Quinta Monroy Alejandro Aravena

Quinta Monroy. Alejandro Aravena


Alejandro Aravena
won today the Priztker Architecture Prize. The architect in collaboration with his team,”Elemental”, fosters an architecture thought from the collective thinking that aims to solve some of the actual dilemmas of the contemporary urbanism, such as inequality.

These attractive ideas are well explained in this TED Talk video (previous post).

Collective thinking VS inequality

In contrast with these ideal principles, Fabian Barros, a Chilean researcher based in the University of Madrid (ETSAM) and member of the research group ARKRIT, shares with us a very interesting article:

 “LA DESIGUALDAD ES ELEMENTAL. Conjeturas ideológicas para una crítica a Quinta Monroy”

“THE ELEMENTAL INEQUALITY. Ideological conjectures for a criticism of Quinta Monroy ” (trad. a.))

In this article he informs us a little bit more about the Chilean reality and expresses his opinion about the repercussions of Aravena’s architecture. This article raises some doubts about how this poverty-stricken neighbourhood designed by Aravena enhances an inclusive city.

[…] we are dealing with a project that paradoxically reproduces what it tries to combat, produces inequality by considering the inhabitants of these houses beings of another social class […].

– Fabian Barros

Probably, at the end of the day, not only the design and cost strategies matter, but also the location and the concentration of this kind of social housing. Does these families have the same opportunities than the rest of population in terms of accessibility? Accessibility to a better education, to public servicies, transportation, better jobs. Should the public entities spread and integrate the social housing, instead of gathering the neediest in a specific neighborhood? At a first glance diversification seems a more inclusive strategy than grouping.

It could be found very appealing, “in the eyes of the first world”, the look of the unfinished houses in Quinta Monroy, -people would be able to expand their houses freely- we could think. But would the big issues inside the slum be about expansion problems or freedom in the design? Slums are inherently flexible in terms of shape and program, but we should not forget one of the main questions:

Is it desirable for anyone to live in a slum?

More post about Alejandro Aravena