"Banking education treat students as objects of assistance; problem posing
education makes them critical thinkers."

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

---

"My points of view are those of a Hispanic; they are not a dissertation without interest,
​but an exploration of my origins​ and an attempt at self definition."

Octavio Paz, Los hijos del Limo (originally in Spanish)

my philosophy...

​

---

on teaching

on research

Teaching is a personal challenge. Few things are more satisfying than when a dynamic discussion ignites a classroom and ideas start bouncing back and forth. Witnessing when something clicks in a young student’s mind, as she/he has a personal eureka moment, is absolutely thrilling.
 
I believe history courses in architecture programs must connect with the dynamics of problem solving through design. Further, I want students to think about the roles they might play as architects and as social beings in a globalized world. It’s been my experience that the history of architecture becomes exciting for them when taught conscious of the issues we face today. Hence, my courses are interdisciplinary in scope and show links with contemporary concerns while discussing possible future-making scenarios, as we foster a conversation between the past and the present. Yes, I subscribe to the notion that history is always about the present.
 
I design each history course I teach mindful of a series of objectives. Broadly: (1) to expose students to a pertinent body of knowledge; (2) to induce students to question, think critically, be analytical, and drive informed conclusions; (3) to guide students into making connections in order to grasp what architecture does and how it works; (4) to encourage students to develop their own stance on architecture by introducing them to significant issues on design; (5) to help students gain awareness of architecture’s role in the fostering (or discouraging) of diversity and social inclusion; and (6) to develop information competencies, communication, and listening skills. I approach these objectives directly, through specific lectures and assignments as well as indirectly, by my delivery in presentations and discussion sessions, as well as through the supporting materials I assign.
 
I manage the classroom as a space for inquiry and open discussion where the students and myself function as a micro-learning community. I engage my students by using a variety of primary and secondary sources, However, in my experience, primary sources often help put things into context and give students a first-hand perspective on the impact of history. Consequently, real as well as virtual visits to libraries,  archives, and museums are very common in my courses.
 
My history of architecture courses are built on multifaceted subjects. They show a plural and complex interplay of conditions affecting design. One technique which works well for visualizing these connections as well as recognizing lines of development is mind mapping. Mind maps are an excellent tool for engaging architecture students who, for the most part, are visual learners.
 
In order to encourage an informal atmosphere intended to be less stressful, particularly for shy, introverted, or insecure students, I also incorporate think tank techniques. I find, in time, these tend to incite effective student participation as think tank sessions are a dynamic way to guide discussions. They also help to introduce wider perspectives when dealing with  specific issues, foster creative thinking, induce collaborative inquiry, and encourage the discussion of multiple angles for problem solving.
 
Today, as ever, architecture students can be overwhelmed, overworked, and overstressed. Unfortunately, at some point these conditions weakened, albeit temporarily, their performance in history courses. For that reason, my presentations are very focused, structured, and organized. However, my lectures are also flexible enough as to be able to include specific interests expressed by students as classes progress.
 
In studio, I am comfortable guiding research for and through design as I am an advocate for inquiry based-human centered design. Let me underscore that I believe in studio as a collective endeavor where all voices must be heard and acknowledged. I know research –beyond precedent analysis– can improve the quality of architecture, ultimately adding value to professional practice. Hence, in studio a main objective is to drive students to find and/or fully understand problems, while being critical of their design decisions. Dialectic exposition works well for this purpose. Ultimately, because the process allows for students to progressively gain awareness of design problems from multiple perspectives. As students recognize why they make specific design decisions, they become better equipped to justify and effectively explain their projects during critique sessions, while also acknowledging and emphasizing on the process of design and the content of their presentations over the final visual product.
 
I am happy to be able to say that my courses consistently meet the academic competencies required. However, besides metrics, my greatest reward is when a student, who at first day introductions began by stating her/his profound hatred of history or of research, comes by at the end of the term grateful for the learning experience.
 
Even with its challenges, I like the classroom as teaching is never boring and always proves to be rewarding. Students drive me to keep improving in order to help them succeed. I am very appreciative of them and feel lucky to be able to contribute to society and the world through teaching.

My research agenda develops around the broad topic of architecture and difference. I am particularly concerned with the analysis of issues of class, race, and ethnicity (and to a lesser extent, gender) and how these are accounted for through environmental, urban, and architectural design. In order to validate their presence, my work addresses the historically undesirable, insignificant, and/or those who have been made invisible.

Given the world’s current state of affairs, I believe connecting comprehensive historic, social, and political readings with perspectives which consider difference and/or diversity are still much needed. To review the relationships of these concepts with space, design, and aesthetics remain crucial in order to be able to draw informed conclusions about the prospects we face today regarding human and social asymmetries. Particularly, when architecture inherently remains at the service of power, continuing its historical trend as an elitist, racist, sexist, hegemonic and homogenizing instrument. 
 
As such, using Puerto Rico as case study, one of my research lines studies American colonialism as filtered through architecture, urbanism, and design. Imperialism/colonialism cannot be regarded as the United States’ most enlightened project. However, its contexts and cultural products beg cross-disciplinary analysis in order to draw a more balanced account of the Nation’s history and the ways architecture assisted (an assists) in driving US colonial policy, the schematics of coloniality, and socio-cultural engineering within its colonies and territories. As such, my work contributes to scholarship not only in the areas of Architecture and Design, but also in Urban Studies, Urban Planning, US History, Latin American, Caribbean, and Puerto Rican Studies, Social Studies, Colonial Studies, and Cultural Studies. All this gets encompassed, however, within the emergent brand of Critical Design Studies.

My scholarship recognizes modern architecture in Puerto Rico as a colonial construct. Addressing it as a tactical exercise within the politics of domination, over the past few years, I have focused on modern architecture (and modernization practices) from scopes argumentative of power discourse, colonial negotiations, and the construction of cultural identities from subaltern perspectives. Besides government sponsored architecture, on the connection between discourses of power and the exploration of the disciplinary capacities of architecture and space, I am also interested in  housing; particularly the analysis of public housing and those for workers and/or peasants.
 
On this line of inquiry, my current project (currently funded by the Graham Foundation) deals with New Deal colonial architecture. The New Deal in the United States’ former colonies and territories has been, with very few exceptions, excluded from historiography. Needless to say, architecture associated to the New Deal in the island colonies and in the former territories has been limitedly addressed within the discipline’s scholarship. Though, unavoidably, New Deal colonial public works still stand as concrete evidence of a controversial history. Certainly, to question these marginal projects is vital in order to deliver a more complete view of the topic and of the period, as well as for providing a counterpoint in an otherwise unbalanced historical narrative. In addition, as the 1930s share many parallels with Puerto Rico’s current economic and social crisis, in the aftermath of hurricane Maria, –from an assessment of New Deal projects successes and misses, as well as from the social perspectives of Puerto Rican/US citizens’ historical recognition as other– this work might be useful in the efforts to rethink the recoveries and/or propose sustainably viable future reconstruction practices for the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

A second research line deals with the prospect of decolonizing architectural education and practice. In Wester-centric domains, architects hold an ambivalent presence. Seemingly unaware of the part they play in the commodification game, most practitioners assist to (perhaps inadvertently) operationalize privilege, inequality, and injustice. Architects, I argue, function as colonizers, while colonized. Such is in part the result of an educational framework that remains a training –currently within the context of the university– which fosters dynamics of (social) control. Therefore, architecture schools which follow the Westernized tradition have been (and still are) instrumental in forming professionals who inject, maintain, produce, and reproduce the mechanisms of domination imposed through several metanarratives. Two of the most violent which seem to be intrinsic but easily recognizable in Westernized architecture are modernization and capitalism, however, there are others. Eurocentric and Westernized architectural education and practice tend to uphold discourses of globalization, modernization, innovation, development, democratization, and a supposed acknowledgement of human rights. However, they are seldom critical of the logics of domination that are often hidden behind these notions.

Even with NAAB's current requirements to cover "parallel and divergent histories of architecture and cultural norms" along with "diverse needs, values behavioral norms, physical abilities, and social and spatial patters that characterize different cultures and individuals" non-Western, subalternized, and historically marginalized cultures and/or groups are often reified in architectural education. More often than not, schools of architecture and practicing architects treat them as objects to be studied, thought about, correct, and design for. It is not the generalized norm to approach them as subjects to learn from, emulate, or design with. 

My research here intends to analyze other knowledge forms and alternative dwelling and place making ways that may purposefully drive a re-engineering of the architecture curriculum. As mentioned before, the notion of decolonization is significant here as are those of depatriarchalization and crisis. Furthermore, another issue to be addressed with this research is the silencing within Western academia of non-European/non-US theories as well as the dismissal of thinkers outside of institutional affiliations. As such, the prospects of archiving become very important for this research effort.

As theorist Arturo Escobar, I believe that to become truly transformational design (and design education) "requires a significant reorientation from the functionalist, rationalistic, and industrial traditions from which it emerged." It also must shift the scope as of what should be the reach of architects by working within the  notion of critical practices (I've written two upcoming papers on this subject). My aim is to challenge current design pedagogy (and practice) from the Global South's perspective in order to instrumentalize an architectural teaching and design approach centered on theories such as decolonial thinking, unlearning, ecologies of knowledges, and the pluriverse as well as on indigenous cosmo-visions such as sentipensar, buen vivir, Pachamama ​(and others). Within these lines, matriarchal approaches to design becomes a suggestive topic I will begin exploring in the near future.

View samples from my courses

View publication Samples

---

for addressing diversity (in the classroom) 

listen to one another

​In academic settings, we often strive so that students can develop adequate communication skills. However, effective listening is seldom recognized as an ability we should be working on refining. Yet, listening skills are crucial in the process of recognition and acceptance of different points of view, as well as for the development of empathy and effective leadership. Listening encourages tolerance and is extremely important when trying to build an integrative community.

​I intend my classrooms to be inclusive environments where listening is encouraged while inquiry, open discussion, and divergent points of view are welcomed. I believe horizontal and democratic approaches to teaching support active learning conditions where we all can benefit from each other's individual experiences, backgrounds, and/or heritages. With this attitude, I try to be responsive to recommendations by experts on diversity in pedagogy who encourage faculty to gain awareness of the composition of their classrooms –regarding the students’ class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.– and to be mindful of students backgrounds and heritages when designing courses and while engaged in lectures and other teaching/learning activities.

think about how difference has been/is framed and manipulated (and about architecture's role in the construction of social divides)
​
​Latin American critic Marina Waisman argues that as discipline, architecture converts cultural tendencies into architectural discourse (La estructura histórica del entorno, 1972). Michael Foucault, for his part, explains that the history of space is linked with the history of power (The Eye of Power, 1974). Therefore, society’s tendency to control, as translated into disciplinary actions of multiple kinds, has, as Foucault argues, a strong connection with architecture –in how spaces and institutional types are designed in order to facilitate domination (of/by certain social groups). Caroline Knowles, for instance, defines space as “an active archive of the social processes and social relationships…where [difference] is fabricated” (Race and Social Analysis, 2003). Certainly, these critics find accord with Peter Eisenman's definition of architecture as a text with multiple meanings –which contains and can express diverse relationships and contexts (“Architecture as a Second Language”, 1998). 

Taking architecture as a cultural product, Homi Bhabha's position becomes most enlightening. Bhabha contends that critical revisions of cultural trends must focus on the concept of difference as opposed to that of  diversity (The Location of Culture, 1994). This seems logical when we acknowledge that the weight of conflictive relations is carried by our defensive attitudes towards difference and not by the notion of diversity –which is usually recognized as a more neutral and integrative aspirational ideal. 

Based on those premises, my approach to teaching (and research) follows what Edward Said has termed contrapuntal analysis. What this entails is the reading of a text –buildings, the work of architects, and/or architectural discourse, in my case– from multiple perspectives in order to interpret all its possible meanings simultaneously. This approach intends for all voices to be accounted for and is based on the understanding that racial, social, cultural, ethnic, gendered, and other asymmetries are social and epistemological constructions. As such, they appear and/or are managed through environmental design, architecture, and urbanism as spatializations and/or architecturalizations of difference. 

question the trends of the profession
​
​In my view, one of the most pertinent ways to discuss diversity with architecture students is by questioning the trends of the profession. For instance, to acknowledge and address its historical white male predominance. Certainly, this touches upon issues of race and gender diversity (or lack there of) in a profession that, in the United States, still remains white-male dominated. However, it also compels architectural education to assess its role in maintaining that imbalance. Women, for example, remain grossly underrepresented in architecture courses despite the fact that in the United States they currently make up almost half of the student body in schools of architecture. 

In Puerto Rico, I used to highlight the work of successful Puerto Rican architects, especially those gaining international recognition. I was also approached by students who wanted to know more about the work of women and architects with disabilities. Then, given the landscape of architectural education and practice, there is still much work to be done in order to foster the introduction of diverse role models, especially, to our students classified as minorities or who are part of underrepresented groups. 

project into the future​

​With expectations of a sustained growth in global migration in the near future as well as the fact that currently, 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban environments, research about the perception of difference, the management of diversity, and about the workings of segregation and exclusion remain crucial as we continue to envision and work towards an inclusive and egalitarian society. Those are some of the reasons why the (re)vision of former landscapes of oppression and the deconstruction of discourses of domination becomes a most applicable exercise to better understand our present and perhaps, be able to finally build that aspired society in which diversity and multiculturalism will truly be viewed as strengths in order for equity to become the norm. 

question everything​

​Open dialog encourages students to relate and interact with one another. It also can support critical thinking. In my experience, inquiry exercises and the discussion of subjects from multiple points of view tend to bring attention to the fact that there are very few real absolutes. At the same time, it can highlight the lack of neutral or truly integrative spaces as a contemporary reality. Hence, one strategy I often use in the classroom is to guide or assign a student or group to lead sessions where we will critically approach issues that might be considered by some –or may have been deemed in the past–, cultural, racial, ethnic, or gender, etc. absolutes and/or normative social patterns. The objective, is for students to register how these affect (or are negated in) the built environment as they weigh in the roles of multiple stakeholders in social organization. These exercises are also intended to help student recognize the ways in which architecture responds to established paradigms and/or believe systems that, more often than not, are learned as part of determined cultural and/or social constructs. 

deconstruct the historical/educational biases

The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) requires of every accredited professional architecture program to be able to evidence a series of Student Performance Criteria. Cultural Diversity and Social Equity (previously, Cultural Diversity) and History and Global Culture (formerly, Historical Traditions and Global Culture) are currently two of the competencies that, according to NAAB, need to be present in architectural education. In theory, that boils down to a pedagogy that  must produce universal designers with a global mindset.

Until very recently, architectural education almost solely aligned with a Western canon that validated Eurocentric and North American discourses and design trends. Contemporary knowledge construction in architectural education is now actively trying to confront this historical bias. 

The most obvious way to introduce diversity in history of architecture courses is by exposing students to the architecture of different or contrasting regions and/or cultures. In class, some of our focus will be placed on the ways cultural trends, traditions, and different environments and climates influence architectural design and construction patterns. For instance, in an introductory course –such as History of Architecture from Prehistory to the 16th Century– we analyze traditional housing types and construction methods as we discuss, for example, mud houses in Nigeria and Cameroon; the Native American tipi and the Bedouin tent (as samples of nomadic living); the Chinese yaodongs (as examples of carved architecture); the igloo and the Malay house as traditional responses for extreme climates; and finally, the Samoan house and the Japanese house as two ways of dealing with available materials as well as to frame building and cultural traditions. 

Despite the problematic structure and expectations of survey courses, I do my best to introduce diversity by exposing students to divergent thought trends and multiple architectural responses within global environments. One way to do so is by comparing Western and Westernized interpretations against divergent local/indigenous theories and narratives. Another approach, especially when dealing with courses based on an invented notion –such as "Latin American Architecture"– is to question the understanding of the region as a single environmental and cultural entity as well as its construction as other by Western paradigms. Thematic courses –such as "Modern Architecture"– in one hand, must recognize the notion of contemporariness and abstraction the terms "modern" carries in contrast to the multiple alternative or non-canonical modernities that have in turn, influenced other​ global (sometimes called marginal) architecture(s). In addition, Regionalism must be addressed in a critical way, as a design trend, an analytical framework, and even, as a marginalizing discourse.

focus on/address the user and/or underrepresented communities
​
In architectural education there is a lot of discussion about how design should meet the needs of the users. Conversely, in studio courses, design inquiries are beginning to show interest in groups that had previously been excluded or limitedly addressed. However, in practice, architects often struggle to find a balance between meeting those needs and complying with the (financial) interests of the clients. Discussing the ways different stakeholders are valued, addressed, and/or accounted for in a project can put into perspective the roles architects play in facilitating or disregarding diversity and social equity. As such, issues of design for underrepresented or marginalized groups can be analyzed from multiple outlooks –sociocultural and historical, technological, economic, ecological, and regulatory. In courses focusing on Modern Architecture, for example, I use social housing and urban planning and design as platforms to discuss issues of race, class, gender, ethnicity, age discrimination, and social destitution from a design perspective. Focusing on the ways in which cities negate inclusiveness, for instance, I am able to lead discussions, using the city as laboratory, where we evaluate urban design and architecture against issues of social vulnerability and aggression against human dignity.