In this edition of Design Dialogues, Fublis is honored to feature an insightful conversation with João Cepeda, an architect whose approach to design is deeply rooted in materiality, spatial experience, and the relationship between the built environment and its natural surroundings. Through his work, João challenges conventional notions of architecture as a tool for emotional provocation, instead emphasizing its role as a structured framework that allows life to unfold organically.

In this interview, João shares his perspective on the interplay between past and present in architectural design, discussing how historical elements inform contemporary projects without resorting to nostalgia. He also explores the nuances of integrating natural forces into architectural decisions, particularly in projects like the House in Estremoz, where climatic and geographical factors shape the form and function of the space.

Additionally, João reflects on architecture’s evolving relationship with branding and visual communication, advocating for a practice that prioritizes fundamental architectural principles over aesthetic trends. His insights offer a compelling critique of modern architectural discourse while reaffirming the enduring significance of design that is both pragmatic and poetic.

Join us as we delve into the philosophies and methodologies that define João Cepeda’s work, gaining a deeper understanding of how architecture can navigate the delicate balance between nature, history, and human experience.

João Cepeda’s work emphasizes the power of storytelling in architecture. How do you translate narratives into spatial experiences, ensuring that each project evokes a distinct emotional response from its users?

João Cepeda: That’s an interesting question to start with…
I would say that that’s not intentional… the last part.
Meaning that, I think that an architectural project is an architectural project, and nothing else…
It is something very specific, that deals with very specific problems… It’s something which, eventually, has to be built… so, it is a very concrete subject… it is an objective matter. And eventually, of course, someone will live in it…

So, as an architect, I would say that the goal is not to provoke directly an emotional response from the users… you cannot control that… I think that’s more for art, or for an artistic experience… like music, or cinema…
What I think architecture should do is… to provide users with a solid, concrete basis, a ground, a frame… for life… A basis from which they can be open to all those different kinds of emotions…

Of course that, however, to do a project, deals with many themes that we can relate to storytelling… To creating a kind of narrative, to tell a story… of how the space is going to be lived, what are the materials, how will the light come in… what are the atmospheres we are looking for… so, yes, in a way, I would say it’s almost like a kind of very powerful, almost cinematic process… to imagine how the day-to-day can be experienced…
Without, however, and this is very important… without forcing a way, to do it…
So… while cinema, as I was saying, is done, or most of the cinema, to provoke “that” emotion… whether through a scene, or a plot, or a music…
Again, what I think architecture should do, is to set an order… an organized structure that can… that may be the core basis for whatever life brings to the table…

Now, if you ask me… how? How do you translate those narratives into space…?
Well, I would say that that’s not magic… there’s no mystery or secret at all…
It’s very direct and straightforward tasks… like thinking about the space, interpreting the space, choosing the right materials…
It’s design, really.

The House in Estremoz project references an ancient stone wall as a remembrance of the past. How did this historical element influence your approach to materiality, form, and the dialogue between old and new architecture?

João Cepeda: Well, firstly… I would say that past is very important for architecture…
A tradition… a kind of continuity… it’s not just for architecture… it’s for life… it’s how society works… how mankind always evolved…
There’s this kind of permanence… of evolution, slow evolution, from one thing to another…
and that’s just how it is… nothing comes from nothing.
That’s why I don’t believe in total innovation, per se… or in “tabula rasa”… Nobody starts from 0.

And in architecture is the same thing… History plays a central role.
… But not in a historicist way, I would say… more like a leading guide… giving you hints, examples, solutions, traditions…
And I like to think that the best buildings are the ones which, on the one hand, speak of their time… but eventually, also gain a state of timelessness… of permanence…
And that, of course, is connected with memory…
I mean… I think that there is no such thing as completely forgetting, that is possible to the mind… or to the sane mind, at least…
And this is very important to me…

I see past, as present… it is almost the same to me…
It’s like, for example… when you look at the sky, and see the stars…
You know that they’re all “dead”, in a way, let’s say it like this… because the fact that we see their light, means that they’ve already extinguished… and you know that the ones that are brighter, are closer to us… so they are all of different ages… but they are all from the past!
However… we see them all in the same plane, in the same level… and for me, it’s that same plane, that same constellation where you see past and present simultaneously, that interests me…

I mean… I think that it’s not by accident that Rodin used to say that he didn’t invent nothing… he only rediscovered… or Stravinsky, in music… he had this very curious motto… which was… “everything which is not tradition, is plagiarism…”
But even if you back to the Greeks… they had this very interesting meaning for the word “design”, which was somehow linked with recovering some kind of a past, forgotten memory…
So I think that every time it is possible to translate… or to suggest that memory into a project, into a space… I think that those are the spaces we connect more with…

So in this case of that project, and of that wall… of course that the wall gave a basis, right from the onset… it gave a principle, a location, a direction… and it also served as the support for the new design… so, if you want… form is there… or the beginning of the form, is already there to begin with… Also, those stone walls are very typical in the region…
And in this case, we wanted to integrate that… to harmonize that historical past element… but not to blend it, and mix it with the present… not to, almost, make it the same, no…
We wanted the 2 times, the past and the present, to be clearly distinct from one another…
but that the design could integrate both.

The environment of Estremoz—its intense sun, wild vegetation, and strong winds—plays a key role in shaping the project. How did these natural forces inform the design decisions, from orientation to material selection and spatial experience?

João Cepeda: Yes, well, that’s for every project… for every architectural problem we have to solve, let’s say…
Nature is a key factor… topography, the climate… they all are.

In that particular case, it’s mainly to deal with that…
Estremoz is in the Alentejo region… so, it’s a very hot, dry weather… can be very warm in the Summer… smooth Winters, but rainy ones…

So, it’s mainly seeing how can we deal with these questions…
For instance, we didn’t turn most of the living areas directly to South…
We have East facing rooms… West facing social areas… all this, to protect from the sun…
If you notice, we have a side of the design which is completely “blind”, totally opaque…

But at the same time, it is a beautiful setting… an amazing landscape…
So you want to take advantage of this…
So what we did is, we kind of turn the house almost to the directions where you know that you are going to profit more from the sunlight until late in the afternoon… until the sun goes down… so that you can enjoy all those beautiful sunsets…

And so, for that, we also positioned some large openings, strategically positioned… not only to frame certain views, but to take advantage of that… and to bring the exterior inside the house… and of course, also to invite people going outside…

The project also designs a setback from the roof, like a recess from the terrace… so that the glazings are protected…

So, it’s all these factors that… gradually… inform the design process…
and also material wise, of course… for example, all the floors and the walls were also thought, in terms of selection of materials and finishings, to bring some freshness and coolness inside the space.

Your studio operates at the intersection of architecture, branding, and visual communication. How do you ensure that a brand’s identity is seamlessly integrated into the physical space without overpowering the architectural integrity?

João Cepeda: Well, I’m going to have to disagree a bit with a part of what you said…
Because… of course that yes, architecture is, or finally ends up relating very directly to visual communication… but I wouldn’t say that that’s our goal, or my goal… or that we operate within that…

I think my projects, ultimately, are about…
Matter. Materiality.
How is it going to be built… what’s the process…?
How is the space going to be? What are the materials…? What atmospheres are we looking for? How is the light coming in…?

So, then, the result… the visual result… the visual “image”, if you’d like…
Is just the natural consequence or conclusion of that process…
It is never the beginning… it is never “… ok, we have this very clear image to start with, let’s now work towards achieving this, let’s work towards this visual end”… It’s totally the other way around.

Now, of course that… and nowadays that is ever clearer…
That we live in the time of… of the images… of the power of the image.
Of visual communication, as you said… of visual engagement with everything… everywhere… even with many non-essential things… it’s all about getting your attention, getting your engagement through many visual strategies… our phones, for instance, are all about that…

And that’s connected with another thing you asked, which is about branding… today, everything is turned into a brand… everything is “brandable”, let’s say…
And again… that’s not our goal at all… to create… a kind of a brand, or… an image… an image trademark, of my projects… No, no, no… I think that’s damaging, actually, in architecture…
I’m afraid of that… I don’t want that… I don’t want my projects to be… “recognizable”, let’s say, in a way… or to have a kind of “signature”…

I think that one of the qualities I appreciate more in buildings… is those buildings that have… a very difficult to achieve balance between…
Being strong… or having a… a charisma, or a “personality”, if you want…
But also having the capability of being, almost anonymous… almost banal… almost commonplace, ordinary things… I think it was the Smithsons that used to say that “things need to be ordinary and to be heroic at the same time”… so, it’s that idea, that balance…

And I can assure you that I am being as sincere as possible when I say that…
I do not have a… a visual agenda… I do not have a brand agenda, if you’d like…
I do not have a social agenda, an ecological agenda, a political agenda…
I do not have any agenda whatsoever!
Honestly, I do not care about that at all.
And it bothers me that most of today’s architecture is about these themes.

So, I think of it as… I see it almost like an… an anti-branding… or anti-agenda, if you want…
That could be my brand… or my political agenda…

Of course that architecture is always political… it is a very direct concrete intervention on society… at many different levels… urban… cultural… territorial… economical… environmental… on its communities…

But what I’m really interested in, is in architecture… in the essence of architecture… on its very specific themes…
In space, materials, scale, textures, colours, columns, windows, slabs… how the light comes in… how we enter a space… how we live in a space…
That’s what I’m interested in.

The House in Ribeira dos Moinhos project is described as a “moment of reconciliation with Nature,” seamlessly integrating built form with the rugged landscape. How did you approach the challenge of designing a structure that feels both embedded in and respectful of its natural surroundings?

João Cepeda: It’s never an easy challenge… and that idea for the project is directly connected with that specific setting… and with the challenges it brings to the table…
So, I would say it’s a more general approach… not just for that project…

But yes, the intention was to integrate the design with nature, yes, that is true… but not in a seamless way, as you say…
Actually, quite the contrary…

I see building and designing, as something which is done by man… it is something man does in order to solve a problem… an issue he has to deal with… and the specificity of that, is that… it is always something disruptive…
To design something, to build something… anywhere! Is always an act of disruption…! It is to disturb the natural…
It’s inserting something there… which was not even there to begin with… which is not natural!
So, it’s not nature! It’s the opposite of nature…! It’s artificial… It is an object, abnormal to nature… unreasonable to nature…

So… by principle, I would say… to design, and to build… even if we don’t want to… is always an exercise of going against nature, against what is natural…
It is never to respect nature… that’s not possible.

One other thing… is to try that that disruption, that process of creation… ends up…
well, firstly… harming as least as possible the setting in which it’s going to be built…
but also, and more importantly…
to end up enhancing, improving… enriching that landscape…
to somehow… try to make visible what, without it… might perhaps never have been seen… whether, a view… a landscape… a new territory… a new place…
It has to make that place, a better place than it was before…
Because, if it doesn’t, then why bother the trouble of building anything at all?
Build nothing, then…! Just… let it be… don’t touch it.

So, in that specific case, we wanted to integrate with nature…
but not in that seamless continuous, almost invisible one-piece way… no…
Of course, we gave this great importance to geology… and to using local materials, the local granite stone… and gave it a certain… nobility, a dignity, almost…
But the intention is to clearly state an object, a creation which is done by man…

And that’s what a reconciliation is… it’s always a… a compromise… an understanding… an in-between resolution… between 2 worlds… and that is exactly what we intended to…
We didn’t want to make believe… that it was just one world, one natural world…
No, we wanted to take that world, and reconcile with our world… which is the built world.

You reference Álvaro Siza’s idea that “Nature is Nature, architecture is geometry.” In designing a house so deeply connected to its environment, how did you reconcile the raw, organic qualities of the site with the precision and order of architectural form?

João Cepeda: Yes… that is exactly the same idea… Architecture is not nature…! It is a disruption designed by man, in order to survive… or to make places more… “human-friendly”, if you want…

And there is the word again, in your question… how do we “reconcile” both worlds… the natural and the built… or the natural, and the artificial…

Well, I would say…
If you have to build, you have to build…!
… If it’s necessary to cross 2 river banks… you have to make a bridge…
if it’s raining… you have to cover under a roof…
if you want to go to the other side of a huge mountain, you have to make a tunnel…
So… the reconciliation is already there to begin with… it’s unavoidable.

And nowadays, there’s this idea… and even more nowadays… which is to… to do nothing…
or… this idea of the “green” trend… the big “green” trend… this paradigm of, what’s mineral is bad, green is good… green yes, concrete no… and it’s not quite like that… because there are many other values at stake too… and there are many bad, green things… and very ugly too, I can assure you…
And in the vast majority of cases, it’s demagogic, really, because… it’s becoming way more about what you asked about before, about branding… because it is turning way more into a business, or a profit… than on really focusing on what means being sustainable… on this big word, “sustainability”…

And I ask… is living in a wood cabin, a shack, for instance… with no other conditions, out in the open, sustainable…? For man…?
Is that sustainable?

So… of course we have to be careful with climate change, of course we have to use natural materials… but for human comfort, for human… livability, I would say… we cannot be fanatic, extremist, fundamentalist… we need to be very pragmatical tackling the question, but we have to be realistic…!

Like I said… if it’s raining, or if it’s cold… I don’t know… maybe you have to cover, maybe you need thicker walls, maybe you need more proper, good insulation, etc etc etc…
So, this, this compromise… this reconciliation… is already there to begin with…!
And architecture was always there to deal with that…! To take all that organicity, and unpredictability of nature… and responding to that with providing a shelter… a built shelter…

So, man has to embed that order, into nature, has to complete nature in order to live… and then, of course, you have to take advantage of all the natural qualities of the site… to use, as maximum as possible, local materials… to reduce the ecological footprint… to be radically rational in every design decision… I completely agree with that…

Now, if you tell me…“but your project managed that reconciliation in a beautiful way, in a very smooth manner… it looks very good… that harmonization…”
Ok, I feel very happy…
But if you tell me… “it was such a respectful design and so…”
Well, that’s a different story…
Because it’s never respectful… Architecture doesn’t respect nature, it cannot respect nature, that’s impossible…!
Architecture, by principle, recreates nature… completes nature… transforms the territory and nature… But it can do it in a beautiful way.

It’s the same with Japanese gardens, for instance, they are a very good example… when people are in them, they always have this feeling of a landscape which is totally natural, wild and beautiful… with all those trees, plants, and species… the stones on the ground, the rocks, the pavements… the lakes… everything…
But those gardens, those gardening designs… are a total, and complete human creation…
Everything which is in there, is and was designed, and done by man.

And we know for a fact, that Japanese are, maybe, the people in the world which show more respect to nature, even because of their religion…
And there it is, again, the word… “respect” for nature…
So, what I’m saying is… “respect” for nature, is, or may be, its total and complete control and design…
And I think that it has to be that way… at least, on the sites that man will want to live.

As technology and new media increasingly shape our environments, how do you see the role of architects evolving, and what disciplines do you think architects should collaborate with more to push design innovation forward?

João Cepeda: Well, I have some trouble answering that…
I think that nowadays, we live in a world, as you said, more and more… trapped around new technologies, I would say… and new medias and devices…
And I think architecture, in this scenario, almost has to hold a… almost like a position of resistance… truly… like to… to fight it!

Don’t get me wrong… I’m totally in favor of technology, and new technologies…
Architecture grows, and evolves immensely through that…

But if it comes to a point where… where it’s not technologies, helping architecture… but it’s architecture, or architects, let’s say, working towards “a” certain technology…
or in other words…
Architects designing, because of “a” certain technology… or…
in order to make “a” certain thing, or “a” certain process that that technology does so well and so rapidly… then I think we’re going backwards…

And I think it’s, in many cases, and I’m talking about the richer, more developed countries here… that’s what’s already happening… which is sad, for me…

Because I think architecture is a kind of a generalist profession… a humanist work… almost, a holistic kind of approach, and endeavor… in which you need to have a global, general wide understanding of many different areas…
And nowadays, you already have the… the architect which is only specialized in, I don’t know… green façades, for instance… or the architect which is only a specialist in BIM software…
And of course that is important… don’t get me wrong again…
But those are just disciplines, and tools, to help the architects…
Because… it is the architect who designs… who thinks… who comes up with the right process and methodology for building… and not the tool…!
It’s the architect that uses the tool… and not the tool that uses the architect.

So, I think that what’s important for architects now… and in the past also, but I think today it is still true… is that architects need to have an integrated view of what a project is, right from the beginning…
To, right from scratch, start working together with all the necessary specialties, engineering, heating, acoustics, thermal, urban, you name it…

But at the same time… to have and maintain a certain… autonomy… to be able to master and order, to integrate all these different areas towards… what is desirable… which is the best common desired goal… which is… better spaces, better buildings… better environments… and better cities… and more beautiful, too.

The house near Serra da Estrela is described as an “earth-pigmented concrete mass” set within a vast, ever-changing landscape. How did you approach the design to ensure that the structure enhances, rather than competes with, its natural surroundings?

João Cepeda: Well, again… I think it’s the same themes we’ve been talking here…
How can I put it differently…?

I would say it’s a balance…
This project wants to… wants to be… wants to be there… to have its presence…
and make it visible…
After all, it is a house… that wants to be a house… and wants to look like a house…
it doesn’t want to look like anything else.

… It is not a tree… it’s not a mountain… it’s not a flower, or a plant… no.
It doesn’t want to look like any of those natural things…
Also…
It is not a poem… or a music… or a painting… no.
It is a project. It is architecture.
It is a house… that wants to be a house… and look like a house.

At the same time…
This project does not want to upset the setting which surrounds it… in this case, it doesn’t want to, it doesn’t need to… Why would it do that…? It is a beautiful territory…
So, this house doesn’t want to shock… to surprise just out of nothing… just because it is bizarre, or eccentric, or unusual…
… It’s not like, for instance… someone going to a party, and just standing out because she’s shouting… or because she has a very strange carnivalesque dress, or outfit… no…

I would say…
… It’s being present… and marking its presence… which is not an invisible one…! … is not an invisible one… but, I would say, a silent one… silent, but captivating one…!
So… this person, let’s say… has its own intrinsic, charismatic character, and silent presence…
but the way in which she integrates, and combines with her surroundings… is what makes both sides… suited, and elevated… and not one, over the other… or one annihilating the other…

And that’s the same with that project…
There is a material coherence, for a start… even a chromatic coherence, I would say…
A scale which is deliberately… very restrained, and controlled…
A very strategic placing of openings and voids, in order not only to frame certain views, but to keep a constant relation and dialogue with the territory…
So, yes…
It’s all about suiting the right design strategies, with very precise, and studied decisions…

The project emphasizes the relationship between space and time, stating that “life and time unveil themselves, exactly as they are—(in)finite.” How did this philosophy influence the design decisions, material selection, and spatial experience of the house?

João Cepeda: Well, I think that’s… maybe a more Japanese stimulus, or influence on me, more than anything else…
That bond… or correlation between space and time… which, for Japanese, is the same thing, by the way… many Western thinkers also explore that… but not going into much detail…

We know for a fact, that our time in this world is limited… it has an end. We live… and we die.
But at the same time, many have come before us, long ago… and many more will come after us… at least, so we expect…
So, time, has this… this duality… it’s always something which is limited, which is fixed, and set differently for each and every one of us…
But at the same time, it is something which is eternal… it’s permanent… it’s timeless…
Time, is timeless, if you want… sounds almost like a contradiction…

And with space, is the same thing… Why?
Because space, like us, humans, exists through time… or exists in time…
A space… is a piece of territory… interior, or exterior…
Which exists in constant expectation…
Meaning…
If there’s a space, whatever it is… but no one goes there… it’s as if that space didn’t exist… it’s not used… no one uses it… so, it has no existence…
However… that same space, is still there… awaiting… expecting… always… in a constant expectation that someone will go there and use it… that something will happen in it…

So, we can see space as something which also has, on the one hand…
a limited time of existence… which is when we are using it… but at the same time…
an infinite time of existence… because it is always in this state of constantly expecting, of constantly becoming…

So, to answer your question, I would say this philosophy can inform the architectural process… in the way that spaces are designed… without an excess of details, without an excess of design… without an excess of, I would say… definiteness…
Of course that spaces need to be designed very precisely, and accurately… with a certain use for them… but I would say, to not overly direct them to a very specific function or purpose…
But to try to design them with this constant quality of potential, of possibility… of being able to constantly expect something different to happen in them overtime… of flexibility…

João Cepeda’s work consistently engages with themes of time, memory, and the ever-changing relationship between architecture and nature. If architecture is a dialogue with the landscape, what is the one question you hope your buildings continue to ask long after they are built?

João Cepeda: That’s a very interesting question…
Because buildings can’t ask…!
… And nature can’t also… so… I would say… to try to answer to your question…

… A building, or a project… an architectural project, it does not ask questions… it responds to questions, and to problems…
So, the building, or the project, it is an answer in itself… it does not ask questions… it´s an answer. One possible answer…

There was this philosopher, Wittgenstein… which also ventured a little bit in architecture, by the way… he said that… “what can be shown, cannot be said…”
So, what can be built… a building… or what can be painted, a painting… what can be filmed, in a film… all those creations, cannot be explained by words… a building, a painting, a movie… they cannot be explained by words, cannot be described by words… they can only be described by themselves.
Meaning… ok, this is my building, this is my project, or this is my painting, my movie, whatever…
And it is what it is. Nothing more to say about it… or to question.
Because, what it has to say, it says by itself.

So, in that regard…
I think I’d like my projects would be answers… that couldn’t, or wouldn’t be questioned… because eventually, it meant that they were very well done… that they were completely incorporated, or absorbed by people, and society… accepted by… by history… and time…

… Which curiously… is the total opposite with… a work of art, for instance…!
A work of art, does not answer questions… it doesn’t need to answer any question…
it provokes them…!

So, in that case…
If I saw my projects as works of art… – which I don’t, by the way… I think architecture may reach that dimension… that artistic tension… but it’s not its essence… it’s not its core, or its starting point, I would say… it cannot be… –
… But if I did see my projects as works of art… I think I would like them to ask…

… Because it’s like the architect, and the writer…
The writer envies the architect, because the architect is a builder…
But the architect also envies the writer, because the writer is mostly a dreamer…
and I think that the architect always lives in this in-between tension… of dreaming, but also having to build, at some point… of theory, and practice… of having to design very pragmatic solutions, but also having many artistic desires, or intentions, if you will…

So, in this view… I guess I would like my projects could ask questions, only inside or within this in-between duality…

So, it could be… for instance… on the one hand…
“Do I respond to the tasks I was designed for…? The concrete tasks I was designed for?”
But also… on the other hand… and maybe more importantly…
“… Am I able to elevate people’s souls, and spirit…?”

… Maybe that could be it.