Comparative Analysis: FAUUSP and UNAM
Abstract
This paper explores the architectural significance of two key Latin American institutions—the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at the University of São Paulo (FAUUSP) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Both universities have played central roles in shaping their countries' educational, cultural, and political landscapes, acting as symbols of innovation, resistance, and societal change. FAUUSP, designed by Vilanova Artigas, exemplifies Brazilian modernism with its emphasis on openness and transparency, reflecting the nation’s democratic aspirations after the military dictatorship. UNAM blends modernist principles with Mexican cultural heritage, notably through its iconic murals, to express the university’s commitment to national identity and social justice. Together, these institutions illustrate how architecture transcends form and function, becoming a powerful tool for political and cultural expression in Latin America.
Comparative Analysis: FAUUSP and UNAM
Comparative Analysis: FAUUSP and UNAM
Comparative Analysis: FAUUSP and UNAM
Comparative Analysis: FAUUSP and UNAM
Universities in Latin America have long served as centers of intellectual discourse, activism, and social change, deeply intertwined with the aspirations of youth, evolving ideologies, and the pursuit of national identity. In the aftermath of colonialism, as nations sought to define themselves, universities became vital spaces for political, cultural, and social transformation. Both universities use their architecture to express their nations' hopes for democracy, identity, and social change. FAUUSP’s design focuses on openness and collaboration, reflecting Brazil’s move toward democracy, while UNAM blends modern architecture with Mexican cultural symbols, representing a commitment to social justice. This paper will explore how these buildings go beyond their function as educational spaces, acting as symbols of political and cultural movements in Latin America.
FAU/USP was founded in 1948 as a continuation of an architecture-engineering program where architecture was initially treated as secondary to engineering. This division led Brazilian architects to feel inferior to their foreign counterparts. Artigas’s vision went beyond education; he saw architecture as a tool for political empowerment as he believed in "form-making and intention" (Frampton, 1980). FAUUSP, which was finished in 1967, put a lot of emphasis on openness and working together, which was in line with the democratic values Artigas wanted to promote. Artigas conceived the university as a "large, reinforced concrete box elevated two floors above ground level on fourteen tapering concrete columns... the unique feature... was its monumental top lit assembly hall, which Artigas conceived as the political heart of the school" (Frampton 1980). The open spaces in the building were meant to help people from different fields work together and make the place lively for students and teachers. This design was additionally described as:
an elevated rectangular box, 110 meters long by 66 meters wide and 15 meters high. Whilst the upper part of the building is a concrete box, the lower part is perceived as a glass box (Gonçalves et. al 2006).
These features stood for openness, with the glass parts representing what Artigas and his peers wanted the university to be like. However, the building did not meet expectations when it came to how well it protected the environment. As Gonçalves et. al (2006) explain, "theoretical environmental performance... proved to be more conceptual than really effective," leading to repeated complaints about poor thermal conditions. Even though it had problems with the environment, FAUUSP's design became a symbol of modernist architecture in Brazil. Its presence and link to political ideas made it even more of a symbol of progressive thought. As Gonçalves et. al (2006) conclude, "The architecture of such a distinctive educational building was strongly influenced by the national political situation." During Brazil's military dictatorship, FAUUSP was a hub for political activism. Students and faculty organized protests, fought for human rights, and called for democratic reforms. Artigas wanted to build a university building that would represent openness and honesty, which fit with the university's role in political activism. Frampton (1980) reflects on Artigas's design influence, noting that "Artigas also took from Reidy the idea of bringing the rigid-frame, reinforced-concrete portals down to the ground on point supports, as found in his singular architectural school, FAU-USP.” With its open plazas and common areas meant to encourage people to talk to each other and work together without planning to, the FAUUSP building became a physical representation of democratic ideals. It was easy for people to share their thoughts in these places, which helped Brazil's goal of becoming more democratic and independent in the future. But the political power that the building's design gave people came at a price. Artigas’s involvement in the political environment led to his eventual "dismissal from the faculty... by the US-backed military junta" (Frampton, 1980), underscoring the tension between architecture and politics during this period. Nevertheless, the building’s transparency physically embodied the ideals of openness and democracy that Artigas sought to promote.
When UNAM was created in 1910, the country was in the midst of a lot of change after the Mexican Revolution. The campus of Ciudad Universitaria, which opened in 1954, shows Mexico's modern goals while honoring its native roots. As Frampton (1980) notes, "The indigenous roots of Mexican culture would gather momentum with the Mexican Muralist movement, which flourished through to the middle of the century." The art direction at the university was influenced by this movement, especially by the murals that became an important part of its architecture. Liernur (2015) states, "The adoption of an internationalist model constituted, for many architects and critics, an unacceptable sign of insensitivity to local reality." The clash between modernism and the desire to protect local culture can be seen in O'Gorman's murals in the Central Library or the David Alfaro Siqueiros Rectorate Tower. These works show how internationalist architectural influences and the desire to protect Mexican culture are at odds with each other. The UNAM building is probably the most famous example of how modernism and Mexican culture can work together. Davids (2016) explains, "The architecture of UNAM that was adorned with murals whose themes illustrated Mexican history and alluded to Pre-Columbian construction practices."
These murals are a powerful way to show the history and culture of the country. They combine modern architectural styles with a lot of cultural history. UNAM was very important in Mexico's political life and became a hub for student activism. This was especially clear during the 1968 Tlatelolco massacre, when the government violently put down student protests that wanted more democracy. Davids (2016) further states:
UNAM’s modest architecture and sense of enclosure connects it more strongly to the traditions of the American campus and Mexican colonial plazas and monasteries than to Teotihuacán or Monte Albán. For Mario Pani, UNAM’s enclosed spaces are both a symbol and a physical expression of convergence and community, but also repose and containment. Critics obsessed with the continuity of its pre-Hispanic precedents have consistently underplayed what is arguably UNAM’s most significant contribution: the renewal of a hybrid Mexican tradition of urban space-making in the New World.
The murals at UNAM, along with its modernist architecture, illustrate the complex interplay between Mexico’s pre-Hispanic history and its political and social movements. As Davids (2016) states:
The university’s main library, situated close to Avenida de los Insurgentes at the head of the CU’s main public space, featured an even more prominent mural. Designed by Juan O’Gorman, it complemented the message of the Rectory Tower by featuring on each of its four facades a narrative of different stages of Mexican history, stories that reverberated with the political and social mission of the public university and the government that sponsored it
The murals on the university's main library serve as a visual representation of the intertwined narratives of Mexico's past and present, highlighting the government's role in promoting national identity through art. Davids (2016) puts this further when he states:
UNAM became associated with the nationalistic trend that, particularly after the Revolution of 1910, was prevalent in the Mexican arts. Architects who wished to adhere to the principles of the modern movement resisted this trend, but ultimately joined the project when Miguel Alemán rose to the presidency.
However, the attempt to “Mexicanize” the architecture through the murals was not universally accepted as Davids (2016) reflects that: “some rejected it as an 'architecture of the state, of propaganda and of national exaltation.' Others hailed the use of murals as an example of the integration of the arts.” People continued to argue about whether murals should be used as a way for Mexicans to show their identity. Murals were at first met with opposition, but they were eventually seen as a big part of how art and architecture came together in Mexico.
FAUUSP and UNAM are examples of how Latin American architecture can go beyond the form and function of a university and serve as symbols of political ideologies, social movements, and national identity. FAUUSP is a powerful representation of Brazilian modernist architecture, with its emphasis on open spaces and plazas meant to foster collaboration and democratic ideals, particularly in the aftermath of Brazil's military dictatorship. While the design reflects the country’s aspirations for democracy and independence, it also faced criticism for its environmental inefficiency, which highlighted the gap between architectural ideals and practical realities. In contrast, UNAM blends modernist principles with Mexican cultural heritage, most famously through the murals in its Central Library. These murals, which depict key moments in Mexican history, reflect the university’s role in promoting national pride and social justice. Together, both institutions illustrate how architecture can be a tool for cultural renewal and political expression, each serving as a visual embodiment of the struggles and aspirations of their respective nations. These institutions stand as powerful symbols of their respective nations' aspirations and struggles, reflecting the role of architecture not only as a physical structure but as a tool for political and cultural expression. This said they will continue to inspire generations of students, activists, and architects, underscoring the power of architecture to shape and reflect societal values and national identity.
References
References
Frampton, K. (1980). Modern Architecture: A Critical History. Thames & Hudson.
Liernur, J. F. (2015). Architectures for progress: Latin America 1955-1980. University of Texas Press.
Davids, René, ed. Shaping Terrain: City Building in Latin America. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2016.
Gonçalves, F., Sanches, A., & Cavalcante, M. (2006). FAUUSP: São Paulo, Brazil: An Icon of Brazilian Modernist Architecture. University of São Paulo.