52 Domestic radicals

In developing a domestic project, there are many different approaches and processes based on practice and theory that we can call on. The specific path we choose will be conditioned by geographical factors, social structures and questions of mobility—and in some cases by situations of individual or collective emergency. This set of factors, combined with forceful approaches, can lead us up previously uncommon avenues: appropriation— as opposed to acquisiti —self-construction and the re-use of derelict spaces. But interpretations of the domestic are also conditioned by economic factors and in situations of instability, these can develop extreme approaches, which we want to examine here.

However, there are also radical homes, born out of thought and theory; out of experimentation and the need to invent or redefine. In their radicalism, such dwellings can even question their very existence and creation. The house is the key factor in our way of inhabiting, and we want to understand it as an active element for its inhabitants.

All of these different experiences, whether because of their condition, their location and/or the attitude that underlies their conception, make up a sample of domestic radicals. In Zehar, we want to display the multiplicity of approaches and processes that can arise out of radical attitudes towards the development of the domestic project. François Roche and osfavelados try to find the limits of the habitable; Víctor Saúl Pelli, Chris Booth and Rose Gilroy and Santiago Cirugeda reflect on the development of the dwelling, its conception, and the role of the architect and the developer; and Vicente Guallart examines the dwelling as an active element and the generator of the city. Here you will find some pointers as to the motivations behind domestic radical projects, and an examination of where, how and why such architectures arise.

—Etxeberria kooperatiba