The relationship between architectural theory and practice is neither straightforward nor easy to trace, as each operates in its own field, with a specific logic and coherence. They are not, however, stable fields: they have boundaries that often touch and even intersect. Addressing these interferences is a task that has been gaining prominence, albeit gradually, because both academia and publishing tend to keep the two fields separate. This project aims to counter this tendency.

In the case of Portuguese architecture, the separation is particularly marked. And yet, the architects born in the 1920s and 1930s had a holistic view of their professional activity, which encompassed architectural design and criticism, historical and theoretical research, civic action and political activism. The contribution of this generation (or generations, according to different interpretations of the term) to the transformation of Portuguese architecture, and its international recognition, is a question on which there is great unanimity. However, it is not uncommon for their work to be seen as the result of an essentially empirical and intuitive practice, unrelated to any effort at systematisation or theorisation. This idea is reinforced by the fact that his written work remained on a secondary level for a long time when compared to his architectural work.

The same can be said for the Spanish counterpart generation. Although contacts between Iberian architects have always occurred naturally, these were the first generations to establish strong links. This was helped by the organisation of the Small Congresses, meetings that in the 1960s brought together architects from Madrid and Barcelona and eventually included professionals from all over the Iberian Peninsula. The shared interest in new currents of Western thought, distrust of the legacy of the International Style and resistance to the dictatorship explain the rapprochement, but what really united both generations was the commitment to the cultural, ethical and political dimension of the profession.

The extension of the field of study to the Iberian Peninsula follows the conviction of some experts about the similarity of the processes of reception and assimilation of modern architecture, and its critical revision, that took place in Portugal and Spain after the Second World War. It's true that broadening the scope also carries risks, such as not taking into account structural specificities, something we can accept in favour of panoramic reading and comparison - corrective methods for excessive proximity and self-absorption. Bringing together a sufficiently large number of Iberian architects allows us to offer a comparative scenario without creating the illusion that we are dealing with a closed group or a coherent unit.

Collective housing emerged as a central theme in the architectural debate of the 1960s and 1970s. Iberian architects had to face the challenge of mass production with an underdeveloped construction industry, combining industrial and artisanal techniques. At the same time, social issues came to the fore and changed disciplinary practice through closer contact with the population, on the one hand, and more careful design of spaces, particularly community spaces, on the other. These aspects, seen as a resistance to the globalising and generic inclination of the post-industrial era, have since been taken up in the UN's 2030 Agenda, namely in goal 11, ‘Sustainable cities and communities’, to which this research aims to contribute.

A study that aims to explore the relationships between theory, criticism, history and practice - which Pedro Vieira de Almeida referred to as strong relationships due to the obvious intersection of their fields of interest - must begin with a systematic survey of texts that allows this corpus to be removed from the ‘invisible condition’ to which it has been subjected, due to forgetfulness or lack of interest. This was the first phase of the work, carried out with the support of databases, library catalogues and, occasionally, archives. The information, scanned and organised, was then selected and prioritised in summary tables. These digital files were then adapted to a physical format that made it possible to share with the academic community the written production and architectural work of twenty key names from the period under study. The panels, in fold-out or leporello format, are thus presented as small atlases that open up possible avenues of research.

From the outset, it was also a concern that the data collected should not be merely cumulative, but that it should serve above all to set out debates, concerns, polemics, concepts and practices that, in a web of more or less evident relationships, help to shape the complex cultural framework of the time. The texts, in different formats, published in books, magazines and proceedings, or presented at congresses, are therefore the result of the effort to give a narrative meaning to this data. A sense that, on the other hand, is constantly being revised and updated.