Mexico's architecture shift

SP: What has driven this perceived movement in Mexican architecture is the increasing number of people visiting Mexico. The pandemic played a significant role, as many began working remotely and no longer needed to be in an office. This led people to discover or rediscover Mexico as an enjoyable, warm destination. Mexican people have a reputation for being welcoming, and this has been true historically, dating back to events like the 1986 World Cup. I've spoken with people who see Mexico as both friendly and dangerous, but the influx of visitors has allowed them to experience its rich culture and history, which many find appealing. The weather is another significant factor, particularly for those from colder northern regions who come to enjoy the warmth of the coasts. The combination of Mexico’s history, culture, and climate is attracting more people. Additionally, when I visit other countries, I notice how well-organised they are, which contributes to a better quality of life and improved urban spaces. This organisation can inspire openness to new ideas and collaborations. We now see visitors from Europe and the United States coming to Mexico to stay in homes, especially near the beach, built from materials like concrete, which are not as common or easily accessible in their home countries. This unique architectural experience is becoming more frequent here.

The architect proposed moving forward, citing the availability of highly skilled, low-cost labour. This is one of the factors contributing to the development of new architectural styles in Mexico. Additionally, new firms, led by young professionals, are creating innovative spaces, further driving this architectural evolution.

Building insight

SP: When I studied architecture, the proposals were different. I remember seeing projects by architects like Jean Nouvel and other European designers, which were visually appealing and rich in imagery, using new technologies such as glass and steel. The new generation of architects graduating today have a strong sense of materiality, which is essential. Across Mexico, many firms are returning to simple materials, avoiding the need for excessive finishes. When I started my office, I focused on using materials that wouldn't require frequent maintenance. Many new firms share this concern, seeking a return to simplicity in their designs. The simplified approach aligns with what I believe is needed, using less expensive, more local materials and taking advantage of what is nearby. This approach is very interesting. New firms are also more aware of global ecological problems and are focusing on creating more sustainable designs, which is encouraging. When I graduated from university, this wasn't as common. Many firms were more focused on creating designs that would appear in design magazines. Now, the approach seems different.

In the first five years of my career, I gained experience at another firm that I started after finishing architecture school. I opened this firm with a good friend of mine, and those were the years where we experimented the most. We didn’t have any projects at the beginning; we just had the idea of starting an architecture firm. Slowly, we began getting small projects from family members. After university, you think you’ll design this great idea, present it, and everything will go smoothly, but it doesn’t work that way. Clients, especially when they see you're young, don’t necessarily lack trust, but they do feel you’re just starting out. You begin to notice that they want something different from the masterpiece you envisioned. That was one of the key lessons I learned when we started.

It took me more than the first five years, or even the 12 years with my previous firm, to learn one key lesson: listening to the client. It’s not about what I want; it's about what they want. This principle is central in my current office. It seems simple, but it takes time for architects to realise this. You study architecture, its history, and various styles, and then you leave university eager to propose artistic ideas to clients who might not be ready for them or have different needs. Now, I focus on asking the client: What do you need? What do you want? Where is the project located, and what does the site tell us? What are the different contextual factors, the budget, and who is the client? All these elements are now crucial in my approach.

From the ground up

SP: Our first years were experimental, and these were all part of the learning process. When I opened this office, the last ten years were another phase of learning. One key moment I remember was deciding to take my own path with the firm. At one point, I realised we weren't creating anything significant, not for us, but for the place or the architecture itself. We were working on commercial projects, and it struck me that one day, everything we built could be demolished without any real loss. That realisation hit me hard. I wanted to create architecture that impacted the people living in it. I didn’t want just photogenic spaces, but places where people felt good, inspired, and maybe even changed in the way they live. I began to see life as short and thought, if we could improve someone's life, even a little, that would be a meaningful contribution. That’s when we started asking ourselves: What do we want to design? What do we want to leave behind? Not just in terms of projects, but also in the relationships and conversations we build with clients, neighbours, and the community. These questions became important as we shaped the direction of this new firm.

For our first project, I wasn't focused on just creating a beautiful house. When we began, we had to assess the soil's capacity where we planned to build. An expert mentioned the soil had good properties, and that stayed with me. I thought, what can we do with the soil itself? I started researching and found that people were making earth blocks and using earth in various ways. We decided to build the house using the soil from the site. It was a challenge, as it pushed us out of our comfort zone, if there is one in construction, but it was exciting. I thought, why not go beyond just building a house and use the land itself in the process, taking advantage of its properties? While building, I had concerns, as it was the first time I used this material. I was worried it might not work, or that the structure could fail, but it turned out well. We took a risk, and that project became a milestone for me, representing a new approach to architecture, using materials from the site and thinking beyond aesthetics. Since then, I've been seeking ways to create architecture that not only meets the needs of the site and the client but also contributes more than a typical construction. The goal is to find ways to help, even in small ways, through the architecture we create.

Projects with a purpose

SP: This is one of our early approaches. In each project, we focus on what the site or structure tells us. When it’s a new project, starting with just the land, we consider the site's conditions, the weather, location, and all the factors we’ve discussed. However, many of our projects involve remodelling or restoring existing buildings. In these cases, our approach is not to demolish everything and start from scratch but to work with the existing structure. We aim to rediscover, redefine, and give new meaning to the space in a respectful way. 

For example, we’re currently working on Casa Portal, a house where the clients have lived for over 10 years, possibly 15. Rather than rebuilding, we’re transforming the space, reflecting our philosophy of preserving and enhancing what’s already there. What we’ve done is work directly from the existing experience of the house. Our goal is not only to reuse some materials for economic reasons but also to enrich the experience by preserving the nostalgia and history created by the family in that home. We aim to reshape and add value to these memories. This is a key focus in designing the house.

I could think about many examples, but the main approach is to take the spaces, materials, and stories tied to the house and enhance them. We want the family to still feel they are in the same home, preserving the nostalgic elements while reshaping certain parts. It’s about moving things around or reinterpreting them in a way that honours their past. We don’t want to erase the old house and create something entirely new; instead, we aim to blend the familiar with the refreshed. We also focus on respecting the history of the place while adding new spaces and bringing new life to it. We enjoy giving these projects a fresh start, and the clients are pleased with the result. However, we always aim to include something from the original project, highlighting it in the new design so they can remember its origins. This has been a rewarding process for us. We also recycle materials and consider environmental factors. For example, we start by thinking about the orientation of the house, the sun, and the surroundings. In this particular house, which was very close to its neighbours, we opened it up more to the street. Living in a city with security concerns, people tend to build fences and isolate themselves. However, I’ve been asking, how can we communicate with the neighbours and the street, so the house benefits not just the family but the community as well? This has become an important question in my recent projects.

We have a great responsibility to guide our clients through the process of opening up and building trust. These small steps, over time, will contribute to a better urban landscape. This reflects both political and financial power, which has always been a challenge. Many architects and projects, even good ones, are often designed with an individual focus. There needs to be a shift in thinking, considering not just the individual project but also how it affects its surroundings. Everything we build ultimately has an impact on the broader environment.

Bridging design and construction

SP: I had the idea of having the design studio on one side and the construction side on the other, as we handle both. My father was an engineer, so I grew up around construction. I remember visiting construction sites from a young age. At the time, I found it boring, with all the earth-moving and heavy machinery like bulldozers. Initially, I started studying engineering, but one day I discovered architecture, and everything started to make sense. I knew I wanted to be involved in the design process, as I love how design can positively affect people's lives. On the other hand, the construction side gives me a hands-on understanding of what we’re designing. Both aspects, design and construction, are important to me, which is why I decided to keep them separate but connected.The construction firm handles building projects designed by ASP, as well as for other architects. This has been very enriching because it allows us to learn from others' designs and experiment with different construction techniques. For example, we've worked with young design firms, using our construction experience to help bring their concepts to life. It's been a mutually beneficial relationship.

Another key aspect of our construction firm is the materials department. We source materials, test them, and during the design process, we can show our clients the materials we plan to use. This gives them the chance to experience firsthand what we’re experimenting with or reusing, which has been a positive experience for both us and our clients. I also enjoy its artisanal aspect, not just visiting a site built by someone else but taking responsibility for bringing our own designs to life. There’s something special about seeing an idea we drew come to the site and experiencing it firsthand, whether it feels smaller or larger than expected or seeing how well it works. The design and construction aspects really complement each other, and our experience at this scale helps them feed into one another effectively.

Public spaces, private ideas

SP: At the moment, we are working with private clients. We're not developers, so we’re not yet generating our own projects. However, I’m very interested in the issues facing my city. There is a lot that needs to be done, and this is something I want to explore through public projects. I believe we can contribute more there than by just building houses. Housing can be a starting point, but the city’s urban spaces need attention, and I would love to work on that. As I mentioned before, we are also looking into larger projects and different types of work. What keeps my office going is the effort to find enjoyment and interest in what we do, always thinking and rethinking our approach. There is still much to be done, and I’d love to be part of that.

There are significant political challenges. Governments tend to focus on short-term goals, often only planning for the six years they are in office. As a result, many public projects have a limited long-term impact. They prioritise visibility, wanting people to see immediate results. For example, there are current projects like the Pilares, but after a certain point, the focus shifts. Governments become more concerned with election cycles and voter opinion, leading to a disruption in long-term planning and consistency. You can clearly see what’s happening, there are private projects with good proposals, but the real challenge lies in public spaces. With many new firms working on hotels, homes, and smaller private projects, the key question is how we connect these projects with the community and the locality. How do we engage with the local neighbours and create a meaningful impact? It's crucial to generate dialogue, and through this, we can begin to connect different projects, linking them in a way that promotes good architecture. The goal is to create a sense of security without relying on fences, and that is the challenge.