The general, and probably surprising, quality of Spanish architecture, including that practised by young architects, can be attributed to the particular circumstances existing in the country over the past three decades rather than any convenient, but empty, concept of “national talent”. These circumstances are structural, and will doubtlessly change in the future or even disappear altogether. We do not know for how long they will continue – sic transit gloria mundi – but this is certainly the time to make the most of them. When they have gone, then it will be time to demand our due for past achievements.

Spain’s slowness in achieving modernity – recently and at various other times throughout history – has led to our having a constant complex about lagging behind and an intuitive belief in the absolute need for progress. We do not worry too much about the point or aim of such change, simply accepting it to be for the best. Ever since the arrival of democracy, the public governments have promoted – and continue to promote – a great deal of public works. Nearly all of these public works are awarded by means of open public contests, judged by panels that actively include a wide range of prestigious architects in a remarkably transparent, though not completely perfect, process. This means young architects are frequently awarded important, high visibility, commissions. Meanwhile, these impersonal public clients do not interfere in projects by imposing any aesthetic, constructive, formal or economic criteria (beyond requiring that costs are kept to acceptable levels and other reasonable requests, of course).

The technological level of Spanish construction as an industry, meanwhile, is acceptably good, but still not excessively standardised. This means architects may move easily between the sophisticated and the unpolished, or choose between ordering a standard catalogue part or inventing an original piece. The situation is similar with regulations, be they technical or urban development ones. There are some general quality guidelines, which – although they are starting to become excessive, complicated and even at times applied contradictorily by different administrations – still leave a certain amount of room for individual manoeuvre. The average size of architecture studios, ranging from large companies to small workshops, also helps to promote an enriching lack of specialisation.

The final important factor is the university education system. Architectural education and training in Spain are based on project work, with a practical task forming the backbone of the qualification, requiring the sum of a student’s knowledge. Students are encouraged to be open, prepared to explore and to retain their individuality, going beyond commonly-accepted dogma, trends or methods. New professors whose constructed works are held in especially high regard can join the project departments of various universities by means of a fast-track process that avoids them having to go through the laborious rise through the academic ranks. This somewhat horizontal academic structure prevents the excessive intellectual weight of a few holy cows from crushing whole courses of students. In addition, the training given at Spanish architecture schools still manages to be simultaneously technical and humanistic, solid and complete, and this has helped to develop a broad and cultured approach to architecture and to develop multidisciplinary skills.

This is an overview of the reasons behind the high quality of Spain’s recent (and mature, and even old) architecture over recent years. This is architecture that can provide flexible answers, and is almost always practised in a pragmatic and intense way and with a range of different attitudes, creating a lively panorama that is healthily eclectic and genuinely fresh and full of life. Juan García Millán