 Welcome everyone to the spring open house. I hope you enjoyed the day and were able to get a sense of the school. Certainly it's been great to have you all and to hear your questions and as a result it is helpful for us to get a sense of the school through your eyes and your set of questions. Tonight I couldn't be more thrilled to welcome our guest speaker. Few people are expanding architecture's potential in the world in as exciting ways as Andres Haake. Long time faculty here at GSAP, Andres is well known amongst our students, many of whom become his most avid fans after taking his studio or having him as a critic. And he is certainly a wonderful colleague always pushing all of us to reconsider what we're doing, what we mean and inviting us through his own work and the conversations he brings to open up new ways of seeing and of engaging through architecture and design. And so in the spirit of opening up and on the occasion of this being an open house for prospective students and future architects, I thought I would start by sharing a story of when I was a student as a way to cast what Andres' work means for me. In the first year of my B.Arc in architecture at McGill University in Montreal I found myself in an amazing class with classmates who have remained long time, lifelong friends. We would always critique each other's work in studio, share recent books and magazines we had taken out of the library, yes, the library, and talk about what was happening in the bigger cities, New York in particular. McGill was great but one of the things a group of us weren't on board with was the divorce between the design studio and the history theory classes caught between a very accomplished professional building program and a recently launched attempt at a phenomenological position for the school led by a renowned scholar named Alberto Perez Gomez who it seemed to us was very concerned with the western canon and Catholic churches in particular. We didn't feel we quite fit and we didn't find it reflected some of the questions we knew we had but couldn't articulate well enough yet. And so a group of us which later we realized were collectively brown-haired, red-haired with dreadlocks, with glasses, bald, Arab, Jewish, gay, black, and drogenous, etc. you get the picture of the group got together and started a reading and discussion group first called Feminism and Architecture and later called On Gender and Space. It was one of the most important non-class class I ever took which taints my thinking until today. But while the readings on Power, Gender, and Space were mind-blowing from Foucault to Judith Butler and from Derrida to Beatrice Colomina, amongst other the parallel architecture and design work that was emerging at the time was for me just not as powerful as the discourses they were trying to engage. And even with the few exceptional work that I found so compelling at the time the inevitability of the body, Jumi's falling figure or Diller and Scofidia's woman machine seemed unnerving. One would spend so much time articulating why the biological body didn't matter and that by the time that argument was made it left everyone hanging with what the real impact on architecture as architecture could be. And so my first encounter with Andres Haake's work almost 20 years later represented one of those aha moments. It was with his exquisitely beautiful, yummy and plastic, delicate yet powerful and just completely surprising installation at the architecture Biennale in 2010 entitled Frey from Home. Here everything that I would have hoped an architecture that engaged the issues we were discussing at the school was finally made tangible in all its spatial, structural, material, environmental, typological, programmatic, and political presence. But in addition the limits of body politics had now finally disappeared replaced by the deconstructed domestic spaces they inhabit and their intimacy as a literal, physical, gorgeous deconstruction which staged hanging in mid-air a cloud of apples and bananas, sharks and weird blue foam things all connected to register without ever showing the body the most intimate bodily actions now connected to the large territories of labor and extraction that are reshaping the entire face of the earth for our little individual comforts. Here was in one space the experience of our interconnectedness and the conflicts that design negotiates every day. And so Andres' work across its scales and mediums does what I believe is maybe the most important thing we can do today as architects to render the invisible visible not only through architecture and design but more importantly for us by situating architecture and design as the voice in which and through which our world likes to conceal things whether it is by showing all that was left out of the perfectly centered sequence of frames of the seminal Eames' power of ten or by letting Mises Barcelona pavilion's hidden basement come upstairs to suntan by the pool or whether it is by registering water systems in the city to create cosmic his beautiful soft porous and overscaled installation which turns solid at night when its floating tiny planktons light up the party in the courtyard of MoMA PS1 Andres' work urges us to look behind, to look above and under to zoom in and zoom out, to look differently but always to look through and with design and architecture for if architecture is an active agent in the concealing of the systems we operate within sometimes very literally architects, the experts at value engineering that we are could possibly re-engineer new values, project alternate relations and design other environments for the future there's so much more I could say about Andres' work and you have come here to hear him and not me so I will leave you with only two more things that touch me about Andres' work I love the pleasure and play and all the excess of life he reminds us we are capable of and want to thank him for the energy and all the he has already contributed to the school and will hopefully continue to exponentially contribute but also I love the ways in which Andres' work creates new audiences and communicates so fundamentally and viscerally to people across backgrounds and contexts and I suspect even to animals just as an example and in the spirit of giving stage to the sometimes invisible I want to thank Laila Cattelier who co-directs events as well as often assembles amazing notes for me to prepare my introductions sometimes I can see by her notes that she is just utterly bored by the speaker I am about to introduce but for tonight she wrote Andres puts so many great things into the world this was so much easier for me so thanks Laila for all your hard work and thoughtfulness and please join me in welcoming Andres Haki Well thank you very much for this emotional and exciting and fun presentation that I love I'm very honoured to be here today in such a special day the open house is one of the most exciting moments in the school and in this school that is in itself so important and so much in the centre of many discussions and possibilities Thank you to all of you for being here I'm very very very honoured and excited to talk to you I'll go to the point and I will propose everyone to take notes because I'm going to be very fast so if there's something that you're missing take notes and I'll be happy to respond somehow afterwards In the last years I've been trying with my office the office for political innovation we've been trying to look at architecture as an opportunity to rethink politics architecture is in the middle of so many things it's mediating almost in every situation that we're part of and we've been trying to see what is the angles and the sections that could enable us to understand what are the specific forms of politics that are played and performed by architecture and we've been looking for instance on the way bodies are kind of becoming public spaces or at least the tradition of public spaces moving to something that is much more embodied or for instance what are the possibilities of cosmopolitanics the encounter of different natures together with non-natures and what is the way that we could invent and somehow perform co-inhabitants or for instance what are the specific forms of politics that are happening in domesticity now and what are the ones that are connecting what happens in the kitchen with environmental discussion what happens when there's something that happens at the home that connects cells with or genes actually with the big scale of the galaxy and these connections are really something that for me are very exciting because I've often mediated through architecture or are happening by architecture I would say this is the work that we've been doing in the last years and whenever I look at the diagram I remember that there's a few things missing so we always do much more than what we should but what is important for me is that the work is very terogeneous if you see the lowest part like the bottom of it is works that normally would be identified as architecture like buildings, designs, you know plans, projects in general terms but all of this needed the development of many, many, many other things that are coming with it I think architecture is very trans-material in a way it's not something that happens only through bricks or through steel let's say that steel and bricks are only possible as part of a larger technological mobilization and in those mobilizations there's ideas agreements, fights discussions, words, sensitivities environments, many, many other things that are part of architecture and that are connected to the materiality of architecture I would like to go through that through these forms, three forms of politics and these trans-materiality of architectural devices and actions and performances through three different chapters the first one architecture has rendered society and I'd like to start with this photograph very fond of because it was I mean the Barcelona pavilion has been so much photographed but its basement the part of the building that is the biggest one the most important one in terms of volume and the one that is keeping all the mechanisms of the building had never been photographed before this is actually one of the but we see that this material is quite unique leaning on the concrete of this basement of the Barcelona pavilion we see that there's something very precious about this tinted glass and it's actually one of the glasses that was cladding the bottom of the lake where the Colbert sculpture is and when it broke basically it was removed very carefully and taken down there to the basement of things from the upper floor to the basement for me I'm fascinated with it what makes people do the effort of taking a piece of glass a broken piece of glass and taking it through the staircase to the basement and why it needs to be kept there in the basement this is Gata Niebla I've been studying Gata Niebla I would say died last year very sadly but I studied Gata Niebla for five years actually Gata Niebla is the product and the inhabitant and the producer at the same time of the pavilion so when we see the Colbert sculpture so many people have discussed the fact that the pavilion is producing subjects but Gata Niebla is really the fog cat would be the translation probably or the cat fog it's actually produced by the pavilion it's living in the pavilion and it's the one that is making sure that in the basement of the pavilion and in the upper floor there's no mice so actually the ecosystem of the pavilion is produced in part by Gata Niebla this is another photograph of the basement and I'm very very excited to see that even though those pieces of Travertine are no longer good enough to be in the upper part they are very carefully kept down there so it looks a little bit like a really high setting actually even the numbers are the ones that maybe Miss van der Rohe and Lily Rij would have chosen so there's something that connects culturally, emotionally, bodily the upper part with the basement that goes beyond any explanation this is the curtain this is a curtain in the upper part when it started to do like this it was taken down to the basement so the basement is playing a key like here this is the first one that was going through that trip basically this is the one that was removed from the reconstruction of the pavilion from the 80s and you see that this one is much more heavier than this one the one hanging there now is much lighter because this one, the first one was too heavy and removed the anchors of the guide from the plaster so basically we see here an experimental process a process of tentative design that has nothing to do with the possibility of moving ideas from Miss van der Rohe brain directly into matter there's the mediation of a whole industrial society that keeps transforming the pavilion and even though they tried to make it look like if it was the same pavilion that was opened by Miss van der Rohe and Alfonso Treze on the morning on the May morning of 1929 the whole pavilion is now different because the pavilion depends on industry it depends on experimentation it depends on aging materials it depends on many things that need to be preserved in the upper part as this was an instant frozen moment that didn't require society to be produced the pavilion in a way the upper floor and the section is a little bit like the portrait the picture of Dorian Gray that needs to be somehow a few things in the basement so we can preserve this kind of fiction that architects and myself love in a way this is the basement as it was being constructed and this is the basement now this is precisely what is behind the Colbert sculpture actually the photograph was a little bit not from the same position but from the very underneath the Colbert sculpture and this is the place for instance where the employees of the pavilion have lunch they're not allowed to have lunch in the upper floor but they are reconstructing their kind of emulation Colas not that different to the ones that Miss was doing after he completed the pavilion so for me there's something cultural that is connecting this together and still there was a huge effort on making or keeping the two parts divided this is the staircase that connects the upper floor with the basement when we look at this sign it normally would mean that the design was not that good that the architects didn't do a good job and actually they didn't get a license to use the basement but actually what is very striking to me is that this was the result of the intended design Ignacis de Sola Morales, Cristian Cidizzi and Fernando Ramos the architects who designed the reconstruction of the Barcelona pavilion at one point were very scared that the new director could come and use the basement as an exhibition space that could explain the upper part and in order to make it impossible they decided to prove or to design the pavilion somehow they embedded in the design this device that is a super poorly designed staircase that could never get a license for visitors to go to the basement and then the basement was kept forever as kind of this invisible domain to make invisible the parts of the pavilion that could deny the possibility of frozen or freezing at the morning of 1929 I would like now to see in detail these boxes here this is a part of the pavilion actually this is the room that is used by the gardener and what is very interesting for me about this is that these boxes these glass boxes were meant to reprogram the ecosystem of the pavilion this is a photograph from 1929 and you see that in the big lake there were these water lilies they were crucial to keep the water clean and that were as those that are familiar with the work of Miss van der Rohe know they were very common in the work of Miss van der Rohe there was a huge debate about water lilies in Germany at that time and of course if you see for instance they took and had they had a specific place for water lilies so water lilies were part of Miss van der Rohe architecture but somehow the architects who did the reconstruction literally when I was interviewing them they would say that they didn't see them that they would see the photographs and they would never realize that there were plants there they thought it was an accident that it was just part of the decoration that someone brought for the opening this is the way they reconstructed they reconstructed the lake and actually the way they did it made it impossible with this filtering like a swimming pool machinery system would make it impossible now to grow water lilies so the gardener at one point when people started to ask about the water lilies decided to go into an experiment and place in some glass boxes with fresh water in the middle of the chlorine pond and he would try to grow the water lilies himself but the water lilies would grow and when a leaf would reach the chlorine water the whole plant would die it would be an exciting moment because we see that architecture there's no way to fix architecture architecture is something that is permanently being experimented it's a materiality that depends on the capacity of a society to keep enacting architecture day after day and make it evolve according to the different ways of thinking this is somehow for me a beautiful image of Mies van der Roij a one that is capturing many things that are very present in the in the basement this is the where Gata Niebla lives this is where she spent almost her entire life in the dark of the basement I mean I switch on the the the water lilies in the dark of the basement I mean I switch on the the lights to take this picture but basically she would be in the dark and this is Gata Niebla and by being in the dark she developed Atrofia Macular so Gata Niebla was when I met her she was no longer able to see anything so she was navigating the pavilion without seeing Mies van der Roij's work so whereas we all are blind to the basement basement blind Gata Niebla was Mies blind but for me it's very interesting that she was embodying three different roles she was somehow ignoring Mies at the same time that she was producing Mies and at the same time that she was produced very much by the notion of that we architects have about Mies that is about this kind of clean Mies that requires a basement with a cat that kills the mice basically and that's where I think architecture does in a way we're all kind of audience the audience of architecture at the same time we're producing architecture but at the same time we're also produced by architecture and I think these three roles are overlap in a way that are in my opinion kind of the center of the discussion of architecture this is what we did basically what we did was messed up this distinction from the basement upstairs to for instance make it needed for the people the curators to ask the cleaning staff if that was a good way of putting the vacuum cleaner to basically subvert through the organization of the way objects were distributed between the upper floor and the basement the whole structure of power that was happening in the pavilion and this is kind of what I'm trying to do this is what the office for political innovation is trying to do we try to intervene on existing situations shaking, subverting reverting, revolting challenging or making of all ongoing power structures this is for instance the distribution of contemporary art centers in Madrid they're all in a very particular area but this one that I will tell you about afterwards and this is the distribution of at one point most active places where art and culture was happening in Madrid and it was a very different distribution but these people were never invited actually to these centers so at one point we were invited to do an intervention in the big square of the old slaughterhouse that had been transformed into a cultural center and we decided to propose to do these devices that we call the scarabox like a mixture of Beatles and voice giving devices that would be movable devices that would provide shade the main thing that was required from us by the clients, this institution but by using irrigation systems structures that were really cheap because they were mass produced we found a way to reassemble existing components and have an extra part of the budget that we could use to re-equip or to provide an extra plus of equipment to these saving devices and these things were basically computers projectors, speakers, lighting systems additional furniture rolling furniture we would call it so move around these are the scarabox being used in the square and at one point this was in Matadero became a laboratory for architecture and this was by far the smallest project that was developed there but it was the one that created actually the biggest audience so during the summer there's an average of 500 people that came here and what is very interesting for me is not only the number of people but the huge amount of and they're available for people to use them without being invited and what for me is interesting is that it became a place for instance where this is for instance a derby of independent magazines that was organized there and this is for instance a knife a throwing or whatever a spectacle this possibility of somehow develop an infrastructure that could be equipped with systems that could connect a society that is happening online with a society that is happening offline for instance one that is somehow just expecting to have fun with one that it's challenging culture or politics is what for me was interesting about this project the capacity of transforming the way different networks of the city were being connected through a material device a very kind of tiny and small in terms of material mobilization device that somehow could intervene all these networks something very different is for instance one of the last projects that we completed this which is basically a restaurant for a very experimental chef that we did in Madrid at the time that Madrid is suffering this invasion of hipster bars and restaurants that are all made of recycled wood all furniture what can I tell you this global hipster style but what is really interesting is that basically that style that looks so austere which all the implication that has in Europe is actually living behind all the artisans network in Madrid not that much recycling wood but were using leather, marble gold, metal and for us it was quite of a provocation to say that that environment that was very much catered into serving big franchises big companies, big brands that were opening places everywhere was really not the progressive way of doing things and it was probably much more interesting to look at all these material traditions that in the past were perceived as very luxurious but now they're very much attached of structures of labor and networks of artisans that are disappearing and that are being replaced by people that are working or by structures that are promoting a way of working on what can I tell you but what we did we worked with amazing engineers from BAC and we decided to do this a little bit like BAC Mr. Fuller experiment and we were using marble in its capacity for compression and we were doing a little bit of a tensegrity structure which ended up being very very appreciative of some people but there's many clients that are leaving messages like I won't eat in that restaurant again I'm super scared that the marble is killing me the next time and it's something similar in this series of architectures as render societies ways for architectural architectural action to basically subvert the way societies constituted and trying to find ways to rearticulate in existing networks we were asked to think of a way to consider being in or to think of a suburban house in Ibiza and at the time that Ibiza was very heavily being constructed we were working together with a number of activists to find ways for these sort of constructions to do a prototype of a house that could make it compatible the hedonistic life that the Ibiza dwellers are looking for in a way with the environmental wealth of a very particular valley Calabadela that was in which a number of experiments of housing were happening in which the possibility of bringing together nature with the hedonistic life of these newcomers was not even being discussed these are the plans that we did and for me drawing is something that has a political meaning we very carefully draw the geometry of the trees the paths of the animals that were going through the valley the paths of the ground that were permeable we draw them together with the life that was being introduced here and the geometry of the house was both registering all these requirements all the requirements of things that needed to be preserved and all the things that were somehow requested to be brought in this capacity of architecture to reassemble different natures is in a way what I was very interested on when we were doing this work but the house of course became kind of a nightmare this is for instance a number of models that we did to rethink the structure there's no need to tell you how many nightmares or the nightmare that it was to construct it at one point but this is the way it looks and it's been already there for a while and actually things are growing and the animals are kept there, the permeability of the ground is being maintained actually the services were and the mechanisms were introduced in this bunker to prevent any spaltz to happen on the ground okay number two multiplying the spectrum of the possible this is actually, well these things I have a certain obsession with years and this is from 1956 Georgie Kepes the new landscape the new landscape in art and science and for me it's quite exciting the whole tradition of the whole the way architecture is historically bringing together science with politics, with form, with aesthetics if we had to pay attention to a particular moment in which architecture was designing daily life in a radical way and mobilizing especially mobilizing science as the language with which architecture would speak probably would be this one and I'm very interested on the frame and what is in the frame of course everyone knows 1977 powers of 10 and the Imps have been framing I mean framing is their thing I think all these photographs are about a couple a very particular couple made this distinction between man and woman being brought together by self probably and framed by architecture and the Imps were really obsessed about frames I think and they were framing the social not only themselves but they were framing others so powers of 10 cannot be seen without acknowledging that it was super popular that it was distributed everywhere and that probably all of you have seen it in the same way that I've seen it if we look at the origins of powers of 10 this book Cosmic View The Universe in Forty Jumps that is again from one year later than Georgie Kepes' work 1957 so there was something happening 56-57 that was about science, daily life and architecture in a way Chris Bucke is not that much being studied and I'm very surprised that the discussion of the Imps has never found Chris Bucke that intensively Chris Bucke was the inventor of a very particular notion of democracy that was really literally not democracy he was proposing to move from a representation based democracy to democracy that was basically sociocracy as he called it that meant that the opinion of the majority would be imposed to the rest of the population a very particular idea that he defended through his book his 1945 book Democracy as It Should Be so this is Chris Bucke with his partner Betty Cadbury and Betty Cadbury is super important here because when he was thinking of good cities he was thinking of Cadbury City a town hall that Betty's father designed and constructed for his employees at Cadbury and it was a very complicated factory so Burnbull Village was not really a village it was actually a trust the idea that there could be a management system that could run society on behalf of those that were constituting society was very much the idea of sociocracy the idea of eliminating diversity through consensus there's the invention of the SUM of course the 1956 again of course the same year actually I think Georgie Kepers was doing a SUM at the same time the Angenieux was designing the famous SUM that was taken to the moon and was traveling to everywhere and was traveling to LA to the Emises offices and was used to suit powers of them inside it's something very particular it's actually the case the black case of the SUM is hiding the huge diversity of lenses that are needed to produce this illusion of non discontinuity this capacity of the lenses to move from one to another without being perceived depends on an architecture that is framing it as a black box hiding like the the whole social complexity that is needed to move from one scale to another to move from genes to bodies or from grass to galaxies or from grass to the control from loans and green to the control of a whole territorial expansion all those that complexity the need to hide it is also in the way powers of them was designed this is one of the one of the sketches of the story board of the first version of the story board from 1968 it's very interesting that someone erased it here virus this is a photograph that someone took from a scientific book they were actually trying to to see cells they were only collecting the beautiful pictures that they would find in science books someone found at one point but do you know what is happening here this is a cell that is being attacked by a virus that is injecting its DNA in the nucleus of the cell and it's actually invading it this is kind of a drama that is happening to this cell basically this was the moment that this photograph was removed from the story so powers of them is actually not much a project of inclusion what is that that is inside the frame a huge project of inclusion in which for instance virus diseases, disabilities other forms of technology other countries were never included in that frame this is the work that we did that Amal was mentioning that was presented in the first time in Lisbon here actually there's some people here that was repeated in Chicago and then it traveled to Mexico and many other places in Chicago actually it was very exciting because it was the place where the picnic was supposed to happen and what we were trying to do is a scientific experiment basically using theater as a way to reproduce the summing dynamic to prove that it was basically impossible that there was no way to have a picnic from the picnic and see the grass or the lawn we were trying to do a very basic experiment reproducing, reenacting the movie so we could see that it basically didn't work but there was another level when we were looking at the story there were so many things that were missing for instance the fact that Philip Morrison was actually if his body was the one place in the center we would probably have virus but he was suffering from polio and polio made him be in a wheelchair at the end of his life he was all his life living with disease and with what was perceived by others by disabilities but that was not of course in the movie or for instance the fact that Philip Morrison was the one place in the A-bomb in the plane that lived to Hiroshima was also an inter-escalar project of making something very small expand but of course the peaceful scene in the picnic was not reproducing or including the whole violence that the cold war was keeping there in that scene or for instance the fact that that Philip Morrison even though he says the galaxy is so empty he's the one, the scientist that is giving voice over in the movie even though he says the galaxy is so empty what is full and lively are neighborhoods but actually he was believing that we human could get in touch with aliens and he actually his ideas that were published in nature of course again in 1957 like everything else were the base for the construction of these antennas Mark is the expert and this antenna that was actually in 1977 the very year that Powers of 10 was released was getting this message from the outer space the wow message that was proving that there was a possibility for human to communicate with aliens but we could go on and on for instance the grass the lawn there was basically the moment that brilliant was patented by Monsanto what was called at that time a suburbian a suburbian dream by the New York Times because basically it was growing very slow so you didn't have to take care of it but of course it was reducing even though the president, the CEO of Monsanto at that time said we're just creating superior espices it was basically removing the huge biodiversity of all suburbian context in the US or for instance the phone that was used to shoot the phone was that was calibrated with these SIM cards that were taken from this super white skin woman that were basically making impossible for people of different skin tones to be reproduced by Kodak for decades since very recent it was really very difficult to calibrate Kodak films when shooting people that were not similar to Cindy so all this and of course when we go the most critical moment probably it's the moment that the movie gets closer to the hand and it goes to the hand of this guy of course and it goes to the jeans all the way to the jeans there's a direct identification of jeans and gender at the time that of course in LA the discussion of transgender realities was huge this was already of course in 52 but this is in 53 and this is in this is what we did basically bring many of these long term activists and reenact the movie with them like in this case in Chicago so these are what we call the superpowers of them all these other presences that were not in the frame that seeing now backwards what powers of them was we see that probably is an agenda for contemporary architecture an agenda that has to do with technology that has to do with nature that has to do with environments that has to do with corporations that has to do with forms of politics and somehow I would propose that an interior design project that somehow we wanted to inhabit as designers and that's why we're there actually but also it was inhabited by others and that is for me very important this is the use that Bruno Latour gave to this radical interior design and for me it's very important that the discussions that we architects in our field are having are something that could connect with others and that are something that could help others also understand the political dimension of the time that we're living so the questions for instance that some of you were having before about the way design connects to politics and the way that that is connected to design I would say that many of the decisions many of the calibrations many of the dimensions, the aesthetics the technologies, the materialities the architectural practices are really embodying already a big part of the conflicts that our societies are discussing this is another this is another version of the same this is I could say the same probably with this this is a Catholic seminar kind of a minor seminar was called that these photographs in the 1950s were a big part of the priests that were that were later operating in the south of Europe were at one point being educated it was a huge institution that was built in the 15th century in this palace that you see behind and that as you see was not only an architecture of walls and bricks and stones but in the 50s when this photograph was taken was also an architecture of training and exercise but actually everyone's doing exercise at the same time and all the bodies seem to be responding to the same criteria the one of probably this person that probably is also controlled by another one and probably there's a kind of there was a super centralized way of controlling the production of bodies through architecture I insist on this was a key player here this is for instance the design of the rooms where the children were sleeping in the 50s and as you see they had no doors and they were organized so a priest could go all around during the night watching what was happening in those places so for me what is very interesting is that the whole project of transforming the life of these people their bodies also transforming the way Europe was operating ideologically was very much constructed through architectural calibrations design calibrations that somehow were what we were invited to challenge when we want the competition to transform this building from being a seminar a minor seminar into a residence for elder priests that were coming back after being living their life as a prophet or priest elsewhere the building was very much designed there was this 15th century part of it the 19th century extension and then we were transforming all these and adding a new part here but basically our work consistent on rethinking the way this building would relate to the rest of the city the city of Placencia we were actually designing this garden for the people living here to relate to all these neighbors we were producing this other place here underneath that we cannot see here to invite people that are coming here to share a space with them we were actually providing direct access to the chapel so what happened in the chapel could be shared by the neighbors as well so the whole design was trying to bring porosity into a design that so far had been so close to the to the neighbors but what for me was most interesting was a collection of political toys that we introduced here and there to make it possible that for the people living here people like this to take decisions on the way the building would perform in their daily life I will tell you only about one of them for instance at one point we decided to divide the garden into different parts and give one of these parts like one of these lots to one of the people to each of the people of the persons living here in the house this is what happened a year later this is this guy here was actually becoming a big land operator in the Placencia clergy house he had convinced a number of his friends to let him take care of their lots and he's here watching us because the lot was in the middle of a big dispute this is actually the reconstruction of the dispute because this guy has decided to grow onions in his piece of land and there was a huge controversy of the people living here in this area that they thought it was very vulgar to have onions at the entrance of the clergy house so he teamed up with other people to support his onion project the other people started to grow flowers at the entrance so they mobilized flowers as a political tool to make it clear what their position was then this guy made it a big thing about sharing the onions with everyone and he would be organizing dinners with others and then they did the ultimate move they brought an expert a neighbor that was a professional gardener that was asked if onions was a good idea here in the garden and she said she certified that onions were not the proper way to receive people in the garden of the clergy house so for me what is important is that architecture can be a political ground an arena in which daily life controversies could be channeled and in which actually the design could promote forms of rendering the social that are not necessarily consensual are not like this picnic of the emesis in which basically difference in minorities are removed but it's possible for instance people like this lady that was in the flower part not to speak to these people but still sharing the same infrastructure and being part of the same party this is something that we're trying to do now at other scales with projects like this this is in Vasby in Sweden where there's a huge lack of housing at this point and we're developing a project a housing project for a thousand apartments that is basically trying to provide an infrastructure that could capture the diversity the Vasby society is made of or for instance this project that we're in the middle of doing now that was basically a transformation of an existing contemporary art museum we want the competition proposing not to demolish the museum but to propose a a progressive transformation step by step of the existing building that was a very kind of ugly and not interesting building that was possible to transform and to reprogram and the advantage of not demolishing the new one is that we could do that without closing the museum and each step of the transformation could be an opportunity for artists to intervene and actually a possibility for the museum to rediscuss what their audience was so a museum that started with a very conventional audience and very limited one during the course of the transformation for instance this is the moment that we demolish this house that was actually inside the museum and was preventing this space to be in very flexible but then we did it in a way that the first thing that would happen even before we finish the transformation of this part of the building was that Sergio Prego could do this amazing inflatable installation and that invited new publics to come to the museum so the whole process of transformation was open was black boxed as an opportunity for the museum to gain new audiences and for instance this is probably the case this is one of the parts that is already finished that is this 25 meter tall multifunctional space that we designed basically by removing things that were there that was recently transformed into this sort of TV set that was used to bring bogging into the museum and for three months now the museum has been operating every day and that has been an opportunity to invite many people that were operating around the museum and that were doing all these things in the street and use the museum as a platform to gain a connection with many of the debates that were already happening so for us this is again a way of challenging the way architecture frames society an opportunity to intervene on already existing structures to give it to make it possible for a museum like this to have an inflatable structure that could bring architects for instance and a few days later being transformed in this kind of showcase or runway where a big thing a big part of what is happening in the street could be installed in the center of the museum and the third one is about New York we're in New York and I think we'll keep discussing New York once and again and I would like to discuss New York and the possibility of all the dispute that is happening now in New York I would call it views in dispute visibility in dispute who sees in dispute and my proposal that could be an architecture that is bringing difference and is capable of assembling different structures this is something that probably many of you have worked on in the studios that we did hearing or that I did hearing in Colombia together with Eduardo with Rui but for me 432 is some sort of a question mark to our profession when we look at this image of course it's a very elegant structure very much related to our Hoffman object but it's also related to many things that are happening in New York and it's not only critical things that are not only critical in terms of social justice but are also critical in the way that we as professionals can imagine and can propose good things exciting things, beautiful things to happen in a place like New York and there is that Debox did to start selling these apartments and for me Debox is key here to understand what is the political performance of this building when we see this image like this we see that 80% of what is depicted here it's the sky and actually it's quite the blue sky of course this building is related to many other layers for instance the way the economy of New York was transformed after the the loss of importance of the harbor when the the ship cargo of the ship container harbor in Elisabeth was built what was the way that the economy progressively moved into a direction that eventually if we bring all the as many billionaires as possible it would be a godsend that translated of course in legal innovations that ended up like the like a re-story research or a road for the New York Times in figures like this 77% of the properties in Times Warner Towers being bought or acquired by the LLC shell companies that were hiding who was behind the property and therefore it became an opportunity to loan their money in many cases but that is something that was already also translated into architectural design and architecture was part of that this is the first rendering that D-Box produced in which basically the architecture is described or the action, the agency of architecture as a tiny filtering between the existing sky the existing atmosphere and the one that would be perceived from the apartments in this super well known chair but actually that's not something that was only happening in the space of imagination or fantasy of the renderings but these the renderings were totally real as it proves that they were totally connected to the architectural materiality this is the most expensive part of the building that was the glass basically that was brought from Austria and that is a very particular glass that is polarizing the blue part of the spectrum of the light making the sky looks much more blue as you see here but that was not only this was not only a project that was happening at the scale of the glass it was also a territorial project a project about pollution distribution because the pollution that was removed those years through the clean heat act that the Bloomberg administration promoted to make people use natural gas as the fuel of their heating systems was basically forcing the pollution that previously was in Manhattan to move to another place namely to Susquehanna valley where fracking was growing at the same speed that the use of other oils of other sources of energy were going down in New York actually the same year or the year after 2013 that the clean heat act was approved in Manhattan the destruction of natural gas in the whole state of Manhattan was banned and it was actually the moment in which Susquehanna valley started to be seen increasing the pollution in its air as much as of course the pollution of its water this is the way the sensors that are placed in the drill bits of the fracking devices of the rigging are collecting information in 4D platforms that are consolidating all the data that is taken through these sensors that are placed in the drilling bits for me this is very interesting because this is the actual image that also is related to the view of debox from 432 somehow the destruction of this gas the possibility of moving the production of energy to Susquehanna valley and therefore moving in the land the pollution that is very much related to the living conditions that are provided in a place like New York depends on the production of information and information platforms the one that we see here and somehow these are also the views that the 432 are looking at of course in a very David and Goliath SK relationship we were trying to respond to this so we were trying to do a little bit of manifesto through an architectural design that could respond to the way toxicity was dealt with in New York city the project that we did for the MoMA PS1 as part of the Young Architects Project competition and this is the way it was already placed here in the courtyard of PS1 Cosmo was a device that was responding to the capacity of the city to remove its pollution and take it to somewhere else to take it somewhere else like Susquehanna by keeping it there and basically providing a circulation of images in which people were partying around toxicity in which people would be really lighted by ship in a very particular of different aesthetic project that was somehow contesting the very particular and abstract images that were produced by Deepox and it was also responding to the way that the structures that are dealing with the treatment of water in New York city are not that much designed to be seen like this but to actually be seen like this so basically to be not reachable not discussed, not inhabited secured by this area around it and we were proposing to basically do the opposite to decentralize the treatment of waste to bring it to the city to make it something that could be co-inhabiting with the nice things that we enjoy about New York city and to even do it in a way that could be nice or this is not moving we should be jumping this is Cosmo it basically was learning from many of the experiments that were happening in the sixties by people like John Todd it was taking water from the sewage system directly it was making it circulate through a number of ecosystems through a number of gardens so after two weeks you could drink the water but it was doing it in a way that the process was on black box it was engineered and it was curated so people could understand it could follow the movement of the water the way it would reach the algae bags here the way it would go back to the tanks it was making things in the water in a way this was on black box in a process that normally we never get to see and not only that but was only doing it in a way that was perceived as a garden as something that you could inhabit that you could enjoy that you could be part of this is the way it looked from above this is the way it functioned the water was circulating and at one point was also sense it was conveying through an app what was the evolution of the quality of the water but for me what is very important was that it was also an opportunity for people to enjoy to party it was somehow the excuse to bring people together to co-inhabit with toxicity ah ok here we are jumping Cosme is ready to party I'm going to finish with my three proposals to politicize architectural practices thank you so much you give us hope but one of the things that I think came came about in the conversation right before with some of the students was and it has to do with two different ways of thinking about architecture you know one way is the world is too complex life is too messy we got to like render architecture this kind of autonomous thing that is pure and a kind of act of form making and what I again kind of was reminded in seeing the talk was that in your work it's bring it bring it all just bring it all in the sense that you can engage with complexity you can engage with the messiness of life not just what we think we see but what we don't see and architecture can not only absorb all of it but come out of that even stronger as a sort of re-energized device for life, for staging life and so that's the kind of optimistic part anyone who said this is a way to kill architecture this is a way to make sure architecture lives literally as in Cosmo and some of the ways that you sort of perform that recitation or constant of architecture is through narrative and basically engaging with that unbelievable complexity I mean just the speed of your presentation is just kind of bringing all these things together but also tracing materiality I think materiality plays a very important role in your work not just as a kind of aesthetic dimension but as both aesthetic and a register of the processes that kind of architecture mobilizes and so I wanted to talk a little bit about these two things narrative and materiality and finally representation you mentioned drawing and the kind of ways in which you put these thoughts together either on paper or literally the kind of performance and somehow these pieces are at times a network of parts and then get assembled sometimes so just kind of opening up the ways in which you are engaging complexity somehow Yes I mean for me the discussion of whether architecture should forget about the world and concentrate on very disciplinary operations or to engage I think needs to be reconstructed because it's precisely by engaging in very particular disciplinary questions why the way architecture really relates to the world and becomes also compulsory passing point of many of the realities that are shaping our lives and our connections with other things for instance I think that in the case of the images or in the case of the water in the case there's always particular issues that are very technical for instance the selection of the glass in this tower for me is crucial because it makes very clear that architecture is not neutral is really inventing that possibility and in the same way the transformation of this the way New York deals with the waste is something that is very technical it's not that much of ideological thing it's very material very much done through architectural tools at the same time I think that if you revert it it could be really so fun and it could be very beautiful and could include other realities and it could so architecture is also about making it possible to produce a situation that is attracting and is reconstructing society through enrollment and I think that goes with criticality at the same time so the capacity of architecture to become also a tool for society to transform the way we together monitor daily life, monitor realities it's also related to this capacity of architecture to deploy aesthetic ideas and ways of dealing with information so that's why I think that in our discipline the discussion of whether architecture being political or not being political it's a little bit simplified I would like really to be part of a discussion in which we can go very much into the details now and we can say okay architecture is political now it's about thinking what kind of politics we want architecture to be playing and one of the ways in which I think you are pushing the sort of boundaries and expanding but also actually almost to find architecture again right it's always to kind of by basically not also drawing a distinction between design research and practice I mean you know you sort of practice as a form of research and research as a form of practice and the two things are completely intertwined and you're moving across media and scale and you know anything that can be designed is up for grabs as a way to kind of re-enter architecture do you think that and again to kind of echoing some of the questions that came up earlier and some of the questions I think for our students you know this is what architecture is today or what architects do and you know yeah I think the I mean the idea that any activity could survive without research I think is very naive so basically architecture like any other film depends on its capacity to produce and mobilize and connect with certain forms of intelligence and produce its own connection to criticality I think also that design practices are not only resolving or not almost never resolving problems but describing them producing platforms in which they can be understood differently creating devices that enable us to relate to them to those situations differently and in that respect the practice of designing is not different to the practice of doing research mobilizing information creating archives actually I would say that by not looking at design as an archive not looking at design already as something that is accumulating information articulating it producing discourse we're losing a great capital of empirical knowledge that architecture is producing every day so for me for instance the idea of looking at the Barthelona pavilion in itself as an architecture and exploring it through the tools of design was crucial because then we could I could see together with other people we could see in group things that were very much embedded in the design like for instance the design of the staircase and for me this is very important because I think design is at least the way I say it there's much practice and there's no way to separate and also activism I think it's a form of activism it's a way of intervening existing and ongoing disputes but what's also interesting is that you're not only kind of writing about the kind of discoveries or that archive that you're sort of unraveling but you're intervening in it you know through drawing through photography, through performance through mobilizing all these other ways and to sort of you set it yourself to also communicate and render visible to a broader audience and touch through other means and create experiences and one of the things that always strikes me about your teaching here at the school is the ways in which you know the work of the students you know sort of it has that immediately the dimension of unbelievable drawing where the students are really connecting all these ideas together and making them visible and these like exquisite kind of landscapes and I wanted to you know get you to talk a little bit about your kind of pedagogical approach and also you know what you think an agenda for a school like ours should be and we talked a little bit about that and you know in kind of today's sort of landscape well I think I would say that for me I'm an architect but the way I see architecture together with other people it's something that happens in an office when we're designing things but then in other places where we maybe do a performance writing discussing but also teaching I think it's all part of the same concern the same sensitivity and the same way of engaging with others the the studios that for instance I've been doing or the seminars that I've done in Columbia were very much trying to see is already part of many of the most important challenges that we're facing now and the ones that are shaping us and we're safe too and and I think when you look at whatever particular critical situation architecture is always there and it's not any architecture, it's an architecture that somehow has been designed through many means in the encounter of many things so it's not only that there's an architecture but also it's an architecture that you can track somehow some actions that were influencing or contributing to be the way it is and equally just by looking at it and starting to represent it differently to bring into paper, into digital archives, into digital files, into a discussion those realities segregated from others being given a name they're already mobilized differently and then you can test what could be potential evolutions for me this is what I so much enjoy about pedagogy, the possibility of together with other people looking at something that is very critical and that we feel uncomfortable with or that we don't know how to position ourselves with and starting to, through architectural tools, make it emerge and for instance that's something that I see many people that were in studios for instance in Lanfarote or for instance in Rockaway when we're looking at the the border of Rockaway the way, the wall between the ocean and the city and how that wall is capturing so many conflicts and what is the way that that was designed, what was the world the result of and what was the way that through other priorities that relationship could be re-engineered, redesigned through architecture for me the ambition of pedagogy is that architecture can operate in those places and that architectural practices are able to introduce new possibilities to multiply what is possible by looking at reality very carefully and reintroducing or rethinking the way design operates there and I think that very, you know, careful attention to kind of observation I think of your work as a kind of incredible observation and ability to just absorb but I also see it in the work of the students and the drawings where that level of detail you know, it's not just sort of beautiful drawing it's like there's sort of little cup on the table drawn in the section or you know, like they are inhabited with life and some of the conflicts that you're describing and I think clearly, you know, everyone is trying to come to terms with designing those relationships we talked about materiality and so which, you know, I love your new, the restaurant is just you know, this is the hanging marble that about to like slice the you know, head of the customers, you know, a new experience for food but you know color, you know, so I think a couple of weeks ago with Jürgen Meyer we talked about beige which apparently he started here at the school, kind of anti-white manifesto for beige and so I wanted to, you know, I read somewhere that in your very, you know, proper Spanish education you were scolded once for your use of unserious color so can you tell us about, you know your sort of color sensibility which I, you know Yeah, actually when I was training in Spain that was a big problem for me I can imagine the birth of white it was a nightmare, I remember that many of my teachers would say things like, you can use color if it's the color of the material and I said, yeah that's what I'm doing it's the color of the painting the paint is that color, yeah see this is a problem you consider paint a material exactly, but the paint was not a material, yeah and for instance when we did the Placentia clergy house it was so funny because we did it and everyone, and then we were selected for the Spanish biennial and then the Latin American biennial, something like that and then there was a huge number of people that were really pissed off with the project because it had colors, I mean now it looks so naive, it sounds so naive and at one point we were, I had to give a lecture in Porto and there were all these people that were that were super Alvaro Cisa followers and actually people that were teaching with him and had been working and they were totally outraged by the colors and then Alvaro Cisa came late to the discussion and he said, yeah I've seen this in a magazine, I love the colors and then he paused it so all the disciples were really like the people you're gonna follow someone, don't follow the disciple yeah exactly, so I think this, I always have to fight for a long time before I get to the intelligent people but these two colors were very intentional, I saw that was, I mean now it's I don't think anyone would discuss it that way but colors were surrounding us as something that was everywhere in our culture, clothes cars posters records TV, everything was colorful, the only thing that was not colorful was basically serious architecture so basically it was very much about just letting in yeah rather than any other thing great, so I'm with you on that so maybe we should open it up to questions from the audience thanks Andres or complaints maybe yeah, yeah do you think the aspect of Cosmo being a toxic quote unquote environment or quote unquote toxic environment had anything to do with people wanting to party there? that's a good question no I don't think so, I think they would be partying anyway yeah, you're right but they were partying with toxicity that year, yeah and the year before they were partying with other things so I think that experiment of the PS1 has been very exciting because it made people party together with other things that they would never respect and then once they party they would take photographs of themselves party and they would publish them so other people would then party with toxicity in the previous year they were partying with plants and with growing inedible things and other years they were partying so I think what is very, very beautiful is that people go there because they want to party but once they're there they become part of an experiment an experiment of architecture being different to the one that they're used to and then they start to do things they start to look at this architecture and they start to follow what happens with toxicity and they gain an experience that somehow is conveyed and shared with others and it expands already what we can imagine that is possible and I would imagine now many people could do parties of toxicity around the garbage that the very party is producing for instance I would imagine that that wouldn't be a bad thing to do but I think architecture and the architecture that we discuss and the architecture that end up having a big influence is also about making it possible to imagine other and to experience other alternatives so that's why I think the IMSS were so focused on not letting other things be in the picture because I mean not the IMSS the IMSS probably were following just something that was in the air but that's why at that time not to let things be experienced because that was probably the way to I mean this book was saying something very interesting for me that consensus and the elimination of minorities was focusing societies and was making them more efficient so probably all that that is lost when a society is done super efficient is something that we as architect could bring in somehow everybody wants to party, yes the precise way in which your architecture is political and you just made this amazing comment that the exclusion of things from the frame is also a political act is I think what the implication of what you just said all of the things that you described seem like a kind of making visible as political act what are the particular political stakes or implications or impulses associated with the act of making visible and how do you see architecture as sort of having particular agency in this field of politics yeah no it's super good question actually that's one of my main interest what is the specific forms of politics are played by architectural practices and there's many many many different ones for instance if you think of the whole the way for a long time when someone would talk about politics and architecture it would be mainly about for instance architects demonstrating and that's super good but it's not the ones that I am referring to or for instance they would talk about participation and for instance different options users voting and that's again super important but it's not the ones that I'm interested on the ones I'm interested on are the forms of politics that are very much embedded in design either material design or the design of the performativity of architecture I'm very interested in particular on the way dimensions, materiality colors the way something is produced the information that is gathered to make possible an architecture all those things are shaping forms of society as most likely was more likely and others as less likely of course the boundaries between all these forms of politics are very blurred and the limits of them are really really something that is also exciting to inhabit but I would say that I'm very specifically interested on these that for many people are related to the to the realm of STS of material participation of cosmopolitics in regards to the second part of your question that has to do with making things visible or the regimes of visibility to architecture transparency all these different ways of discussing this yes I'm super interested on that but I would say that that is not detached from other ways of being political for instance for me it's also very interesting to understand architecture doing politics as a way of dealing with criticality, installing criticality in daily life for instance which is not exactly the same that making things visible because it's also for instance about what are the publics that you can convene through architecture or for instance I'm very interested in the way things get composed together and what is the way that we can compose the population or the let's say the society a piece of architecture is part of two interventions so I could say that I'm interested in that but also on other things but yeah what do you think what do you think architecture has to do with politics because your question was very intentional so probably you have an opinion on that well I guess I think all architecture is political that the act of drawing a line on a piece of paper is political when that line implies a line in the world but I guess it seems like the making of things visible and therefore part of the the social conversation or the social politics has a very particular kind of political impact and one that maybe I don't normally think of as being the operation in which architecture is political maybe it's the operation in which journalism is political and so I guess I was intrigued that this is the form of politics that seemed most prominent in the work that you were presenting but you know that the boundaries between journalism and architecture are very very very blurred and journalism and architecture are many many common tools for instance when I was doing this work on Mies van der Rohe I was very surprised to read in one of his interviews that he was asked how did you get an architectural education and he responds well you know I was not looking at architectural magazines I was looking at art galleries but not the ones that have to do with political parties but politics like Walter Lippmann would talk about politics that is precisely what he said Walter Lippmann is basically the one that in the school of journalism they're talking all day long about Walter Lippmann so basically the people that were discussing journalism in the US at the time that Mies van der Rohe arrived here were basically discussing a lot to do with the discussions of the making of public space in many ways but maybe he did it differently sorry this might come as a little cheeky but if you had to sum up in one word how would you describe your pedagogy one word just to sort of narrow down the intention of unblack boxing only one this is very good at paint yeah I don't know I would say it's a search for relevance in a way it's a search for relevance but that's three words that's okay relevance it's relevant in a way it's about how to do that see you in the fall I would like to know if you have thought about how to make a project like Cosmo to develop it to be a more permanent development something structure not just as an event but as a permanent thing nothing's that permanent that's a big thing about Cosmo that everything's kind of moving and changing so even if you do something Newton Creek won't be that permanent after a while it will change I mean all the time is different so that's one way of responding to your question actually I think all architecture is temporary because it deals with time changes and I think this is crucial when you look at things for instance from an ecosystemical point of view nothing is that fixed and the parts that are moving faster probably are the ones that are more interesting in architecture at one point so like in a motorbike the parts that are more exposed are the ones that probably get easier that they need to be replaced but if you're talking of longer term more than a summer we actually want to do another version of Cosmo the square in the science museum that is being built in Moscow now and it's really difficult to make it something that could last because basically it needs to produce you need other actors involved for instance you need to make sure that there's going to be a scientific team that is taking care of it because this ecosystem is very risky it could really at one point evolve into something different so there's a need to rethink the way architecture is designed if you want to make it something that stays for a longer run or for instance the toxicity that is producing Moscow and that we would be dealing with coming from the science museum could be really different because the science museum is part of the polytechnic school and there's a number of laboratories that are installed there that could be reaching this machine would be very different so in order to make it more durable let's say and also to deal with the context that is a little bit more complex than the one of PS1 we basically had to enlarge the social network that is making this project happen and that is not only about people but it's also about the kind of plants that we're introducing the bacteria, the algae of course the people that are dealing with these the technologies, the money holes, the valves all these things so what is interesting is that you reached higher levels of complexity in this case meant bigger social mobilization one last question So Andres when I look at your work I become suspicious of everything behind everything there's a basement behind every church there's some kind of strange practice and so on Yes I think about words like context we can't trust them anymore because they're exclusionary so what about the basement of Andres Hake in a way can you reveal a bit of the context in a sense you're asking us to look at the political context as being what your work is produced from directly but you've also stated that there's no distinction between the disciplinary and the reality as it were what about the architectural context who are your I won't say masters but the kind of that world that you emerged within not those teachers who told you the color is always a material but do you have others that you have looked at as you grew up as it were well that's a very very good question because actually for instance the office we have in Madrid is literally a basement so it's basically it's not that we have a basement it's that we're the basement basically so there's nothing else the basement is the place where we work and actually basements have been very important in a big part of what we do in many ways if you talk of the context I think that I could tell you a big list of people that were super important when I was evolving and now actually I would say that architecture is very social it's very much about getting connected to others and to be also generous and respectful to others and understand what is that they're doing but also connecting yourself to those things that are important I think that it's not something I mean that it's an exception I think any form of knowledge is about it's a collective knowledge and in my case I can give you some tracks of that not that much names but for me it was very important a big part of the context of Spanish architecture that was very much in the boundaries of what was the tendenza at one time so people like Prada Poole Juan Abarro Valdebeg in his earlier works that were actually connected to Georgie Kepes was really a tradition that was very important that then of course it was very important people like Juan and many others that were operating in the school of Madrid and that were really producing alternatives and making the discussion much more international and connected to this but also for me it's at that time very important to look at the context of sociology and in particular the tradition of discussions of technology of sociology of technology and the group of Bruno Attur Misa El Calón, Fabio Amuniza Albena Lleneva Norge Maris, a big group of people that were discussing architecture very much in the details and looking at the conflicts that architecture was producing as part of the school of mine engineers initially it was very important also the context of ecological the political ecology because they were not that much focus on sustainability or looking at energy efficiency things like that that were a little bit simplified in the whole discussion more thinking of the way different natures, different especies, different technologies were negotiating their coin habitants and that was a discussion also of politics but was a discussion of material politics and for instance that was very much connected to the context of pragmatism in the US at one point and for instance Walter Liepman as I mentioned before and John Dewey I could go and of course in the last years I've been here already for I believe something like seven, eight years and of course for instance the whole context of Colombia the discussion of Colombia but also the discussion of many independent practices that are operating in the area of New York like you, like many of the people that are here sharing a conversation of many, many things that I've been talking today about so I think it's, I don't know I would defend that architecture is very collective and I think to find your place and your and know how to be part of this collective is probably what also emerging as an architect is about that's a great great way to end thank you so much Andres Thank you