It almost seemed like a complete disjunction right i mean one hand i was there in the venice biennial with all of these targets just like showcasing the most glamorous things i did but at the same time we had the beginning of an absolute collapse where people lost their lives through suicide people lost their homes and livelihoods of jobs and so forth and basically very little of that was reflected in that exhibit right

so despite all of these things that we saw i think that the 20th century had seen for at least a very brief period of time the idea that states guaranteed a large portion of urban land at the control of public entities which is the welfare state and in general benefiting society at large i don't think i think that many of these issues were swayed by many arguments in the 19th and 20th centuries that took place with joseph prudhon ideas of property staff karl marx obviously uh mikhail bakunin and many of the like

We decided to merge in the peripheries and in those peripheries it was actually a very complicated sort of project for us.

We have an anti-capitalist ethos and this means that the fundamental social and environmental problems of today's urbanization we see them as a product of a dominant dogma that promotes endless growth and concentration into the hands of a few.

We structure ourselves as a dialectical and transdisciplinary organization we believe that the urban problems of today cannot be approached within a single disciplinary or theoretical framework which is what we still teach at universities and things alike.

The empowerment of an organized population continues to be foundational for any approach that we take the embeddedness to political action within social movements is axiomatic because what we're doing from top down is to be able to erode the structures to support the social movements.

a very important aspect as a class i was just teaching now which is the cultivation of an unalienated relationship to nature

part of the structure of urban front is that we have people that are very much working with finance mechanisms or redistribution or urban fiscal redistribution

unitary urbanism is for us an anti-capitalist and transdisciplinary practice that attempts to breach popular and scientific knowledge

we are trying to come up with an agenda to visualize even further that diagram of the capitalist totality in urbanization

we have to see the production of urbanization as this totality right a totality that investigates itself in first in capital

The architect is not just a technician, but a figure who can represent a collective aspiration to change the city and redistribute power.

The author believes that architecture education needs to change to focus on understanding the complexities of the city and the need for transformation.

The author believes that collectivities are essential in transforming the city and redistributing power, but questions whether they can guarantee transparency and equity.

The author shares an example of Habitat 3 in Ecuador, where a parallel habitat conference was organized by activists, and the importance of supporting collectives in the face of dispossession.

we are there as clear anti-capitalists and our anti-capitalist agenda was to support the coercion of the bigger powers over the non-their powers and whether they were christian evangelists or whether they were satanists or whatever, that was like a secondary thing of our task there

i'm very interested in the tools and the methods in which then we can help the students also ourselves to then sit down and say where do we start, start designing and maybe one of the things to design is to design all activities the other one to design is to design new gloves

it's not the building itself it's the process that they create in order to do it and so i think there are examples but sadly there are a few of them right we can talk many of them but there's still a dominant discourse

architecture is not working the way you were teaching it and um and this person said how can you say that miguel if architects are the experts of the form of the city right their architecture is the one that understands the city more literally told me this