USA-Spain Cultural Relations 20 Centuryc

In the summer of 1956 the architect Federico Faci Iribarren, or Yribarren (1914-2003), designed a group of thirteen single houses on a site in Aravaca, in the outskirts of Madrid. It is a remarkable set, that despite having certain reputation owed to some accidental (but nevertheless relevant) circumstances, is almost unknown. I believe, however, that it is important to clarify these special circumstances that surrounded the design as well as to offer a reevaluation of the set, given their remarkable architectural quality and their unique position as examples of modern living in Spain at that time.
Let me briefly advance the circumstances, as they are necessary to calibrate its role in the architectural debate of the moment. Here it is the key fact: in January 1956 Richard Neutra, accompanied by his son Dion, landed in Madrid for a long stay of six weeks. The reason for the visit was to develop, in collaboration with a group of Spanish architects, a major contest for US Air Force housing in the newly stablished bases in Spain after the 1953 agreements. Federico Faci was one of these architects who worked side by side with the master in the design of 1518 dwelling units in four settlements for the bases of Torrejón, Zaragoza, Morón and San Pablo (Seville). The relationship with Neutra was intense, since the project was developed almost entirely in Madrid. And this, in addition to unforgettable memories, produced a revolution in the way some of these collaborators, such as Faci, designed.
They didn’t win the competition, though. The commission was given to others. The best known result are the houses in El Encinar de los Reyes designed by Luis Laorga with José López Zanón for the Torrejón base in Madrid plus another smaller ensemble for the Zaragoza base.
These previous circumstances (the stay of Neutra in Madrid, the houses of El Encinar de los Reyes) led to some confusion about the possibility of the Austro-American master having built in Spain. It was thought that the houses of El Encinar were his design, the rumor went. The confusion then moved to these designs by Federico Faci. Its high quality could have certainly allowed the mistake. But better to give back the work to its author.
This communication will present, on the one hand, a clarification of the circumstances outlined above; on the other, an analysis of the designs and their contextualization in the contemporary debate, establishing both the continuities and the innovations within contemporary domesticity. I have been able to work with the original Aravaca housing project as well as with other contemporary ones by Faci; the document submitted for the Air Force competition by Neutra and his team, the Neutra archives at UCLA and the Air Force Historical Research Agency has been used as well.

Madrid, September 26th, 1953. James Dunn, U.S. ambassador in Spain and Alberto Martín-Artajo, Spanish Foreign Affairs minister signed the U.S.-Spain Agreements, also known as “Pacto de Madrid.” Following the treaty with the Vatican in August and the previous membership of the FAO and the UNESCO (Spain eventually enter U.N. in 1955), Francoist Spain was slowly building up its legitimacy in the Western community of nations.
True, Spain didn’t enter into the European Recovery Program owed to its international isolation as a fascist state. But, after a hard and long diplomatic offensive, Franco obtained minimum aid from the U.S.
The U.S.-Spain agreements were not only a political achievement of the Franco regime, but had important economic and military consequences for the country (and for the future of the Regime). Spain, that desperately needed economical help owed to the disastrous autarchy policies implemented by the government, found a temporary relief in the American aid. The U.S., in turns, wanted to extend its defense capacities against the USSR (Spain was placed in a decisive strategic region), and was more than willing to pay the small price asked for.
Four main U.S. bases were, accordingly, set in Spain. One for the Navy (Rota), and three for the Air Force (Morón, Torrejón and Zaragoza). Placed in a diagonal that crossed Spain from southwest to northeast, assisted by a myriad of smaller settlements, they created the hugest infrastructure being built in Spain at the time.
An engineering office was stablished in Madrid, the AESB (“Architects Engineers Spanish Bases”) with a team of Spanish architects led by American technicians. Professional and technical exchange, so precious for Spanish architects, followed. Richard Neutra was also involved in a major competition for housing units for the American personnel, working jointly with a team of selected Spanish architects.
The direct impact of the built structures was, of course, limited to the bases themselves. Apart from the military installations, the U.S. did not promote any other architecture program in Spain. There were, of course, close contacts between the American and the Spaniards, but given the backwardness of Spanish mileu its impact was limited.
This paper presents and overview of the process of negotiations, design and construction of the U.S. bases as a way of understanding the scope and relevance of U.S. program in Spain and its impact in Spanish architecture. By showing the specificity of this program in the postwar European Reconstruction context, it will help to understand the different politics of space the U.S. deployed at the time and the involvement of local actors in their definition. And by means of new archival research, it sheds new light into a not sufficiently known episode in Spanish architecture in its process of modernization.

Parece estar muy extendida la idea de que la baja cualificación tecnológica de la España de los años cincuenta, fruto de una desastrosa política autárquica sumada a los estragos de una larga posguerra, lastró la producción de una arquitectura moderna equiparable técnica y estilísticamente a la que se hacía en otros países y, fundamentalmente, en Estados Unidos. Y al decir equiparable técnicamente, deberíamos decir tecnológicamente (y el matiz tiene su importancia), y podríamos añadir que, dada una (supuesta) identidad entre arquitectura moderna y tecnología avanzada (como este Congreso sugiere), esta carencia de técnica sería tanto más dramática en la medida que habría hecho retroceder la arquitectura española no solamente a un estadio (casi) preindustrial si nos atenemos a la propia construcción sino a un imaginario estético trasnochado que situaría al país en un tiempo y un lugar más cercano a la Carmen de Bizet que al Luigi Nono de Der Rote Mantel.
Es obvio que la cuestión no es tan sencilla, y que el aparato técnico de la época supo construir, sin embargo, dispositivos tanto o más avanzados que los que en otros lugares se estaban dando, y ahí está mucho del trabajo de la DGRD o del INC para demostrarlo.
Pero incluso aceptado parte de esta premisa como válida, parece que se nos ha escapado durante mucho tiempo que algunos, incluso muchos de aquellos modelos que se consideran como determinantes o paradigmas a los que tender en la arquitectura residencial de los años cincuenta, en los hoteles que una burguesía poco a poco más ilustrada se construye, es decir, las mitificadas casas californianas de Neutra (incluso Schindler) o de la costa este de Breuer, y salvo contadas excepciones, se diseñan y ejecutan mediante uno de los sistemas de más baja tecnología posible: la estructura, más o menos adaptada y modificada pero en esencia la misma, balloon frame usada en los anteriores ciento cincuenta años.
Y así, cuando Neutra viene en 1956 para realizar el famoso concurso para alojamientos de los militares americanos, es verdad que diseña sus casas junto a sus colaboradores españoles con sencillos muros de ladrillo, simples carpintería de acero y baldosín catalán y terrazo, pero no es menos cierto que esta forma de construir no es sino la análoga al entramado de madera que tanto usaba Neutra (y Schindler y Beuer) en esos soñados Estados Unidos de película.
Lo que esta comunicación propone, entonces, no es sino una revisión de esta relación, tan dada por sentado como no siempre examinada en detalle, entre técnica y modernidad en el contexto español de la década de los cincuenta.