kitchen is started also to be offered in this kitchen apartment of this. And in the end Sonya residents could eat either in the private rooms or in the common dining rooms as usual, but also the you should have to consider that then these rooms are larger it's private to its collective dining room had the capacity of 1,300 people. And the building had all kinds of fantastic facilities for the comfort of residents as a pool in the basement, a large bathroom, a gym and a parking. And even at the rooftop there was a farm, which had 500 chickens, ducks and goats. And each day they could serve fresh milk and eggs to the residents. So suddenly large numbers and extraordinary collective facilities and services were the height of these emerging kids less type based on consumer domestic consumers. And the expansion of this commercial domestic infrastructures had its peak between that day 1901 and 1929. Alongside the comfort of living in a car with collective domestic services part of the success was due to a new law, the enactment of the 10 man house law, which regulated the conditions of residential buildings, the law left kids less apartment buildings out of its scope, and suddenly on a given site after 1901 an apartment auto could build higher and larger than other building types. So kitchen apartments, for instance, these loser legal framework made hotels clearly advantages for developers who saw them as really good investments. At the same time, due to the law, and this economical situation, could rents could be therefore reduced, making collective domestic services affordable to a wider social range, expanding them for the consumer audience, and also then expanding the market. So it's important to recall how law influence this, this living tendencies and housing markets. During those first years another proposal came that came up with. This is really important to see this map of these expanding dots that showed the impact of the law. It's also interesting to to see how during these first decades, another other proposals came up of interest among them, there was some other proposals to decrease housing loss, housing cost. Among them, there was the multi ownership system, commonly called even until today, a cooperative housing. So the high price of rent in New York push Philip, to introduce a new ownership system in which for the first time, future residents could be organized to build their own apartment building. This formula allowed to reduce cost and facilitate access to housing. In addition to providing remnant apartments, so more than initially inhabitants that could be rented to help amortize the initial investment. Uber argued that the French apartments built for the raising bourgeoisie during that time could not be considered as such for the regime. Because since then they did not take advantage of the collection of the idea of the collective. And in his opinion, they were simply single families, single family houses, place one on top of the other. And like the French type at Uber home clubs, as he called his company, his initiative, owners paid a monthly fee. So there was a little bit of fee to cover the cost of the building, which included not only the maintenance of the building itself, but also the maintenance of collective spaces and services as a roof garden or baby supply of ice and coal, among others. Almost any type of collective need was covered in this Uber home clubs. Something that wouldn't surprise us if we knew that Uber was actually closely related to Fourier theories, the social utopists that I mentioned before. And precisely, he knew really close the idea of cooperative housekeeping and similar social proposals. In fact, his father, Charles-Antoine Colom, Jean Berth, was the architect of the famous Fourier family's Bertha, placed in Conde-sur-Berthes. So this relation allowed Uber to know closely the social utopies, utopias. In this sense, the figure of Uber is quite paradigmatic in terms of to understand the multiple existing connections between theoretical, political, ideological positions close to utopian socialists, and many of the housing buildings with collective services that emerge in New York at that time. Uber was fully aware of these advantages of living collectively and among other things in his promotions. He also included several examples that included collective kitchens and kitchenless apartments as a one that you have in the image. The Seville or also the really well-known Chelsea Hotel, which was built in 1883 and you might know it. And which despite their more enormous success that it had, it closed, it had to close in 1905 and it was turned into an hotel. Another important thing and crucial thing happened at the verge of the century. During the first half of the 20th century, the kitchen, especially the minimum kitchen, became a political tool able to link macroeconomies with microeconomies. The consequences of this are still evident even nowadays and suddenly productive and reproductive labor became compatible, both at the same time. The first minimum kitchen and compact kitchen has been historically related to the Frankfurt kitchen designed by Margaret Schutely-Hotsky in 1926. Of course, Schutely-Hotsky ideas were considered as a flagship of early modernist within the domestic sphere where neither isolated nor created from scratch. By the time, Schutely-Hotsky was quite appointed with theories coming from North America and specifically from the domestic engineer Christine Frederick, whose book The New Housekeeping Efficiency Siding Home Management, published in 1913, was actually translated in German in 1922. So Frederick was interested in turning the kitchen more efficient for everyday use by applying motion studies and other theories for this method. The kitchen was a home labor device where everything well-organized and compact in order to facilitate daily cooking and other housekeeping works. Meanwhile, this is a story that you probably all know of this paradigmatic fitted kitchen and the Frankfurt kitchen is extremely well known, as well as the influence with and the relation with Christine Frederick theories about domestic engineering and labor saving devices and so on. Their impact on the design of the so-called modern kitchen is the relation between the North America and the so-called modern kitchen is well known. There's a side of this North America story that has usually been missed and forgotten and it's really important to bring it here today. To recreate that oversight key is actually really key to understand the actual condition of the kitchen as well as the relation, the contemporary relation between reproductive and productive labor. Prior to Frederick's studies, as apartment hotels, this kitchenless housing of New York became widespread, began to be widely used in the kitchenette to designate a kitchen typology that could occupy and reduce the space. The kitchenette appeared initially way before the modern kitchen and the compact kitchen as a commodity for this kitchenless residence, offering them the possibility of cooking in the apartment in a timely manner. Before its appearance, its commercial appearance, it was already usual that tenants installed makeshift gadgets as one you see for occasional cooking in the room. And actually thanks to the emerge of electricity during this industrial revolution, the soffs and other gadgets end up occupying any corner of the room or even a closet to allow to cook from time to time. Behind this improvised existence was, in the first place, an economical reason. It was being able to prepare some of these meals in the kitcheness apartment and as the collective meal allowed to save a lot of money at the end of the month. But also there was a much simpler and holistic desire that was just to be able to cook once in a while. Thanks to the central kitchen, the annoyances of the cooking were erased and these new kitchen devices allow us to understand cooking for the first time as a pleasure rather than a beauty. And it's something that is still really contemporary. It's a charm that at the time resides precisely in the optional nature of its use, either for the comfort, you know, or the pleasure of doing it. A sense of cooking for leisure emerged precisely then when reproductive labor was eliminated from the daily routine, and in the state until nowadays, even if reproductive labor is still in our routine. These culinary devices became really soon commodities, being commercialized and objects of study and debate. Tiny ovens, toasters, kettles and endless easily installing small appliances began to articulate articles of opinion and advertisements, which were devoted to, you know, say, the beer steers and which were superior to what etc. And what is interesting is that progressively the minimum kitchen suddenly emerged also as a complete product, as another product by itself, offering all cooking devices, all those little devices in one. So it was produced as a complex piece of furniture and usually commercialized, as you will see, along other pieces of flexible furniture, allowing to convert any alcoves in a kitchen suddenly. The Beth Murphy Co, and among other companies, as the White Doorbeck Co, as you see, produced a series of units, either alone or combined, that made it possible to equip minimum cuisine anywhere. A wide range of purpose-built devices for reproductive labor were also commercialized as well by these companies. Really interesting, cubicles for clean clothes and dirty clothes to be sent to the laundry, storage containers for raw and cooked food, or even a refrigerator cabinet that was popularized decades later by Le Corbusier at the Lunité d'Avitation. Clearly, the compact kitchen, looking to this, did not arise so much because of the need of optimized organization of the kitchen, a typical labor saving and modern argument, but it raised to meet an existing need in this kitchen-less housing and expand its commercial capacity. Also, it is indeniable that its origin, the kitchenette, was a product of furniture and a space-saving device. Progressively, its image became loaded with other meanings and connotations, and among them already explained domestic efficiency. During the First World War, the concept of efficiency was applied everywhere, but especially to housing. Since men were mobilized to the military, women had to fill their job vacancies, highlighting the already existing incompatibility between housekeeping and business hours, between productive and reproductive labor. Many articles then were published about the Christian Frederick Domestic Scientific Methods that gave, among other theories, women the opportunity to earn domestic engineering degree, so elevating the category of housework to science. It appeared then what they call the already mentioned the term domestic engineering. Supposedly, thanks to these new methodologies, women were able to execute a higher number of household scores with less effort, quite a boom in a war time. However, this interest in mixing science and education and engineering with household actually started way before domestic engineering emerged. During the 1870s, in response to the progressive industrialization of the American society, the so-called cooking schools began to appear. Since the beginning of this relation between education and domesticity, there was a dilemma regarding what was sought from the study and professionalization of domestic work. Among those supporters of the domestic scientists, two groups could be clearly discerned. On one hand, there was those who considered that professionalization of domestic work was necessary to facilitate some houseworks while maintaining certain values of women as a center of the house. On the other hand, there were those who believed that domestic professionalization and collectivization would offer to women access to academic studies plus work outside the home. The evolution of this compact kitchen, of this kitchenette and the change of values of this minimal kitchen suffer. So the change of values of this minimal kitchen suffer during these first decades are totally related with these two narrations and ways of understanding the professionalization of domestic work that emerged in the 19th century. After the first kitchenette appeared to give another service to those apartments without kitchens and that had collective kitchens instead. They were, again, remember important to say they were a device more to allow domestic versatility and maybe consciously or unconsciously they were in pro of the independence of women from home. The growing interest in labor-saving devices meant that the kitchenette lost progressively its original cooperative character and gained autonomy. It's a small size which responded to be compact, responded initially to the dimension zone of a closet and it responded to the fact that there was another larger collective kitchen. Suddenly gradually became understood as an instrument through which women were able to carry out domestic tasks quickly, efficiently and autonomously. And so gradually this engineering autonomy based on Fordy's falls into a contradiction, really difficult to solve because Frederick and others tried to apply scientific methods which Fordy's and Taylor's which based on the division of works and the specialization and not on a single woman on many and they claim it to apply it on a single woman. Relying on the housewife as a unique housekeeper made the division of work impossible. In this deep contradiction, the kitchenette became the perfect magical device through which this labor problem could be apparently solved. Many reasons cause that by the time the Frankfurt kitchen was designed, the kitchenette had lost all the implications and dependencies with a large infrastructure and it was totally forgotten. The debate initiated during this 80s, the 80s, 70s in the schools about reproductive labor and productive labor was solved thanks to this device. And many and type of a commercial living on the cards were both labors were wage and not necessarily feminine. I started it decay as we will see. But let me go backwards to specifically New York and talk and start talking, it's pick and decay of the type. The first world war not only had an impact on the social role of women with the start of the conflict in 1914, the reconstruct the construction sector totally stopped. And the housing affecting the housing stock and stock. And, however, the population of the city kept raising recognizing this emergency situation in 1920 of the state of New York allow Muslim municipalities to waive taxes during 10 years for residential building construction. The effect was immediate and led to a construction boom of housing. This period of prosperity and growth last until the famous depression that started happening in 1929. During these years and numerous again a lot of kitchen less apartment buildings were built. That's typically papers from the processors basically due to the application of the 1916 zoning law, which limited and define the volumetric growth of the city. So the characteristic figure at profile of the law that depended on the shape, which the shape dependent on the area that the building was placed in. It was interesting to see how this dependency aspect to the form because actually the greater were the lots. The greater the proportion of the building area surface could be therefore investors tended to value larger clubs and larger buildings. The apartment hotels were not an exception to the rule and they began to combine different uses within the so called envelope to give substance to such large infrastructures. The apartment hotels was first combined with other uses increasing further the collective and urban character. For instance, the one that you have an image combine an art center with various apartments and collective domestic services. The law also allowed that the 25% of the plot area could grow without limit. So as far as technical skills or financial constraints allowed, obviously the larger the plot, the greater was also this 25%. I encourage many permanent hotels not only to occupy large lots but also to block and fulfill this 25% formalizing high residential towers. Precisely that's when it appeared a new type of apartment that allowed to live literally in high. The progression of high residential buildings in those years was extreme. If in 1924 the tallest building in Manhattan had 28 floors. In 1928, there was already a project to build the residential tower of 58. So just 30 floors more in four years. So kind of what it's happening now again. Thanks to the setbacks of this envelope also appear potential areas that could be used as private services. The homes, for instance, of the world of towers were announced kitschels, by the way, and were announced in turn showing a sense of this dream of hanging gardens as one of the attractions of living having in heaven. To do this new shape, the fantastic flat rooftops that used to occupy the Upper West Side and offer popular social spaces during the 19th century progressively disappear in favor of private terraces. The private prion took over the collective one and a new system of value based on privatization of height and the air emerge. The rich tower, for instance, was exemplary in this up in this aspect above the ground. There was a total of 400 rooms and divided in from apartment from one room to 18 rooms and the tallest, the betters and the tallest, the biggest. So, so the privilege of raising this towers invited to include larger apartments that could rented at higher prices in higher floors, while lower apartments were reserved to lower and adjusted income. So somehow the famous New York envelope and its endless 25% was the ultimate capital tool at the beginning of the 20th century to reshape class and economic value eliminated most of collectiveness basis in New York City in favor of wealth accumulation. In parallel to the change posed by this domestic idea that was taken over the city, New York hotel industry also started to begin to take the view of the successful of this past growing topology is kitchenless topology. And in late 1926 decided to undertake a series of lawsuits against its competitors. According to the lobby apartments hotels could not be considered to hotel since they must be had permanent residents and they should be considered equal to apartment buildings and regulated by their much more restrictive housing law. So, suddenly newspapers started to publish frequent articles informing and warning about the penalties and legal proceedings taken against the owners and inhabitants as well of such buildings along with this bias and political agenda. This continuous legal proceedings and force with strong penalties. Disemnated in printed media where effect and effective, but really good effective mechanisms to the value the image of this kitchenless homes. Accusation and counter accusations later known as the famous bootleg hotel came to a conclusion in the spring of 1929, with the approval of a new housing law, called multiple the willing law that explicitly include that apartment hotels prescribing the same limitations of occupations and bother and volume that were mandatory for the rest of the rest of housing types. So suddenly kitchen apartments with collective devices, services story, lost some of the privileges and consequently their economic viability. So it was the start of the decade. This new legal policy defined under the pressure of the auto lobby and compound by the reevaluation and mediation. And as I explained about the new housekeeping and the role of women. Through this, the race of domestic engineering, produce the decline of this popular models be bendy that had to work quite cohesively until 1929. We have also to have in mind that this progressive crisis also succeed due to the emerge of the first red scar as care, which follow the Bolshevik Russian Revolution in 1917. And the promotion of fear of potential rise of communists in the United States invited to be afraid of any type of collectivity. Suddenly sharing was related to a particular ideology with it was not clear until then, and it was seen as a mechanism of governmental control against freedom. In the mid of the 30s, after the economic crisis of 1929, most of these apartment, kitchen apartment, couldn't manage to survive. And the heyday of a typology is started to be to disappear and erase the space and it's a pity that, you know, we had this ideology that was able to erase actually the species of reproduction labor from the domestic sphere and it started to be over. Well, I think it's interesting to understand today is that after one century later, the bootleg hotel polemic kind of recalls some conflicts around online platforms are Airbnb and similar ones. They are shifting as it happened at the time, home values and domestic economies. Nowadays, the house is not longer just changing a space for our belongings and a space for care, but the transient and productive and network space that answer to our needs through the use of apps and similar Not long ago, a family would still gather around the TV and nowadays in the boost of this fourth industrial revolution run by this, the new the digital technologies and Internet and new social engaging with new social Characters engaged with the atomization of devices and the increase of on demand of demand of services online and spaces Due to this online reality in our cities uses and functions merge more and more, both in the urban and the domestic sphere houses and workplaces become increasingly closer one to another. The number of people working from home is increasingly alongside the number of number of citizens who use their homes as productive spaces reproduction and production are getting closer once again. Currently, I'm sorry, the spaces I mean, currently digital platforms allow People not only to work from home but also to market their houses and domestic services online with ease turning the house once more in a productive Space for product in a space for collective labor that extends beyond housework. And we all know that from people renting rooms online to Obscending domestic food as well online, etc, etc. Even leisure leisure has a leisure labor have been merged in a really dangerous manner in this 24 seven real Again, as Paul Vepreciado recalls in the article that I mentioned before, I totally recommend to read today we are moving from a writing society to a civil society from an organic society to a digital society from an industrial economy to an immaterial economy From a form of disciplinary and architectural control to forms of micro prosthetic and media cybernetic control The limit of our houses and are not just physical any longer are cybernetic Under this new scenario, productive and reproductive labor spaces and their relation with bodies and capital once again is being reshaped and redefined under new systems of control The first growing online practices has found an unregulated situation, which is prolific for changes in this patriarchal colonial and extra extra Regime unfortunately at the same time. It's also easy for the fast capitalist appropriation Contemporary and regulated domestic practices from renting rooms and took in home food as I understand online I was referring are being permanently discussed and debate as they are defining business traditional business models It's true that as it turned out the expansion of these platforms often goes against rights of of workforces Airbnb Uber and similar companies are just the peak of an iceberg of this type of unfair companies The corporate sharing economy took advantage of the situation that developed after the 2008 crisis and it took it as an opportunity to dismantle labor conditions, not by means to rethink the economic system And to make it fair by to achieve new levels of exploitation and concentration of wealth using digital nets In this process of the idea of the collective the comments and the concentration of wealth using online networks is really fast neutralized and has lost all this meaning So by engulfing and regulated online practices that capital is progressively also disabling the possibility of online mechanism of resistance So, however, I think that despite the neutralization of words and despite this new mechanism of Of discretion, the actual moment of mutation can allow us once again to envision new social and economic structures beyond the binary sexual and colonial model moving from an A theoretical model to a non hierarchical forms of space and reproduction of life The new industrial revolution brings once again the opportunity to redefinition of the established power