← The Urbanist
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:12]
A
Hello and welcome to the Urbanist, Monocle's program all about the built environment. I'm your host, Andrew Tuck.
- [00:18]
B
Coming up, by standardizing the way we live, we're eliminating the possibility of anybody of us to really exist, because we not only exist because of something is holding our functions, we exist because our own possibility of existence is dependent on our own identity. And this is erasing our identity in many levels.
- [00:40]
A
We hear from one of Mexico's most exciting architects, Tatiana Bilbao, to explore how our work, which infuses geometry and nature, can help shape our cities in a more inclusive and responsive manner. Then we look to Australia, and we hear from two of the people behind the recently opened Melbourne Metro, the biggest ever public transport infrastructure project in the state. All that ahead in the next 30 minutes right here on the Urbanist. With me, Andrew Duck. Mexican academic and architect Tatiana Bilbao has long been a champion of social housing and a challenger to the norms surrounding how we build and replicate abodes around the world. She hasn't stopped there with projects spanning everything from the Sea of Cortez Research center in Mexico to working on the Pavilion of the Holy See in Venice for the recently concluded Architecture Biennale. Our Europe editor at large, Ed Stocker, caught up with her in Venice at the end of November last year when she was speaking at the Europe Culture Center, Italy's Shaping the City forum. He sent us this interview.
- [01:51]
B
I'm fascinated by people, I think, and I believe that the way people are able to exist in this planet is by the process of having a place to dwell. I believe that that is also an extended notion of how we exist in this planet. So it's not only a structure that allows us to sleep, but it's every space that allows us to exist 24 hours and 365 days a year.
- [02:18]
C
Do you think as societies, and I guess that's a big question because where do you start? But do you think we're getting the home wrong?
- [02:24]
B
Definitely. I think that the interpretation of the house has been used to create a tool for discrimination and exploitation, and it is an engine for the current capitalist model that we live. Not that before it didn't happen. I'm not romanticizing. Or that that it cannot happen after. But I think that we need to rethink what is our role in the perpetuation of that process or in the resistance of it. I took the side of the resistance.
- [02:57]
C
I mean, your talk at Shaping the City focused on this idea that this notion of a house has sort of been replicated. A lot of the models sort of Seemed quite American. But I don't want to single out one country, the sort of identikit houses being reproduced and reproduced. Maybe you can just talk about some of the things you were raising. This sort of idea of this uniform way in which we're meant to live, how it kind of cancels out cultures that may actually want to live in completely different ways to that model.
- [03:24]
B
Well, probably you REFER to the U.S. no, because Americans, we are all America. I think that definitely one of the most important things is that if we really think the origin of this house and it's being repeated everywhere, is not about taking care of people, it's about the industry that it takes care of. So it really holds an industry. So you need the washing machine and the stove and the. The electric outlets and the bed, not because you need them physically. If we really truly profoundly analyze it, because the industry needs you to need it. So if we start to challenge that, then we understand how that is an engine that serves the industry and not our bodies to exist in this planet. And for me, that's what is interesting. So the model was replicated by the industry and definitely supported by the media. And that's why we all repeat that model everywhere now. Today it's been like literally the base of every society because it's been perpetuated for that purpose. But if we think profoundly, we would resist more.
- [04:32]
C
But do you think this model, this sort of industrialization, this becoming just a number one of many, is a suburban living problem or.
- [04:40]
B
Not necessarily, not necessarily, but it supports that suburban urban model.
- [04:46]
C
Yeah, obviously with that sort of replication, it makes me think about modular housing sometimes that's talked about as being a way of producing houses for a cheap price that can be easily replicated. Are you anti modular? I'm just wondering what your take on modular housing is. Given you don't like this sort of replication of the same model over and over again?
- [05:07]
B
I'm definitely anti model houses. I think that none of our lives are the same. Even if we share culture, we share many other things. We share community, we share neighborhoods. We don't live the same, none of us. So by standardizing the way we live, we're eliminating the possibility of anybody of us to really exist. Because we not only exist because something is holding our functions, we exist because our own possibility of existence is dependent on our own identity. And this is erasing our identity in many levels. So if we don't understand that we are part of the tool and the engine that promotes that elimination of identity of every human being, I Don't know what is the possibility of thinking massively on the replicability of any of these processes? And this is a question that I always struggle with, but I tend to think that it's not necessary. I don't think we have to produce these things massively. I think that the end, we have to produce these things locally and profoundly intimate and specific. And how do we do that? I think it's done by every person, and I don't think it can be done massively.
- [06:32]
C
How do you balance that with cost? I guess, because sometimes, you know, it's great, that idea to say, look, let's have unique houses for everyone, let everything be different. But obviously that makes it a lot more expensive.
- [06:42]
B
Absolutely. It's not about unique. And yes, it clashes all the time with costs, because that depends on the market. And the market is not there to provide us a possibility of existing. The market is there to provide the possibility of the existence of the market. So it always clashes with it. And as I said, I don't think it needs to be singular for each person, so it could be the same, but it needs to allow each unique human being to exist in their unique way.
- [07:12]
C
You talked about the market, the industry. You don't just do social housing. You've done much bigger projects. This incredible aquarium you did. You have to work within the system. You have to work with developers who have their prerogatives, their desires, their money. How do you do that when you have all these things? You want to create this perfect world through housing, through your projects. You really seem to want to do that. But how do you do that within a system that doesn't always want that?
- [07:39]
B
I believe that in order to change the system, you have to work within it and to create the resistance within it to the system. I think that if you become kind of a resistance from the outside, you are the one who are left out. And then there is an impossibility of changing the system. And in order to change the system, you will have to make compromises. And they're big. We have certain lines which we don't cross. For example, we don't work if the project's aim is to produce money. The first one. All the projects have to produce money. If that's the first aim, we don't work for it. There are many, many of them. We have said not too many. And actually we have resigned to some in the middle because we have understood that that was the case. That was bad. But if the aim is to produce a place that holds people to exist, we are able to work on it if then they make money in the process, I understand it because we also need money to exist within the system. So it is something that is necessary, and I think it's necessary to challenge the system. What we do is normally we understand what are the compromises that we can make in order to make a bit of a change. And then in the next project, what is the other compromise that we're going to make to make another change and what are the fights we're fighting? And I think the fights we're fighting need to be hold very dearly. And that's the negotiation process when it begins and happens, and it does happen.
- [09:11]
C
I know you've said you're sort of on this mission to improve social housing in Mexico and beyond. Do you think it has changed? Do you think the government, obviously governments have changed during your career, but do you think there has been a change from the top?
- [09:24]
B
I believe that for me to make my profession and what I do valuable, it's the possibility of resisting to the system and to really provide other possibilities for extending the understanding of how we live. And what I do think it has changed, but I don't think I have been necessarily just a part of it. It's that the understanding from the government already has changed to think that if we are providing the right link to the market, we will never be able to reach the goal of really producing livable places for people. So that is really changing in the government. That is not necessarily because I said anything. It's because a lot of people have really raised the alarms and have really put the ground to the government to understand it in a good way, but also in the bad way. Like people had started to abandon their houses and then abandoned the credits, and then the government started losing money. So they said, like, we're doing something wrong. Because if 4 million people, 4 million people have abandoned their houses and their credits, they something is wrong here. So finally they started reading all the others who were saying, come on, this is wrong. You have to do it differently. And now the government is starting to open the possibilities for challenging the notion of property, the notion of definitiveness of units, the understanding of the collective spaces, and the possibility of communal forms of relating to care, labor and to the labor that is done in the house. So I think that a lot of things are changing. I don't think it's going to be soon that we're going to see massive examples of those physically built, but at least the ground is changing, and I have some hope on that.
- [11:18]
C
Before I let you go, I want to ask you about a few projects. I want to ask about Venice. But first, a couple of projects. There's so many. You're doing so many different things in Mexico. One was in San Miguel Chapultepec, and is this sort of stitched together house that I think you're working on at the moment. Maybe you can just explain that. And there was also Utopio El Triangolo, which is a forthcoming thing as well. Maybe you can just talk about those two projects to give an idea of the diversity of what you're up to.
- [11:46]
B
So San Miguel Chapultepec project is a project that is a housing product, challenging a lot of the definitions of the house. We decided to fight many fights in this project. But the good thing is that the person behind it who's financing it is willing to fight those. She's really wanting for us to do that. So we challenge the definition of the unit. So we want the units to really be able to expand and to shrink through time. We're challenging the understanding of kitchens. So kitchens are kitchenettes in some of the units because the units expand and contract. So some of them don't even have. And the idea of the collective kitchen is present, but also the laundries. So we're challenging those things. It has not been approved by the law. We're trying to find the cracks. Sometimes we're very close, but then there's another wall that we hit. But let's see.
- [12:39]
C
Can I ask you quickly how it contracts, just to give us an idea of how the actual physical shape of the building changes.
- [12:44]
B
So it's a very modular structure.
- [12:47]
C
Modular? I thought you didn't like modular.
- [12:49]
B
It served a purpose. So it's a very modular structure where all the rooms or all the areas that you can define as rooms are the same size. So when you add a wall or remove a wall, it doubles or shrinks the space in half or in double. And that's how you can add a room to your unit or leave a room to your unit. That a room can be anything. We have also created a system which nowadays is very easy and cheap of having the possibility of having water and drainage everywhere in every room and obviously light in these things, like all the fixtures that are possible, that are very flexible now and connectable in many regards. So that's the way we are trying to be able to expand the definition of the unit by you adding a room or leaving a room. The utopia. It's really a project we decided to participate in. It's a public project. The government nor of the city is doing 100 of these utopias. And the utopias, they use the acronym of the letters for describing the units of care for women in the city. And they have sports areas, recreational areas, health spaces, care spaces, cultural spaces. So in our utopia, we have a gym for artistic gymnastics, boxing ring, for example, among other things. On the area of sports, we have a full theater that has the possibility of having like a full very serious play. But also being flexible to have different type of performances with the public changing in different ways. We have an area of care which is health and childcare, elderly care, doctor's cabinet, legal assistance for the women with the kitchen and the laundries. And these places, it's under construction right now. And these, as I said, are public spaces that are enclaved in very large pieces of land that the government owns and are expanding the notion of public space with this social infrastructure that are embedded.
- [14:58]
C
Last question. We're in Venice, and I can't let you go without asking about how you worked with the Holy See. You ended up instilling so many of the ideas that you hold dear to you, I think, about community and reaching out to people within it. Tell us a little bit about how you did that.
- [15:14]
B
Well, that was why I was called. So that was pretty easy. So the ground was there because the Vatican really wanted us to work with the community, for the community in the International Biennial. So within all that context, understanding how we could kind of serve all these people, who were the people that the Vatican wanted to reach, we had also the space was given, so nothing we could choose. So we thought how to understand, to provide the possibility for all those two intervene and interact and convene in our pavilion was through the process of reparation of the building. So we were tackling the architects who were visiting. Understanding the process of repair and restoration of a building, literally, physically, but also just the mundane visitor that comes to Venice every day by engaging probably in one workshop or two of the restoration workshops that were given every week, or by the community that really engaged in many different activities that happen through the pavilion in many ways, or the kitchen that also serves food for everybody, or the students in the conservatory who could book the two hours of rehearsing in many of these instruments that are not available for them in any other place to rehearse their work. And so this is, I think, how we started to expand the understanding on how to act in a Biennial. And for us was very fulfilling because we think that we have created an impact that is going to be everlasting in many regards and we are very happy with it.
- [16:56]
A
Tatiana Bilbao there in conversation with Monocle's Ed Stocker. And my thanks to both of them. Opening in late 2025 and launching full capacity on 1 February, the new Melbourne Metro is the largest ever public transport project in Victoria and Melbourne's first underground system. It was a collaboration between the international practices rshp, Hassel, WWMP and Maynard, the latter of which we have spoken to before when they completed their line wide identity for London's Crossrail. To find out more about this new way of getting around Melbourne, I was lucky enough recently to be joined down the line by Avtar Lotay, Managing Director at RSHP Australia, and Kate Plebben, Director at Maynard Australia. I began by asking Kate to give us an overview of the project here and the need that they were trying to fulfil for Melbournians.
- [17:55]
D
So what's been built really is in addition to Melbourne's rail network. Historically, Melbourne's rail network was established around a sort of hub and spoke model, a central circular city loop in the CBD with a series of radial lines feeding out to the suburbs like spokes on a wheel. And I think that that model sort of works up to a point, but is ultimately constrained by how many trains can travel around that central hub at any given time. So I think by introducing this new north south line, the Metro line, it's independent of the city loop, we open up the capacity of the network, it suddenly unlocks it to more frequent services, less congestion and a more resilient system. So essentially a metro line with five brand new stations and civic spaces for the community.
- [18:44]
A
Well, Avtar, you've been involved in the architectural elements of this project, the delivery, the look and feel of what's being built. We described there that there's a series of new stations and I've seen some of the pictures, you know, vast, wonderful, cavernous spaces. What was important in the delivery of the architectural elements of this? Was it important to be rooted in place? Was it important to bring in that light and fresh air?
- [19:11]
E
The engineering side of it is quite complex. We've got three box stations which are cut and cover stations because they're relatively shallow. Then we've got the two CBD stations which are quite deep, 30 meters plus below strength level. They're within the density of the city fabric, so you have to make those ground to underground connections. So I think when we came on board, most of the civil engineering was in place, I'd say 90%, if not more. So I think our role was really saying how do we, I guess celebrate the civil engineering by exposing it and then really playing on that and saying what do we need to add in addition to the civil engineering for all the functionality of the stations, which is really the fit out of the platforms, the fit out of the concourses and the entrances.
- [19:59]
A
Avtar, just tell me. I was looking earlier on at the pictures of. I think it's the Town hall station which has this central gallery, these wonderful concrete polished pillars, but these giant, like a rib cage of steel in orange braced above the central hall. Dramatic and beautiful. How do you make sure that you get something distinct for your city that isn't just borrowing from other projects around the globe? How did you make sure that this was something that was appetite for Melbourne?
- [20:26]
E
I think all of us in the design team understood the locality and the Melbourne character and it was really. How do you get the essence of that into this civic design? You mentioned the Trinox below ground, which is a CBD station. These are huge engineering structures. I mean the platforms run for 220 meters. So it's literally three arches intersecting. It's like a cathedral. You've got the nave and the two aisles either side and then all of those rib, the crisscross ribs that you described in that central nave zone of the trinocular that give rhythm to that long 220 meter linear platform central space. I think the color you mentioned, the oranges and the yellows and the pinks and the whites. Color's very subjective, as we all know. And if you start a debate on color very early on, people get stuck with color and they get biased. And I think the critical thing is to leave the broader dialogue to later on once you've resolved more complex issues and then you begin to develop a color story for the project. In this instance, it was really influenced by the Melbourne sunset. There's some amazing photographs of Melbourne sunsets. It's got all the range of colors there. And we felt that was a good starting point to begin to develop a color story. So the color narrative in color story is quite important. On all the projects that Kate works on. We work on design team. It's really trying to find an appropriate time to introduce that once you've resolved it in your own minds what the colour might be.
- [22:00]
A
Kate, let's bring you back in here because there's another notion or idea that was important here, which is the idea of it being an open metro in lots of senses. But could you explain to us what that meant to you.
- [22:12]
D
I mean, I think it's important, particularly in Melbourne, with our climate, that we celebrate the openness of Melbourne and of the weather. And so opportunities to conceive the stations as not just train stations, but generous civic spaces, as Avatar mentioned in their own right, you know, with generous open spaces at the street level and at the forecourt and also below the street. So I think that connection with the street through an open Metro system, so connections down into the retail to the event spaces that are on the concourse levels, you know, helping the station to feel safe during the day and the evening and to feel lively and to feel open. I think that, you know, in some ways it's almost like an evolution of the traditional town square. Only now the town square might be sort of partially underground, but really the idea is to invite everyone down to the station into the concourse and that it's publicly accessible. These spaces are open to everyone. Before you even, you know, get to the point where you purchase a ticket and become a passenger and just tell.
- [23:16]
A
Me about the human reaction. Because again, I reflect here on when Crossrail opened. Within days, you couldn't believe that it hadn't already been there for a decade. People had re engineered their journeys to work. They'd embraced it in ways that were extraordinary. It was busy, it was loved, it was packed. Despite years of grumbling about cost and certainly in London, numerous delays once it was up and running, it was embraced in an amazing way. And when I use it all the time, it's re engineered the city for me, how I get to places. What's it done for people in Melbourne?
- [23:47]
D
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think I went down just the other day and I saw teenagers doing a TikTok video dancing on the square. So I think, you know, there's no denying that large scale infrastructure projects like this bring a new level of energy and a buzz to the city. You know, the Melbournians haven't had a big infrastructure, rail infrastructure project since, you know, the early 80s. And so there is that same level of energy and excitement around Crossrail, around Elizabeth Lyon that we saw in 2022. I think that, you know, Melbourne is just now part of that global conversation around how infrastructure can be used, you know, not just to move people through the city efficiently, but to bring that fresh energy and identity to a city.
- [24:30]
A
Avta, maybe the same question for you, because it was great. When you're an architect, you see these things, you know, as computer mock ups. You see the building process, you're close to every Single decision. And there's so much engineering behind all those good looks as well. But once you see people use it, it must be amazing to see the reactions and how it fits into people's lives.
- [24:51]
E
It's fantastic. I was there on the 30th of November, which is the first day of the opening. I mean, I spent more time looking at people's faces to see their reaction. Response to a. They were on the train, they got out at the platform, they came up the escalator. It was amazing. It was really amazing. And I think, as Kate said, you know, people do take to these things. You know, these are pieces of civic structures. You know, we in our cities should be proud of civic architecture and promote it, because it is for the people, it's for the Melbournians and all the people who visit Melbourne. And that day was amazing for me because it was like everybody taken to it. I mean, we spent a lot of time in the crypt, which is the space underneath the city square, which is an amazing space. I mean, it's open to the public when the station's open and people were just enjoying it. And I think it's a great asset. And you mentioned, you know, people always complain about cost and time and things like that, but once the system is fully integrated as part of the transport system, you know, it's a real benefit. People enjoy it. It is for the people.
- [25:55]
A
I know there was a lot of public consultation and to bring people along on that journey, because it's taken a good decade from the starting pistol to here. There's a lot of conversations and people have to see that they're paying for it and there's disruption in the city and things. Was it important to kind of engage with local people and make sure that people felt that they had some ownership of what was going on?
- [26:16]
E
Absolutely. And I think you cannot keep people out of that conversation. You have to keep them informed and bring them as part of the process. I think the stakeholder consultation was amazing in terms of some of the stakeholder consultations we were all engaged with, to make sure that people were brought up to speed. I think the state and BNC contractor CYP did an amazing job of actually making sure they're on top and keeping connected with all the relevant stakeholders, the associations and all the relevant parties in and around each of the stations. Some of these are five stations going up at the same time, so you can imagine the number of consultations, et cetera. So there's a huge team there making sure that communications were up to date. People's concerns were listened to because that's pretty critical on projects like this, which has got a decades sort of lifespan of construction. I think if you inform people of what's happening and what's going to come out at the end of it, that's a slightly easier route than if you don't keep people informed.
- [27:17]
A
Let's just, with a final footnote, what's the next bit? Because when you see many of these projects around the world now, there's the engineering that happens often underground or as rail lines, but then there's all this other stuff that happens. People want to live close to the new hubs, new office towers go up, new residential happens where people eat and dine and go and have fun. All of that gets re engineered in this epic engineering process. Is that still ahead or is that unfolding in Melbourne?
- [27:47]
D
Yeah, I mean, I think so. I think we will start to see, you know, what is next in terms of public transport infrastructure for Melbourne. You know, the city is continuing to grow in population and we can't sort of pretend that it's all solved by the metro line here. So I think projects like the suburban rail loop in Melbourne is going to push that transformation of transport infrastructure further out into the suburbs. So back on that point about the network and the hub and spoke system, I think that we're transitioning. We're at a really important point of urban planning for Melbourne where we're transitioning to more of a grid model. And so projects like suburban rail loop is a really good opportunity to connect more people to high quality infrastructure. I think that's, that's really important for.
- [28:34]
A
Melvin Avta Lotte from RSHP and Kate Pleven from Maynard there. And my thanks to both of them for joining me. Well, that's all for this week's edition of the Urbanist. You can follow us for new editions of the show every week. And you can subscribe to Monocle magazine for reports on all things design, architecture and urbanism too. Just visit monocle.com the Urbanist is produced by Carlos Rebelo and by David Stevens, who also edits the show. I'm Edger Tuck. Goodbye and thank you for listening, city lovers.