ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

The “Own” and the “Foreign”.

Cultural Identity in Contemporary Architecture in Mexico (1980-2000)

(DRAFT – April 2004)

Structure of the paper:

1.Introduction

2.Historical background

3.Key positions

4.Selected buildings

5.Sources of investigation

6.Bibliography

1. Introduction

The debate on the ”own” and the “foreign” has a long, hardly analysed history in Mexico’s

architecture.

Reflection on the “own” in the sense of the ”Mexican” experienced a revival after the

revolution (1910) and found its expression in a neo-colonial and neo-indigenous

architecture. This was vital for the post-revolutionary state’s self portrayal. The rapidly

growing cities were however, built in a ”modern” way. State housing, school and hospital

building could only be accomplished on such a large scale with the help of “foreign” modern

building methods. At the end of the 60’s a new generation of Mexican architects included

aesthetic and identity features in their building: geometrical pyramid patterns and the

monumentality of pre-hispanic architecture. These architects, who were very influential in

Mexican building until well into the 90’s underlined the importance of a bridging between

modern architecture and a country’s own traditions. It is the only way to give people

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 1

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

something to hold onto and a sense of orientation in a rapidly changing world (see González

de Leon 1996). Susanne Dussel and the literature scientist Jose Morales Savaria show how

young Mexican architects are breaking with the search for an “own” national identity (see

Dussel/Savaria, 2002: 47-51). The younger generation’s buildings consciously neglect a

perception of the Mexican. Their architecture is based on the city of today with it’s many

layers and complexities and no longer on an exclusive link to territory and history. They

maintain, as do the sociologists Roger Bartra (see Bartra 1987) and Néstor García Canclini

(see García Canclini 1990), that the twentieth century discussion on Mexican identity is

nothing more than an attempt by the Mexican state to legitimatise its exertion of power. In

societies such as the Mexican one which is simultaneously going through different eras (pre-

modern, modern, post-modern) identity could be a subject of debate and is negociable on a

societal level.

The debate on the “own” and the “foreign” seems to take a new turn here, impossible to

grasp using a static concept.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 2

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

2. Historical background

2.1. Neo-colonial and neo-indigenous architecture:

A reaction to the Porfiriat (19th century)

Since 1900 the central topic for Mexican architects has been: how to be “modern” and at the

same time “Mexican”. In this sense “Mexican” means the “own” and “ancestral”

(premodern) culture and “modern” often meant the “foreign” “western” “idiom”. During the

last century this search for an “own identity” in architecture has been a real obsession and

the radicalness with which this idea was affirmed and postulated by the diverse positions is

unique. Certainly it is a phenomenon related to the Mexican Revolution (1910) and the

necessity to construct Mexico as an homogeneous community afterwards.

By the end of the nineteenth century – during Porfirio Díaz (1877-1910)’s positivist

dictatorship, the so-called Porfiriato - a debate began about how to formulate a “modern

Mexican architecture”.

For Porfirio Díaz Western Europe, and especially Paris, was the model of civilization. Mexico

on the other hand, was a barbaric and uncivilized country. The architectural fashions and

styles, the construction methods and materials and even the architects were brought from

Europe to Mexico for the new buildings of the Porfiriato élite. At the same time with the

introduction of the subject architectural history by European teachers in the National School

of Arts in Mexico, the romantic quest of the “national character” and the “revivals” were

transported to Mexico (Anda 1995). The first response to this quest to find an “own” modern

Mexican architecture is a “prehispanic, Indian style” proposed by Luis Salazar in an article:

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 3

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

“Architecture and Archaology” (1899). Ten years before he had designed a Mexican Pavillon

for the International Exhibition in Paris, that looked like an ancient mexican pyramid. The

selected and built project by Arch. Antonio M. Anza and the archaologist Antonio Peñafiel

was composed using different elements taken from Aztec, Toltecs or Maya pyramids. It is

especially interesting, that these quotations from ancient Mexican architecture were directly

copied from the illustrations and drawings of European archaologists and voyagers of the

nineteenth century (Alva Martínez 1996: 48-49). While the outside of the pavillon seemed to

be a pyramid, on the inside the plain metallic structure was left visible. The paradox

between the traditional outside and progressively modern inside was not perceived as such.

The other position of this identity debate –the so-called “neocolonial architecture”- was

formulated at the same time in Mexico by Nicolás Mariscal, a young editor of the magazine

“El arte y la ciencia” (Vargas Salguero 1989). Mariscal postulated that the hispanic colonial

buildings in the center of nearly all Mexican cities were the only possible source for a

“modern Mexican architecture”. The hispanic colonial culture had been denied and forgotten

after independence from Spain at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Manrique 1994)

and a century later this tradition was being rediscovered.

This “reinvention” of the “own” Mexican architecture at the end of the nineteenth century

was a nationalist reaction to the xenofile Porfiriat modernization policies, but was not only

limited to Mexico. In Europe the romantic tradition searched for the “ancient”, the “exotic”,

the “picturesque”. Art historians were re-evalauating artistic eras that had been forgotten by

classicism. In California the architecture of the colonial Missions was also being affirmed as a

reaction to the modernization and cosmopolitanism in the cities of Eastern North America

(Liernur 1991: 139).

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 4

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

2.2. The construction of a national postrevolutionary project: Between Nationalism

and Internationalism, between the “own” and the “foreign”

After the Mexican Revolution (1910) José Vasconcelos, the minister of culture (1920-1924),

began to create a new postrevolutionary national culture (Toca 1982). He was aware that

Mexico was a very heterogeneous country and he knew that a national cultural project had

to have a conciliatory character. According to the revolutionary movement the question how

to be “modern and Mexican” in architecture was of central importance. “Neocolonial

architecture” was imposed as the architecture of the postrevolutionary state: Schools and

libraries were built imitating Hispano-American convents and churches of the sixteenth

century. The neo-prehispanic, or neo-indigenous style was used to represent Mexico in

international exhibitions in Europe.

In the mid twenties a new attitude to modernity arose. Modernization and industrialization

increased rapidly and were promoted by the goverment. Only modern architecture could

fulfil the social demands of the masses, of peasent and urban workers. Cheap prototypes of

schools, social housing and hospitals for the poor population of Mexico, that could easily be

built and reproduced in the cities and villages were more important than individual, single

pieces of art. The new materials which were capable of building this “utopia” were cement

and steel, both products of the new potent Mexican industries. The thirties were the heroic

era of Mexican functionalism. Juan O´Gorman’s school prototypes, Juan Legarreta’s workers

housing units, Alvaro Aburto’s housing for peasants and José Villagrán’s hospitals completely

changed postrevolutionary state architecture (González Lobo 1982, Vargas Salguero 1982).

The search for a “Mexican” expression seemed not only anachronistic but also unethical.

National “character” and boundaries ceased to be important. The paradox between

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 5

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

“mexicanism” and “modernity” disappeared.

Soon after, during the Second World War, and after the nationalization of the petroleum

industry (1938) international pressure on Mexico grew and a new discourse on “national

unity” arose in Mexico. The regionalist debates around Lewis Mumford and Frank Lloyd

Wright in the Roosevelt era, Le Corbusier’s “Post-purism” and regionalism, Alvar Aalto’s

“romantic Rationalism” or Sigfried Giedion’s rediscovering regionalism in Walter Gropius´

American houses were signs of a new era. There was a different philosophy in the MoMA

(which incidentally propagated the “international style” some years later in 1944) in 1932:

In Built in USA 1932-1944 Elizabeth Mock writes about the need to humanize architecture

and the admiration for vernacular and peasant construction. Also in Mexico there was a drift

“from the avantgarde to the synthesis” (Dussel 2004). Former functionalism now had to find

new elements of Mexican tradition to integrate into the modern discourse. Many different

solutions and positions were taken.

Enrique del Moral, integrated regional materials such as bricks, wood or stone into his school

projects in little inland villages (for example the school in Casacuarán, Guanajuato 1944)

and adapted them to the village context. In the mid forties he experimented on his own

house with a mixture of modern and rustical materials and created a contraposition of

modern and traditional textures and tectonics. Del Moral tries to harmonize the general and

the local, the international and the regional, the modern and the traditional (Moral 1948).

The University City Project (1948-1954) in the South of Mexico City very clearly shows the

strong “identity” debates in Mexican architecture in the fifties. While the wideness and

openess of the huge campus refers to prehispanic ceremonial centers, the horizontal

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 6

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

buildings of the institutes and faculties around the campus were mostly described as modern

and international. An attempt was made to “mexicanize” these buildings by painting murals

on the walls. The so called “plastic integration” tendency searched –as in prehispanic

architecture- for an integration of painting, architecture and sculpture. Juan O´Gorman´s

central library, with its mosaic which covers the complete exterior of the building, shows this

new dichotomy of the conception of the “own” and the “foreign” in the mid fifties in Mexico.

Later in the sixties Pedro Ramírez Vázquez’s National Anthropology Museum (1964) whose

courtyard is an interpretation of Mayan ceremonial architecture in Uxmal -the square of the

“cuadrángulo de las monjas”-, began a new tradition in museum building in Mexico. Ricardo

Legorreta combines the monumentality of ancient buildings and the colours of vernacular

architecture in his Hotel Camino Real (1968) in Mexico-City. Since then Legorreta’s hotels (in

Cancún, Los Cabos, Ixtapa, etc.) have changed architecture for international and national

tourism in Mexico. During the seventies Teodoro González de León and Abraham

Zabludowsky’s public building’s (parliament and municipality buildings, universities,

libraries, museums, embassies) monumentality, massivity (the material they have used

since then is chiseled concréte brut),pyramid forms and patios –courtyards- in the center of

the buildings suggest a strong relationship to ancient, colonial Mexico. Monumentalism and

colorism were reactions to the “internationalism” of Mexican architecture during the fifties

and sixties which were eras of relative prosperity in Mexico. All these buildings were

described in international and national publications as “Mexican” and their pictures were

always shown next to images of prehispanic and vernacular buildings, to appreciate the

similarities. Ramírez Vázquez, Legorreta and González de León became representative of a

“modern Mexican architecture” and had an important impact on other Latin American

countries.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 7

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

3. The key positions (1980-2000)

Reintensification, regionalisation (e.g. the work of Augusto Quijano in Mérida, Yucatán) and

diversification of some “identity discourses” are to be found in Mexico in the first decade of

the period we will analyse. The end of President Carlos Salinas’ government in 1994, and the

economic crisis in Mexico in the same year divides the period we will analyse in two. During

the first 14 years the government had enough money to finance and build infrastructure and

public and cultural buildings of regional and national importance. Museums and theaters

were representative buildings in the eighties. The “identity debates” on Mexican

“monumentalism and colorism” were relevant in architectural culture until 1994. In the

ninties transnational companies’ corporative buildings began to be the most representative

buildings. The fact that important architects built these with the same “Mexican” formal

language (Hewlett Packard, Teodoro González de León and other corporate buildings in

Santa Fé, Mexico-City) began to undermine this nationalistic argument.

As a consequence of the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 the construction industry nearly

completely collapsed. The “PRI”’s (the old governmental party), total loss of political

credibility led the identity debates to lose their credibility and made them seem populistic

and demagogic. By the end of the millenium these discourses seemed to have become

paradox and did not fit into the urban and global reality of Mexico anymore.

Barragán: From “myth” to “trauma”

The decades of architecture we will analyse were precluded by the

photographic exhibition on the Mexican architect Luis Barragán (Ambasz 1976)organized by

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 8

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

the MoMA in 1976. After this exhibition his work was honored with national and international

awards -especially the Pritzker Price in 1980. Barragán became a legendary figure, an icon

of “Mexican architecture” and for Kenneth Frampton a paradigma of “critical regionalism”

(Frampton 1985). But most publications and exhibitions on Barragán’s architecture in the

western world have presented an idealized and simplified view of his work. This external,

picturesque cliché of Mexican architecture that has its origins in the needs of the western

world, and little to do with local needs, became highly influential for later Mexican

architects, who began to orient themselves on these external images. Since then most elitist

Latin American houses have been built along the following lines: suburban houses that look

like old Mexican haciendas –country estates- with patios and fountains in the inside and high

colored walls block out the outside. Barragán wanted to produce introverted places of silence

and peace, but they have become places of segregation of the rich, completely neglecting

the city and the modernity outside. “La casa mexicana” has become an artificially produced

image of picturesque Mexico and an export product. Legorreta, who is certainly the most

famous follower of Luis Barragán’s work, in the last years has built many projects outside

Mexico. In Japan, USA, Ixtapa, Monterrey or Mexico-City Legorreta reproduces the same

formal expression. Does it still make sense to speak about “Regionalism” in the case of

Legorreta, or is it already a “Mexican – Internationalism”? Nowadays younger architects

speak of a “Barragán trauma” that “killed” many generations of architects in Mexico. As a

reaction in the last years color, for example, has become “tabu” for these architects.

Breaking through the “pyramid”

In the last two decades at least two important positions can be traced within Mexico’s

architects. Ricardo Legorreta and Teodoro González de León, who have both been building

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 9

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

the most important private and public buildings in Mexico since the 70´s, lead the tradition

discourse that José Morales Saravia and I have called the “pyramid paradigm” (Dussel

2002). Their architecture is characterized by monumentality, solidity, massivity and the

reinterpretation of regional or historical codes. Intrinsic to these characteristics is the

problematic insertation of these building in the urban landscape. Since 1950 the urban

population of Mexico has increased extremely quickly and Mexico has become a country in

which the complex urban phenomenon should be the central topic for any architect. These

“tradition” buildings do not fit into the modern urban context. They are conceived as isolated

constructions and search for differentiation.

On the other hand a new tradition has become increasingly important over the last few

years. In the 80´s and beginning of the 90´s younger architects mostly experimented on

private dwellings until magazines and the academic sector became aware of them. Their

architecture refers to fragility, provisional materiality and transparence. Instead of

reproducing mystified popular architecture or historical colonial or precolonial architecture,

they are interested in the urban phenomenon in Mexico-City and the modernity and

radicalness of its constructions. They insert their buildings into the city and interconnect

them with the chaotic urban situations.

In 1994 TEN Arquitectos and Luis Vicente Flores were invited to participate in Carlos Salinas

de Gortari’s most important cultural project: the National Center of Arts (TEN: School of

Theater, L.V. Flores: School of Dance). This Center reflects no connection between the older

and the younger generation’s buildings. This “gap” was typical of Mexico’s critical and

polarized architecture in 1994.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 10

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

Some years later in 1998 TEN Arquitectos won the first Mies van der Rohe

Award for Latin American Architecture with a building for the transnational television

company Televisa. This proved the importance and acceptance of this new position in the

architecture “built in Mexico” and it began to have an impact on international and Latin

American architecture. New architects (such as Augustín Landa in Monterrey) began to

change the “language” of urban architecture inland in cities other than Mexico-City.

New Perspectives: The latest generation

In the last few years an even younger generation has begun to be more sensitive to location,

the needs of the client, the inmediate urban context and neighbourhood of their buildings

(Department buildings in Calle Veracruz, Javier Sánchez). They live and work in the city’s

central zones, promote their own buildings and show a new awareness of Mexico’s social

reality (Social Service Modules Springall & Lira, Market in Milpa Alta, Mauricio Rocha).

This latest generation -as well as the “gap-generation” before them- is not interested in

reproducing a “Mexican architecture”. Identity, whether regional or national is unimportant

and the words “regionalism” or “critical regionalism” do not exist in their vocabulary. They

do not need to “resist” modernity or globalisation, because both are already a reality in

Mexico, especially in Mexico-City,. The paradox between “own” and “foreign”, “Mexico” and

“modernity” has once again disappeared.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 11

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

4. Selected buildings

I will analyze 12 buildings in Mexico-City and other cities that I have selected because they

represent different positions and moments:

1.Rufino Tamayo Museum, Chapultepec Park, Mexico-City, Teodoro González de León and

Abraham Zabludowsky, 1980-1981

2.Camino Real Hotel, Ixtapa, Guerrero, Legorreta Arquitectos, 1981

3.del Mayab University, in Dzibilchaltún, Yucatán, Arch. Augusto Quijano Axle, 1983

4.Iberoamericana University in Mexico-City, Arch. Francisco Serrano 1984

5.National Center of Arts (CNA, Centro Nacional de Artes), Mexico-City, Master Plan: Arch.

Ricardo Legorreta, and the Art-Schools by diverse architects, 1992-1994:

School of Music, Teodoro González de León,

Administration building and School of Arts, Legorreta Arquitectos

Theater, López Baz y Calleja (LBC)

School of Dance, Luis Vicente Flores

School of Theater: TEN Arquitectos (Enrique Norten and Bernardo Gómez Pimienta)

6.Metro Station San Juan de Letrán, Center of Mexico City, Alberto Kalach and Daniel

Alvarez, 1994

7.Televisa Building, Mexico-City, Mexico-City, TEN Arquitectos (Enrique Norten and Bernardo

Gómez Pimienta), 1995

8.Corporative Building Hewlett Packard, Santa Fé, Mexico-City, Teodoro González de León

and Francisco Serrano, 1990-1996.

9.Houses in Calle Veracruz, Col. Condesa in Mexico-City, Javier Sánchez, 1996-2004.

10.Prototypes for social services “Módulo de Servicio Social”, Mexico-City, Springall y Lira,

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 12

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

1997.

11.Cx Networks Corporative Building, Monterrey, N.L., Augustín Landa, 2000.

12.Market in Milpa Alta, Mauricio Rocha, 2000.

5. Sources of investigation:

- Bibliography (Mexican or international books and magazines on recent Mexican

architecture) on recent Mexican architecture, on the debates and on the chosen architects

and buildings. The information is being organized in a bibliography, a chronology of

buildings and curriculum and list of works and publications of the selected architects.

- Interviews with the most representative architects of the different positions and

generations, with the most representative architectural historians and theorists, as well with

intellectuals from other disciplines (the interviews have already been made and the tapes

are being transcribed)

- Photographs of visited buildings or scanned images of the selected buildings.

6. Bibliography (reduced version)

Adrià, Miquel (1996): Mexico 90’s. Una arquitectura contemporánea. Mexico : Editorial G.

Gili.

- , Fondation Electricité de France, Instituto de México (2003): Les Bâtisseurs de Lumiére /

Los Constructores de Luz. Paris : Editions Norma.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 13

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

Akademie der Künste (1992): Mathias Goeritz (1915-1990) – El Eco. Berlin.

Alva Martínez, Ernesto (1996): „La búsqueda de una identidad“, in: González Gortázar,

Fernando (ed.): p. 43-74.

Alvarez, Augusto H. (1996): Augusto H. Alvarez. Arquitecto y Asociados S.C.. Catálogos de

Arquitectura Mexicana. Naucalpan, Mexico: Editorial G.Gili.

Amaral, Aracy (Hrsg.) (1994): Arquitectura neocolonial: América Latina, Caribe, Estados

Unidos. Sao Paulo: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Ambasz, Emilio (1976): The architecture of Luis Barragán. New York: The Museum of Modern

Art.

Anda, Enrique X. de (1990): La arquitectura de la Revolución Mexicana: Corrientes y estilos

en la década de los veinte. Mexico, D.F.: UNAM.

Anda, Enrique X. de (1995): Historia de la arquitectura mexicana. Mexico: Ediciones G. Gili.

Barragán, Luis ([1951] 1995): “Jardines para circundar”. In: Rispa, Raúl (ed.): Barragán.

Obra completa. Sevilla: Tanais Ediciones: p. 31-35.

Barragán, Luis ([1980] 1995): Discurso de recepción del Premio Pritzker. In: Rispa, Raúl

(ed.): Barragán. Obra completa. Sevilla: Tanais Ediciones: p. 204-207.

Bartra, Roger (1987): La jaula de la melancolía. Identidad y metamorfosis del mexicano.

Mexico: Editorial Grijalbo.

Bullrich, Francisco (1970): Nuevos caminos de la arquitectura latinoamericana. Barcelona,

Madrid: Editorial Blume.

Burian, Edward R. (ed.) (1997): Modernidad y Arquitectura en México. Mexico: Editorial G.

Gili.

Cetto, Max L. (1961): Moderne Architektur in Mexico. Teufen, Switzerland: Verlag Arthur

Niggli.

Colegio de arquitectos de Mexico u. Sociedad de Arquitectos Mexicanos (1987): Renovación

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 14

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

Habitacional testimonio. Mexico.

Dussel, Susanne (1995): Max Cetto (1903-1980). Arquitecto mexicano alemán, Mexico:

UAM-Azcapotzalco.

-, Morales Saravia, José (2002): “Pyramide, Axolote und “Crack” in der jüngeren

mexikanischen Architektur” / “Pirámide, axolote y „crack“ en la arquitectura mexicana

reciente“, in: ¡Atención México! Positionen der Gegenwart / Posiciones en la actualidad.

Berlin: Haus der Kulturen der Welt, S. 47-51.

-, Wemhöner, Antje (2004): „Architektur in Mexiko im 20. Jahrhundert. Zwischen

Internationalismus und Nationalismus“, in Zimmermann, Klaus (ed.): Mexiko heute (will

appear soon).

Eggener, Keith (2001): Luis Barragan´s gardens of El Pedregal. New York: Princeton

Architectural Press.

García Canclini, Néstor (1990): Culturas híbridas. Estrategias para entrar y salir de la

modernidad. Mexico-City: Ed. Grijalbo.

González de León, Teodoro (1996): Retrato de arquitecto con ciudad. Mexico-City: Artes de

México.

González Gortázar, Fernando (ed.) (1996): La arquitectura mexicana del siglo XX. Mexico-

City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.

González Lobo, Carlos (1982): „Arquitectura en Mexico durante la cuarta década: El

Maximato, el Cardenismo“. In: Cuadernos de Arquitectura y Conservación del Patrimonio

Artístico, Nr. 20-21, Apuntes para la historia y crítica de la Arquitectura Mexicana del siglo

XX: 1900-1980. Mexico-City: p. 49-116.

Heyer, Paul (1978): Mexican Architecture. The work of Abraham Zabludowsky and Teodoro

González de León. New York.

Hitchcock, Henry-Russell (1955): Latin American Architecture since 1945. New York:

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 15

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

Museum of Modern Art.

Kalach, Alberto (1998): Kalach + Alvarez. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers.

Katzman, Israel (1963): Arquitectura Mexicana Contemporánea. Mexico, D.F.: INAH.

Liernur, Pancho (1991): “?Arquitectura del Imperio español o arquitectura criolla? Notas

sobre las representaciones “neocoloniales” de la arquitectura producida durante la

dominación española en América”. In: Anales 27-28, Buenos Aires: Instituto de Arte

Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas Mario J. Buschiazzo: p. 138-143.

López Rangel, Rafael, Ricalde, Humberto (1992): Una década de arquitectura mexicana.

Mexico-City: UAM-Azcapotzalco.

Manrique, Jorge Alberto (1994): „México se quiere otra vez barroco“, in: Amaral, Aracy

(ed.): p. 35-46.

Mariscal, Federico (1915): La Patria y la Arquitectura Nacional. Mexico: Imprenta Stephan y

Torres.

Mock, Elizabeth (1944): Built in USA 1932-1944. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

Moral, Enrique del ([1948] 1983): “Lo general y lo local”, in: Del Moral, Enrique: El hombre

y la arquitectura. Ensayos y testimonios. Mexico: UNAM: S. 39-43.

Meyers, Irving (1952): Mexico´s Modern Architecture. New York: The Cornwall Press Inc.

Mutlow, John (1998): Legorreta Arquitectos. Naucalpan, Mexico: Gustavo Gili.

Noelle, Louise (1988): Agustín Hernández. Arquitectura y pensamiento. Mexico-City: UNAM.

Noelle, Louise (1989): Arquitectos contemporáneos de México. Mexico-City: Editorial Trillas.

Noelle, Louise (1995): Agustín Hernández. Naucalpan, Mexico: Ediciones G. Gili.

Noelle, Louise u.Tejeda, Carlos (2002): Ciudad de México. Guía de Arquitectura

Contemporánea. Mexico-City : Dirección de Arquitectura y Conservación del Patrimonio

Artístico Inmueble, Mexico: INBA (3rd edition).

Plazola Anguiano, Guillermo, et.al (ed.) (1999): 50 años Arquitectura Mexicana 1948-1998.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 16

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

México, D.F.: Plazola Editores and UIA.

Rulfo, Juan (1955): Pedro Páramo. Mexico: FCE.

Salazar, Luis (1899): „La arquitectura y la arqueología“, in: El arte y la ciencia. 7.

Smith, Clive Bamford (1967): Builders in the Sun. Five Mexican Architects. New York:

Architectural Publishing Co.

Sondereguer, Pedro Conrado (1990): Memoria y utopía en la arquitectura mexicana. Mexico-

City: UAM-Azcapotzalco.

TEN Arquitectos (1998): TEN Arquitectos Enrique Norten, Bernardo Gómez-Pimienta. New

York: The Monacelli Press.

Vargas Salguero, Ramón (1989): Historia de la teoría de la arquitectura: El Porfirismo.

Mexico, D.F.: UAM-Xochimilco.

Vargas Salguero, Ramón (1982): „Las reinvindicaciones históricas en el funcionalismo

socialista“. In: Cuadernos de Arquitectura y Conservación del Patrimonio Artístico, Nr. 20-21,

Apuntes para la historia y crítica de la Arquitectura Mexicana del siglo XX: 1900-1980.

Mexico-City: p. 67-114.

Villagrán García, José (1952): “Panorama de 50 años de arquitectura mexicana

contemporánea”. In: Guerrero, Enrique: México en el arte. Mexico: INBA.

Toca, Antonio (1982): „Arquitectura posrevolucionaria en México. 1920-1932“. In:

Cuadernos de Arquitectura y Conservación del Patrimonio Artístico, Nr. 20-21, Apuntes para

la historia y crítica de la Arquitectura Mexicana del siglo XX: 1900-1980, Mexico-City: p. 47-

66.

Toca, Antonio (1989): Arquitectura contemporánea en México. Mexico-City: UAM-

Azcapotzalco.

Toca, Antonio u. Figueroa, Aníbal (1991): México: nueva arquitectura. Mexico-City: Editorial

G. Gili.

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 17

 ARCHITECTURE AND IDENTITY SPONSORED BY VOLKSWAGENSTIFTUNG AND BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION : HABITAT UNIT, PROF. DR. PETER HERRLE, TU BERLIN, SEKR. A53, STRASSE DES 17. JUNI 152, 10623 BERLIN
WWW.ARCHITECTURE-IDENTITY.DE

SUSANNE DUSSEL

Vargas Salguero, Ramón (1996): „Las fiestas del centenario: Recapitulaciones y vaticinios“.

In: González Gortázar, Fernando: p. 17-41.

Vasconcelos, Jose ([1948] 1992): La raza cósmica. Mexico-City: Espasa-Calpe Mexicana.

Yáñez, Enrique (1990): Del funcionalismo al Post-racionalismo. Ensayo sobre la Arquitectura

Contemporánea en México. Mexico-City: UAM-Azcapotzalco, Editorial Limusa.

Zanco, Federica (ed.) (2001): Luis Barragán. Die stille Revolution. Barragan Foundation Vitra

Design Museum. Milano: SKIRA.

Periodicals:

Arquine (1997-2004)

Arquitectura (1990-1993)

Enlace (1990-2004)

Obras (1980-2004)

Bitácora (2000-2004)

Cuadernos de Arquitectura y Conservación del Patrimonio Artístico, Nr. 20-23, Apuntes para

la historia y crítica de la Arquitectura Mexicana del siglo XX: 1900-1980. Bd. 1 u. 2, Mexico-

City: INBA.

Susanne Dussel

RESEARCH PAPER /BASELINE PAPER 18