JOÃO SANTA-RITA

It is with great pleasure that today we have the architect and professor João Santa-Rita as our guest. Be welcome! We wanted to start by asking you to tell us a little about your academic career as a student, what your architecture course was like and whether there were any outstanding teachers or exercises that you still remember and that you bring with you today.

First of all, I would like to thank you for your invitation to participate in the magazine Pré Prévio. I am still part of the group formed at the Escola de Belas-Artes de Lisboa, of the first expressive group in Lisbon, which at the end of the seventies, started the course at Escola do Porto and ended up graduating mostly at Escola de Lisboa. Historically, what was normal was just the opposite. The architects of Lisbon, for reasons not only of quality but also political, went to Porto to complete the course (because, supposedly, Porto welcomed students expelled from Lisbon).

 

Therefore, I started the course in Porto. It was a short but very remarkable period, especially because it was a very intense course – interestingly it was similar to the course we had at Autónoma, when the course was formed – because, unlike the Lisbon course, which at the time had two or three shifts, the Porto course had only one shift, we had classes from eight in the morning until six in the afternoon. But they were classes of great intensity, a lot of work in the studio, where we worked with the support of teachers. And that year I had two very striking teachers, Sérgio Fernandez and Luísa Brandão, without them I don’t even know if I would have continued in Architecture. My intention was never to go to Architecture, I wanted to have followed Naval Architecture, that was where my interest was focused, to design ships… but Sérgio Fernandez and Luísa were exceptional teachers and with a great relationship with what was the study of design and the importance of design in the design process.

 

Another teacher I had was Fernando Távora. Távora was an exceptional man, who spoke to us about trips we had not yet imagined, who reported on knowledge with which we were not yet familiar. He was a man of deep knowledge but of great simplicity in communication and in proximity to the students. This happened in the late 70s, Távora must have been around sixty years old and that distance that could naturally exist between Mestre and the newly arrived students was destroyed by its great proximity, by its ease of communication and by great availability.

One of the very important moments at Escola do Porto was an open class in which we all went camping for a week to the Convent of Santa Maria – work on the pousada in Guimarães was beginning. We all went there, it was raining and it was cold, but we were young and resisted everything! And all of that, with lunches together with the workers, was always very lively and with a very intense atmosphere. It was a very important moment to understand all the involvement of the Escola do Porto, the relationship that was established with the different contexts, with the realization of a work and what was, of course, the way Távora designed. It was the most memorable year for me.

After that, there was a phenomenon that happened, until the mid-1980s, in which almost all of us were integrated into a studio during the course. And there was a lot of “jumping” between studios, working on some days, other days on others. If there was a studio that was doing a contest, we would mobilize to participate and help. And I felt the need to not only be connected to the school’s teaching, it was important that it should naturally blend with the practice and learning in the workshops.

In Lisbon, the school was, at that time, much more fragmented. It did not have the cohesion that existed in Porto. One of the characteristics of the Lisbon school at that time is that the years were very different, the subjects were diverse and continuity was very easily lost. And so it was also more natural to find it more difficult to find the same degree of enthusiasm as the teachers, which was something that was being lost…

What impressed me most in Lisbon was the continuity of drawing learning. In fact, with Luísa Brandão, in Porto, it was the big moment, but in Lisbon, Daciano Costa – who was a man who also had a great ability to connect with students – was essential to understand what this was for support, that tool as an extension of our thinking, trying to register it.

History was also very important for me, especially in the 3rd year, because I discovered a number of things that until then told me very little, from the point of view of the connection with Architecture, all because and through Maria Calado who is an incredible teacher , with an impressive knowledge and enthusiasm, which provoked us with a set of subjects. I remember that, that year, the reading of Giullio Carlo Argan introduced us, especially about Neoclassicism and revivals – readings that were part of the spirit of that early 80s, late 70s – but also introduced us to architects, revolutionary sayings, like Ledoux, and also architects who had initiated the revisits of Roman Architecture, among which, very concretely, Piranesi. It was this 3rd year that made me have even more passion for the architecture course.

And then, later on, another professor who joined our course, José Manuel Fernandes – interestingly, later, he became one of the founders of Autónoma and an essential pillar in what was the construction of the University – he brought a look with very specific readings he did on Architecture, on the themes he brought, which turned out to be extremely important for a final course.

The school, for me, was much more striking in what we talked about among colleagues and in this construction that has been done, over the years, of drawing closer to, of approaching the themes of History, through the desire to deepen knowledge.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

There was also an important event in the Architecture course, which happened in my 4th and 5th years, which were the first major international architecture conferences in Portugal. We are referring to times when the dissemination of architecture arrived in Portugal with great difficulty, even for studios, it was not easy to obtain publications, books, etc. Not to mention that before 1974, many of the books had to enter Portugal under the car seats because they were considered subversive… Robert Venturi’s “Complexity and Contradiction” was subversive…

 

The great conferences that took place in the Fine Arts brought characters like Peter Eisenman, I think that Aldo Rossi, Charles Jencks, Charles Moore, I don’t remember if Robert Stern, Paolo Portughesi came yet… They all went to the School of Fine Arts Arts and that marked us a lot. From the point of view of some isolation that we knew from the rest of the world … it was difficult to get here and it was also difficult to get out of here, it was not easy to cross Spain and the Pyrenees to reach the other side of Europe. It was the first time that we heard, live, a set of characters. There was even a daily newspaper that followed a controversy between two of these architects and that published anything related to different positions on interventions in the city of Lisbon and that was not, in fact, something we were used to in our daily lives. And they were important because they let us know different ways of living and thinking about architecture and, above all, radically different ways, in some cases.

 

But there was always this question about what had the most weight in our training. Whether it was really school or if it was training outside school, in workshops.

 

I, of course, was close to several architects. Right away, from my father (José Daniel Santa-Rita). But also Duarte Nuno Simões (my uncle), Alberto Oliveira, and still Manuel Vicente, were people with whom I worked and lived and with whom I naturally kept a dialogue… and that is why there is always the question about what, for weighed more, whether it was academic training or whether it was this training. Just the other day, I spoke to Gonçalo Byrne and said: “I remember one thing in which I participated and which, today, if we counted it seems almost impossible (but that reveals the proximity of architects in those years): one of teams created for the Martim Moniz contest were my father, Bartolomeu Costa Cabral, Manuel Vicente, Raúl Hestnes Ferreira and Gonçalo Byrne! ” This is something that no one imagines! What a team! With such a powerful and diverse range!

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

João Santa-Rita was part of the 1st group of professors who formed the Architecture course at UAL – Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa. I certainly brought several ideas that were a consequence of those experiences he had…

Yes. I think I just did not attend the initial, restricted meetings between the three founders of the course. I was always present at the various meetings that were held to create and structure the course, to discuss what the subjects were, how they were going to be taught and integrated and the nature of them.

From the start, questions were asked. One thing is a course that is continuing and reformulating, another thing is a course that is going to start. They were memorable meetings, discussing the best of each one, the relevance of certain attributions, always looking for those who could best answer the considered objectives. Even some aspects that could seem contradictory, of teachers who had very different backgrounds and different ways of producing and how they came together, were very discussed.

 

At the beginning of the course – even a little by chance – I ended up assuming the coordination of the Construction themes. What interested me most in this discipline, believing in the importance of linking it to the knowledge of History, was, in some way, to try to make it happen right at the beginning of the training, contrary to what happened in other courses. That students, regardless of whether they were prepared or not, had, as soon as possible, this confrontation with aspects inform the materiality of architecture.

That turned out to be something that was introduced and, I think, accepted by everyone. At one point it created a certain distinction in the structure of UAL, in relation to other courses. As a matter of fact, I don’t know if it will still be today, of the few courses, or the only one, that has had this discipline since the first semester (because now it’s all for semesters).

 

But they were very stimulating moments. We spent a lot of months thinking about the course, ideas and solutions and that allowed – thanks to the intervention of José Manuel Fernandes, Manuel Graça Dias and João Luís Carrilho da Graça – to think about the course and, perhaps, it is thanks to that which still has the success it has today. Despite all the difficulties, it allowed to launch a course with solid bases.

 

All of us, in a more or less continuous way, had managed to be connected to teaching, throughout our lives, and we carried to the course what each one ideally imagined could be the teaching of a certain discipline. I personally did not think about what I liked to teach, I thought about what I liked to learn. I thought like this: “What did I miss when I was a student in these disciplines?”, “What would you like a teacher to tell me about?”, “How would you like this teacher to relate to me in a subject as specific as it is? “What margin do I have to innovate teaching in subjects for which it is more difficult to captivate students’ interest and availability, since they do not immediately understand its purpose and usefulness?” And it is necessary to underline what is extremely important, which is the anticipation of the materiality of architecture, before a phase of two-dimensional representation, and how this is transmitted to students, right from the start. And that is what I looked for.

 

Especially because I, I can confess, did not like going to the Fine Arts school at all, and maybe I am being very unfair to many colleagues and teachers, but I never had a great relationship with the school. He did not like schedules very much, nor did they stick to tasks, he understood learning more freely than in practice it ended up being carried out and guided. Even in a school like Fine Arts, and I had colleagues in engineering who said that we didn’t have hours for anything, I said yes, we didn’t have hours and that the ones I had, cost me. So it was very difficult for me to create connections to the school itself, apart from the group of friends, which was essential. But, in fact, it was not an easy relationship. The world of the studio told me more, from that point of view. It was more stimulating as a way of learning. And now teaching forced me to reflect on how to captivate students’ interest and attention. At the beginning it was very intense and lively, we even had a workshop that allowed us to do many innovative works, in carpentry and metalwork. I remember a year when a group of students executed, in steel profiles, part of the structure of the Swiss Corbusier pavilion, on a one to two scale. All of this leaves me with great memories of a way of teaching very close to the students.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

When you finished the Architecture course, how was your journey?

During the course, our life included the side of school attendance and participation in academic life with work and learning in workshops, as I mentioned. When I left school, I had a very linear year or two, I ended up participating in many things, with several colleagues and architects. I also made some partnerships with other professional areas. And these two years, between 1983 and 1985, were very much lived like this … I had the opportunity to do some works, especially in the area of ​​remodeling floors in Lisbon and the construction of some houses that were never completed near Azeitão … then I went to Macau.

 

I had known Manuel Vicente (MV) for many years, my father and Manuel (MV), in addition to great friends, had even had a studio together in the 70s and 80s… I ended up, somehow, causing a trip to Macao! I showed up for a holiday day at Easter… I was collaborating with Manuel Graça Dias (MgD), who was preparing one of the great architecture exhibitions in Portugal, with Carlos Duarte, the exhibition Trends in Portuguese Architecture. One of the architects represented was Manuel Vicente and it was necessary to prepare the material for the exhibition and Manuel Graça Dias challenged me to collaborate in the preparation of this material, establish contacts with the various workshops and ensure that they sent the drawings, photographs, texts and given in time for Manuel (MgD) and Carlos Duarte to deal with the selection and exhibition of the material sent. This, for me, was very pleasant, because it helped me to get to know Manuel Graça Dias better and to know his way of being in Architecture. And one day I said to him: “Look, Manuel (MV) never sends things again, don’t worry that I will spend a few days in Macau and try to bring or at least try to catch up on the material there!” And that’s what I did! I went there for fifteen days, of which I dedicated about 70% to work and gather all that material … what a wonderful vacation! In the middle of it all, I ended up getting involved in a contest; there were 4 or 5 days to go back, Manuel (MV) had received an invitation to participate in the contest for the World Trade Center in Macau and we closed ourselves in the atelier and there was the contest! After a few months Manuel (MV) called me (at 4 am) to say he had won the contest and to ask if I didn’t want to go there for a season. Things happened this way in a very natural way. I reflected a lot and asked my father for a lot of help to control some works and projects that I was already starting to do – there was a small hotel under construction, there were some more rooms for some friends. And I thought I would only go for a few months, I would collaborate on the previous study and then I would return. I ended up staying in Macau for almost two years.

 

I think that many of us didn’t go out, we stayed here, because we had work and friends and life to start. I, in fact, wanted to leave Portugal. It was not something to be driven to. During those years there were also difficult times in Portugal, up to eighty and such, they were very lively years because there was a lot of work in the workshops, but there was also a great lack of money in the country … There was a tremendous difficulty in receiving. I remember that letters were received, workshops were paid with letters, the State paid one, two years… There was a shortage of money, but unlike today there was spirit. But that wasn’t exactly what led me to leave. I wanted to go abroad to study, and unfortunately I couldn’t go where I wanted to, and the second option was to go abroad to work.

 

And it ended up being extremely important for my training, because it was a very different relationship with Architecture, with the way of doing it … We had three or four very important moments in the studio, which really marked us: the second contest held for the Bay from Praia Grande, a contest that Manuel (MV) did with my father for the Aga Khan Foundation Center in Lisbon (which is not what is built today)… Everything was remarkable from the point of view of the ease with which things happened in Macau! There were very different resources from those in our country, and that made it possible to put things into practice much more easily.

 

And the studio worked with a great presence of Manuel, of his authorship, but also with great freedom! And that allowed us, very easily, among those who were there, to establish roots and deep friendships and to work a lot! Because it was like that. I remember spending three or four nights without even sleeping to finish some contests and not rest! And that allowed us to participate in a lot of things. Then it also allowed other things … When I arrived in Macau, Manuel had been operated on and was very weak and had to come to Lisbon for a relatively large convalescence and it was necessary for all of us, and we were young, 25/26 years old, to take over very large responsibilities in the studio. I remember that I had a power of attorney! Sign contracts, undo contracts, guarantee atelier payments, move money, etc.! And I had this responsibility that even scared me! This also reveals the way Manuel related to people and how he trusted them. And the way we also had to know how to manage that responsibility and how to honor it. What did this also allow us to do? It was to realize, from a very early age, mechanisms that we would not have understood had this contingency not occurred.

 

On the other hand, in Macau – unlike Lisbon, where many projects were carried out, but only a small percentage were actually built – a large percentage of the projects were built. Which means that in these two years the studio had a set of buildings under construction, with some dimension, and all of them very different, institutional and private, interior arrangements, museums, television installations, housing, social housing, offices… all of that , for a young architect was something very relevant. I remember that, on the second day that I arrived at the studio, I was immediately in charge of an execution project for a bank branch and also the monitoring of a work! And I also remember that, in this execution project, I had to design a series of frames, which at that time were made of iron or wood – I did some details, and Manuel criticized me a lot, because my details would not resist the first wave wind, there was not like in Portugal, there were typhoons! And so, this was a really remarkable experience, which allowed me to look at architecture in a different way!

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

Was this distance from Portugal important to you? Also to create an identity distinct from the family context? Did you feel that need?

I don’t know if he was so conscious or not. I went to Macau because I wanted to know Manuel’s way of thinking and working up close and I knew there were things that interested me that I didn’t find in the universe of Lisbon.

But I can give you a better idea of ​​what motivated me to leave. On the one hand, I was really interested in learning what was being done in some schools in the United States. California fascinated me. There were some young architects who were beginning to stand out who were interested in their constructive freedom, in the way they had a relationship with a kind of non-ephemeral architecture, but ephemeral simultaneously, through their own materiality. Architects such as Morphosis, some of Frank Ghery’s early works, in the early 1980s. At the same time, the Orient had a completely different scale. The intensity of Hong Kong, which is a strange city because it does not have what we expect to find in a western city – it lacks squares, large spaces – there is an intensely dense structure, which works very well with the topography, the landscape, the dynamics shopping and the city itself… And I must say that I really liked Macau on the first day! In fact, I have been fortunate enough to go there with some regularity and whenever I return with deep homesickness and I always say that I could have lived there the rest of my life, without any problem. I don’t mind the weather. I like it to be small but intense, today it also has a cosmopolitan character that was missing at the time. Liking Macau was also important to build affinities with the territory.

 

Obviously, my departure to Macau, helped me a lot to understand what interested me. What I wanted and the way I got closer to Architecture. And one of the things that marked me, certainly, was the learning of that city, which was very different from Lisbon. And it was, above all, important to distance myself for a time from the culture that was lived in the country.

There were things that interested me a lot, and I don’t know if until today I have managed to incorporate them into my work or not, which are related to my reading of some aspects of History and the relationship of buildings with the places and with the very nature of its materiality.

 

I needed to distance myself from work, from the order I was starting to have in Portugal. I was working there in a studio and I had my time to go drawing. And it was curious because, this year, an exhibition was held in Macau about Manuel Vicente, organized by Rui Leão and Carlota Bruni, and invited twenty-one very different people who were connected to Manuel (MV) to write and to conceive a set of panels that illustrated what had been his work in Manuel Vicente’s atelier and what had been his work throughout his life since then. And I sent two panels, which established a parallel, the drawings he made for the projects in Manuel Vicente’s studio and the drawings he freely elaborated, at the weekend and at night, thinking of a set of possible interventions for Macau. And it pleased me, after almost 30 years, to cross those two moments.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

About the experience as a teacher, you talked about the subject of Technologies but now you are giving Project (2nd year) to substantially different students. Tell us a little about this challenge.

Architecture education can evolve – but there are questions that are, in fact, constant. They are part of the great body of teaching architecture. There are always new materials, there are always new questions, there is the history that evolved, there are new points of view, different from the points of view 20 or 30 years ago, there are new matters from the technological point of view and all this is fundamental … But I would say that there is no substantial distinction between the way of teaching architecture a few years ago and now. The themes are all present, there is no cleaning of materials, there are more materials! But the others continue. It is evident that there is an evolution of thought as well as the way of thinking about architecture and this, naturally, is reflected in teaching, but in the way in which the themes and subjects that arise in relation to them are approached.

 

And, of course, the course started with a certain dimension, evolved and now, somehow, has redefined itself. There are more students coming from abroad than Portuguese students. There is a big difference compared to the group of students from a few years ago, trained in Portugal, who came with levels of secondary knowledge that we knew. Now, there are students with different levels of education, even with different cultures, we have a large contingent of students from Angola, in the 1st cycle. This obviously brings a great challenge to the course. For me, it is not exactly a novelty, since I had taught, between 1996 and 2001, with Pancho Guedes, in Lusófona, and it was a reality more or less similar to that of UAL, today.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

And do these students bring or build their references in a more global, international way, compared to what happened in the past?

I don’t feel that in the 2nd year, but it is natural that, in the more advanced years, this feels. First, because we always have this eternal issue with architecture: it is very difficult for a 2nd year student to reach different levels of culture of knowledge, in the fields of Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Thought, etc. It is very difficult to acquire knowledge and even to cross it. A student may be very interested in reading and reading several authors, but then he immediately understands how this culture, even for something as direct as writing, can contribute to the discipline of design.

 

Therefore, this question about the weight of your references still seems to me, in the first years, very deficient. Speaking openly, and that is what we say to the students, they lack culture! But I also think that other students from previous years were already missing! Perhaps, what happens is that for others some subjects were at least familiar. They did not know them as well as we wished, but they had already come across them, in different ways, on a visit, or because the history teacher had already spoken … Not now. Now, for many, they are naturally entirely new matters because the culture of the places they come from is different from ours. We have, of course, a very structured teaching in Western culture. We don’t study Chinese architecture, for example. And therefore, we always have this question, if one day we receive Chinese students in the 1st or 2nd year, it will make a lot of difference for them to learn architecture through examples, centered on a specific geographical and cultural reality different from theirs. And, therefore, obviously, there are always questions that we have to file…

 

This is then felt in everything. In the Project discipline itself. There are references that are totally different and, of course, this also generates greater questioning on the part of the students.

 

As for Project, I started to teach Project classes at UAL with Manuel (MV) and Madalena (Cardoso Menezes), the programs were very comprehensive and allowed very relevant and valid exercises, and also very diverse, but they were done with large classes of 50/60 students. Which meant that in groups of this dimension there were always students who leveraged others and therefore the class naturally increased their quality, because some feel forced and impelled to follow the work of others … That gave a perspective of the course, or better, from the 2nd year, when we reached the end of the year and had a student body that had a perception of the city, had reflected on its various components, looked at very different realities, worked on some programs and acquired a set of skills, and that left us reasonably hopeful with his move to the 3rd year of Architecture and, later, to the Master’s. This is where I think that the panorama of the university has radically changed, we have to pay more attention to the acquisition of skills and tools, which we hoped, better or worse, were already mastered. In this respect, there is a great decalage between the past and the present.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

And, for all that, did the discipline have to be adapted?

Yes, it had to be adapted a little. There are jobs that have to be done, initially, to help students acquire tools, from the point of view of drawing, representation, model making … Almost everything is new. And this forces, in a certain way, to rethink how to approach themes that allow to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge and that allows to obtain a more precise notion of the relation of an object with any context.

But, above all, I would say that the way I have always been involved in the teaching of architecture remains – despite everything I had already given a project in several schools – I always privileged things that started with an intervention in the city and then decreased, until I reached an object, which would come out of this broader intervention.

 

Basically, I hope that students learn to redefine scale and context, so that, in the 3rd year, they can have another competence and facility to deal with challenges of another nature.

 

But, in the end, what characterizes a school is the fact that students can have different teachers, with different approaches and, from that point of view, I try to have unique things. For two years, I carried out an exercise that was a way of involving students in aspects of Western culture and introducing them to what could be the great themes of space and architecture, and it was also a way of getting students to think and rethink the representation of architecture, while allowing them to evolve in some aspects such as the case of representation in drawing and through models. This exercise was done from the selection of 3 or 4 engravings of the Carceri de Piranesi. The students were invited to study the pictures, to assign a scale, to understand the paradoxes and contradictions of those representations, what they represented, the context in which they had been made, what they meant at that moment, the way they constituted and constitute a constant reference . The students then had to make a kind of extension of that picture, to imagine and complete what was beyond the image, and to think about how it could be marked within a certain envelope and how it could interact with the spaces of the city.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

Over the years, the course has changed due to the circumstances of which you speak, but at the same time, the departure from the university to the world of work is also different. What courses are available to students after they finish the course?

I may be wrong, but I believe that the training of the architect is something, more or less, universal. In other words, there are colleagues and universities that understand that training should be directed towards a certain reality. The truth is that reality is circumstantial and can be changed at any time. Training is not for a static reality … At this moment, in Portugal, as in many European countries, there is not much more to be done than the rehabilitation of existing buildings. This does not make us teachers oriented only to this reality. This possibility of intervention has always existed, but the truth is that this concern was not always part of our view of reality, understanding what exists, understanding how we live now and understanding, above all, in a reality like Europe, how it is that it intervenes in a context for which countless questions compete.

 

The same happens from the point of view of professional opportunities. And then, as I said, there are stories that are new. The reality is no longer complex, but I have no hesitation in saying that it has a different complexity. Our reality is very different from what it was 20/30 years ago. A few days ago, for a job I’m starting, I was curious to look at the list of projects to be developed and I came to the conclusion that the project has 27 specialties involved! Which means that, maybe, 30% of the time that will be used is to manage teams, and see if the twenty-seventh is up to date, if the twenty-fifth has not forgotten three roles… and then incorporate all that information in a project ! It is very different! The same project, 20 years ago, had four specialties, four technicians involved and was running out there. Therefore, from this point of view, it is these subjects that contribute to the project and that I believe are taught, in relation to the past, with greater attention. And maybe even with greater competence. There are subjects in the field of technology that I believe are taught with other competence. Many of them today have scientific knowledge that they did not have, they had more empirical knowledge. And, for architects to maintain their integrative vision, it is evident that universities ended up including this type of knowledge. And that seems to me well because it is, in fact, a possibility that allows architects, when they leave a university and when they decide to start their professional activity, to end up having several options. Because architecture allows that. Architecture allows not only possibilities outside of its field – we all have colleagues who turned out to be fantastic professionals in completely different areas, in writing, in television production, as film set makers, as musicians, as people connected with fashion – because the course also allows a very particular apprehension of other realities, along with more concrete aspects, related to Architecture, but they are never exhausted only in the Project area. And, in fact, there are people who have an appetite for completely different things. And, from this point of view, it is natural that the courses integrate yet another set of new subjects.

 

One doubt that I have is related to the relationship that exists between what happens inside the university and what happens outside. For example: I think that one of the big gaps that universities seem to have is visits to works. João (Caria Lopes) was part of a few years when we had in the subject of Technologies something called Diário de Obra. In the 1st year, students started to go to works. Regardless of the quality of the work, because it was impossible to find 30 works of the same quality, it allowed students to, from the beginning, have a common language, know what they were talking about, understand what work is. There was a path that was taken, they realized the work that was being carried out and its evolution, they learned what was the reality of a work.

 

All of that has changed. Three or four years ago we visited the works of Parque Escolar and it was much more complex … ensuring that everyone has insurance and goes with helmets, vests, boots, that no one can be late. And the visit is like a path of ants because it is difficult to make the visit with the works on site – if the work is interrupted, the inspection comes and says they are late because they received the study visit! This is a completely different reality! But it is something that is needed! I am not sure how this can be fulfilled, if it is through protocols with two or three large construction companies … It is not easy to take a large number of students for study visits, especially in continuity, because that is what mattered! But I realize that for a project, having UAL, or Lusófona asking for ten visits, only in Lisbon, if all universities ask for ten visits, there are sixty visits in a year and they immediately say: “Well, either stop the work or so we have to ask the contractor for two more months just to incorporate the study visits! ”.

 

But I think it was an important aspect because with professional opportunities being so diverse, it would seem important that students have that opportunity. Especially since I am convinced that students trained in architecture continue to have a global view of the construction process, what architecture is and what a building is, and this allows them to be better prepared. They are more integrators, they do not have a very specific vision.

 

On the other hand, there are countless things that architects, today, can also do, for example, in the field of 3D visualization, which is a huge world, there are many people who make this their activity. There are also more ephemeral works and there are those of planning, for example, which are fundamental. And in this area, architects have a great importance in the role of looking and intervening in the territory. In this regard, if we look at the exhibition that is now taking place at CCB, by João Luís Carrilho da Graça, it is a translation of that. The territory of a building turns out to be an entire city, then there is the specific place, but ultimately, it is the city that matters.

And, even for these particularities, we have had our profession widely recognized abroad, because we have a very diverse territory, we have a very different history, we have very different cities, very different realities, which allows us to have a very particular formation in the eyes and knowing how to see, which, in some way, makes us able to intervene in very different contexts, to have this ability to easily apprehend them. Perhaps other countries will be more attached to a less heterogeneous reality, and that does not allow them to do so.

 

And then, the training we have had over the years is very identical from school to school – we do not have, in Portugal, schools with very specific education and even very fracturing in the way of teaching architecture, as some countries have, such as United States, or even some schools in Europe, as there was, at one time, Holland or even England. But we have a cohesive and very well structured teaching, with a strong body in the way it crosses other subjects and even in the way it teaches architecture and particularly the project, and this has been a positive aspect for our students when they leave the university.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

With the experience you have had with the Presidency of the Order of Architects, has your idea of ​​the profession changed? Or rather, what is the current state of the profession in Portugal?

It is not because it is inside or outside the O.A. that you have a different view of the profession. It would only be very different if I was too far from the project, but as I was always an architect and I never stopped being that, the reality I imagined the profession to be is not very different because I am at O.A. I have more data and more information about the profession and, above all, what the profession really is in the European context. And I was very surprised – because we tend to think that what is happening in our country is unique, whether good or bad – that it was to realize that the world, from the point of view of architecture, has a distorted perception of the which is the importance of architectural reality. That is, if there are countries in which architecture is a highly esteemed reality, in most countries, architecture is not at all estimated, in all senses. In terms of the process, it doesn’t matter what you do, or how you do it, what matters is to do, what matters is that things are accomplished, more than the quality itself and the conditions that underlie it.

 

Does architecture as a discipline or does this also imply an undervalued image of the architect himself?

I think that for most people, discipline doesn’t exist, which is the first big problem. If you don’t even understand the role of the architect and what architecture can be of added value to a society, then discipline doesn’t even exist! The architect’s appreciation is not so much for himself, but for what he does. And until the space where we live, where we are, is valued, it is difficult to appreciate who is behind it. And that is felt in everything! One feels the devaluation of the mechanisms themselves, of the achievements, of the work itself. You can even feel the way work is distributed. And we know that contests are always controversial, there are always ideas that confront each other, but contests that are based on the quality of the project is a reality that tells us a lot, because we are just discussing what is best for a given reality. At this moment, we know that this is not the reality, until we have reached the most critical phase, unfortunately, which is almost an auction. In subsequent stages of the contest, you can offer more of this and consider less …

 

I think that these are signs of an enormous cultural failure and that it will certainly result in great unrest. Because, at bottom, we are eventually more demanding than our close ancestors were. We have completely different notions of what the community is and what it is to be and what it is to participate in, but we end up being less demanding, from the point of view of the quality of those around us. This is often seen by those who make decisions, those who have a lot of strength in these matters, ending up, in many moments, revealing real setbacks in many matters. I think that this comes a lot from this lack of recognition of the importance and relevance of architecture for the construction of our reality.

 

But it is not only the decision makers ‘fault, it is also ours, the architects’ fault. We are also part of this problem. I was at the DAC, Danish Architectural Center for days, and I was perplexed, because they have a center with some dimension and quality and they are making an even bigger center, which is a Rem Koolhaas project, on the bank of the Copenhagen port. One question remains: “How can a center of architecture in Denmark – because there are several in France, in London, there is the House of Architecture in Portugal… – at this moment manage to launch itself in the realization of such a large work? It is that a large part of DAC’s success results precisely from the way it was able to mix all the different aspects and components of society with its programs for the dissemination and promotion of architecture. What does this mean? It means that it is not a center exclusively for architects, it is a center for all people, for all professionals. It has events of a very diverse nature, even if directed towards architecture, but which have a wider interest, thematic visits … It is a center where they welcome children from 4/5 years old – who are in the kindergarten and can go there to play in workshops – even older citizens, who can go there for visits or have lunch. And what does this mean? It means that DAC manages to have a great importance in the community, as well as a great recognition of its activity. Of course, we know that this is easy in countries that have cultural levels and habits different from ours, even in terms of their relationships and the way they build their daily lives, and in the way they weave the relations of society , but it’s a reality that makes us think, isn’t it?

 

But the truth is that we will be among the European peoples in which the relationship with architecture is very intense, because we have cities with very old centers, with a lot of history, and also with many recent achievements, but the truth is, on a daily basis -day, the relationship with architecture is of total disinterest. There is no concern, at all levels, for the quality of what is offered. It’s all a little indifferent. It is a kind of “whatever” that causes a lot of confusion. Nothing in architecture matters! A few days ago, when I was on that visit to Copenhagen, I was going with a person who even said, “This even bores you because it is rare to enter a building that has no quality!” Everything has a kind of an established quality standard. And that reflects the concern of those who do the best they know, it translates the concern of those who enjoy finding things that have quality and where they feel good. For us, everything is a little indifferent … Although that has changed a little bit recently. And I think it has changed because the younger generations move more and end up bringing more references and being more open to lead this change.

 

We (architects) certainly do not give up on doing with quality and we do not give up on understanding that what we have to do changes the environments, changes the city – it has all this degree of intervention – but it is also important to realize, for those who are there , what does it mean. And we all have stories to tell, that in the work the director says that now he wants the walls like that and baked, and we answer that we are the architect and they tell us that they are the boss… These are stories that we all have, since the small work to the biggest… But that only reflects this lack of recognition.

 

I don’t dare say, if I go to my doctor and if he is going to operate on me, “Oh, sir, this time, I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with the scalpel coming in here, and I think it should be cut from left to right because I didn’t like any of these cuts that you made me here… This now has to be with other blades or something and sorry there, but it won’t give me the anesthesia as it did, it will take another hour and a half, and before entering the operation, let’s do a discount! ”

 

The truth is that something that is as important to well-being as architecture, perhaps is not immediately understood, nor is it life or death. The difference, instead of happening immediately, is noticeable throughout history and throughout our lives.

 

Europe, from that point of view, is no longer a benchmark. Perhaps it is a mistake for all of us because we have Europe in high regard in many matters. But it ceased to be so from that point of view because, in the name of many things, it is devaluing a few others. And the countries that devalue, in a certain way, the quality of their architecture, devalue it because that is already rooted in their society. The reality, from this point of view, is very adverse, for some things that we architects defend. The world of architecture must be very attentive and concerned with what is a European vision of these professional areas. The excessive desire to bureaucratize everything, a lot of paper to fill out, a lot of letters, a lot of reports to do, requirements and rules for everything … Just with the intention of having someone responsible when things go wrong … The quality is only for 3 or 4 more works visible and more important and for the day-to-day world is a little indifferent.

 

© Pedro Frade – Todos os direitos reservados

 

Given all these challenges that we are talking about, do you foresee a dark future for architecture or do you believe that we have a way to go?

If I didn’t believe in architecture, I would stop being an architect! In other words, I don’t think I have a pessimistic view. I think I try to have a realistic vision, with a great deal of optimism because, deep down, that’s what makes me want to do things and take pleasure in it. Only with optimism can we combat what is most negative and adverse! But we also cannot be deceived and think that it is a world full of positive things and easy to resolve because, in fact, there is a lot of negative things in between and to counteract it, it takes a lot of perseverance and the work of many. And what makes me most impressed is not that there are negative or positive things, it is the fact that many negative things seem natural to many people, and sometimes even to those who have responsibility for decisions.

 

But architecture will always exist! Naturally, it evolves, as it always has. And certainly, many things are changing, as it has also happened throughout history. I don’t see that destruction is coming. You might think that what you do could be better. Over 40 years of history, from the 1970s onwards, a lot has been done. Many schools, equipment, better conditions were created, health centers, universities were created… and now, with the reduced student population, there are problems, but the universities are done! There will be others that still need to be done. You can’t think that whoever is going to make a new train station is a criminal right away and just wants to put an end to the public purse. There will always be a need to do things… A concrete example is the fact that we receive more students from outside than we did, as we know, and we do not have enough reception facilities, even for Portuguese students, as there are other countries, we are very poorly prepared, and students end up organizing themselves and renting apartments … Maybe they are areas where universities have a major flaw, they do not have so-called student residences. So, there are always areas where we have to invest if we want to attract another type of audience.

 

But we also know that there is a lot to do in this country. We just have to go through our cities and realize that there is, in fact, much to do. Now, the nature of the work is different, they are different interventions. And this is important for those who are studying here … The truth is that, from this point of view, as I said, we have a country much more equipped than we had. But there will always be faults. Some libraries there, some cultural spaces there, a national museum.

 

For example, there is no national museum of architecture, it simply does not exist and has consequently been postponed! And this clearly denotes the way in which architecture is given importance and value! I do not know how many countries in Europe do not have an architecture museum, I believe that few, but I know that Portugal is certainly one of them.

 

Another curious thing, which has to do with this, Portugal only this year is that there was a resolution by the Council of Ministers on a national policy on Architecture and Landscape, which is something that architects have been fighting for many years. This denotes how these issues are devalued. And if we also want to believe that architecture is a good and will be something that will have implications, good or bad, in the future, it is very important to create policies for its implementation and for the participation of architects in many of the decision-making processes. And that, obviously, goes through this recognition and then the museum is the first step. And how long have you been talking about the museum? First, I was going to the Pavilhão de Portugal… The fact is that the Pavilion has been there since 1998, almost 20 years have passed… and we have assets, production, international recognition, for Portuguese architecture to have a museum… But there is not, and the problem it’s that!