Interview with Uriel Fogué

Cecilia Andersson:
I notice you call yourself an architectural agent, not a studio. Please tell me a bit about that.

Uriel Fogué:
The construction process involves a complex network of relationships where different agents necessarily have to reach all kind of agreements. Conflict is the main material that builds architecture; using J. Mehlman’s words, we could state that the intervention in the city is a battlefield that culminates in a convergence of interests. When our role in the city making is that of an agent, rather than an author-creator, we can understand Architecture as a space of political participation, and not just as the prescription of technological solutions to the citizen’s demands. Architecture loses an opportunity every time it does not get involved in the dynamics of the city, every time it waits for an ideal reality to become true, while other powerful agents silently develop their strategies.

Cecilia:
You have spoken about how each citizen is potentially an architect. How do you envision that in practical terms? Can you give an example?

Uriel:
The idea relates to the strong link between the consumption of resources and our cities' public space. If we assume that our energy consumption habits initiate a relationship with the environment (either implicitly or explicitly), we will understand how the politics of our daily life are affected by, but also affect, the space in which we live.
Every way of living is inscribed in the space of the city, because the way we all behave impacts on our assembled context. Our day-to-day aesthetics are marked by, but also create and alter, the environment in which we dwell. In other words, the citizen's habits have an impact on the city. Therefore, the citizen becomes an active agent with the abilities and capacities of an architect. Inhabiting is no different than reaching agreements, establishing links, performing and working with the environment.

- Management of energy = design of space
- Inhabiting = Managing energy
- Citizen habits = architectural effects
- Citizen = architect


Cecilia:
I’m also very interested to hear more about how you want to realize ideas where citizens ‘inhabit’ infrastructure itself. I suppose it has to do with adjusting a system that is way too standardized and cumbersome, as well as uneconomical and wasteful, and give space for individual choices. Please give an indication as to what actions you’re involved with pertaining to the possibility of improving and inhabiting infrastructure, which to me sounds like a rather poetic endeavor?

Uriel:
Modern cities from the 1930’s to the 1960’s tried to make their infrastructures invisible. Apparently, it was due to technical requirements but, nowadays, this condition is not operative anymore. Now that infrastructures are exposed we have realized that, apart from the technical requirements, there were also ideological causes related to the way modern cities had been designed at the time. Modern instructions, such us the unity of History, the unity of Reason, the closed definition of the historical subject, etc. had as a result an implicit design of a universal and necessary final user. The definition of this user as an objectivity left no space for plurality. This artificial operation is not sustainable anymore and therefore, a change of the section of the city has been led by the market and the infrastructure consumerism. We as architects need to undertake this fact as a new programme requirement and get involved in the shaping of this ‘invasion’, sketching up the integration of this new ‘infrastructure-citizens’. It is a great opportunity that challenges the public spaces of our cities. It is not (only) my poetic endeavour, but indeed a political challenge!

Cecilia:
What do you see as the most urgent concern for architects in regards to the current situation in Madrid?

Uriel:
Architects should understand the political and performative dimension of (aesth)ET(h)ICs, exploring the opportunities that the development of this new change of paradigm (in which we are all involved, whether we like it or not) offers as a challenge to us.

The work of an architect (not only in Madrid) is always a bet that is shaped through the design. In my opinion some of the more urgent bets in regards to the current situation would be the following:
Bet 1: To re-assemble environments.
Bet 2: To design of energy-products.
Bet 3: Drawing up of contracts that recognize all the city agents.
Bet 4: To promote technological complexity as a space for possible agreements and discussions, giving the possibility to the citizens to take part in the otherwise closed processes.
Bet 5: The promotion of desire.
Bet 6: The exploration of density.
Bet 7: The involvement of the citizens.
Bet 8: The [critical] inheritance of the ‘old’ city.
Bet 9: To reach an agreement on a new definition of ‘classical’.
And Bet 10: To discuss the latest city developments.