In the 1950s, as American hegemony proliferated international politics, architects in the Office of Foreign Building Operations, now the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, preferred Modernism as the architectural style to represent America abroad. Juxtaposed with the “Stalinist Grandeur” and “ponderous architectural ornaments” (Loeffler, 8) of the Soviet Union, Modernism, as a style, was conducive to light, open buildings, meant to represent transparency through the democratic process (Loeffler, vii). “Architectural modernism became linked with the idea of freedom after the war” and American architecture proved a “leading proponent of the modern movement.” (Loeffler, 5) Ieoh Ming Pei had been included on a list of architects for consideration of embassy contracts for the AAC (Architectural Advisory Committee), which aided the FBO in their projects. Henry Shepley drew up a list in March of 1954 and, despite crossing Pei off his list, Pei was eventually chosen for the Montevideo project (Loeffler, 152). Despite youth and relative inexperience, Shepley and the AAC were willing to “take risks with…architects who had never before completed commercial or institutional projects” (Loeffler, 151). Architects in the FBO were faced with the unusual task of working with politicians to create buildings. Location of building sites, the cost of construction and design of American embassies all fell under the purview of the elected officials in Congress. The U.S. Embassy in Montevideo cost an estimated $4 million (Erlandson, K5). In some instances, the architectural design was sacrificed for budgetary, political, or defense concerns. In the case of the U.S. Embassy in Uruguay, FBO design policy changed to take security risks into account starting in 1961 (Loeffler, 11), during the planning of the Chancery building. Pei’s design “suffered repeated changes to its program affecting the size and shape of the embassy, and according to its architect, compromising its design.” (Loeffler, 239). While not explicitly stated in Loeffler’s book, it is possible that the conflict between Pei and the FBO was exacerbated when the defensibility of the proposed embassy was called into question. Ultimately, Pei “disowned his FBO work over design differences” (Loeffler, 159).The political situation in Uruguay changed rapidly in the 1960s through the 1970s, adding to the concerns surrounding security for the embassy. Active during the construction of the Embassy, the Tupamaros, a Communist guerrilla organization, carried out a series of kidnappings, taking foreign diplomats hostage. In 1971, only two years after the opening of the embassy, a consultant for the CIA in Latin America, Dan A. Matrione, was kidnapped and killed in Montevideo.

Type of change: Demolition of entrance roadway. Reconstruction of pedestrian promenade (the Rambla) Date: September, 2001 (a); Construction November 2002 – June 2003 Persons/organizations involved: U.S. Embassy, Montevideo city government, Uruguayan Society of Architects, Fernando Fabiano (architect)Circumstances/reasons for change: For enhanced security, the embassy had blocked off two surrounding streets and erected a wall with “a barrier of white bollards” (Martignoni, 40) interrupting the flow of traffic and cutting green space along the Rambla, an historic waterfront thoroughfare. The above organizations held a design competition requesting plans that allowed pedestrian flow and created more green space along the Rambla while maintaining the high level of security required by the Embassy. The committee chose the Uruguayan architect Fernando Fabiano’s project. From conception to execution, the project was controversial in the capital because of proposed changes to the historic area by a foreign power. The United States Government paid for the construction project.Effects of changes: The imposing security apparatus has been masked and blended into public space. Pedestrians use the space as a location to stroll, gather, play soccer, or sit and relax. Fountains originally located with the Embassy site were moved to the public space as decoration. Pink granite, a locally quarried stone, was used in the pathways and supporting walls.

United States Embassy administrative offices

Separated from the banks of the Rio de la Plata by a road and pedestrian thoroughfare, the Chancery of the U.S. Embassy sits on a trapezoidal plot of land. The plot measures 85,000 sq. ft. by one source (Carter Wiseman, “The Architecture of I. M. Pei”, 307) or 85,800 sq. ft. according to another (Philip Jodidio, Janet Adams Strong, “I. M. Pei Complete Works”). A wall, broken only by a guardhouse, surrounds the building. The building is five stories in total, including an underground garage. A three-story rectangular box on a one-story pedestal, the building has a central atrium that rises from the entrance to the roof. The upper section is made of vertical, thin slabs of exposed, grey, reinforced concrete. The lower section, on the ground floor, has a smaller footprint than the upper section, shading the entranceway. Twelve thin steel and concrete columns are aligned with the perimeter of the upper section, giving the impression that the upper section floats atop the columns. The facades of the upper level are a grid pattern of square, recessed windows, each with a low, recessed sill delineated by a horizontal line of thin concrete. The longer façade has twenty-three windows and the shorter, eleven, with three stories.Regarding the interior, there are exposed concrete walls in reception area and, as of 1971, interior doors are fitted with “heavy steel shutters which roll down like curtains…steel grills on runner can close off all stairways” (Erlandson, K5).

Overlooking the Rio de la Plata, the Chancery is built on the Rambla, a beachfront avenue running along the mouth of the river and the Atlantic Ocean. Built in the 1940s, the Rambla provided public parks and pedestrian paths along the river, as well as a seaside road for automobile traffic.

As American hegemony solidified economically, militarily, and diplomatically, embassies attempted to project transparency with the use of Modernist, “glass and steel box” (Wharton, 42) structures representing welcoming, open democracy. With the changing political landscape of the 1960s, however, the FBO began to place embassy security above architectural design. Using exposed concrete as the façade of the building and encircling the structure in a wall emphasized security as a burgeoning priority for the FBO and for American diplomats in Montevideo. After the Embassy’s completion, political upheaval continued in Uruguay until the early 1980s. Now a prosperous, peaceful country, America and Uruguay continue to enjoy strong diplomatic ties. With the reconstruction of the adjacent Rambla public space, funded by the U.S. government, the Embassy has attempted to project a more welcoming exterior to the people of Uruguay.

The Embassy’s architecture has received negative criticism from architectural journals and U.S. national periodicals. In an article in The New Statesmen, it is described as one of the “brutalist structures of massive raw concrete” (Wharton, p.42) similar to other American embassies built in the 1960s and alludes to its fortress-like, aggressive nature. The Baltimore Sun relates that the Embassy nickname is “The Fortress” (Erlandson, K5). In her book, Architecture of Diplomacy, Loeffler posited that the “ponderous proportions and use of exposed concrete combined to produce an undistinguished building that brought no credit to the United States.” (Loeffler, 239).

Pei’s U.S. Embassy in Montevideo is a building spurned by architectural critics and generally disliked by the Uruguayan population (Martignoni, 40) but the work that continues within it remains useful and important to fostering good relations between America and Uruguay. The attempts at making the structure’s footprint less imposing through partial greening and creation of public space immediately adjacent to the outer walls of the Embassy have been mostly successful, as regular use of the public space makes evident.

Erlandson, Robert A. “Fortress built for diplomacy.” The Baltimore Sun Nov. 7, 1971: K5. Jodidio, Philip, and Janet Adams Strong. I.M. Pei: Complete Works. New York : Rizzoli : Distributed to the U.S. trade by Random House, 2008.Loeffler, Jane C. Architecture of Diplomacy : Building America's Embassies. New York: Princeton Architectural Press., 1998. Feb. 12, 2013. http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/lib/columbia/docDetail.action?docID=5000387 .Martignoni, Jimena. “Security on the Rambla.” Landscape Architecture Feb. 2007: p. 40.Wharton, Annabel. “Empire building” New Statesman. Jan 31, 2005; 18; ProQuest. p. 41.Wikipedia. “Dan A. Mitrione”. Feb. 12, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_MitrioneWikipedia. “Tupamaro”. Feb. 12, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupamaro_National_Liberation_MovementWiseman, Carter. The architecture of I. M. Pei : with an illustrated catalogue of the buildings and projects. London : Thames and Hudson, 1990.