La flexibilidad como herramienta para la participación en arquitectura

32 REVISTA PROYECTOPROGRESOARQUITECTURA AÑO XVi arquitectura flexible N32 20 25 ● ARTÍCULO DEL EDITOR ● LA FLEXIBILIDAD COMO HERRAMIENTA PARA LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN ARQUITECTURA / FLEXIBILITY AS A TOOL FOR PARTICIPATION IN ARCHITECTURE. Germán López Mena ● ARTÍCULOS ARTÍCULOS ● FLEXIBILIDAD, PERMANENCIA Y CAMBIO EN ARQUITECTURA / FLEXIBILITY, PERMANENCE AND CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURE. Jorge Tárrago Mingo; Javier Pérez–Herrera ● EN BUSCA DE LA FLEXIBILIDAD: EL CUADRADO Y LA RETÍCULA EN LA VIVIENDA CONTEMPORÁNEA / IN SEARCH OF FLEXIBILITY: THE SQUARE AND THE GRID IN CONTEMPORARY HOUSING. Alfonso Guajardo–Fajardo Cruz; Juan José Sánchez Rivas ● ESPACIOS DOMESTICOS FLEXIBLES: LAS ENVOLVENTES DE TRES EDIFICIOS DE LOS AÑOS 50 EN MILÁN / FLEXIBLE DOMESTIC SPACES: THE ENVELOPES OF THREE 1950S BUILDINGS IN MILAN. Sara Fernández–Trucio; Tomás García García; Francisco Montero–Fernández ● ESTRUCTURAS ABIERTAS AL CAMBIO. LA TRASCENDENCIA DE LO RELACIONAL / STRUCTURES OPEN TO CHANGE. THE TRANSCENDENCE OF THE RELATIONAL . Evelyn Alonso Rohner; José Antonio Sosa ● RESEÑAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ● RICARDO TAPIA ZARICUETA, ROSENDO MESÍAS: HÁBITAT POPULAR PROGRESIVO, VIVIENDA Y URBANIZACIÓN. Pedro Lorenzo Gálligo ● JOÃO FILGUEIRAS LIMA, LELÉ. ARQUITETURA: UMA EXPERIÊNCIA NA ÁREA DA SAÚDE. Patrícia Marins Farias ● ROBERT KRONENBURG: FLEXIBLE. ARQUITECTURA QUE INTEGRA EL CAMBIO. Alba Zarza–Arribas. GI HUM-632 UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA AÑO 2024. ISSN 2171–6897 – ISSNe 2173–1616 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa 3232 ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLAEDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA AÑO 2025. ISSN 2171–6897 ISSNe 2173–1616 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppaAÑO 2025. ISSN 2171–6897 ISSNe 2173–1616 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa 32 ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE REVISTA PROYECTO PROGRESO ARQUITECTURA N32N32 arquitectura flexible EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA AÑO 2025. ISSN 2171–6897 ISSNe 2173–1616 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppaEDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA AÑO 2025. ISSN 2171–6897 ISSNe 2173–1616 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa PROYECTO PROGRESO ARQUITECTURA GI HUM–632 UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA DIRECCIÓN Dr. Amadeo Ramos Carranza. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España SECRETARÍA Dra. Rosa María Añón Abajas. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España EQUIPO EDITORIAL Edición: Dr. Amadeo Ramos Carranza. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Rosa María Añón Abajas. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Francisco Javier Montero Fernández. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Esther Mayoral Campa. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Miguel Ángel de la Cova Morillo–Velarde. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Germán López Mena. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Gloria Rivero Lamela. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Guillermo Pavón Torrejón. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Externos edición (asesores): Dr. José Altés Bustelo. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dr. Carlos Arturo Bell Lemus. Facultad de Arquitectura. Universidad del Atlántico. Colombia. Dr. José de Coca Leicher. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dra. Patricia de Diego Ruiz. Escuela Técnica Supeiror de Arquitectura y Geodesia. Universidad Alcalá de Heranes. España. Dr. Jaume J. Ferrer Fores. Escola Tècnica Superior d’Arquitectura de Barcelona. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dra. Laura Martínez Guereñu. EI School of Architecture & Design, IE University, Madrid; Segovia. España. Dra. Clara Mejía Vallejo. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. España. Dra. Luz Paz Agras. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidade da Coruña. España. Dra. Marta Sequeira. CIAUD, Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. SECRETARÍA TÉCNICA Dra. Gloria Rivero Lamela. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. EDITORES EXTERNOS Y COORDINACIÓN CONTENIDOS CIENTÍFICOS DEL NÚMERO Germán López Mena, Dr. Arquitecto. Universidad de Sevilla, España. COMITÉ CIÉNTIFICO Dr. Carlo Azteni. DICAAR. Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale e Architettura. University Of Cagliari. Italia. Dra. Maristella Casciato. GETTY Research Institute, GETTY, Los Angeles. Estados Unidos. Dra. Anne Marie Châtelet. École Nationale Supérieure D’Architecture de Strasbourg (ENSAS). Francia. Dra. Josefina González Cubero. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dr. José Manuel López Peláez. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dra. Margarida Louro. Faculdade de Arquitetura. Universidade de Lisboa. Portugal. Dra. Maite Méndez Baiges. Departamento de Historia del Arte. Universidad de Málaga. España. Dr. Dietrich C. Neumann. Brown University In Providence, Ri (John Nicholas Brown Center For Public Humanities And Cultural Heritage). Estados Unidos. Dr. Víctor Pérez Escolano. Catedrático Historia, Teoría y Composición Arquitectónicas. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Jorge Torres Cueco. Catedrático Proyectos Arquitectónicos. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universitat Politècnica de València. España. Dr. ir. Frank van der Hoeven, TU DELFT. Architecture and the Built Environment, Netherlands CORRESPONSALES Pablo de Sola Montiel. The Berlage Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture and Urban Design. Paises Bajos. Dr. Plácido González Martínez. Tongji University Caup (College Of architectura & Urban Planing). Shangai, China. Patrícia Marins Farias. Faculdade de Arquitetura. Universidade Federal da Bahia. Brasil. Dr. Daniel Movilla Vega. Umeå School of Architecture. Umeå University. Suecia. Dr. Pablo Sendra Fernández. The Bartlett School of Planning. University College London. Inglaterra. Alba Zarza Arribas. Escuela de Ingeniería de Fuenlabrada. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. España. Dra. María Elena Torres Pérez. Facultad de Arquitectura. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida. México. TEXTOS VIVOS Dr. Francisco Javier Montero Fernández. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Esther Mayoral Campa. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla. España. GRUPO DE INVESTIGACION HUM–632 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA http://www.proyectoprogresoarquitectura.com EDITA Editorial Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla DIRECCIÓN CORRESPONDENCIA CIENTÍFICA E.T.S. de Arquitectura. Avda Reina Mercedes, nº 2 41012–Sevilla. Amadeo Ramos Carranza, Dpto. Proyectos Arquitectónicos. e–mail: [email protected] EDICIÓN ON–LINE Portal informático https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/ppa Portal informático Grupo de Investigación HUM–632 http://www.proyectoprogresoarquitectura.com Portal informático Editorial Universidad de Sevilla http://www.editorial.us.es/ © EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA, 2019. Calle Porvenir, 27. 41013 SEVILLA. Tfs. 954487447 / 954487451 Fax 954487443. [[email protected]] [http://www.editorial.us.es] © TEXTOS: SUS AUTORES, © IMÁGENES: SUS AUTORES Y/O INSTITUCIONES DISEÑO PORTADA: Rosa María Añón Abajas – Amadeo Ramos Carranza Fotografía: casa Esters en Krefeld (1927-30) de Mies van der Rohe. © Archivo Ramos+ Añón/ DISEÑO PLANTILLA PORTADA–CONTRAPORTADA Miguel Ángel de la Cova Morillo–Velarde DISEÑO PLANTILLA MAQUETACIÓN Maripi Rodríguez MAQUETACIÓN Referencias Cruzadas CORRECCION ORTOTIPOGRÁFICA DECULTRURAS ISSN (ed. impresa): 2171–6897 ISSN–e (ed. electrónica): 2173–1616 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa DEPÓSITO LEGAL: SE–2773–2010 PERIOCIDAD DE LA REVISTA: MAYO Y NOVIEMBRE IMPRIME: PODIPRINT PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA. N32 MAYO 2025 (AÑO XVI) arquitectura flexible VII PLAN PROPIO DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y TRANSFERENCIA DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA. Ayuda competitiva para revistas, Modalidad B, anualidad 2024. La revista Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura brinda acceso abierto inmediato a todo su contenido bajo el principio de hacer que la investigación esté disponible de forma gratuita para el público para apoyar un mayor intercambio global del conocimiento. Los artículos publicados en la revista Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura se ajustan a los criterios del acuerdo de licencia internacional Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-NCSA 4.0. Los autores/as retienen los derechos de autor y se permite a terceros copiar, distribuir y hacer uso de los trabajos siempre que cumplan con los términos y condiciones establecidos por dicha licencia. SERVICIOS DE INFORMACIÓN CALIDAD EDITORIAL La Editorial Universidad de Sevilla cumple los criterios establecidos por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora para que lo publicado por el mismo sea reconocido como “de impacto” (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Resolución 18939 de 11 de noviembre de 2008 de la Presidencia de la CNEAI, Apéndice I, BOE nº 282, de 22.11.08). La Editorial Universidad de Sevilla forma parte de la U.N.E. (Unión de Editoriales Universitarias Españolas) ajustándose al sistema de control de calidad que garantiza el prestigio e internacionalidad de sus publicaciones. PUBLICATION QUALITY The Editorial Universidad de Sevilla fulfils the criteria established by the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI) so that its publications are recognised as “of impact” (Ministry of Science and Innovation, Resolution 18939 of 11 November 2008 on the Presidency of the CNEAI, Appendix I, BOE No 282, of 22.11.08). The Editorial Universidad de Sevilla operates a quality control system which ensures the prestige and international nature of its publications, and is a member of the U.N.E. (Unión de Editoriales Universitarias Españolas–Union of Spanish University Publishers). Los contenidos de la revista PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA aparecen en: BASES DE DATOS: INDEXACIÓN SELLO DE CALIDAD EDITORIAL FECYT Nº certificado: 385–2024 WoS. Arts & Humanities Citation Index. SCOPUS. AVERY. Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals DIALNET FUENTE ACADÉMICA PLUS (EBSCO) ART & ARCHITECTURE SOURCES (EBSCO) LATIN AMÉRICA & IBÉRICA DATABASE (PROQUEST) ART, DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE COLLECTION (PROQUEST) ARTS PREMIUM COLLECTION (PROQUEST) MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING COLLECTION (PROQUEST) TECHNOLOGY COLLECTION (PROQUEST) OPEN ALEX REBID. Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico ISOC (Producida por el CCHS del CSIC) CATALOGACIONES: CRITERIOS DE CALIDAD GOOGLE SCHOLAR LATINDEX CATÁLOGO v 2.0 RESH (Revistas Españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades). Catálogos CNEAI (16 criterios de 19). ANECA (18 criterios de 21). LATINDEX (35 criterios sobre 36). DICE (CCHS del CSIC, ANECA). MIAR, Matriu d’Informació per a l’Avaluació de Revistes. Campo ARQUITECTURA CLASIFICACIÓN INTEGRADA DE REVISTAS CIENTÍFICAS (CIRC–CSIC): A CARHUS PLUS+ 2015: NIVEL A ERIHPLUS DULCINEA. OPEN POLICY FINDER (OPF) ULRICH’S WEB, Global Serials Directory. CWTS Leiden Ranking (Journal indicators) CATÁLOGOS ON–LINE BIBLIOTECAS NOTABLES DE ARQUITECTURA: CLIO. Catálogo on–line. Columbia University. New York HOLLIS. Catálogo on–line. Harvard University. Cambridge. MA SBD. Sistema Bibliotecario e Documentale. Instituto Universitario di Architettura di Venezia OPAC. Servizi Bibliotecari di Ateneo. Biblioteca Centrale. Politecnico di Milano COPAC. Catálogo colectivo (Reino Unido) SUDOC. Catálogo colectivo (Francia) ZBD. Catálogo colectivo (Alemania) REBIUN. Catálogo colectivo (España) OCLC. WorldCat (Mundial) EXTERNAL ANONYMOUS PEER REVIEW. Editorial Board will be sent to two anonymous experts, within the specific field of architectural investigation and critique, for a double blind review. The Director of the journal will communicate the result of the reviewers’ evaluations to the authors by electronic mail, to the address used to send the article. The Director will communicate the result of the review (publication without changes; publication with minor corrections; publication with significant corrections; its publication is not advisable), as well as the observations and comments of the reviewers, to the main author. If the manuscript has been accepted with modifications, the authors will have to resubmit a new version of the article, addressing the requirements and suggestions of the external reviewers. The articles with corrections will be sent to Advisory Board for verification of the validity of the modifications made by the author. The authors can also send a letter to the Editorial Board, in which they will indicate the content of the modifications of the article. ETHICS STATEMENT ON PUBLICATION AND BAD PRACTICES PROYECTO, PROGRESO ARQUITECTURA (PPA) makes a commitment to the academic community by ensuring the ethics and quality of its published articles. As a benchmark, our journal uses the Code of Conduct and Good Practices which, for scientific journals, is defined for editors by the PUBLICATION ETHICS COMMITTEE (COPE). Our journal thereby guarantees an appropriate response to the needs of readers and authors, ensuring the quality of the published work, protecting and respecting the content and integrity of the articles. The Editorial Board will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary. In compliance with these best practices, PPA has published the arbitration system that is followed for the selection of articles as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied by the anonymous, external peer–reviewers. PPA keeps these criteria current, based solely on the scientific importance, the originality, clarity and relevance of the presented article. Our journal guarantees the confidentiality of the evaluation process at all times: the anonymity of the reviewers and authors; the reviewed content; the reasoned report issued by the reviewers and any other communication issued by the editorial, advisory and scientific boards as required. Equally, the strictest confidentiality applies to possible clarifications, claims or complaints that an author may wish to refer to the journal’s committees or the article reviewers. PROYECTO, PROGRESO ARQUITECTURA (PPA) declares its commitment to the respect and integrity of work already published. For this reason, plagiarism is strictly prohibited and texts that are identified as being plagiarized, or having fraudulent content, will be eliminated or not published in PPA. The journal will act as quickly as possible in such cases. In accepting the terms and conditions expressed by our journal, authors must guarantee that the article and the materials associated with it are original and do not infringe copyright. The authors will also have to warrant that, in the case of joint authorship, there has been full consensus of all authors concerned and that the article has not been submitted to, or previously published in, any other media. EVALUACIÓN EXTERNA POR PARES Y ANÓNIMA. El Consejo Editorial remitirá el artículo a dos expertos revisores anónimos dentro del campo específico de investigación y crítica de arquitectura, según el modelo doble ciego. El director de la revista comunicará a los autores el resultado motivado de la evaluación por correo electrónico, en la dirección que éstos hayan utilizado para enviar el artículo. El director comunicará al autor principal el resultado de la revisión (publicación sin cambios; publicación con correcciones menores; publicación con correcciones importantes; no aconsejable para su publicación), así como las observaciones y comentarios de los revisores. Si el manuscrito ha sido aceptado con modificaciones, los autores deberán reenviar una nueva versión del artículo, atendiendo a las demandas y sugerencias de los evaluadores externos. Los artículos con correcciones importantes serán remitidos al Consejo Asesor para verificar la validez de las modificaciones efectuadas por el autor. Los autores pueden aportar también una carta al Consejo Editorial en la que indicarán el contenido de las modificaciones del artículo. Los artículos con correcciones importantes serán remitidos al Consejo Asesor para verificar la validez de las modificaciones efectuadas por el autor. DECLARACIÓN ÉTICA SOBRE PUBLICACIÓN Y MALAS PRÁCTICAS La revista PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA (PPA) está comprometida con la comunidad académica en garantizar la ética y calidad de los artículos publicados. Nuestra revista tiene como referencia el Código de Conducta y Buenas Prácticas que, para editores de revistas científicas, define el COMITÉ DE ÉTICA DE PUBLICACIONES (COPE). Así nuestra revista garantiza la adecuada respuesta a las necesidades de los lectores y autores, asegurando la calidad de lo publicado, protegiendo y respetando el contenido de los artículos y la integridad de los mismo. El Consejo Editorial se compromete a publicar las correcciones, aclaraciones, retracciones y disculpas cuando sea preciso. En cumplimiento de estas buenas prácticas, la revista PPA tiene publicado el sistema de arbitraje que sigue para la selección de artículos así como los criterios de evaluación que deben aplicar los evaluadores externos –anónimos y por pares, ajenos al Consejo Editorial–. La revista PPA mantiene actualizados estos criterios, basados exclusivamente en la relevancia científica del artículo, originalidad, claridad y pertinencia del trabajo presentado. Nuestra revista garantiza en todo momento la condifencialidad del proceso de evaluación: el anonimato de los evaluadores y de los autores; el contenido evaluado; los informes razonados emitidos por los evaluadores y cualquier otra comunicación emitida por los consejos Editorial, Asesor y Científico si así procediese. Igualmente quedan afectados de la máxima confidencialidad las posibles aclaraciones, reclamaciones o quejas que un autor desee remitir a los comités de la revista o a los evaluadores del artículo. La revista PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA (PPA) declara su compromiso por el respeto e integridad de los trabajos ya publicados. Por esta razón, el plagio está estrictamente prohibido y los textos que se identifiquen como plagio o su contenido sea fraudulento, serán eliminados o no publicados por la revista PPA. La revista actuará en estos casos con la mayor celeridad posible. Al aceptar los términos y acuerdos expresados por nuestra revista, los autores han de garantizar que el artículo y los materiales asociados a él son originales o no infringen derechos de autor. También los autores tienen que justificar que, en caso de una autoría compartida, hubo un consenso pleno de todos los autores afectados y que no ha sido presentado ni publicado con anterioridad en otro medio de difusión. EVALUADORES EXTERNOS (publicación cada cuatro números, dos años). NÚMEROS 29 a 32 (incluidos) Dra. Alarcón González, Luisa. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Alba Dorado, María Isabel. Universidad de Málaga. España. Dr. Alba Ramis, Israel. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. España. Dr. Álvarez Álvarez, Darío. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dra. Añón Abajas, Rosa María. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Aragüez Escobar, Marcela. Instituto de Empresa University. España. Dra. Arribas Blanco, Ruth. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. España. Dr. Atrio Cerezo, Santiago. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. España. Dr. Bambó Naya, Raimundo. Universidad de Zaragoza. España. Dra. Bardí Milá, Berta. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dr. Carbajal Ballel, Nicolás. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Castellanos Gómez, Raúl. Universitat Politècnica de València. España. Dra. Cervero Sánchez, Noelia. Universidad de Zaragoza. España. Clúa Uceda, Álvaro. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dr. de la Iglesia Salgado, Félix. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. del Cid Mendoza, Ana. Universidad de Granada. España. Dr. Delgado Orusco, Eduardo. Universidad de Zaragoza. España. Dra. Dorel – Ferré, Gracia. Savoie-Mont Blanc, Francia. Dra. Fernández Villalobos, Nieves. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dr. García Escudero, Daniel. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dra. García Requejo, Zaida. Universidad A Coruña. España. Dra. Garrido López, Fermina. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. España. Dr. González Fraile, Eduardo. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dra. Hernández Martínez, Ascensión. Universidad de Zaragoza. España. Dr. Iannello, Matteo. Università degli Studi di Udine. Italia. Dra. Lacomba Montes, Paula. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. España. Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft. Países Bajos. Dra. López Bahút, Enma. Universidad A Coruña. España. Dra. López Sánchez, Marina. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. España. Dra. Lorenzo Cueva, Covadonga. Universidad San Pablo-CEU. España. Dr. Marcos Alba, Carlos Luis. Universidad de Alicante. España. Dr. Marine Carretero, Nicolás. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dr. Martí Ciriquián, Pablo. Universidad de Alicante. España. Dr. Martínez Medina, Andrés. Universidad de Alicante. España. Dr. Millán Gómez, Antonio. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dr. Millán Millán, Pablo. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Molina Sánchez, Javier. Universidad Europea de Madrid. España. Dra. Muxi Martínez, Zaida. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dra. Onsès Segarra, Judit. Universidad de Girona. España. Dr. Palacios Labrador, Luis. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dr. Pacorbo Crespo, Luis Guillermo. University of Virginia. Estados Unidos. ESTADÍSTICAS (actualización cada cuatro números, dos años). DATOS ESTADÍSTICOS DESDE ORIGEN: NÚMEROS 1 a 32 (incluidos) Total artículos recibidos: 746 Total artículos publicados: 252 (33,78%) Total artículos rechazados: 494 (66,22%) Total artículos publicados de autores pertenecientes a los diferentes consejos o comités organizadores de la revista y Grupo de Investigación “Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura”(endogamia): 30 (11,90% sobre publicados) Total artículos publicados de autores pertenecientes a la Universidad de Sevilla (incluye comités PpA y GI HUM-632): 64 (25,40% sobre publicados) Total artículos publicados de autores extranjeros: 28 (11,11%) Dra. Paz Agras, Luz. Universidade da Coruña. España. Dr. Plaza, Carlos. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Ramos Carranza, Amadeo. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Rodrigo de la O Cabrera, Manuel. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dra. Rodrígues de Oliveira, Silvana. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Rodríguez Iturriaga, Marta. Universidad de Granada. España. Dra. Rovira Llobera, Teresa. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. España. Dr. Sainz Gutiérrez, Victoriano. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dr. Sánchez Lampreave, Ricardo. Universidade da Coruña. España. Dr. Senra Fernández-Miranda, Ignacio. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Dr. Sola Alonso, José Ramón. Universidad de Valladolid. España. Dra. Trachana, Angelique. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. España. Dr. Trillo Martínez, Valentín. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Dra. Urda Peña, Lucila. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. España. Dr. Vázquez Avellaneda, Juan José. Universidad de Sevilla. España. Paridad H/M: 30/25 (54,54%/45,46%) PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA. N32, MAYO 2025 (AÑO XVI) arquitectura flexible índice artículo del editor LA FLEXIBILIDAD COMO HERRAMIENTA PARA LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN ARQUITECTURA / FLEXIBILITY AS A TOOL FOR PARTICIPATION IN ARCHITECTURE Germán López Mena – (https://doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.01) 14 artículos FLEXIBILIDAD, PERMANENCIA Y CAMBIO EN ARQUITECTURA / FLEXIBILITY, PERMANENCE AND CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURE Jorge Tárrago Mingo; Javier Pérez–Herrera – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02) 32 EN BUSCA DE LA FLEXIBILIDAD: EL CUADRADO Y LA RETÍCULA EN LA VIVIENDA CONTEMPORÁNEA / IN SEARCH OF FLEXIBILITY: THE SQUARE AND THE GRID IN CONTEMPORARY HOUSING Alfonso Guajardo-Fajardo Cruz; Juan José Sánchez Rivas – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.03) 48 ESPACIOS DOMESTICOS FLEXIBLES: LAS ENVOLVENTES DE TRES EDIFICIOS DE LOS AÑOS 50 EN MILÁN / FLEXIBLE DOMESTIC SPACES: THE ENVELOPES OF THREE 1950S BUILDINGS IN MILAN Sara Fernández–Trucio; Tomás García García; Francisco Montero–Fernández – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.04) 66 ESTRUCTURAS ABIERTAS AL CAMBIO. LA TRASCENDENCIA DE LO RELACIONAL / STRUCTURES OPEN TO CHANGE. THE TRANSCENDENCE OF THE RELATIONAL Evelyn Alonso Rohner; José Antonio Sosa – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.05) 86 reseña bibliográfica TEXTOS VIVOS RICARDO TAPIA ZARICUETA, ROSENDO MESÍAS: HÁBITAT POPULAR PROGRESIVO, VIVIENDA Y URBANIZACIÓN Pedro Lorenzo Gálligo – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.06) 102 STEPHEN H. KENDALL, JOHN R. DALE (EDS.): THE SHORT WORKS OF JOHN HABRAKEN Israel Nagore – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.07) 104 LIMA, JOÃO FILGUEIRAS LIMA (LELÉ). ARQUITETURA: UMA EXPERIÊNCIA NA ÁREA DA SAÚDE Patrícia Marins Farias – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.08) 106 ROBERT KRONENBURG: FLEXIBLE. ARQUITECTURA QUE INTEGRA EL CAMBIO Alba Zarza–Arribas – (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.09) 108 TEXTOS EN INGLÉS EN LA EDICIÓN ON–LINE. https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/ppa 33 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA 32 N32_ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. N32 Arquitectura flexible. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 / 03-09-2024 recepción – aceptación 13-03-2025. DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ-HERRERAS. “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura”. N32 Arquitectura flexibel . Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 INTRODUCCIÓN Cuando decimos que una determinada arquitectura nos parece rígida, queremos indicar que no permite hacer cambios y adaptarse a una necesidad, o a un deseo concreto, o responder a una realidad cambiante en un tiempo inmediato o más prolongado. Y quizá, por oposición, entendemos su contrario. Es decir, la flexibilidad de una determinada arquitectura se plantea, habitualmente, como un mecanismo asociado al cambio y a la permanencia. Dicho de otro modo, se asocia al tiempo, cosa que, por otro lado, y a diferencia de otras manifestaciones, es parte de su esencia. La flexibilidad es, visto así, una manera de subsistencia para aquellas arquitecturas que desean vencer al tiempo (figura 1). Es una obviedad asegurar que la arquitectura cambia. Una condición inevitable es su temporalidad. Y, al contrario, 1 Cfr. GRACIA, Francisco de. Construir en lo construido: la arquitectura como modificación. Madrid: Nerea, 1992. ISBN 84-86763-65-7. 2 GOLDBERGER, Paul. Los edificios y el tiempo. En: GOLDBERGER, Paul. Por qué importa la arquitectura. Madrid: Ivory Press, 2012, pp. 203-240. ISBN 97884-939498-7-7. la atemporalidad es una aspiración. La necesidad de prolongar su vida, evitar su obsolescencia o incorporar nuevos usos, explican en parte por qué la arquitectura cambia. La arquitectura ha sido también en muchas ocasiones una actividad de aprovechamiento, construyéndose y cambiando a partir de lo ya construido (figura 2). Las ramificaciones de esta confrontación con el tiempo son muchas más que las que provienen del propio edificio, sea una obra nueva o ya construida. Afectan también a la dialéctica entre la nueva arquitectura y la ciudad ya construida1. También nuestra manera de entender la arquitectura cambia. Su significado cultural, social o político, o los intereses de la crítica, cambian a más velocidad y más a menudo que el modo en el que la vemos o la usamos2. Cualquier edificio se encuadra en un contexto social y cultural que no es estático y del que recibe parte de su FLEXIBILIDAD, PERMANENCIA Y CAMBIO EN ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBILITY, PERMANENCE AND CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURE Jorge Tárrago Mingo ( 0000-0002-1749-1550) Javier Pérez-Herreras ( 0000-0002-6671-3260) RESUMEN Algunas de las razones para prolongar la vida de los edificios son su obsolescencia o la necesidad de usos nuevos, en tanto una condición de la arquitectura es su inevitable temporalidad. También nuestra manera de entender una misma arquitectura cambia: sus significados culturales, sociales, políticos o intereses de la crítica arquitectónica cambian en el tiempo. Los autores que más han tratado el concepto de flexibilidad en arquitectura suelen fijarse precisamente, entre otras, en su capacidad de cambio en el tiempo. Este artículo presenta dos modos en los que la flexibilidad, como capacidad de cambio, deriva en su condición de permanencia: bien incluyendo al cambio como variable inicial del proyecto, o bien en una en la que el arquitecto es intérprete y aporta nuevas capas de significado a lo ya construido. Para el primer caso, se proponen algunos ejemplos de la reciente arquitectura francesa, singularmente de Lacaton & Vassal; para el segundo caso, se recurre al texto de Rafael Moneo La vida de los edificios y su cita a Opera aperta de Umberto Eco. Se concluye que en ambos casos se entiende la arquitectura como “proyecto abierto”. El artículo presenta estos dos particulares sentidos del concepto de flexibilidad que lo vinculan al cambio y la permanencia. Y acaba con un tercero más conocido pero inesperado, donde la permanencia reside en una arquitectura cuyo significado y tiempo son invariables, cerrados. PALABRAS CLAVE flexibilidad; permanencia; cambio; arquitecto intérprete; Rafael Moneo; Umberto Eco. SUMMARY A building’s life may be prolonged for various reasons, including because it is becoming obsolete or to adapt it to new uses, temporality being an inevitable condition of all architecture. Our way of understanding any particular architecture also changes as its cultural, social, political meanings – or the interests of architectural criticism – change over time. The authors who most frequently address the concept of flexibility in architecture tend to focus precisely on architecture’s ability to change over time, among other aspects. This article examines two ways in which flexibility as capacity for change derives from a condition of permanence, either through the inclusion of change as a fundamental variable of the project, or through the the architect’s work as an interpreter who brings new layers of meaning to existing constructions. Some recent examples in French architecture – and in particular Lacaton & Vassal – will be cited to illustrate the first of these ideas, while the text La vida de los edificios by Rafael Moneo and his citation of Umberto Eco’s Opera aperta are employed in reference to the second. In both cases, architecture is understood as an “open project”. This article explores these two distinct senses of the term flexibility that link it to change and permanence. It ends with a better known – but more surprising – third aspect of flexibility, in which permanence can also found in an architecture whose meaning and time are invariable, closed. KEYWORDS flexibility; permanence; change; interpreter architect; Rafael Moneo; Umberto Eco. Persona de contacto / Corresponding author: [email protected]. Universidad de Navarra. España. 1. Grabado “Fiesta para oficiales de las fuerzas inglesas y francesas, y el ejército y marina griega, en la acrópolis de Atenas”. 1 47 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA 46 N32_ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ-HERRERAS. “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura”. N32 Arquitectura flexibel . Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ-HERRERAS. “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio...”. Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 GONZALEZ DE CANALES, Francisco. ed. Consideraciones sobre la obra de Rafael Moneo. Barcelona: Fundación Arquia, 2019. ISBN 9788409036912. GRACIA, Francisco de. Construir en lo construido. La arquitectura como modificación. Madrid: Nerea, 1992. ISBN 84-86763-65-7. HABRAKEN, N. J. El diseño de soportes. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1979. ISBN 84-252-1824-1. HARTOG, Françoise. Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps. Paris: Seuil, 2003. ISBN 9782020593281. KENDALL, S. Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture. En: Journal of Urban Technology [en línea]. New York: Society of Urban Technology, 1999, vol. 6, n.º 3, pp, 1-16 [consulta: 15-03-2025]. ISSN-e 1466-1853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10630739983551. KENDALL, S., TEICHER, J. Residential Open Building. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2000. ISBN-w 9780203056769. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203056769. KOHLER, Niklaus; KÖNIG, Holger; KREISSIG, Johannes; LÜTZKENDORF, Thomas. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings. Principles, Calculations, Design Tools. Múnich: Detail Green Books, 2010. ISBN 9783955531706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11129/detail.9783955531706. KOOLHAAS, Rem; MAU, Bruce. S, M, L, XL. Nueva York: The Monacelli Press, 1997. ISBN: 09781885254863. KRONENBURG, Robert. Flexible. Arquitectura que integra el cambio. Barcelona: Blume, 2007. ISBN 978-84-9801-147-0. LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe. La libertad estructural, condición del milagro. En: 2G: revista internacional de arquitectura. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2011, n.º 60. ISSN 1136-9647. LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe. Actitud. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2017. ISBN 9788425230486. LATOUR, Bruno; YANEVA, Albena. “Give me a Gun and I Will Make All Buildings Move”: An ANT’s View of Architecture. En: Ardeth [en línea]. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, 2017, n.º 1, pp. 103-111 [consulta: 15-03-2025]. ISSN 2532-6457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17454/ARDETH01.08. MARTINEZ DE GEREÑU, Laura, ed. Rafael Moneo. Apuntes sobre 21 obras. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2010. ISBN 978-84-252-2362-4. MONEO, Rafael. On Typology. En: Oppositions. Massachusetts MA: MIT Press, summer 1978, n.º 13, pp. 22-45. Disponible en: https://doarch152spring2015.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/moneo_on-typology_oppositions.pdf. MONEO, Rafael. La vida de los edificios. La mezquita de Córdoba, la lonja de Sevilla y un carmen en Granada. Barcelona: Acantilado, 2017. ISBN 978-84-16748-61-7. OTTO, Frei, et al. Arquitectura adaptable: seminario. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1974. ISBN 84-252-0944-7. ROSSI, Aldo. La arquitectura de la ciudad. Barcelona: Gusvato Gili, 1982. ISBN 9788425228209. RUBY, Ilka; RUBY, Andreas. 2G LibrosBooks. Lacaton & Vassal. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2007. ISBN: 84-252-2061-0. SONTAG, Susan. Contra la interpretación y otros ensayos. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1984 [1966]. ISBN 9788432204890. STALDER, Laurent. El maquinismo de Bruther. En: El Croquis. Madrid: El Croquis editorial, 2018, n.º 197, pp. 262-274. ISSN 0212-5633. STRAVINSKI, Ígor. Poética musical. Barcelona: Acantilado, 2006. ISBN 978-84-96489-37-0. Jorge Tarrago Mingo (Burgos, 1975). Doctor Arquitecto (ETSAUN). Desde 2000 compatibiliza la docencia e investigación y el trabajo profesional en alcolea+tarrago arquitectos. Director de RA, Revista de Arquitectura. Autor o editor de Aguinaga, Echaide, Sobrini. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Navarra. 1978-2018 (2020, premio XV BEAU, 2021); Premios Pritzker. Discursos de aceptación 1979-2015 (2015) o Inter: Fotografía y Arquitectura (2016, premio XIV BEAU, 2018). Javier Pérez-Herreras (1967). Catedrático de Proyectos Arquitectónicos en la Universidad de Zaragoza. Director del programa de Máster Universitario en Arquitectura. Doctor arquitecto por la Universidad de Navarra. Cofundador con Javier Quintana del Taller Básico de Arquitectura: un laboratorio de investigación entre Pamplona y Londres. Su ejercicio profesional está basado en una insistente investigación sobre los nuevos conceptos de habitar y sus anatomías arquitectónicas. Su trabajo profesional ha obtenido reconocimientos como el Chicago Athenaeum, Architects’ Journal Small Projects, German Design Council, Arquitectura Española, BEAU y FAD. Su obra ha sido expuesta en el RIBA de Londres, en el AIA de Washington, en el Instituto Italiano de Tokio y en los Nuevos Ministerios de Madrid. Ha representado a España en la 8ª Bienal de Arquitectura de Venecia. Ha sido rector de la Universidad San Jorge, profesor de la Universidad Pública de Navarra y profesor visitante en el MAMD que la Universidad IE imparte en el RIBA de Londres. Es autor de libros como Cajas de aire e Ideo-Lógica. que no tienen la permanencia, la inmovilidad que para ellos a veces deseamos y que en cada instante son diversos”39. Frente a la flexibilidad y el cambio, la permanencia e inmutabilidad son términos que no aparecen tan a 39 MONEO, Rafael. op. cit. supra, bnota 21, p. 18. menudo en el discurso arquitectónico contemporáneo. Pero que garantizan también de algún modo la extensión en el tiempo de la arquitectura. ¿No es este, acaso, el objetivo último de la flexibilidad? Aportación de cada autor CRediT: Conceptualización, investigación, metodología, redacción, revisión y edición JTM (50%); JP-H (50%). Autoría: Autoría: JTM (50%); JP-H (50%). Todos los autores declaran que no existe ningún conflicto de intereses con los resultados del trabajo. Bibliografía citada BOURRIAUD, Nicolas. Estética relacional. Buenos Aires: Adriana Hidalgo, 2008. BLAIN, Francoise-Aline; PRADEL, Jean-Louis; TRETIAK, Philippe. Palais de Tokyo-L’art en chantier. En: Beaux arts magazine. Paris: Beaux Arts & Cie SAS, 2002, n.º 212. ISSN 0757–2271, Disponible en: https://www.lacatonvassal.com/data/documents/20110228-2044390201BeauxArts212.pdf. COLMENARES VILATA, Silvia. Lo neutro. Arquitectura por defecto. Barcelona: Fundación Arquia, 2023. ISBN 978-84-125906-1-6. ECO, Umberto. Obra abierta. Barcelona: Planeta-DeAgostini, 1985. ISBN 9788439500087. ECO, Umberto. Los límites de la interpretación. Barcelona: Editorial Lumen, 1992. ISBN 9788426412140. ECO, Umberto. Interpretación y sobreinterpretación. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 9780521476492. GOLDBERGER, Paul. Por qué importa la arquitectura. Madrid: Ivory Press, 2012. ISBN 978-84-939498-7-7. PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURAN32_ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 FLEXIBILIDAD, PERMANENCIA Y CAMBIO EN ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBILITY, PERMANENCE AND CHANGE IN ARCHITECTURE Jorge Tárrago Mingo ( 0000-0002-1749-1550) Javier Pérez Herreras ( 0000-0002-6671-3260) above the recommended levels, which gives the user “freedom to move about, to instigate an activity wherever he happens to be”.10 This flexibility is complemented by lightweight and independent construction systems and materials that can be varied and replaced. The structure becomes a support for relationships of different scale – what they term superpositions – that permit the changes that will, sooner or later, envelop the building. It is an architecture that attains its true meaning through permanent change. More than that, it celebrates temporality. Perhaps the most lucid example of this approach can be found in the designs for the Nantes School of Architecture (2009). The “programmed space”, the “appropriable free space” and the “exterior space”, are superimposed on a four-level supporting structure in a grid of supports measuring 11.66 by 10.71 metres. The “scheduled space” (that is, the space set aside for each use of the School) is allocated to classrooms, auditorium, workshops and services as considered strictly necessary. There is also a “deprogrammed” interior and exterior free space, an oversized “extra space”11 that can be used for various functions and evoke new relationships, adapting to the interests of the user. And the routes through the building, with transitions between inside and outside, undetermined routes, undefined empty spaces at single and double heights and with diagonal visuals, trigger an open dialogue of transformation, leaving comprehension of the architecture to the user at all times (figures 5 and 6). But this same strategy can also be detected in existing architecture, such as the renovation plans for the Palais de Tokyo (Paris, 1999-2014) as a “place of contemporary creation”. In this case, the provisional, temporary and uncertain nature of a very prolonged and very low-cost construction process, and the indefinite and hierarchical use of the space for art exhibition, are elevated to the level of project strategies. This was the result of a failed tender process in 1999 and subsequent multi-phase development over more than twelve years. The Palais, originally erected for the International Exposition held in Paris in 1937, had undergone various transformations over time, for example to house the National Museum of Modern Art and the Palais du Cinéma. The architects were confronted with a flawed building, but at once an architecture “that was already there”. Thus, there was little for them to do: consolidate the minimal operations happening there as a result of the economic context, and take advantage of the possibility of creating “porous” spaces.12 There was sufficient space for spontaneity13 and it could certainly be appropriated by the users (figure 7). Indefinite use and space make way for an optimistic relationship with the building’s own and current times: “This attitude blurs the project’s relationship with time”.14 It suspends that connection and so the supporting structure – either designed as in Nantes or found as in Paris – is neither an element that comes before occupation, nor one that comes after it; rather, it is a frame within which the unexpected can be woven. It shows how architecture responds to the starkest reality, without abstract or theoretical mediation, indifferent to the mechanisms of disciplinary composition. A similar stance is exhibited by French architects of a younger generation – for example, in the work of Studio Mutuo, which explores capacity to adapt to a changing programme, or in that of Philippe Rahm, which introduces climate and environment as factors with a decisive influence on flexibility. The work of the Bruther team takes the idea further by stating that in the open plan, adaptability, flexibility and neutrality “are not designed to respond to static functions but rather to satisfy an open brief” that can accommodate future events. Once again, a search for flexibility is sustained by a structural system conducive to “programmatic indetermination and flexible usage”.15 More than buildings, these are “equipped economic structures” whose life cycle affects their structural components, their maintenance and durability, and their economic and social viability. Aspirations for a long life cycle call for adaptability and changing uses. This cannot be improvised; formal and design decisions must be taken from the outset to guarantee control over financial matters and energy consumption at all times.16 This is strongly reminiscent of the well-known principles of “open building” proposed by N.J. Habraken in The Design of Supports in the 1960s. These dictate that we must separate the immovable, the support, from what can change according to the user’s needs at any given time.17 Examples of this can be found in the Student Residence and Reversible Car Park in Palaiseau (2016) designed together with the Baukunst studio, where the neutral structure of the building promises to be able to host any planned future changes of use – in this case, partly programmed in advance (figure 8). In short, architecture is imbued with flexibility, change and permanence in the independent relationship between the programme of needs and the built surface, in their superimposition. This manifests itself first and foremost in a construction system based on oversizing the load-bearing capacity of the structure. What is more, this system has to set aside its visual values, to a certain extent, being content to provide a support and tool for change. For these architects, the change comes with the disconnect between the structure and the lightweight construction systems that accommodate current and future uses. It also depends on an understanding of the particular time in question. We are not referring to a before and an after, but to two temporalities, neither of which prevails over the other, which are born of new intentions and, in turn, give rise to a different temporality: a third space for unexpected phenomena. “This third reality, stemming from the superimposition of strata and of temporalities, of a place within a place, is miraculous.”18 INTRODUCTION When we say that a certain architecture seems rigid, we mean that it cannot be changed or adapted to a specific need or desire, or respond to a changing reality, either immediately or over the longer term. And perhaps we understand its opposite by way of contrast. That is to say, the flexibility of any particular architecture is usually understood as a device associated with change and permanence. Thus, it is associated with time, which – unlike in the case of other disciplines – is part of its essence. From this point of view, flexibility is a means of survival for those architectures that want to overcome the barrier of time (figure 1). To say that architecture changes is to state the obvious. Temporality is an inevitable condition of architecture. In contrast, timelessness is an aspiration. The need to prolong the life of a building, to avoid it becoming obsolete or to incorporate new uses, partially explain why architecture changes. Architecture often has to make the best use possible of existing structures, building on and changing what is already there (figure 2). The ramifications of this confrontation over time go far beyond those resulting from the building itself (whether it is a new or existing construction), to affect the dialectic between the new architecture and the existing city.1 Our way of understanding architecture also shifts over time. The cultural, social or political significance of architecture – and the interests of architecture criticism – change faster and more often than the way we perceive or use buildings.2 Every building is framed in a shifting social and cultural context which feed into part of its meaning and the readings we make of it. Sometimes these meanings and readings change slightly – or a great deal – along with the different social and cultural contexts that arise in each era. By this we do not mean to endorse falling foul of some kind of “presentism” in architecture. Nor are we referring to the problem repeatedly addressed by historians and critics of the relationship between a past architecture and the present time from which we understand, see or use it, describing it as we do through a contemporary gaze. Rather, we mean to say that it is unsurprising that our perspective of architecture is affected by its permanence.3 Any historical-critical method will always be faced with this complex relationship between past and present. And this relationship is undoubtedly a rather more complex expression of change in architecture than the ideas we associate with the concept of flexibility (figure 3). Authors who have dealt with this concept frequently, such as Robert Kronenburg, explain that flexibility architecture “consists of buildings that are designed to respond easily to change throughout their lifetime”4 For these authors, a more flexible architecture has its advantages: “it remains in use longer, fits its purpose better, accommodates users’ experience and intervention; takes advantage of technical innovation more readily; and is economically and ecologically more viable”. That is, a flexible architecture is one designed for “changing situations in their use, operation or location [...] It adapts, rather than stagnates; transforms, rather than restricts; is motive, rather than static; interacts with its users, rather than inhibits”. And “it stems not just from desire and possibility but also from economy and necessity”.5 That is why flexibility, mobility and adaptability are such common terms in the field. According to Ewald Bubner, an adaptive architecture has specific features of form and use that allow for changes in interior spaces. It can also be used in a different place or position to respond to different human needs.6 As we can see, the scope of the concepts and considerations interwoven with flexibility is quite broad. But of all the possible approaches, we want to focus on two that are seemingly disparate. Both are operational strategies more conducive to change and permanence that consider architecture to be an “open project” (figure 4). ARCHITECTURE AS AN OPEN PROJECT: SUPERPOSITION The strategy that considers flexibility as a constant change, with space for new realities and relationships over time, has been thoroughly outlined in recent French literature. This approach understands architecture not as something static; rather, it results from “a series of physical transformations that take place over time (and not only through movement or through the different forms of perception and imagination)”.7 Architecture is in permanent flux, it is always a “moving project” that takes variables such as its transformation by its users, or its deterioration, as given, natural aspects from the outset, in line with the theories of Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva.8 This condition is incorporated into the design process. And seen like this, architecture acts as the agent of other, perhaps unforeseen changes that could even be the opposite of what we might expect. The French authors include indeterminacy as part of the project, as Rem Koolhaas did when he stated that “[f]lexibility is not the exhaustive anticipation of all possible changes. Most changes are unpredictable. [...] Flexibility is the creation of a capacity with a wide margin that enables different and even opposing interpretations and uses”.9 Indeterminacy as a contemporary principle contained within the notion of flexibility is clearly present in the work of Lacaton & Vassal when they declare that they design with the concept of “temporality” in mind. Paradoxically, they propose an architecture that becomes timeless insofar as it is capable of undergoing constant change. In this respect, as they explain in one of their seminal writings, Structural Freedom, a Precondition for the Miracle, their building designs usually incorporate a supporting structure that displays a certain “hugeness”. It is calculated with load capacities well p.33 p.34 p.35 p.36 p.37 p.38 p.39 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURAN32_ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA demands a free, inventive response, if only because it cannot really be appreciated unless the performer somehow reinvents it in psychological collaboration with the author himself. Yet this remark represents the theoretical perception of contemporary aesthetics, achieved only after painstaking consideration of the function of artistic performance; certainly an artist of a few centuries ago was far from being aware of these issues. Instead nowadays it is primarily the artist who is aware of its implications. In fact, rather than submit to the ‘openness’ as an inescapable element of artistic interpretation, he subsumes it into a positive aspect of his production, recasting the work so as to expose it to the maximum possible ‘opening’.”28 Secondly, the passage of time would be supported with meticulous analysis of the previous architectural work, turning each subsequent architect into an interpreter who must “agree” with the previous one to identify those formal principles that allow them to implement the change while respecting the origins. A sort of lucid chain would thus be established, as Igor Stravinsky recalled: “the first condition that must be fulfilled by anyone who aspires to the imposing title of interpreter, is that he be first of all a flawless executant”.29 Perhaps at this point we should return to Umberto Eco. It is not difficult to paraphrase how the three types of possible intentions of the interpretation can be applied, in part, to architecture. Eco states: “(a) what its author intended to say or (b) what the text says independently of the intentions of its author. Only after accepting the second horn of the dilemma can one ask whether what is found is (i) what the text says by virtue of its textual coherence and of an original underlying signification system or (ii) what the addressees found in it by virtue of their own systems of expectations.”30 The interpretation of the text as a search for the intentio auctoris (a) has a parallel in the reading Moneo advances for the Mosque of Córdoba. Even the search for the intentio operis (b) might also be understood in this way, either in the case of the formal principles of architecture (b)(i) or those that the interpreter is able to find with their own gaze (b) (ii). To the previous classic opposition between author and work, Eco adds a third intention, the intentio lectoris. Under this interpretation, the alternative to a flexible architecture such as the one proposed in Córdoba ((a) and (b)) would lie in a “flexible author” who abandons the original roots of the received architecture to initiate an interpretation open to a new temporality. If Moneo undertakes this quest to find the received work that its author wanted to originate (if the author is inflexible at the root), then there is an alternative that still yields flexibility in the interpretation of the work. The architect achieves this flexibility when he looks for what the work has to say in light of a contemporary time and culture. This would be the case, for example, of how the architect working on the expansion of the Museo del Prado might understand that project. The new design was pinned to a particular point in time within a historical “chronicle” to “maintain the identity and integrity of the Villanueva building”, giving “a series of spaces whose continuity hardly allows us to distinguish between them”, where we are “shown that buildings, by unfolding their life over time, dilate, extend and undertake growth [...] without losing their most valuable attributes”, where as architects it is interesting “to understand what the previous chapters of the life of a building have been in order to draft a new one”, in a new reading.31 According to this vision, the interpretative approach to a previous work is what allows change and, in turn, reveals the flexible quality of an architecture (figures 11 and 12). CONCLUSIONS In this article we have examined two ways of understanding flexibility. One identifies the original root of the built architecture to propose each new reading that extends it over time. Another is rooted in time, with time as a design variable. Both allow us to understand flexibility less as a physical condition and more as a solution to withstanding the passage of time. Permanence, a commitment linked to change and flexibility, can be achieved through a project that Moneo (in the case of architecture) or Eco (in the case of language) call open, a project that can adapt to a variable reality. Architecture changes so it can endure In this respect, in the text we draw upon Moneo claims that “experience shows that the life of buildings manifests itself to us through the permanence of their most characteristic formal features over time. And that, therefore, it is not so much about the project process as the autonomy that a building acquires once it is built”.32 Solid formal mechanisms allow change without changing essence. This makes an architecture flexible, and these mechanisms provide a solution to architecture’s permanence and validity. In contrast to these firm, formal mechanisms as guarantors of flexibility, we have seen other architectures that guarantee flexibility in their innate capacity for different interpretations and changes. For these – exemplified in the work of the French partnership Lacaton & Vassal and in Bruther – flexibility and capacity for change are signs of an architecture that aims to comply with the passage of time and its new uses. The mechanism of change is the root that sustains an architecture over time. Its permanence resides there, architecture becoming a tapestry permanently open to new interpretations. Permanence lies in the interpretation that the architect makes of the architecture received or in an original work to which their designs will contribute new interpretations. Architecture’s continuity resides in its flexibility, in those volumetric, structural or organizational attributes that provide the capacity for change. Flexibility is a mirror reflecting durability over time. Secondly, this change is expressed in a certain indifference of use, in a programme of needs that is either not considered entirely relevant, or is assumed to be changing and unspecific, or both. This yields an architecture that is transformed into a relational system, open to different views and dialogues. As Nicolas Bourriad, first director of the Palais de Tokyo, points out, it is “the realm of human interactions and its social context”19 that end up defining architecture, as opposed to the independent object or some reaffirmation of the private space. The structure extends as far as regulations or economic factors allow. And the programme is circumvented with neutrality, as well as with the clear intention of bestowing architecture with the greatest possible relational capacity. Architecture is absorbed by the economy of the possible, in the celebration of the everyday. Architectural design is changing: it is an expression of each moment and develops over the long term (figure 9). So is it the physical alteration that allows the architecture to be flexible and endure over time? Is it the indeterminacy of the programme? Could change be understood from other perspectives? Are there other ways to extend the life of buildings so that we can define them as flexible? ARCHITECTURE AS AN OPEN PROJECT: THE LIFE OF BUILDINGS “La vida de los edificios. Las ampliaciones de la mezquita de Córdoba” (“The Life of Buildings: The Extensions of the Mosque in Córdoba”), is the title of an article written by Rafael Moneo and published in 1985 in the magazine Arquitectura.20 A few years earlier, in May 1977, he had given a lecture on Spanish architecture with the same title at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. That talk and the article that followed aimed to respond to the structuralist approaches that were emerging from the sphere of language to take the centre stage of academic and disciplinary debate.21 Transferred to the field of architectural analysis these approaches – which, according to Moneo, all critics were obliged to submit to – worked to identify the deep formal structure of architecture. Based on the example of the Mosque of Córdoba, and by means of a fairly detailed narration of the history of the project and a meticulous analysis of its constructive elements throughout its more than eight centuries of evolution, Moneo concludes that the building is imbued with a timeless essence. Recognizing a set of initial values sustained over time by each architect through a careful analysis of the built architecture would allow us to appreciate and propose the following changes (figure 10). Each building would have an essence, logic and formal features of reading so evident that any change would come about in a natural way. And the architecture would allow for such change, thereby extending its lifespan, propagating “the miracle of its evolution over time”.22 To put it another way, “the life of buildings is supported by their architecture, by the permanence of their most characteristic features and, although it may seem paradoxical, it is this permanence that allows us to appreciate the changes”.23 This notion of continuity reveals itself with different nuances in his work, which has on several occasions involved expanding or intervening on existing architectures. To name just a few of these projects, we have the expansion of the Atocha Station (1984-1992), the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza (1989-1992), the Museo del Prado (1998-2007) and the expansion of the Banco de España building (1978-2006) in Madrid; the expansion of the City Council headquarters in Murcia (1991-1998) and the General and Royal Archives of Navarra (1994-2003) in Pamplona. In these projects, the architect implicitly or explicitly acknowledges a previous reality and its principles, its historical and constructive analysis, and anticipates a future change through its extension or by promoting a change of use. In other words, this is an architecture that “must accept continuity as a norm”.24 Moneo also pointed out during his talk that “the desire to take into account continuous change, thus ensuring that a work of architecture responds adequately to the passage of time, has led to the introduction of the concepts of flexibility and multifunctionality”.25 In short, the permanence of architecture, its flexibility, makes it necessary to identify its “deep formal structure”, its original disciplinary principles. These have to remain “sufficiently solid” over time, be defined with equally sufficient clarity and be recognized (and therefore respected) at each moment of change and by each architect. By relying on these intelligible and logical formal principles, and on firm categories and attributes of the design processes, architecture can “prolong itself in other architectures”.26 Architecture is subject to the passage of time, but unlike other disciplines it can also age – be flexible – in a unique way, through extensions, reforms and repairs. This would be another way of understanding flexibility as change. THE INTERPRETER Taking things a step further, perhaps what we propose can be better understood in the light of what Moneo said during the same presentation in relation to the “life of the building”. Firstly, the architect “would ensure their work withstood the passage of time whenever their project could be qualified as ‘open’”.27 At the height of popularity of structuralist theories of language, Moneo pointed out this parallel between open architecture and language and Umberto Eco’s Opera aperta, a work at the time the subject of much academic debate. The structure of the text (here we might substitute architecture) is not fixed; rather, it can sustain many other readings, open to each reader, who would thus rewrite the same text (the same architecture) each time, perpetuating it over time: “[T]he poetics of the ‘open’ work tends to encourage ‘acts of conscious freedom’ on the part of the performer and place him at the focal point of a network of limitless interrelations, among which he chooses to set up his own form without being influenced by an external necessity which definitively prescribes the organization of the work in hand. At this point one could object [...] that any work of art, even if it is not passed on to the addressee in an unfinished state, p.40 p.41 p.42 p.43 p.44 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURAN32_ARQUITECTURA FLEXIBLE J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025J. TÁRRAGO MINGO, J. PÉREZ HERRERAS “Flexibilidad, permanencia y cambio en arquitectura” Proyecto, Progreso, Arquitectura. Mayo 2025. E. Universidad de Sevilla. ISSN 2171–6897 / ISSNe 2173–1616 – RECEIVED - 03-09-2024 / ACCEPTED - 13-03-2025 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 Con licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 – DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/ppa.2025.i32.02 PROYECTO, PROGRESO, ARQUITECTURA Postscript: Against interpretation Umberto Eco would eventually distance himself from what he called “overinterpretation”. He would recognize that we do not have to “necessarily [be] able to prove that one interpretation is the right one, or even [cling] to any belief that there must be one right reading”,33 thus more likely placing the accent on the intentio operis as opposed to the intention of the author or the defence of a “literal” meaning. Likewise, a work of architecture would therefore contain what is necessary to make a correct reading of it – which would nevertheless not be a unique reading, of course. According to Richard Rorty, instead of looking for an intention or an origin, our concepts are instruments for a certain purpose. In short, a new gaze would be more useful and profitable to our purpose, because “[i]nterpreting something, knowing it, penetrating to its essence, and so on are all just various ways of describing some process of putting it to work”,34 of using it. And sometimes things are exactly as they seem. There are architectures in which we cannot find any intention to bring about change. They are rigid, inflexible; they are just as they were designed, and for the purposes they were designed for. That is their historical iter. Yet, they seem to share a fate with those other architectures that we call flexible; namely, permanence in time. And they change, too. This would be a third way of understanding flexibility, one which Aldo Rossi identified in some of the great historical buildings, unrelated to any operational change strategy, after noting the effects of several decades of reuse: the form is always stronger than any use attributed to the construction.35 The formal logic of these buildings, Rossi said, endowed them with a capacity for constant use, passing naturally from use to another. In other words, maximum architectural precision will often permit a maximum indifference of use. The indifference in the way of some historical buildings have been reused of late – in contemporary terms, the neutrality of an architecture –36 allows any function to be accommodated in time, thereby achieving the ultimate goal of flexibility: permanence. Finally, as Susan Sontag lucidly reminded us in a similar line of thought: “Our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art, much less to squeeze more content out of the work than is already there. [...] The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means”.37 Or as Josep Quetglas pointed out, “architecture, like everything that lives in time, lacks definition, or possesses it in the crisis of its successive definitions”.38 After all – and paradoxically – we can understand Moneo’s words: “I must say that I see ever more clearly that buildings shift in time, that they do not have the permanence, the immobility that we sometimes desire for them, and that they are diverse at each moment in time”.39 In contrast to flexibility and change, permanence and immutability are terms that do not make as frequent an appearance in contemporary architectural discourse. But to a certain extent they also guarantee architecture endures over time. And is this not the ultimate goal of flexibility? Contribution of each CRediT author: Concept: JTM (50%); JP-H (50%) Research, methodology, writing and review: JTM (50%); JP-H (50%) Image processing and management: JTM (50%); JP-H (50%) Both authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in the results of the work. 1 See GRACIA, Francisco de. Construir en lo construido: la arquitectura como modificación. Madrid: Nerea, 1992. ISBN 84-86763-65-7. 2 GOLDBERGER, Paul. Los edificios y el tiempo. In: GOLDBERGER, Paul. Por qué importa la arquitectura. Madrid: Ivory Press, 2012, pp. 203-240. ISBN 978-84-939498-7-7. 3 On the concept of presentism, see HARTOG, Françoise. Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps. Paris: Seuil, 2003. ISBN 9782020593281. 4 KRONENBURG, Robert. Flexible: Arquitectura que integra el cambio. Barcelona: Blume, 2007, p. 6. ISBN 978-84-9801-147-0. 5 Ibid., pp. 6, 10, 14. 6 BUBNER, Ewald. Arquitectura adaptable. Resumen histórico. In: OTTO, Frei et al. Arquitectura adaptable: seminario. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1974. ISBN 84-252-0944-7. 7 STALDER, Laurent. El maquinismo de Bruther. In: El Croquis. Madrid: El Croquis editorial, 2018, no. 197, pp. 262-274. ISSN 0212-5633. 8 LATOUR, Bruno; YANEVA, Albena. “Give me a Gun and I Will Make All Buildings Move”: An ANT’s View of Architecture. In: Ardeth [online]. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 2017, no. 1, pp. 103-111 [accessed on: 15-03-2025]. ISSN 2532-6457. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/991. 9 KOOLHAAS, Rem; MAU, Bruce. S, M, L, XL. New York: The Monacelli Press, 1997, pp. 239-240. ISBN: 09781885254863. 10 LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe. La libertad estructural, condición del milagro. In: 2G: revista internacional de arquitectura. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2011, no. 60. ISSN 1136-9647. See LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe. Actitud. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2017, pp. 57-72. ISBN 9788425230486. 11 RUBY, Ilka; RUBY, Andreas. Espacio extra, extra grande. Sobre la obra reciente de Lacaton & Vassal. In: Lacaton & Vassal. 2G Books. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2007, pp. 6-10. ISBN: 84-252-2061-0. 12 Ibidem, p. 100. 13 BLAIN, Françoise-Aline; PRADEL, Jean-Louis; TRETIAK, Philippe. Palais de Tokyo-L’art en chantier. In: Beaux arts magazine. Paris: Beaux Arts & Cie SAS, 2002, no. 212, p. 82. ISSN 0757–2271, Available at: https://www.lacatonvassal.com/data/documents/20110228-2044390201BeauxArts212.pdf. 14 LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe, op. cit. supra, note 11, p. 60. 15 See STALDER, Laurent, op. cit. supra, note 8, p. 270. 16 See KOHLER, Niklaus; KÖNIG, Holger; KREISSIG, Johannes; LÜTZKENDORF, Thomas. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings: Principles, Calculations, Design Tools. Munich: Detail Green Books, 2010. ISBN 9783955531706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11129/detail.9783955531706. 17 HABRAKEN, N.J. El diseño de soportes. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 1979. KENDALL, S.; TEICHER, J. Residential Open Building. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2000. See also KENDALL, S. Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture [online]. In: Journal of Urban Technology. New York: Society of Urban Technology, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1-16 [accessed on: 15-06-2025]. ISSN-e 1466-1853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10630739983551. 18 LACATON, Anne; VASSAL, Jean-Philippe, op. cit. supra, note 11, p. 58. 19 BOURRIAUD, Nicolas. Estética Relacional. Buenos Aires: Adriana Hidalgo, 2008, pp. 13-17. ISBN 9789871156566. 20 MONEO, Rafael. La vida de los edificios. Las ampliaciones de la mezquita de Córdoba [online]. In: Arquitectura. Madrid: COAM, 1985, no. 256, pp. 26-36 [accessed on: 1603-2025]. ISSN 0004-2706. Available at: https://www.coam.org/media/Default%20Files/fundacion/biblioteca/revista-arquitectura-100/1981-1986/docs/revista-articulos/ revista-arquitectura-1985-n256-pag26-36.pdf. 21 The intention of the lecture is explained in the prologue of MONEO, Rafael. La vida de los edificios. La mezquita de Córdoba, la lonja de Sevilla y un carmen en Granada. Barcelona: Cliff, 2017. ISBN 978-84-16748-61-7. 22 MONEO, Rafael. op. cit. supra, note 21, p. 10. 23 Ibidem, p. 46. 24 MARTINEZ de GEREÑU, Laura, ed. Rafael Moneo. Apuntes sobre 21 obras. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2010, p. 169. ISBN 978-84-252-2362-4. 25 Ibid., p. 18. 26 Architecture “extends into other architectures” by means of the common elements and mechanisms of typological relationships. MONEO, Rafael. On Typology. In: Oppositions. Massachusetts MA: Mit Press, summer 1978, no. 13, pp. 22-45. Available at: https://doarch152spring2015.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/moneo_ontypology_oppositions.pdf. 27 MONEO, Rafael. op. cit., supra, note 21, p. 18. 28 ECO, Umberto. Obra abierta. Barcelona: Planeta-DeAgostini, 1985, pp. 66-67. ISBN 9788439500087. Original edition Opera aperta: Forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemporanee. Milan: Bompiani, 1962. 29 STRAVINSKY, Igor. Poética musical. Barcelona: Acantilado, 2006, p. 114. ISBN 978-84-96489-37-0. 30 ECO, Umberto. Los límites de la interpretación. Barcelona: Editorial Lumen, 1992, p. 29. ISBN 9788426412140. 31 MARTINEZ DE GEREÑU, Laura, ed., op. cit. supra, note 25, p. 636. 32 MONEO, Rafael. op. cit., supra, note 21, p. 18. 33 ECO, Umberto. Interpretación y sobreinterpretación. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 18. ISBN 9780521476492. 34 RORTY, Richard. El progreso del pragmatista. In: ECO, Umberto, op. cit. supra, note 34, p. 109. 35 ROSSI, Aldo. La arquitectura de la ciudad. Barcelona: Gusvato Gili, 1982, pp. 54-55. ISBN 9788425228209. 36 In this respect, it is worth reading COLMENARES VILATA, Silvia. Lo neutro. Arquitectura por defecto. Barcelona: Fundación Arquia, 2023. ISBN 978-84-125906-1-6. 37 SONTAG, Susan. Contra la interpretación y otros ensayos. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1984 [1966], p. 27. ISBN 9788432204890. 38 QUETGLAS, Josep. Rafael Moneo. Versos y oraciones del caminante. In: GONZALEZ DE CANALES, Francisco, ed. Consideraciones sobre la obra de Rafael Moneo. Barcelona: Fundación Arquia, 2019, p. 133. ISBN 9788409036912. 39 MONEO, Rafael. op. cit. supra, note 21, p. 18. p.45 p.46 Autor imagen y fuente bibliográfica de procedencia página 17, 1. Disponible en: https://japonan.com/vivienda-en-japon/; página 18, 2. Archivo del autor; página 19, 3. Archivo del autor; página 19, 4. Casa abierta. Disponible en: https://casa-abierta.com/images/post/1488803556.jpg; página 20, 5. Disponible en: https://arquiscopio.com/archivo/2013/03/28/mediateca-de-sendai/; página 21, 6. Elaboración propia de la planimetría y fotografía El País. Disponible en: https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/TV72XLUDQBCOXBHNYA652VZZJU.jpg?auth=af48751f32 9474c268764172e87bc7794e18799d2eff1c5093d0923ed889c722&width=1960; página 22, 7. Archivo del autor; página 23, 8. GARCÍA HUIDOBRO, Fernando; TORRES TORRITI, Diego; TUGAS, Nicolás. ¡El tiempo construye! Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2008; página 23, 9. Museum of Moderm Art. MOMA. Disponible en: https://www. moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/smallscalebigchange/projects/quinta_monroy_housing.html; página 24, 10. Disponible en: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ krokorr/5473845451/sizes/l/; página 26, 11. Archivo del autor; página 26, 12. Disponible en: lacol.coop; página 27, 13. Pelli, V. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. Facultad de Ingeniería, Vivienda y Planeamiento. Departamento de Diseño Arquitectónico, 1969. UNNE-UNO: Desarrollo de un sistema de vivienda nuclear para la población urbana marginal en el Nordeste Argentina; página 28, 14. Ídem 8; página 29, 15. Ídem 9; PROCEDENCIA DE LAS IMÁGENES Jorge Tarrago Mingo y Javier Pérez Herreras; página 33, 1. The Illustrated London News, July 1854; página 34, 2. Tomada de The Metropolitan Museum © Open Met Access. Accession Number: 37.45.3(51); página 34, 3. Fotografía de Milos Budik, 1956. Disponible en: https://www.tugendhat.eu/en/vila-online/researcher/obrazovy-archiv/milos-budik/; página 35, 4. Disponible en: https://www. domusweb.it/en/architecture/2018/10/22/james-wines-modern-day-radical.html; página 36, 5. Disponible en: https://www.nantes.archi.fr/en/film-de-philippe-ruault/; página 37, 6. Arriba: Lacaton & Vassal, 2009. Disponible en: www.lacatonvassal.com. Abajo: © Javier Callejas Sevilla; página 38, 7. Lacaton & Vassal, 2014. Disponible en: www.lacatonvassal.com; página 39, 8. Bruther y Baukunst, 2016. Disponible en: https://www.world-architects.com/ca/baukunst-bruther-sarl-lausanne/project/studentresidence-and-reversible-car-park y de https://arqa.com/arquitectura/student-residence-and-reversible-car-park-eu-mies-award.html; página 40, 9. Lacaton & Vassal, 20032008. Disponible en: www.holcimfoundation.org; página 41, 10. Arquitectura, n.º 256, 1985. Archivo digital de la revista Arquitectura. Disponible en: https://www.coam.org/ es/fundacion/biblioteca/revista-arquitectura-100-anios; página 44, 11. Croquis. Disponible en: https://arquitecturaviva.com/obras/ampliacion-del-museo-del-prado, esquemas tomados de MARTINEZ DE GEREÑU, Laura, ed. Rafael Moneo. Apuntes sobre 21 obras. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2010, p. 624; página 45, 12. Disponible en: https:// rafaelmoneo.com/proyectos/ampliacion-del-museo-del-prado/; página 53, 1.Kazimir Malevich, 1915, Cuadrado blanco sobre fondo negro. En la web de la Tretyakov Gallery https://my.tretyakov.ru/app/masterpiece/8403. Carl Andre, 10×10 Altstadt Copper Square. En la web del museo Guggenheim https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/214; página 53, 2. Casa de piedra en Cáceres: https://arquitecturaviva.com/obras/casa-de-piedra. Wall Grid (black 3×3), Sol LeWitt (1964). En la web de Pauña Cooper Gallery https://www.paulacoopergallery.com/exhibitions/sol-lewitt15#tab:slideshow;tab-1:slideshow;slide-1:2; página 54, 3. MONTANER, Josep María; MUXÍ Zaida; FALAGÁN, David H.. Herramientas para habitar el presente; la vivienda del siglo XXI. Barcelona: Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, 2011, p. 126. FRIEDMAN, Avi. The adaptable house: designing homes for change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002, p. 129; página 56, 4. Elaboración propia; página 57, 5. Elaboración propia; página 58-59, 6a y 6b. Elaboración propia; página 60, 7. Fotografía: Bas Princen. Imagen: AV Monografías, n.º 232, 2021, p. 22. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 60, 8. I Fotografía: Luis Asín. Imagen: Arquitectura Viva, n.º 249, 2022, p. 30. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 61, 9. Fotografía: José Hevia. Imagen: web de Pau Vidal. Estudio de Arquitectura: https://pauvidal. eu/work/97. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 62, 10: Imagen: Arquitectura Viva, n.º 263, 2024, p. 18. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 63, 11. Imagen: web de Carles Enrich Studio: https://carlesenrich.com/es/proyectos/habitat-fluvial/. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 63, 12. Fotografía: Pezo von Ellrichshausen. Imagen: AV Monografías, n.º 199, 2017, p. 73. Dibujo: elaboración propia; página 70, 1: 1.1. Disponible en: PEROGALLI, Carlo. Case ad appartamenti in Italia. Milán: GG Gorlich, 1959. p. 22. 1.2. Foto: Cino Zucchi. Disponible en: ZUCCHI, Zino. Condominio XXI Aprile a Milano (1951-1953). Mario Asnago, Claudio Vender. Genova: Sagep, 1993, p. 64; página 71, 2: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: ZUCCHI, Zino. Condominio XXI Aprile a Milano (1951-1953). Mario Asnago, Claudio Vender. Genova: Sagep, 1993; página 73, 3: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: Planos originales de proyecto del Archivo Civico, Milano “Pianta quarto piano e pianta sesto piano. Scala 1:100” más ZUCCHI, Zino. Condominio XXI Aprile a Milano (1951-1953). Mario Asnago, Claudio Vender. Genova: Sagep, 1993; página 74, 4: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: Google Earth más las descritas en las figuras 2 y 3; página 74, 5: Foto: Giorgio Casali. Disponible en: Gio Ponti archives; página 75, 6: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: PIERINI, Orsina Simona; ISASTIA, Alessandro. Case Milanesi. 1923-1973. Cinquant’anni di architettura residenziale a Milano. Milán: Hoepli, 2020; página 76, 7: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: PONTI, Gio. Una casa a pareti apribili. En: Domus. Milán: Domus, 1957, n.º 334, pp. 21-35 más PIERINI, Orsina Simona; ISASTIA, Alessandro. Case Milanesi. 1923-1973. Cinquant’anni di architettura residenziale a Milano. Milán: Hoepli, 2020 más Planos originales de proyecto del archivo de Gio Ponti “Piano 2.º, 4.º, 5.º, 6.º”; página 77, 8: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: las descritas en las figuras 6 y 7; página 79, 9: © autor. Fotografía tomada en marzo, 2025; página 80, 10: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: Archivo Bruno Morassutti, Unidad archivística: IUAV UA 253103. Universidad de Venecia. Plano: “Variante serramenti. CQM 53”; página 81, 11: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: Archivo Bruno Morassutti, Unidad archivística: IUAV UA 253103. Universidad de Venecia. Planos de planta: “CQM 44,48, 78-83, 85”; página 82, 12: © autor. Procedencia de las fuentes utilizadas: las descritas en las figuras 10 y 11; página 89, 1. BEILER Kevin J.; SIMARD Suzanne W.; DURALL Daniel M. Disponible en: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.12387; página 90, 2. HIGGS, Matthew, et. al. Odd Lots, Revisiting Gordon Matta-Clark’s Fake Estates. Nueva York: Cabinet Books/The Queens Museum of Art/White Columns, 2005. © Estate of Gordon Matta-Clark / VEGAP, Sevilla, 2025; página 91, 3. WILLIS, Simon. How Andreas Gursky turned an Amazon Depot into art. En: The Economist. Disponible en https://www.economist.com/1843/2018/01/25/howandreas-gursky-turned-an-amazon-depot-into-art. © Andreas Gursky / Courtesy Sprüth Magers / VEGAP, 2025; página 92, 4. NASA. Disponible en: https://earthobservatory. nasa.gov/images/5772/crop-circles-in-kansas; página 93, 5. ALLEN, Stan. Point+ Lines. Diagrams and Projects for the City. Nueva York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999, p. 98. ISBN 9781568981550; página 94, 6. OMA. Disponible en: https://www.oma.com/projects/ville-nouvelle-melun-senart; página 95, 7. GUPTE, Rupali. Tactical City, Tenali Rama and other stories of Mumbai´s Urbanism. New York: Cornell University, 2003; página 97, 8. ALONSO ROHNER, Evelyn. Acciones infra-leves. Indeterminación, discontinuidad y entropía. Madrid: Fundación Arquia, 2020. ISBN 978-84-121748-4-7