Lacol

This conversation was first published for OPEN Architecture Festival, Issue Five (2025): In the Eyes of the Ordinary.

In conversation with Ida Bjerga & Alexander Skovgaard Bagger Hadi
Written by Alexander Skovgaard Bagger Hadi

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes.

Collective housing is, in general, not something that is taught in depth at our school. In my studies, I have only come across it a few times, mostly in lectures that touched on social housing but never in a prominent way. We have had lectures on architectural history, materials, and model making, yet very little specifically on co-housing and social housing. This feels surprising. The lack of co-housing and social housing is not the reality in Denmark, since we have historically built a great deal of this type of housing. The situation is different in countries like Spain, where only about three percent of all housing is social. This worsens the housing crisis in cities such as Barcelona, where many flats are rented out through Airbnb and where there is a steady influx of people from other countries. Those with the least are left out, without a home. Lacol has set out to address this through their projects, which are user-engaging and thoughtfully designed co-housing developments. In a field where many seek to create the next architectural monument, Lacol focuses instead on the grounded and the tangible. We were therefore eager to understand why they first chose to work in this niche field in Spain, how their upbringing influenced that decision, and how Lacol came to be.

ABOUT BEING ROOTED AND CONNECTED

Most of Lacol’s founders are from Barcelona, some from other parts of Catalonia, and one from the region of Valencia. They met at architecture school, all with different regional backgrounds. Carles is from Barcelona, while Cristina was born in a small town in the northern countryside, about two hours from the city. With projects like La Borda, Cristina described the relationship between themselves and the neighbourhood users as one of mutual support. Cristina added, “For me, of course, it’s kind of a connection with these dynamics that I at least experienced in my childhood.”

These dynamics are also evident in the neighbourhood of Sants, where most of the team now lives, despite not being originally from there. They chose to move there because of their connection to the people. This says a lot about their relationship with the place. They are rooted and connected. Lacol began as a shared space among students. They recall how their professors proposed student projects like golf courses and five-star hotels, often for wealthy clients, without questioning whether it was right. This ignited something in them. Initially, they operated as a loose student association with more members than now. Carles and Cristina were part of the founders of the cooperative after many of their peers left Barcelona to work abroad, while they chose to stay.

Their connection to local places where they grew up is the reason many of their projects are based in Spain. They explained how rooted they feel in their community and how difficult it would be to recreate that abroad. Carles emphasised this by saying, “So this idea of understanding the context and knowing directly the people and working with them has been really important.” This approach is evident not only in housing projects but also in community-driven projects like La Comunal and Coopolis, which are part of wider social movements. While they mainly work regionally, they are now facing questions about how to work in other countries without losing this deep community connection. “It’s really challenging for us because most of our projects are very connected to the communities. That’s where we feel more comfortable, and that means that we meet very often.” They build trust with the groups they work with and are very connected to how things are structured.

WHY A COOPERATIVE?

Mid-conversation, we returned to the essence of cooperative practice. I asked how they work collectively, what that means in practice, and why they chose this approach. As they spoke, I found myself reflecting on all the reasons I originally wanted to become an architect. I thought about the image of the star architect, the solo genius with a studio behind him, and I asked myself, why does it have to be like that? We rarely acknowledge the many people working late nights on models, renders, and presentations who never get credit. Lacol wants to shift this perception of what an architectural firm can be.

Carles shared a thought that many students may relate to: “We were young students, the image of an architecture studio was this super big star, one guy who had 100 employees hidden behind him. We kind of wanted to escape from that, creating this more horizontal organisation and also more fair.” Some warned Carles and Cristina not to make it a cooperative, fearing it would be too difficult to make decisions. But they turned that idea around, saying it would be harder to carry that burden alone. They found it easier and more sustainable to share responsibility. Each member brings different strengths. Carles, for instance, studied sociology and focuses on community engagement and research. Cristina leads design projects and visits construction sites. “Working together actually made things easier for us and was the key for success, which otherwise we probably would not have succeeded or we would have had a bigger chance of failure and that makes it even harder knowing that especially in the moment that we started.”

Their collective structure has its challenges. For example, when Cristina and Carles were announced as speakers for OPEN, Cristina asked why there wasn’t a collective photo instead. People often want to know who specifically designed a project like La Borda. “We sometimes have people asking who was designing La Borda? Who is the name? We want to talk with that one. In a certain moment it’s like it’s a collective word.” They explained that even at the Architects Association, where they must sign under collective insurance, the system isn’t designed for collective authorship. Having 11 names on a project confuses people. They consider this a battle, trying to make collective authorship visible. That is why they don’t feel comfortable highlighting individual names within the cooperative.

WHY SOCIAL HOUSING?

I asked what initially drew them to social and co-housing. Was it about giving voice to those who are often excluded? Lacol often works with organised groups that want to create their own housing. They found this process of dialogue with communities especially engaging in cities like Barcelona, where owning a home is increasingly difficult. “For us, it’s really changing the rules of the game. It brings a very interesting process where we can first normally do what we do not only here, but we also show and explain and try to break the mentality that we have inherited in terms of our relation to housing.”

They start each project with conversations about what people want and need from their homes. This is not only valuable for each project but for society in general. It produces housing models that are very different from what the market or government typically offers. They spoke about the discovery involved in this work. One example was La Morada, a housing project for women and the LGBTQ+ community, where visibility and voice were key goals. They found that collective housing can challenge not only tenancy models but the very way we live. Cristina said they begin by understanding the urban context and then give people the tools to design their own homes. From gender to environmental issues, it is about raising awareness. “I think it’s how we increase the awareness about what it means to inhabit the space that we start with the groups, for us it’s really important in that sense.”

LACK OF HOUSING OR BAD POLITICS?

With rising prices and housing shortages across Europe, how do we design for people with fewer financial resources? How do we resist the dominance of large investors who push prices beyond reach? In Barcelona, only about 2% of housing is social. Investors hold most of the power. About 15 years ago, people in Catalonia looked at countries like Denmark for legal structures, or Uruguay for cooperative frameworks. Lacol has always tried to push regulations and challenge historical norms. “We’ve been in the last years managing to change certain regulations and pushing the limits in that sense.” They often work with people outside architecture: lawyers, politicians, and government staff. These collaborations are essential, especially for the invisible work of managing each step of a project. Their cooperative model allows them to learn from each other and broaden discussions. “We can learn much more and have broader discussions that is kind of a profile here. It’s also a kind of a collective decision as a way of operating.

THE FUTURE: WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY

How do we design buildings that last, and that meet the needs of both current and future generations? For Lacol, it’s about working closely with the community. They described their buildings as communities in themselves. This affects the architecture, but it also means being flexible about change. Not everything needs to be fully finished. Some things can evolve. “I think that we are trying to define an open architecture, kind of something that can be flexible or adaptable to resilience, resilient to life.” Their goal is for buildings to adjust to people’s needs, not the other way around.

Carles and Cristina feel their work with people in social contexts helps shape architecture that endures. “So this is a vehicle, all those initiatives from the social and architectural part can look for alternatives. I think this is essential.” They argue that we need to stop focusing only on building new homes. Barcelona is already built. We should be reusing and rethinking what’s already there. Some say we need to build a million more homes. Others say we shouldn’t demolish anything. Lacol believes there is still a need for architecture, but we must be careful about how we build. They acknowledge that we know the planet has limits, but we still haven’t figured out how to build within them. Certifications for sustainability often serve wealthy clients. These are not the people who most need housing. They remain hopeful. Even if this is not where architecture is headed for everyone, they believe this is where it should go. “I don’t know if this is where architecture is going, but this is where it should be going.”

This conversation was first published for OPEN Architecture Festival, Issue Five (2025): In the Eyes of the Ordinary.

The issue was produced by students from the Aarhus School of Architecture:
Ida Bjerga, Osmo Hadad-Lange, Alexander Skovgaard Bagger Hadi, and Birke Langkjær Jakobsen.

The non-profit project was supported by The Dreyer Foundation.

Image credits: 1) Lacol, 2) Milena Villaba, 3) Milena Villaba, 4) Milena Villaba, 5) Milena Villaba