Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
En Bariloche se incendia el Hotel Llao Llao en 1939.
Executive Summary
The claim that "En Bariloche se incendia el Hotel Llao Llao en 1939" is factually correct but imprecise: contemporary histories and the hotel’s own timeline place a catastrophic fire in late October 1939 that completely destroyed the original building and led to reconstruction and reopening in December 1940. Sources converge on the event and its consequences, though a small set of accounts gives a slightly different day in late October (26th vs. 29th), so the precise calendar date is contested in secondary retellings [1] [2] [3].
1. What the evidence explicitly claims and why it matters
Multiple independent accounts state that the original Llao Llao Hotel, inaugurated in early 1938, was destroyed by a major fire in October 1939, necessitating a rebuild completed and reinaugurated on 15 December 1940. The hotel’s official history and tourist-historic retrospectives present the fire as a turning point that ended the first wooden or mostly timber-era structure and led to reconstruction with more durable materials like reinforced concrete and stone [1] [4] [5]. The factual core — a destructive 1939 fire in Bariloche at the Llao Llao — therefore stands, and the event is treated in published histories as central to the site’s architectural and social evolution [2] [3].
2. Where accounts agree: timeline and reconstruction
Key points of agreement across the supplied analyses are clear: the hotel opened in January 1938, burned down in October 1939, and was rebuilt and reopened in late 1940. The official hotel narrative and tertiary histories consistently note the October 1939 conflagration and a reinauguration date of 15 December 1940, emphasizing the complete destruction and subsequent reconstruction using more permanent materials [1] [2] [4]. This consensus anchors the historical record: the incident was not a minor fire but a full loss of the original structure that directly produced the later, enduring Llao Llao complex [5] [6].
3. Where accounts diverge: the exact day and details lost to time
Some sources specify 26 October 1939 as the date of the blaze, while at least one account gives 29 October 1939, producing a narrow disagreement on the calendar day. Secondary retellings and local histories sometimes report different days, likely reflecting variations in archival citations or transmission errors in retelling the story [7] [6]. The discrepancy does not alter the year or the fact of total destruction and later reopening, but it does matter for precise chronology and anniversaries; historians relying on primary documents would need to reconcile these day-level differences from contemporary newspapers or official municipal records to finalize the exact date [2] [8].
4. What was lost, what survived, and human consequences
Accounts emphasize the total destruction of the building and its elite furnishings, including designs attributed to notable decorators such as Jean-Michel Frank, and stress that there were no casualties because the hotel was closed at the time of the fire. The loss was cultural and material: the first Llao Llao’s interiors and original fabric were consumed, prompting a rebuilt hotel with reinforced construction and a different material presence on the landscape [8] [5] [1]. This framing places the event as both an architectural rupture and a story of institutional continuity, shaping the site’s later identity as a durable national icon [4].
5. How source provenance and possible agendas shape narratives
The accounts come from three types of sources: the hotel’s official history, retrospective press features, and historical-tourist overviews. The hotel’s narrative emphasizes resilience and restoration, which supports brand identity and heritage promotion; national press pieces highlight social drama and elite associations, which can magnify sensational elements; and historical compilations focus on dates and architectural details, which may diverge on specifics like the exact day [1] [3] [8]. These differing emphases explain why the year and overall facts are stable while day-level details and interpretive color vary across sources [2] [7].
6. Verdict and recommended precise phrasing for accuracy
The statement “En Bariloche se incendia el Hotel Llao Llao en 1939” is true but incomplete. For accuracy and context use: “El Hotel Llao Llao, inaugurado en enero de 1938, fue destruido por un incendio en octubre de 1939 (reportes citan el 26, algunos el 29), y fue reconstruido y reinaugurado el 15 de diciembre de 1940.” This phrasing preserves the established facts — year, destruction, reconstruction — while signaling the minor day-level uncertainty that appears in the record [1] [7] [4].