THE SECRET LIFE OF A PUBLIC SQUARE
Plaza de los Carros, Madrid, España, 2022.
There is a fundamental correlation between the human subject and the (urban) objects it creates — a relationship that we, as architects, rarely consider within the profession. This relationship is crucial for understanding how the city relates to its users.
This project develops the idea that it is in language where we may find the roots of this relationship. To discover new ways of transforming our cities, we must trace the structural values shared by both entities — the spatial and the linguistic. By doing so, we can reveal a more fundamental, anthropological quality of space: its structural or social narrative.
This project is part of ongoing research that seeks to understand how urban space is articulated, and how urban objects relate to society. There is a crucial conflict between the way society experiences space and the way space is created. This conflict has long been at the centre of philosophical discussion, focusing on the relationship between subject and object.
I believe that the roots of this subject–object conflict in architecture lie in our limited understanding of the essence of urban objects. In the early stages of human evolution, objects were directly associated with cultural requirements. In the modern world, there has been an increasing disconnection between nature and society. What once were direct expressions of our humanity have now become increasingly alien objects.
We need to rethink the endless production of objects and our relationship with them. But how can we begin such an analysis? I believe the answer lies in linguistics. The relation between signifier and signified in Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory provides a clear foundation that can be extrapolated to the architectural realm with fascinating consequences.
In this project, I understand the subject as the producer of space, and the object as the urban constructions created by society. The project takes place in the Plaza de los Carros in Madrid — a clear manifestation of the essence of a public square. Within it, we can identify objects that correspond to linguistic terms, helping us filter and reveal the essence of the place.
Why is this important? Because we must find new ways of articulating the urban objects that already exist within specific contexts. The construction process must arise from an understanding of the essential experiential qualities of space. Architecture is not only related to matter, but also to culture; and actions such as addition, subtraction, connection, or cultural appropriation can be equally effective.
How is urban space articulated? How are urban objects created, and how do they relate to the social actor that produces them? I believe there is an essential contradiction between how society experiences space and how that very space is created. This conflict, central to philosophical discourse, focuses on understanding the correlations between subject and object.
In this project, I focus on the subject as the producer and user of space, and the object as the urban constructions created by society. I argue that the roots of the subject–object conflict in architecture stem from a simple yet profound issue: our disarticulation and disconnection from the essence of urban objects.
Historically, every human creation has had a direct connection with specific uses, outcomes, and cultural structures — before design even existed. Architecture is no exception. What we call vernacular or primary in architectural history refers to forms that emerge directly from basic human needs and organisational strategies. In the early stages of human evolution, urban objects — even if we cannot yet speak of urban planning — were directly linked to cultural requirements and social relations.
In the modern world, the disconnection between nature and society has deepened, reflected in our misunderstanding of our own role as creators and inhabitants of our built environment. What were once direct consequences of our humanity have become increasingly alien objects. Facing this reality, it becomes essential to pause and analyse our relationship with the city, to rethink the endless production of architectures detached from our inner nature.
If we take language as the structuring force behind all human relations, we can better understand the relationship between the (human) subject and the (urban) object. As described by linguist and semiotician Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), language is composed of the signifier (the sound or word) and the signified (the concept it represents).
How does this relate to architecture? In nature, a signified object — for example, a tree — can correspond to different signifiers: a drawing of a tree, the word “tree,” or a photograph. In the urban realm, the opposite occurs. Take the example of a public square: the signified is no longer a fixed physical element, but a concept — the essence of what a public square means as an experience. The signifier then corresponds to the infinite ways in which we can represent this concept in the built realm.
This leads to a disquieting conclusion: every architectural project becomes an attempt to materialise a cultural concept, and each design is a selective, interpretive act among infinite possibilities. Thus, the essence of space is what we truly struggle to materialise. The essence is the reality; design and construction merely produce abstract representations of it. Urban objects exist only in relation to deeper structures, beyond the appearances concealed within objects.
This introduction frames the project as a methodological close reading of space, which later evolves into a practical approach to the articulation of public spaces. I chose the Plaza de los Carros in Madrid as a case study to illustrate this theory. This site embodies the essence of a public square, structured by objects of differing characteristics and potentials. Its functioning today is not defined by the design of its individual elements, but by the way they are organised — forming, like language, a coherent narrative.
By drawing from linguistics, we can define objects that correspond to terms such as Fetish, Mythical, Authentic, and Space (in the Heideggerian sense). These concepts arise from the interaction of the elements that constitute the place, as shown in the accompanying diagrams. Through this reading, we find that the essence of the place is much simpler than it appears; our experience of it is tied directly to that essence.
By applying this method to other locations, we can extract and compare the essences of different public squares, revealing — I argue — surprisingly similar narratives.
Why is this important today, especially in the architectural and urban realm? In this moment of overproduction — of designs, projects, and interventions, particularly in European cities that are physically saturated — we must find new ways to address architectural problems.
My theory proposes a method that connects space and society at a fundamental level. The design and construction process should arise from an understanding of the essential experiential qualities of space. Solutions in architecture are not limited to new construction, but can emerge through new articulations of existing urban objects within specific contexts.
Architecture is no longer merely a matter of material, but of culture — and actions such as addition, subtraction, connection, or cultural appropriation can be equally transformative.