100: Cristina Gamboa (Lacol)

Scaffold is supported by the Architecture Foundation, bringing new voices to the conversation about architecture in London and around the world. For more information and upcoming events, visit architecturefoundation.org.uk. From the Architecture Foundation, I'm Matthew Blunderfield, and you're listening to Scaffold. Late last month, February 2024, I was in Barcelona with my teaching partner, Kathy Holley, and our students from the RCA, visiting projects that, in different ways, related to the theme of our studio this year, which is all about excess, or Timbora of Frays from the anthropologist Anna Singh, a new art of living on a damaged planet. Barcelona is full of architectural exuberance, think gaudy and usual, and reek Mariahs and Flora's prats, all of them, and many more, designing buildings that are floored and idiosyncratic. But interestingly, by often repurposing and reorganizing existing materials and building elements, offering an aesthetic of abundance that could conceivably persist in times of profound precarity. On the other hand, there are practices in Barcelona that have a much more ambivalent relationship to the excesses of form and style. Prioritizing instead, a social richness that can unfold within buildings that are often necessarily more uniform and standardized. A project of this kind we visited was the Cooperative Housing Scheme, La Borda, built in 2018 by the practice La Cale. La Cale emerged in Barcelona following the 2008 financial crisis, comprised of tens of students who are all living together in a district of the city called Sants. Faced with dire job prospects and galvanized by their research into Sants' history of workers' cooperative movements, the students began addressing common needs through cooperative structures in the most comprehensive sense, whether that be in the management of energy, the procurement and development of land, or indeed an establishment of a cooperative architecture practice. Christina Gamboa, a member of La Cale, gave us a tour of La Borda, and I met with her a few days later at La Cale's office, itself home to a range of cooperative organizations, to learn more about La Borda and the practice that designed it. And now, my interview with Christina Gamboa. I think it's something I've been noticing in students are reluctance to design anymore, and a kind of caution around this idea of authorship. To assume too much control over a project is now kind of taboo. And I mean, this is a question very close to La Cale, which itself is an architectural collective and works with collectives to make collective work. And maybe we could start there with this question of autonomy. I mean, we're kind of jumping right into things, but to needs somehow the most crucial question. How is a collective do you find autonomy when there are so many people involved in making the work? Well, I think autonomy is a word that for us connects in many levels, because in a way, for us La Cale was a space of autonomy in a context of crisis and also like working for people without conditions, etc. And at the same time, the project that we are proposing, all we are working with La Borda is a space where the users or the inhabitants kind of have the autonomy to control the environment or housing environment. So in terms of the design, I think that well, the specific autonomy for us, it really link to the moments of design in a way. I think that despite we are working in a collective way in many levels, we like to understood as inputs, as kind of information and conditions or restrictions that you are to the design, but in the moment where we are kind of understanding how this can become an architectural kind of form object building, we feel that we have that autonomy, which is based on also the trust with all the members. And because at the end, the environmental consultancy or the municipality or even the user are not that involved in the moment where we are here or in a workshop, all the members are discussing about the project. And it's so clear, especially looking at the project we visited La Borda, there is a formal autonomy. There's a very reduced material palette and it kind of monolithic form. It's mostly corrugated polycarbonate in timber and concrete on the base. And you have these strip windows, which remind me a bit of modernist housing, Corbusier, and then this roof, this other world on the roof, which is for conviviality from Landry, it's also a garden or a green house. So there's this real singular vision of the building form and yet a very collective what you've referred to as co-production of the project itself. And just I think it's helpful for a moment for me and for listeners to put this in contrast with other forms of co-production or other forms of co-design. And when we toured the building, you brought up the designer or the architect Lucien Kroll. You also mentioned Fri Otto and his uncle has project in Berlin. And to me these are really in opposition in a way possibly we could debate to what La Borda is doing. So could you talk a bit more about these other forms of collective design and the conscious decision to move away from this collective appearance into something more homogenous or singular? Yeah. I have the feeling that for us also the collectiveness, it's present in kind of a manifestation of the collective with all the kind of this global size, all the world height space, all of this multiple room that is present from the street or suddenly also kind of this kind of entrance to the park or the or the even the green house. So we were when we were starting to design La Borda and thinking who we were, which was our position regarding participation also of the user. And in that moment of course we were looking at Giancarlo De Carlo, Kroll, Fri Otto. It was to understand these different levels of participation or kind of how we can also kind of build this process. And in that moment the ownership was really important because it was a project based on collective ownership and the right of use one flat in a specific moment of your life but not maybe all the entire life. So we were imagining that the project is not a glove for a person and we were following more the idea of a habracan of a support and infill and this idea of the infrastructure. It's in a one again habracan. Habracan, Giancarbracan and the theory of the supports. Oh, can you expand on that? Well, basically it was the idea that the project has the main infrastructure which he called the support and then the infills which it was the parts of the building that can change and adapt to the specific user. So it was kind of a matter of establishing rules. And this was something that for us was having more sense, the idea that basically you were defining this idea of a community infrastructure that then users can live in different ways from the individual perspective but also from the collective perspective because the needs of the community will change from the moment one to 75 years. So that's who we were imagining also the participation. That's interesting. So it's a kind of framework for all kinds of possible occupations. Exactly. And again, the framework or the infrastructure for the community to unfold within is becoming much more commonplace in terms of what you see in the ambitions of young architects and students and it's exciting because it is about handing over autonomy in the way and relinquishing a certain amount of control. And I guess I remember as a student from me the dining awareness of his possibility first in the work of people like Lackiton Vassal where there's a kind of generic framework and the beauty of the project is really only captured in its entirety once it's been lived in and once the trappings of daily life and domesticity are on display. So when the balconies are full of stuff is when the project can really be experienced and it feels the same with La Bordeaux and you're right. I mean looking across the street at this double height space thinly veiled by the corrugated polycarbonate you can see evidence of play the children's toys and people hanging laundry and stuff like that. And so it seems like there's a kind of give and take even formally because to understand the project is complete is to see it kind of fully used or fully occupied as opposed to a pristine sterile object. But at the same time I get the feeling that it's never actually really complete. There's some really beautiful proposals for future works to the building and what are to think we could talk more about. And what is this idea of elderly care on the building? So there's a space for a mezzanine basically in this double height area. What what happens there in the future? I think that probably following this idea of the main infrastructure, the support and all this idea of the infill, basically I think that part of those common areas and common needs that will be in a way and it will continue to be built will be that. And I think that basically we arrive to this idea of different features of construction because budget restriction, because economy, but suddenly we realize also how powerful it is in the sense that basically if you define an unfinished building then the user has also the control to intervene. And this was something important for us because at the end if you are living there and realize that your needs are not fulfilled and not kind of there you have the capacity to understand which are the rules to use it to intervene. So this was something that was allowing to reduce the initial budget but was opening the door to the change and adaptation. So this idea of the adaptation also that we are thinking now in the cities about also the environmental or the reduction of construction. So if the buildings are open to this transformation maybe are also making the life of it longer. So in a way it was opening the idea of sensor belonging and adaptation through the design and through something it was really pragmatic. So we have had enough budget. And right now this was more present in the common areas. We saw in the visit basically the first step was finishing the kitchen and dining room. Then we are also organizing the storage space, the lottery and the last step. It's also this care space in the building which also basically it's interesting because right now people it's younger. So I would say that the oldest is around 65, 68 years old. They are totally autonomous. So also there will be future needs. So this space will be ended when all those people maybe need certain support of caring at certain kind of the exact. Well this is part of that. Through the life of the users, even the life of the building will kind of change and adapt. I wonder if we could talk now about the genesis of LaCole as a practice, as a cooperative. I heard you speak in a lecture explaining that there are three students at the university who are looking at science and projects and science. And this is the area of the city of Barcelona where in right now which has a history of cooperative movements. But was the genesis really in these early student projects and how did it move from a group of three to a group of 13 co-founders? Well in fact it was a group of almost probably ten students who were renting a space in Popla Sec and other area. And sadly another group of students they wanted also to kind of join. So basically in around 2008-2009 in the lightest stages of the university. We rented as a students space and it was around 21 people. In that moment it was also in the middle. So in the school of Barcelona where really kind of canonical, more conservative, really envisioning the idea of the Barcelona from the Olympics and the 90s. And suddenly it was kind of the crisis that it was there with kind of an old, or kind of a, I would say kind of an outdated model of understanding architecture and the role. And in that moment it was speaking when we had to do the final project, like the final thesis. And in that moment from this kind of rented a space, this space of working together because in the, we didn't have workshops or spaces to work together in the university. So basically from that space based on science. We started to imagine if we could develop projects, the final project linked to the surrounding. And we were also applying to kind of a new jury in the university that was accepting these real projects to be the thesis project. So and this was the opportunity to three of the members start to work in Cambelló, but also for example, Tarles, another one to work in La Liga, that's San Senca, which it was this project from age architects right now. And like all the almost all shoes of spaces in the neighborhood or in the other neighborhood linked to where they were from. So but basically kind of conflicts or a special opportunity in the city were to develop the the thesis or the final project. And three of them, La Liga, now one Paul, choose Cambelló as a site. And this was the beginning of the involvement of all the group in the claims, the histories and also the beginning of the recovery of Cambelló. But in a way it was kind of one of the many projects in the surrounding where we were involved in that moment as a student and was the entrance to understand more about the site, the histories, the cooperative genealogies. And yeah. Can we go try some of those cooperative genealogies now and how they influence the thinking of a call? Totally. I think that we basically for us the neighborhood was school. So in that moment where we were kind of thinking that it was obsolete this model of the role of the architect, this model of the city or the management of it and the transformation. The capacity to understand more about all those genealogies was essential. So basically the values of cooperativism linked to the roots in the territory, the self-respective kind of the core responsibility, the originality values from sustainability in a robust perspective and environmental or even a social sustainability where values of cooperativism. So when we were starting to imagine how we can organize ourselves as an office because we were many people and also with these kind of common values, the architectural or the cooperative form was something that we in a way kind of took from the neighborhood. And at the same time there were sociologies and anthropologies, other kind of disciplines and people important for us researching about these genealogies. And it was a moment of crisis. So it was a project from our neighbors downstairs, which it was called the Cooperative Neighborhood. And it was in a moment where the welfare state was dismantled with all the kind of the policies in Spain during the crisis. The idea to solve collectively common needs through cooperativist structures was present and it was part of those research. So the idea that we could also imagine cooperative models in the transformation of the city, in the management of the resources, in the provision of housing, also in a work environment as like all, was something that was kind of really influential for us. And how does it work in practice that an architectural office has run as a cooperative? Because in my experience, I've been working in practice as well, there are inherent hierarchies traditionally. There are directors, associates, project architects, internal architects, or architectural assistants, as I call them in the UK. And there is an inherent hierarchy of experience, of ability. And at the same time, there is of course more to learn from younger members. So I'm just wondering, how does an architectural practice function if the power structure is lateral? Or is there some, there must be some kind of hierarchy built in? How does it work? Well, basically I think that sadly also all change because we were this group of students, that's only 14 members co-founded local ten years ago. So basically it's different when you start a couple and then, or one or two architects, and sadly you start kind of having more people and suddenly there is kind of a difference of information, of control, of power as you mentioned. But sadly in our case we start kind of all 14 in kind of in a same moment. Of course the involvement and also the work was kind of, we were kind of not working sadly for 14 members, but the idea that you are starting from a same moment, you cannot have this typical division of responsibilities of work. So sadly you have to organize reproductive and productive work in another way. And also this was making visible that sadly you don't have a person that it's developing all kind of all the management work or even this category is about which is kind of the different levels of responsibility or why drawing or doing a model is less important than being in a meeting with collaborators. I don't know. So in a certain moment we were kind of understanding the value of any of the works in an office and we were trying to organize it in a cross sectional way. So all the members are involved in different stages. So this was something that was the way we started because the condition, And it was making us all the time thinking about when you are aware about the economy in the studio, you realize about also how a detail it embeds the economy of the construction about, but also the economy of the studio. You cannot be developing, I don't know, 100 hours to, or certain number of models because you cannot sustain it. And I think that this vision about starting from the beginning, being aware of what we are able to do, to have a lesson, kind of even salary. So I think it was kind of a connection with these kind of two walls about how to sustain this professional working structure, in parallel to the production of the architecture, but I think that was giving us many new approaches to even to the design. And in terms of the kind of the practicalities, we were of course, we could not be all involved in all the stages. So the providing as a species of decision or collective discussion, so the idea of worship was really important. So a couple of days per week we had assemblies to discuss about the management or kind of the entrance of new projects, or any who will be lecturing in a place or another one, but also another space during the week, the species of the worship, where a team, a member was presenting a project or an initiative in different stages, and we could all kind of define the guidelines in a way. So we are suddenly 13, 11, 10, 8 minds, and with different perspectives, backgrounds, interest, discussing on a project, and this is the moments where we feel that all the members are taking part of it. And I would say that the last comment about that is also this idea of transfer of knowledge. When you have a specific power structure, there is a people who is kind of having more and more information or knowledge. So of course the idea of how we are rotating about all the different roles, how also provide the spaces of transfer knowledge, and all these mechanisms that we were just trying to implement through time. So I think that our structure and way of organizing are being changing and it's really organic, adapting to the different needs and the different moments of the collective or the cooperative. I think had not been the same structure and way of operating, I would say 12 months. So we are always kind of learning by doing things, not from what it takes, but also from our way of organizing in the studio. Speaking of the transfer of knowledge, you seem to have always been at the interface of the office and the public in terms of relaying the work and ideas of the practice of the collective or the cooperative to a wider audience. And it's necessary to have a spokesperson. It's necessary to have a singular voice communicate your hesitant. But I think if we were to have all the members of the collective in the room right now, this conversation would be very different and it would probably be much longer and discordant. So can you talk more about what it means to be a spokesperson for the cooperative and how all this kind of multiplicity gets filtered into the voice of one person? I think it's a very important point and I really think that this was something that at the beginning, a couple of colleagues, Carlos and Elisa, for example, were the ones that were really present as a voice from La Colbe and they were two men. In a certain moment, the woman we were realizing constantly here in the space that sometimes we were not aware how kind of social construct, even social dynamics, were also affecting us internally. So sometimes who were feeling not prepared enough to let a project or not prepared enough to be kind of one of the voices. So in a certain moment, it was important for us to give different perspectives and voices outside. And it was also a moment where we were finishing La Borda and also it was one of the persons being more involved in the project. So I think that there is certain choreography of moments where based on the projects and the topics and even the spaces, if it's more academic or more practical. So I would say that we have been changing who it's participating and who it's explaining. And we are also currently in a moment where also I think that I've been really present as a voice and it's important to have a step kind of backwards and also give no new voices no. And I'm just trying also right now to invite more people to be in conversations or to be. But of course there is also even moments, personal moments, people who are not feeling comfortable because of the language or because of we have been in a moment of many maternity and paternity lives. So I think that it's something just temporary in a way. And I think this is beautiful because as you also mentioned, if my colleague would be here, the perspective would be different, the strengths, the important points are different. I think it's also that I usually when we start a lecture, I try to say that it's one of the voices, one perspective. But we are always trying to be plural. But this is difficult. And I think that the richness of La Colise, the sad and if Carlos is here, will give another perspective, if he was here. And of course in a conversation that would make it longer, more complex. We also have different opinions, contradictions, conflicts, which I think is the beauty of La Colise and also which makes us more strong. But yes, the voice, it's something and the face, it's something that we have, we are aware about that. And I need to move on and change maybe. I should have come during one of your assemblies. Definitely, definitely. You should look at the lab. I mean part of the process of these kinds of conversations is to understand the individual as well. And at this point, I want to talk more about your own motivations or personal motivations for being part of this collective. And I think where I want to begin in this strand of the discussion is trying to trace back to a moment in your career or your education where your attitude towards architecture shifted. Because in the public imagination, and I'm sure in the imagination of most people uninitiated in the practice of architecture, it's a very egotistic pursuit. And it is about individual expression. And so I wonder for you if this was the case initially, and if there is some moment of realization of another way of working, or if in fact you always came into the ambition to practice architecture as a collective endeavor, how did it begin for you? I think that this idea of understanding that we are individuals also, it's something important. So we never want that kind of this idea of the collective structure could not respect in a way that individual moments. And I think it's something really beautiful. At the end, like all, it's kind of a platform where the individual interests are also kind of shaping the collective path in a way. And this is something that even with the kind of work that we are realizing now, because it goes from participation, mislink to sociology, to right now understanding all the spaces of operation in the construction realm. Because Laura, for example, has been studying and working in terms of project management, construction management, for us, it's really powerful how this can be a tool for us in terms of the design. So, and also, for example, cooperative housing has been one important line, or trying out energy transition. And all this, it's linked to understanding urban challenges. And also, where we think that we have kind of a major role, but also based on individual needs, which are always changing. And I think that this is something that gives motivation, because constantly we are understanding that we can imagine spaces of frameworks, of work, different, best-if-individual needs. And I think that for personally, when we work in the process of laboratory, and we were realizing about the politics of the domestic realm in laboratory, from the gender perspective in the housing project. And also, of course, the environmental, also even manifestation in terms of the project, the construction. So I think that in this tension between the families approach and the sustainability in the domestic, and right now we are like evolving in the urban scale. And I was working in a feminist cooperative, a cooperative which is led by a group of women, lesbian, LGBTB+ and they edited during the process, taking care about the moments of participation, design, also about the spaces of the co-op. But also, the way that we're also facing the construction, even the relation with the surrounding, that understanding that we can even kind of span. This feminist approach, not from the architecture, but also in kind of the urban scale or the architectural production, was for me kind of, yeah, really kind of a discovery, but being aware that we have to, in a way, look it from more perspective, I don't know, from another kind of point of view. And I think that this is something that I am interested in, this idea of the transition from the design to the management of resources in the urban realm, from an idea of energy transition or feminist approaches. Well, it's where I'm just right now really kind of thinking about noise. There's a project that LaCalla have worked on or are working on in collaboration with the feminist group. It's a housing project for women. Is this the one you're talking about? Yeah, exactly. And what's it called? La Morella. La Morella. Exactly. And looking at the plan for this project, there is something different going on here, slightly. I mean, it's smaller than the others. Yeah, exactly. But there's more idiosyncrasy happening in the plan, especially in the catwalk or the gallery, which has a distinct geometry to it, that is different from the more generic or anonymizing balconies of other projects. So there's something to me, something funny happening there, purely aesthetically. But I just wonder, because this project seems important to you, on a kind of social level, how that's translating possibly to the aesthetic decisions that are being made. Yeah. It's important. So I think, precisely, in the process of La Morella, it was, in one hand, important to let them be more aware about the instrumentality of a space, historically, to distribute the roles about the reproductive labor at home, for example. And also, of course, like, explain narrative and genealogy is about the approaches of feminist architecture, of feminist scholars and women that we're kind of trying to explain all that. And the presence of the kitchen, for example, as a space that we were like, looking at it in the middle. And this is a transition from the public to the common, to this kind of the most important place at home, which in that sense was the kitchen. But also, because the idea of the own room, it was something and the privacy and the intimacy that they wanted for the also from their bodies, but also from, kind of, and the sexual approach, it was important. So the idea to give a lot of intimacy as kind of the exterior level of the project, and also this allocation of the kitchen in the middle was something important. And suddenly, it was the corridor. And when we were also designing, they were also talking a lot about the norm, and also how architecture can really normative. And in that sense, the idea of just kind of this liberation of giving certain kind of shapes for aesthetics was really, really important from all the process. Even right now, with the color of the facade, or the appearance to the neighborhood of the project. And it was totally like this. And they were constantly the discussions with them. They were kind of affluring or letting us know about all these kind of micro-politics in any position. I would say that exactly the different forms of the in our courtyard, the color, a way that we define the facade. Because suddenly, when I said to my mother, we're trying to imagine a really kind of neutral, which is a wall that they hate it also, kind of neutral facade. And it was a moment to say, look, look, how is the neighborhood, it's a really popular neighborhood, being built through self-construction with migrant workers. They are arriving there. They are really aware, to not gentrifying, to be understanding the 16 networks. But even with the presence of the building and understanding that they want to be really in touch with all those precedents and putting the value on that, it's a way that we are also understanding the role of the facade, how we kind of showing the projects or relating the project with certain architecture, or the precedents or the Kuran and Contemporary. So I would say that constantly, there is all these kind of decisions, but sometimes maybe are looking as aesthetics and for them are really political. I mean, just looking at that balcony in plan, I was thinking to myself, that is a queer balcony. [LAUGHTER] But at the same time, there's a lot of very floored, very outlandish architecture in the city, historically, as well to draw from. And just moving through Barcelona with students over the past few days and looking at people like Gadi and Juusal or even Flores Prats, there's an overwhelming embrace of the expressivity of architecture. And I'm interested how you relate to this history, given this up until the certain moment, this interest and neutrality in the work you're doing. Yeah. I think it's difficult for me to give an answer to that question, because I think constantly we are discussing about the aesthetics or beauty, if it's something that which is maybe unnecessary. So this idea that we are constantly fighting with budget, trying to arrive to the absolute necessary, which is the basis. And this is something that we understand that basically, because if we take all the layering, suddenly there is kind of the pure architecture each there. And we are always looking through something pragmatic, as I was saying, as such an economy. So when we are imagining certain ornamentation, decoration, or something that maybe it's more aesthetic, we think that we are excessive on that. And we are critical about that. And well, it's something that probably each of the members will have a different opinion. Some of them feel more or less comfortable. But suddenly, in the end, it was a moment where a critical-- architectural critique was saying that labor, that it's ugly. And this idea of "agliness" or beauty was something that we really enjoyed that critique. We were thinking we are fine, having done an ugly building. And I think that sometimes we feel more comfortable being in comparison with when a shampoo was built by a without architect. It was this idea of the head of construction, someone who was practical understanding the techniques, the resources, and building. And sometimes one floor plan was used for different kind of plots. And so this idea of homogeneity or not with my gentiness, but even genericness. It was something that we were feeling sometimes more comfortable, but maybe because a lack of a specific narrative through aesthetics. So-- Just you mentioned the Shambla. Can you talk more for listeners who won't be familiar with what that is? Oh, basically, it's like Sardar. So Sardar, this extension, this major extension of the city, what nowadays is the main singularity in a way. So this was a moment where basically the developers were kind of building it. And sometimes linked to speculative reasons also as a way of where the resources and the colonialism, in a way, was being present because it was resources being worn in the colonies, been building the city. And in that moment, it was to kind of architecture. The ones linked to Qaudi and all those kind of big figures, really as a representation of the power in the city. But then also this anonymous buildings of housing, which were kind of following the same typology, linked to resources, which the stones were from one week. And it was the memories or text where is this description where the materials come from. And this idea of the head of the construction, was the person in charge of this building. It's something that I would say that we feel more familiar. But I think it's a current discussion in La Colne, how it is our position regarding all those topics and what kind of aesthetics we are looking for. And if it's a desire or a goal or something that we look for, or sometimes it's basically the outcome of a process of discussing other topics. So I think it's something that we have to address, probably. I think there's still. There's still more of this kind of personal genealogy. I'm interested in trying to understand. You talk about this experience working on La Morata with this group of women as being a kind of a moment of discovery for you personally as an architect. In terms of this relationship between aesthetics and politics, maybe, or the expressivity of a particular group of users and how that manifests on a facade or an building forum. But I think there is this really formative moment in education that must have had some kind of role in your decision to initiate or join this collective. And I'm still curious to about what your expectations for architecture were coming into education and how and when they changed. Because I suspect that this way of working and thinking probably wasn't taught at least initially. So where do you learn that? Well, I think that something that is important for me right now is how these different narratives are present in the schools, what is in many of the schools. And also how important is that for us to be more present in the school to realize that there is many ways of practicing architecture. And this was something that when we were studying, it was difficult to see it. So it was a couple of teachers, Thaida Moshi, was teaching at the school in that moment, just in Maria Montaneda, they were talking about the politics of architecture. It was of an seminar called Architecture and Politics. And also Thaida was the first voice that we heard about feminist approach. And I would say that these were a couple of teachers who really influenced you for us. They are still friends. But there were a few of that. So I would say that for us, when we were studying La Bordeaux, this idea of understanding which were the main ideas and which kind of architecture we wanted to look at, which were the reference. It was a process of self-learning, in a way, no self, to retry to find that there were many precedents in the way of organizing in the studio, in the way of practicing architecture, that we never heard about them in the school. And I think that it's a pity. It's something that we have to put the value of all those different voices. I was mentioning Kroll, Giancarlo De Carlo, about even Sergio Ferro, or many, many, even women that were doing a kind of architecture that we, or matrix, this cooperative. So something that we are still discovering voices. And it's like, oh my god, why we don't know about them before? This is something that, it's being, yeah, it's something that we have done after. So that's why we talk about the stenegrohood as a school, or spaces of unlearning, and sometimes we talk about unlearning, because we have learned about a specific history, written by a specific white man. And this idea of understanding how we can add, complement, read the law of it, and read. And this is also something that we are still, makes us still understand and think of this way of operating, and of way of working. And, yeah, they were not, they were not a moment of it in the school. I think it was definitely after, after it. And that's why we are constantly understanding our practice. It's, each project is an opportunity of a discovery in that sense. And we are always, we are not involved in academia in a formal way. Any of the members of La Col, it's been, for example, giving a PhD, or we are teaching, but we are teaching sometimes in a part of a specific courses, but not with our agenda. We are not having a course with our agenda. So each project, it's the space of opportunity of that. And it's been the way that we have been doing it. I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. The last question I should do with this topic of evolution, it's a question about aging. When we visited La Bordeaux, you were talking about just how much energy it took to achieve that project, which was unprecedented at the time. And I think still it is in terms of being the tallest cross-liminated timber building in the city, being the first cooperative housing project developed on public land. I mean, it was a real, harky land feat. How do you sustain that energy and that ambition? And I guess that naivete as well, in a practice as the practice ages. Well, I think it's the idea of aging or evolving is something that it's always really linked to La Cole. I would say that we are so many people that there is always new energies. I think it's always, I've said, we are in a certain kind of cycles of dynamics, where there is always something that, someone that right now it's maybe in a moment of just kind of resting, to bring kind of new energy. And I think that even this idea of evolution, it's also allowing us to think how La Cole is a platform for the people who founded La Cole, but also for people who are starting to work here. And I think one of the challenges for us, it's how the original reality and all the discussions that we had as a co-founders, we can expand it in the new people who involved as workers, as collaborators. So this idea of evolving the structures, the way of, and also the projects, is something that gives constantly new, so we are always facing new questions and new challenges. But yeah, I think it's the whole we are facing it. Yeah, it was a bit difficult for me to make it. It's a difficult question. I didn't really, I don't think I really formulated it coherently, but maybe there's a question of, when you look at most practices, they start off with very ambitious, sometimes totally outlandish work, that seems almost impossible. And it's only realized on the basis of this insane naive and vicious energy that is not sustainable. And over time, things become more conservative, I think, not politically or not socially, but just in terms of saving energy. Not the way. I guess there's a question about resisting the conservatism that corresponds with aging. And at the same time, how you sustain the radicality that's inherent to the position of youth? Because I feel like this shared accommodation, all these students living together, in that moment, must have been quite significant. And yet, it's not the kind of conditions that older people would ever find themselves in. And so, you kind of need this cooperative environment in order to foment these radical ideas. But at some point, you leave that environment. And so, how do you sustain that attitude, despite growing older? Yeah. I think this idea of the attitude that we were thinking with the manifesto, it's interesting because one day per year it's called "Lacol's Days". They were, we left the office and we tried to visit even constructions, but also reference of architects and people. And the last year, we visited Kiku Riyos, who did a fantastic housing building in the 70s, and also then Alfonso Soledela. So, both of them were around 80s, and they did two masterpieces, not really known, but when we were there, it was like, "Oh my God, they are so young in the way that they are thinking." And it's precisely this idea of radicality in the ideas that they had is something that we have really present. We can continue thinking, constantly like challenging the frameworks, and not this idea of even uncomfortable, like to challenge, conform in many senses. And I think that it's something that, because we are so many people, we have always this idea of contradictions embedded in the EDN of Lacol, So there is no assembly where someone suddenly set a conflict in a way. Suddenly, for me, we constantly, I don't know, thinking about the labor conditions, it's something that addresses different voices. It's constantly one person in the assembly that has a specific need and just kind of bumps like the environment. Well, this is something that we are always trying to have on mind. And I would say that the collective hits the answer. So, never we are always in the same mood, we are always in the same person moment, in the same interest. And precisely, this is allowing us to constantly re-address the questions that we are having on the table, no? But definitely this idea of the attitude, it was something even with Lacatomba Sal. I remember being in La Vordo and Jean-Philippe said, "When we were doing the Palais de Tokyo, the idea of challenging the fire regulations, and testing it because it was insane what they were asking us. And suddenly we were in La Vordo and he said, "Of course, there is similarities, but for me, the main similarities is attitudes. Facing the challenging ownership, challenging the parking regulations, challenging many things. So, well, this is something that we are caring about it, no? And we will always trying to give us those spaces of a stop, gather together and thinking, which is the next step, no? Well, this is. The last question is very difficult, sorry about that. No, that was quite. Christina, thank you again so much for your time. No, for you. You've been listening to Scaffold. If you didn't catch all the references Christina mentioned, including Francesco Lise and Alfonso de Vila, they're all listed in the show-nets of this episode. And some of the projects will be posted on the podcast Instagram feed as well. Scaffold is an architecture foundation production. I'm Matthew Blunderfield and I make this show. The theme music is composed and performed by Luke Blair. Subscribe to Scaffold on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. And follow the show on Twitter and Instagram at Scaffold_podcast. If you like the show, spread the word and leave a rating on iTunes while you're at it. Thanks to Christina Gamboa, special thanks to Sweet to Guillermo Fernandez Abba Skull. Thanks as always to Scandalin and thanks to you for listening. I'll see you next time.