Uruguay Architecture

By | December 20, 2021

The line adopted in the architectural and urban planning fields by the government established with the coup d’etat of February 1973 was full of rhetoric. Furthermore, on 8 October 1979, by decree, numerous buildings were removed from the protection of the Ley del Patrimonio Artístico y Cultural de la Nación, and this involved the destruction of works rooted in the citizen sentiment and of relevance for the urban image. In mid-1984, when preparations began to be made for the return to democratic normality, various commissions and groups began to work to identify appropriate projects in different spheres of national life.

However, the regime change did not increase investment capacity, which remains relatively low in the US. Much felt by architects and urban planners is the debate on the recovery of old buildings, on the conservation of paths and characterizing urban elements, on interventions that, while respecting the existing morphology, enhance it. In addition, there is a keen concern to protect and increase green areas. The basic tendency is to avoid the traumas of the loss of urban references to the population. For Uruguay 1997, please check aristmarketing.com.

Among the most significant recoveries are those made in the city of Cologne by the architect MA Odriozola, eg. the Municipal Theater, and, in Montevideo, the one undertaken in 1976-77 by the Municipal Intendencia of the house built in 1804 by the Spanish architect T. Toribio (1785-1810) as his own home, now used as the Museo Municipal de la Construcción. It is also worth mentioning the restructuring (1976) of the deposit of the Administration Nacional de Puertos, in Montevideo, by E. Dieste.

As regards urban planning, the public competition launched in October 1985 by the Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo for the reuse of the remaining original buildings of the Reus al Sur district, 75% in ruins, marks the beginning of a recovery policy, and the construction of new buildings respecting the pre-existing areas and height quotas: recovery that aims at the reintegration of the original residents (the construction of the Reus al Sur and Reus al Norte neighborhoods, now Villa Muñoz, began in 1880 by J. Tosi, on the initiative of the Spanish financier E. Reus y Bahomonde).

Montevideo, as the capital and for geographical and historical reasons, offers the most precise measure of the problems that lie at the root of architectural and urban development. It has a relatively well-managed architectural and urban heritage and a fairly harmonious relationship between public and private space, even if the public space has undergone significant reductions due to the change in use (car parks, roads, etc.). In the city center, by its very nature, there are the greatest problems of public space; along the coast, in the central part (mainly in the bay) the port, the railway line and the industrial settlements have a strong impact; the square-neighborhood relationship is unbalanced and there is a lack of semi-public spaces.

With about 1,300,000 residents, Montevideo has a certain homogeneity of structure and has a network of radial avenidas that serve as a connection and facilitate movement. The urbanized area reaches 16,000 ha; that of parks, beaches, squares, etc., 3400 ha, to which are added the approximately 5600 ha of tree-lined public streets, which added up to 9000 ha of public space, equal to 76 m 2 per resident. The city has grown with flexible typological-morphological parameters, but the height of the buildings in recent years, for example. the tower(the skyscraper), has led to morphological imbalances, spatial freezing, alterations in brightness. We have gone from respecting architectural dimensions in relation to an urban grid configured with relatively small cells, to the use of large architectural scales. The ideology of the modern movement was followed in the seventies in a mechanical way, generating uncontrolled effects. The towerit allows greater housing density on little public area, that is, greater building speculation, and this type of construction has been developing under the pressure of profit, although the major works have been financed by the state since the 1950s. In this first phase, the public space was not substantially compromised by the excessive densification of housing, even if the urban structure was altered, which is logically also influenced by new architectures.

In the last thirty years, the internal migration process has played an important role in the transformation of the capital. The central area (including the districts Ciudad Vieja, El Centro, Cordón, Palermo, Reducto, La Aguada, etc.) has lost population – from 1908 to 1985 it decreased by 40% -, moved to Este, sometimes in search of lower cost housing. Montevideo presents a clear division between the area of ​​the coast, populous, well equipped with services and very attractive, and the rest of the city, lacking in facilities. In spite of the inconveniences indicated, the losses suffered, the visual aggression of the signs, advertising, signs, power lines, however, continues to present much less problems than those of other cities in the world. Much has been discussed about the construction of large complexes, considered a solution that does not correspond to the life and history of the city, its previous urban layout and its architectural scale (Parque Posadas, Conjunto América, Boiso Lanza, Euskal Erría, etc.). As for the Montevideo Shopping Center complex (project 1983-84, construction 1984-85), the location, furnishings and destination generated controversy. In this macroconstruction the plastic solutions of E. Dieste conditioned the architectural project of G. Gómez Platero, R. López Rey, E. Cohe, R. Alberti. @ P the location, furnishings and destination have generated controversy. In this macroconstruction the plastic solutions of E. Dieste conditioned the architectural project of G. Gómez Platero, R. López Rey, E. Cohe, R. Alberti. @ P the location, furnishings and destination have generated controversy. In this macroconstruction the plastic solutions of E. Dieste conditioned the architectural project of G. Gómez Platero, R. López Rey, E. Cohe, R. Alberti. @ P

Contemporary Uruguayan architecture keeps functionalist modernism as a reference. Among the buildings in Montevideo built on this line, but respectful of the context and which have in common the use of exposed brick, we remember: Fragata (project 1977, construction 1978-80) by M. Cecilio, R. Lorente, M Magariños; Sociedad Civil Atanasio Lapido (project 1980, construction 1981-82) and Sociedad Civil Canelones (project 1980, construction 1981-83) of the Technical Team of the Sector Vivienda (CCU); Ibia 3 (project 1974, construction 1975-77) and Ibia 5(project 1976, construction 1977-80) by F. Loy, R. Martínez Otegui; Tenerife (project 1979, construction 1980-82) and Tacuabé (project 1978, construction 1979-81) by HA Cagnoli, A. Valenti, A. Silva Montero; Támesis (project 1980, construction 1981-83) and Escorpio (project 1978, construction 1979-81) by the Estudio Lorenzo Garabelli; Libertadores (project 1980, construction 1981-83) by Estudio Feder, Svirsky, Petit (S. Feder, E. Svirsky, C. Petit, R. Villamarro). The Hospital Policial by HE Benech, M. Marzano, T. Sprechmann, A. Villaamil (project 1975-76, construction 1977-83) has a rigorous rational-functionalist conception. The Estrázulas house (1982) in Punta Ballena (Malobnado) by HA Cagnoli, A. Valenti, A. Silva Montero is functionalist and with exposed brick. In Montevideo, the Banco de Seguros (1982) by R. Lorente and C. Pintos, first prize in the 1979 National Competition, differs from this material. The same prize was won in 1987 by the Terminal de Autobuses (1988-90) in Punta del Este by HA Cagnoli, JL Livni, C. Pintos, A. Silva Montero, A. Valenti. In the same city it is worth mentioning the Amalfi Building (1979) of Estudio 5. As regards the urban green spaces, the architect JA Scasso (1892-1975) should be remembered. The work of the Grupo de Estudios Urbanos has had a notable popular consensus and is a reference for understanding the urban phenomena that have occurred in the Uruguay in recent years. You see L. Livni, C. Pintos, A. Silva Montero, A. Valenti. In the same city it is worth mentioning the Amalfi Building (1979) of Estudio 5. As regards the urban green spaces, the architect JA Scasso (1892-1975) should be remembered. The work of the Grupo de Estudios Urbanos has had a notable popular consensus and is a reference for understanding the urban phenomena that have occurred in the Uruguay in recent years. You see L. Livni, C. Pintos, A. Silva Montero, A. Valenti. In the same city it is worth mentioning the Amalfi Building (1979) of Estudio 5. As regards the urban green spaces, the architect JA Scasso (1892-1975) should be remembered. The work of the Grupo de Estudios Urbanos has had a notable popular consensus and is a reference for understanding the urban phenomena that have occurred in the Uruguay in recent years.

Uruguay Architecture