Customer Reviews

Modernity and the Architecture of Mexico

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I am a dutch architect that has been living in Mexico for over thirty years, and I believe that this is probably the best book on modern mexican architecture that I have read. Of course not all the essays have the same quality. The best is the Mendez Vigata essay which I would rank as essential reading for anyone interested on mexican public architecture or to anyone interested in the relationship between architecture and politics. The Perez Gomez interview, the Arredondo, Curtis, Mereles, Burian's O'Gorman essay(there is not much information about that great mexican painter and architect elsewhere), and the Mijares (a personal view of Obregon's architecture from one of the greatest mexican architects) are very good. The essay on Juan Segura written by Antonio Toca, who is one of the most important architecture historians in Mexico, is dissapointing. Probably the worst is the Kalach essay on the Ciudad Universitaria Stadium, this was a real dissapointment since Kalach is one the one of the most interesting young architects in Mexico. So, if really have an interest in mexican architecture don't let the couple of mediocre articles included prevent you from enjoying this otherwise rare and wonderful book.

I think this is the best book on modern mexican architecture that I have read. Unfortunatelly most of the books currently available on the architecture of that country are lacking on theoretical and historical data, this one is the exception. There isn't much that I can add to the "Mixed bag of riches" review, but I think that this is a book that will not let anyone down .

While an important and little written about topic, this book fails to deliver the valuable information in a readable manner. The language is dull and boring, and the writing is dry. It is very difficult to sit with it for an extended period of time. While the author attempts to address critical issues in Mexican architecture he over complicates the relevant information with the rhetoric.

The noble attempt to provide dialogue with influencial authorities on the subject by way of interviews seemed tainted. This was because his questions were not open ended and were often worded in a leading manner. It was as if the author was trying to draw out the response he desired from the subject.

While Burian's writing was lacking, some of the articles written by others contained in the book were more appealing.