You are on page 1of 10

Planning Perspectives Vol. 25, No.

1, January 2010, 8795

IPHS SECTION From urban to regional planning in Latin America, 192050

Arturo Almandoz*
Simon Bolivar University, Caracas, Venezuela and Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
Planning 10.1080/02665430903515840 RPPE_A_452048.sgm 0266-5433 Original Taylor 2009 0 00 ArturoAlmandoz 000002009 and & Article Perspectives Francis (print)/1466-4518 Francis (online)

Focusing upon a period during which the planning discipline emerged and was consolidated in Latin America from the 1920s through the 1950s, this article aims to identify some of the impulses behind the widening of the scope of planning activities undertaken by planners of capital cities, from the local and urban to the regional and territorial. The author uses a comparative perspective to analyze this tendency toward the enlargement of the territorial extent of the plan, interpreting it as part of the process through which Latin Americas urban modernization proceeded while also relating it to the epistemological and professional shift from urbanismo towards planificacin and planejamento. While factors such as the emergence of planning offices in some capital cities and the emergence of the first courses in planning in university curricula are considered, the article focuses mainly on the the approaches of pioneers in Latin American planning to this transition, in particular Carlos Contreras and Hannes Meyer in Mexico City, Carlos della Paolera in Buenos Aires, Karl Brunner in Bogot and Santiago de Chile, and Maurice Rotival in Caracas. Keywords: urban planning; regional planning; Latin America; urbanism; master plans

By the late 1920s the need to adopt plans to address the problems of industrial growth, demographic mobility and urban sprawl which characterized Latin Americas capital cities was abundantly clear. In the years that followed plans were drawn up and implemented by local governments which relied on both foreign experts and a new generation of native professionals. An increasingly specialized discourse of urbanism had emerged in industrialized countries by the end of the nineteenth century, and urban planning had acquired a discrete disciplinary identity. Issues of urban development were the focus of debates which ranged beyond the technical journals and magazines published during the first decades of the twentieth century.1 In Latin America since the late nineteenth century, the influence of successive waves of positivist thinking helped to produce the concept of the primate city as a valid object of historical, sociological or statistical analysis. What followed, in the 1920s, was a phase during which embryonic metropolises emerged as a focus for actual technical interventions by engineers and architects.2 In the meantime, innovations in approaches to urbanism were disseminated and discussed in various forums, including the Inter-American Conferences and Pan-American Congresses of Architects that had taken place since the 1920s. A series of international events focusing on various aspects of the emerging field were held during the following decade.3 Latin Americas planning machinery did not take shape until the second half of the 1920s, when urban problems were becoming issues of administrative regulation. This fact underlines the importance of legal and administrative changes in quite different contexts for the consolidation of planning, notably in industrial countries such as Britain and Germany before 1914.
ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02665430903515840


A. Almandoz

Most of the national or municipal offices of urbanismo in Santiago, Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Havana, Rio, So Paulo, Lima, Bogot and Caracas emerged from a joint effort between local and national governments, new professional associations, and urban research centres. An indigenous generation of de facto urbanistas emerged from these offices, which were charged with the duty of elaborating the inaugural plans for Latin Americas teeming metropolises. Among them were Carlos Contreras in Mexico City, Mauricio Cravotto in Montevideo, Carlos della Paolera in Buenos Aires, Francisco Prestes Maia and Anhaia Mello in So Paulo, Pedro Martnez Incln in Havana, and Leopoldo Martnez Olavarra and Carlos Ral Villanueva in Caracas. These new offices of urbanism hired famous experts mainly from Europe, but also from the United States either as advisers to or coordinators of the plans which were to be produced. This phenomenon might be interpreted as a vestige of inter-war colonialism in a Latin America still liable to be seduced by Old World cultural and academic prestige. Countries such as Argentina and Mexico did not achieve the level of technical competence of European or North American contexts but nevertheless produced pioneers in the field of planning such as della Paolera and Contreras, who had completed graduate studies on urbanism in the universities of Paris and Columbia, respectively. In contrast to European countries, where the first planning laws had more epistemological significance, in Latin America these new plans achieved the status of manifestos or birth certificates of an emerging discipline, even when masterminded by foreign luminaries.4 This article aims to examine the process through which the planning profession was institutionally and professionally consolidated in some Latin American contexts from the 1920s, and to provide clues about local and foreign experts roles in advancing certain conceptual approaches to this task up to the 1950s, especially in relation to the transition from urban to regional planning. The institutional and professional consolidation of urban planning between the wars While administrative and technical changes notably the setting up of the first offices and plans of Latin American urbanismo were essential to institutional consolidation, this process also occurred through the development of university courses and professional associations, and through the academic exchanges which took place during special events. These were also important in helping to broaden the theoretical and territorial scope of the discipline. A full analysis of the process through which consolidation occurred in each Latin American country is of course beyond the scope of this article (a literature dealing with cases in different contexts has barely begun to appear). Instead, this article will track this history through a series of important milestones in the development of some of these Latin American nations from the 1920s onwards.5 One of the first urbanismo courses was introduced in 1928 at the School of Architecture of the University of Chiles Faculty of Economic Sciences and Mathematics, by Alberto Schade Pohlenz, author of a 1923 plan for Santiago. Strongly influenced by Camillo Sittes aesthetic, Pohlenzs curricular innovation inspired a similar development at the Catholic University in 1929.6 With the foundation of the Institute of Urbanism and the issuing of a Ley General de Construcciones y Urbanizaciones [General Law of Buildings and Urban Developments] in 1931, followed by the celebration of the first congress of Architecture and Urbanism in 1934, the country, by then convulsed by president Arturo Alessandris reforms (192024, 1925),

Planning Perspectives


stood out as one of the most dynamic contributors to the emergence of Latin American town planning. After the departure of the Austrian Karl Brunner, who was invited by president Carlos Ibez to develop urban plans, legislative proposals and university courses, the chair formerly occupied by Brunner was taken until 1946 by his disciple, Rodulfo Armando Oyarzun Philippi. The kinds of activities in which Brunner had engaged on other fronts were maintained by junior members of the first generation of Chilean urbanistas.7 Post-revolutionary Mexico was another context in which the importance of planning, boosted by the technocratic reforms launched during the presidencies of lvaro Obregn (192024) and Plutarco E. Calles (192428) was recognized relatively early within academic, professional and administrative circles. Promoted by the architect Manuel Ortiz Monasterio, the course City Planning and Civic Art was inaugurated in 1926 at the National School of Fine Arts. Jos Luis Cuevas Pietrasanta took charge of it until 1929, when it was taken over by Carlos Contreras, founder of the Planificacin journal, while Cuevas introduced a similar programme at the Autonomous University. Led by the Asociacin Nacional para la Planificacin de la Repblica Mexicana [National Association for the Planning of the Mexican Republic] (ANPRM), the first national conference on this subject was held in 1930. A general law on planning was passed in the same year. These developments confirmed Mexicos position as a pioneer in the development of the necessary professional and legal groundwork for planning. Having promoted a regional plan for the capital as early as 1928, Contreras endeavoured to create a faculty of planning that would certify students in three years. This initiative was never carried out, but a graduate programme on Urbanism and Planning was created in 1939 at the National Polytechnic Institutes High School of Engineering. It was probably the first of its kind in Latin America.8 Though some efforts were undermined by political instability and the later consolidation of Getlio Vargass so-called Estado Novo [New State] (193745), whose authoritarian centralism did not seem to encourage local but rather national reforms, in Brazil the administrative, professional and academic institutionalization of urbanismo was also under way. After the creation of the short-lived National Association of Urbanism in 1927, another step towards its institutionalization was the creation of the Department of Municipal Administration in 1932, which aimed to provide assistance to local governments. Luiz de Anhaia Mello, the author of Problemas de urbanismo (1929) organized a Congress of Housing in So Paulo, followed by a Week of Urbanism in Salvador de Bahia in 1935. Although it was opposed by conservatives and ended up having little impact on the conceptual development of urbanism, the carioca academia, following Lcio Costas 1931 reform of the Escola Nacional de Belas Artes [National School of Fine Arts] (ENBA), included courses of landscape within a curricular framework intended to make the teaching of architecture independent from plastic arts. The arrival of Donat-Alfred Agache in 1926, at the invitation of the Prefect Antonio Prado Junior, to coordinate a technical team for a plan had considerably more impact on Rios professional context. Agache remained until 1930 and the plan which was eventually also published in French, as La rmodelation dune capitale (1932), with its many geographical surveys and informative synthesis of the sprawling capital became a methodological reference more than a guideline for future proposals, many of which were never carried out.9 Later on, in the academic domain, the prefect Pedro Ernesto created the University of the Federal District (UDF), where the first graduate programme in urbanismo commenced, until the university was closed by Vargass regime in 1939.10


A. Almandoz

In the case of Argentina, after the creation of the Comisin de Esttica Edilicia [Aesthetic Building Commission] (CEE) in 1925, architects interest in urbanism was evidenced by invitations to professionals as diverse as Jean-Claude Nicholas Forestier, Le Corbusier and Werner Hegemann. Some of the ideas of Forestier, who was still inspired by the City Beautiful, were incorporated into the first Organic Project elaborated by the CEE. The French designer participated in the Plan for the Beautification and Enlargement of Havana, which was published and included in the Act of Public Works issued by Gerardo Machados government in Cuba (192531).11 Unlike the de-contextualized sketches which Le Corbusier provided, based on his Plan Voisin for Paris, the thorough studies and proposals for Buenos Aires that Hegemann produced during his 3-month stay were welcomed by the Office of the Plan, created in 1932.12 The sophistication of Argentinas professional milieu made possible the celebration of the first Congress of Urbanism in 1935 under the guidance of Carlos della Paolera, who had pioneered a course on urbanismo at Rosarios Universidad del Litoral in 1929 and had set up a similar course at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) in 1933.13 Della Paoleras Plan Regulador para la Aglomeracin Boaerense [Master Plan for the Buenos Aires Agglomeration], which he had developed between 1922 and 1928 as his doctoral thesis at the Institut dUrbanisme of the University of Paris, not only included the historic core but also the regional conurbation, in keeping with the influential Geddesian approach. Della Paolera incorporated the citys historical and territorial relationship with the countryside, in the sense developed by Marcel Pote in Lvolution des villes, into his early regional plan, in which the identity of neighbouring towns was subordinated to the Buenos Aires metropolis.14 Among the foreign and local talent which dominated this generation of planning, Brunner stands out. He not only consolidated the professional and institutional platforms of Chile and Colombia, but also managed to produce a textbook which set out cutting edge approaches to town planning. Published in Bogot in two volumes, Brunners Manual de urbanismo (1939 40) reviewed the solutions that the emerging discipline had begun to provide to the functional problems of world metropolises, with many examples drawn from Latin Americas fast-growing cities. Based on the authors 1924 course at Viennas National Faculty of Architecture, recommended at Heidelbergs 1928 Congress of Urbanism, the manual aimed at comprehending the scientific system of the discipline, and the political-sociological, technical and artistic components of which it was comprised.15 Although Brunners manual did not emphasize the region as a territorial entity, it recognized regional planning as a new technique whose antecedents dated back to Schmidts planning of the Ruhr basin and Geddess civic studies for Edinburgh. But contemporary breakthroughs mainly stemmed from experiences of the Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA) in New York and California. For the Austrian it was not the urbanista but the planner, the professional, who ought to be in charge of achieving the economic goals of the regional approach; though part of its instruments, such as satellite towns and green belts, could be integrated within traditional urban planning.16 Modernism, urbanismo and planificacin While economic and social development remained elusive for many of Latin Americas countries, from the 1940s some metropolises emerged as showcases for modernism. However, in

Planning Perspectives


view of the imbalance between industrialization and urbanization, this was a modernism that often appeared incomplete and distorted. Architectural modernism was a means of exhibiting the achievements of rapid modernization pursued by economic desarrollismo [developmentalism]. The nationalist ingredients of this policy coloured vernacular and genuine modernismos in some of Latin Americas developing countries.17 The peculiarity of alternative modernism reached its peak where the alliance between modernizing governments and modernist architects took place, as in the cases of Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela, whose university cities, housing projects and administrative buildings were ranked among the worlds foremost examples of the modern movement.18 In the domain of urban planning, major foreign influences in post-war Latin America also shifted from academicism to functionalist modernism, which was, along with developmentalism and industrialization, in the service of the progressive goals of democracies and dictatorships alike. Before the eclipse of academic urbanism, Hannes Meyers left-wing rationalism was introduced in Mexico during the stay of this former director of the Bauhaus from 193949, who was influenced by his experiences in Stalins USSR. The social housing and other public projects in which Meyer participated boosted the more vernacular and regionalist architecture favoured during Lzaro Cardenass tenure (193440). This followed the earlier modernizing agenda initiated by Plutarco E. Calless maximato (192428), which included sanitary and educational projects by Juan OGorman, Juan Legarreta and Villagrn Garca.19 Initially invited to the congress on Planning and Housing mentioned above, which was held at the Aztec capital in 1938, Meyers arrival was intended to support Cuevas and Enrique Ynezs initiative, launched a year before, to create a School of Urban Planning within the Instituto de Planificacin Nacional [Institute of National Planning] (IPN); Meyers Soviet experience was supposed to help in bringing to Mexican urbanismo the emerging categories, of planning, notably the region.20 It was to some extent a belated response to Contrerass advocacy for regional planning since the late 1920s, both in his professional practice and articles in the Planificacin journal.21 In other Latin American capitals the modern legacy was enriched during the 1940s, especially through the visits of Congrs International dArchitecture Moderne (CIAM) luminaries as advisers of the new planning institutions, some of which gained recognition at national level. In the interim Le Corbusier had learnt about the necessity of contextualizing and respecting the local milieu.22 In his second proposal for Buenos Aires, prepared with Argentine architects Kurchan and Ferrari and published in 1947, the analysis of the cardiac system of the inner city, including the integration of traditional avenues and new motorways, was complemented in the suburbs with the regional proposals of radiant cities, satellite towns and a green belt.23 While Le Corbusiers other trips to Bogot were to result in a plan by 1950, CIAMs theoretical presence was consolidated by the emergence of a Spanish edition of the 1941 Charte dAthnes, published in Argentina in 1954. A Cuban adaptation emerged from Martnez Inclns Cdigo de Urbanismo, which was presented at Cubas First National Conference of Architecture in 1948. A campaigner for the Patronato Pro-Urbanismo [Planning Trust] since 1942, Martnez Incln led Cubas shift from academicism to modernism, from his urban planning chair at Havana University. Visits to this capital by the maestros of modernism, such as Richard Neutra (1945), Walter Gropius (1945) and Joseph Albers (1952), saw the mantle of CIAM pass to a new generation of Cuban architects, notably Jos Luis Sert, adviser


A. Almandoz

to the new Junta Nacional de Planificacin [National Board of Planning] (JNP) created in 1955 by Fulgencio Batistas second dictatorship (195259). Planning had arrived in the late 1940s in Venezuela, but was given special emphasis during Marcos Prez Jimnezs dictatorship (195258). Sert himself, Robert Moses, Francis Violich and Maurice Rotival, all of them advisers of the Comisin Nacional de Urbanismo [National Commission of Planning] (CNU) were advocates for it.24 Rotival would later describe the rise of the new planning technique in the post-war years.25 Hired for a second time by the Venezuelan government, he did not wish to be considered as an urbaniste any longer, but as a representative of the kind of technocrat-professional that the planificateur was supposed to be, according to a differentiation that he would theorize about some years later.26 In the case of Violich, his Cities of Latin America (1944) had offered one of the first comparative perspectives of the academic backgrounds and professional milieus with which he had contact throughout his journey. It must be pointed out that, already in that early book, the Californian planner had noticed that younger practising architects and planners started to look towards the United States rather than to Europe.27 Violich later summarized, in relation to the Venezuelan experience, the disciplinary shift that had taken place in those decades, which extended across most of the continent: A latter-day Beaux Arts movement inspired [us in] the late 1930s, and a social orientation, [in] the mid-1940s, only to give way in the early 1950s to a functional approach drawing on North American techniques.28 In the case of Brazil, after the Russian Gregori Warchavchiks introduction of international modernism to So Paulo in 1923, the presence of CIAM representatives and Le Corbusiers proposals for Rio fuelled the functionalist momentum that would reach its peak in Costas and Niemeyers Brasilia. Undertaken by the progressive government of Juscelino Kubitschek (195661), the project for the new capital was carried out by a team of local experts and institutions. This proved that Brazils planejamento was able to achieve international recognition without requiring foreign experts. At the administrative level, following the boosting of local governments by the new 1946 constitution, the recently created Brazilian Association of Municipalities celebrated its first congress in 1950.29 The visits of Father Joseph Lebret to So Paulo and other Brazilian cities, where he advocated the principles and variables of regional and economic planning as a new technique to deal with the sprawl of metropolitan areas, helped to speed up the transition from urbanismo to planejamento.30 The criticisms of the Brasilia plan, for not having incorporated more economists, ecologists, and planners, as spelt out by the historian Gilberto Freyre, a leading voice within Brazils emerging social sciences disciplines, provides further evidence of a growing awareness of new approaches to regional planning in the professional milieu. Costas reply was not only clever but also indicative of a turning point of the discipline. The new capital city, he said, was not supposed to be the outcome but the cause of a regional plan.31 Conclusion It is not a coincidence that the term urbanismo, in use during the first decades of the twentieth century in Latin America, was replaced after the Second World War by planificacin or planeamiento in Spanish, and by planejamento in Portuguese. These words often appear to blur into one another, or to be synonyms, but this should not conceal the fact that the vocabulary carried somewhat different connotations in Spanish and Portuguese than in English. In

Planning Perspectives


Portuguese, urbanism did not possess a disciplinary meaning, and connoted an alternative to British town planning or American urban planning. This situation would only change in the post-modern era, in particular with the influence achieved by the New Urbanism movement. The Spanish and Portuguese terms were more nuanced, conceptually and historically. Unlike French urbanisme, Italian urbanistica and German Stdtebau, in British and North American contexts town planning stressed systemic, procedural and/or political values, relying for purpose on the social sciences and its technical apparatus, rather than design.32 Latin Americas transition from urbanismo into planificacin not only coincided with the displacement of the centre from which technical modernity was imported, from Europe to the United States; but also, as this article has tried to show, with the enlargement of the territorial scope of the plans produced by the planning profession, from city to region. As in the domains of medicine, engineering and other disciplines, the European-influenced academic urbanism that had developed gave way in the late 1930s to a discipline influenced by master plans, zoning ordinances and planning-related instruments and institutions imported from the United States.33 Transferred to Latin America by European experts exiled in Harvard and MIT, Yale and Berkeley, who were supported by local experts, CIAMs functionalism became the mainstream into which the diverse methodological influences of the planning profession were incorporated. All of those ingredients were added in heterodox combination to Latin Americas national platforms of functionalist planificacin and planejamento. During the post-war search for development, procedural and technocratic functionalism fuelled the transition to regional planning and the definitive adoption of zoning, which spread throughout most of the continent by the 1960s, fittingly given the technocratic orientation of the discipline. As in other parts of the world, Latin Americas post-war shift in the discipline of urban planning was characterized by architects and engineers embrace of the booming field of regional planning. Prompted by the progressive influence of the social sciences the spatial component of urbanismo meanwhile fell away.34 Informed sometimes by Marxist-oriented approaches, the growing gap between the trends of urbanism and planning led architects and urbanistas to neglect the city for several decades, until the post-modern renewal and recuperation of Latin Americas historic centres, among other factors, re-focused a discipline prepared once again to give priority to the city over the region. Notes on contributor
In addition to more than 45 articles in specialized journals, Professor Almandoz has published 10 books in Spanish about the emergence of modern urbanism and metropolitan culture in Venezuela and abroad, which have won local, national and international awards. A collaborator on 15 other books and 2 encyclopaedias, Professor Almandoz is also the editor of Planning Latin Americas Capital Cities, 1850 1950 (London/New York: Routledge, 2002, 2009). He has lectured and spoken at more than 90 events worldwide. His current research interests include the relationship between literature and urban cultural history, and Latin Americas modernization and urban historiography.

1. Among them were La Ciudad (1929) in Buenos Aires; Planificacin (1927) and Casas (1935) in

Mexico; Ciudad y Campo in Lima; Zig-zag and Urbanismo y Arquitectura (1939) in Chile; El Cojo Ilustrado, Revista Tcnica del Ministerio de Obras Pblicas and Revista Municipal del Distrito Federal (1939) in Caracas.


A. Almandoz

2. It is not possible to summarize the influence of positivism in professional milieus over such a long



5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

period here. For a comparative reference for positivistic concerns about the city, especially among social scientists, see R. M. Morse, Los intelectuales latinoamericanos y la ciudad (18601940), in Ensayos histrico-sociales sobre la urbanizacin en Amrica Latina , ed. J.E. Hardoy, R.M. Morse, and R.P. Schaedel (Buenos Aires: CLACSO, Ediciones SIAP, 1978), 91112. Chile held a national congress on architecture and urbanism in 1934, and the first international Congreso de Urbanismo [Congress of Town Planning] was held in Buenos Aires in 1935; later on, the first Congreso Interamericano de Municipalidades [Inter-American Congress of Municipalities] took place in Havana in 1938, and the second in Santiago in 1941. Regarding housing, the first Congreso Panamericano de Vivienda Popular [Pan-American Congress of Low-cost Housing] also took place in Buenos Aires in 1939, and the Sixteenth International Congress on Planning and Housing was held in Mexico City in 1938. Celebrated in Washington the following year, the Fifteenth International Congress of Architects also represented a distinct opportunity for Latin American professionals to update and exchange their experiences. Arturo Almandoz, ed., Planning Latin Americas Capital Cities, 18501950 (London/New York: Routledge, 2002, 2009); A. Almandoz, Urban Planning and Historiography in Latin America, Progress in Planning 65, no. 2 (2006): 81123; A. Almandoz, Modernizacin urbanstica en Amrica Latina. Luminarias extranjeras y cambios disciplinares, 19001960, Iberoamericana, 27 (2007): 5980. This section relies on Almandoz, Urban planning and historiography in Latin America. A. Hofer, Karl Brunner y el urbanismo europeo en Amrica Latina (Bogot: El ncora Editores, Corporacin La Candelaria, 2003), 7475. M.I. Pavez, Precursores de la enseanza del urbanismo en Chile. Perodo 19281953, Revista de Arquitectura 3 (1992): 23; A. de Ramn, Santiago de Chile (1541-1991). Historia de una sociedad urbana (Santiago: Editorial Suramericana, 2000), 220225. G. Snchez Ruiz, El primer posgrado en planificacin y urbanismo en Mxico. Un desencuentro en la historia, Conciencia en Arquitectura. Urbanismo 3, (2002), http://concienciaenarquitectura. (accessed July 15, 2005). D.-A. Agache, La Rmodelation dune Capitale (Paris: Socit Cooprative dArchitectes, 1932), 2 vols. From a theoretical perspective, the French edition of the plan claimed to combine biological concepts derived from Potes evolutionism with scientific methods taught at the cole Suprieure dUrbanisme. M. Pereira, Notas sobre Urbanismo no Brasil: construes e crises de um campo disciplinar, in Urbanismo em Questo, ed. D.B. Machado, M. Pereira, and R. Coutinho (Rio de Janeiro: Prourb, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, CNPq, 2003), 5583. See for instance J. Scarpaci; R. Segre and M. Coyula, Havana. Two Faces of the Antillean Metropolis (Chapel Hill, NC/London: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 6370. C. Crasemann Collins, Urban Interchange in the Southern Cone: Le Corbusier (1929) and Werner Hegemann (1931) in Argentina, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 54, no. 2 (1995), 20827. P.H. Randle, Introduccin, in Buenos Aires y sus problemas urbanos, ed. C. M. della Paolera (Buenos Aires: Oikos, 1977), 1120. H. Caride, La ciudad representada. Metforas, analogas y figuraciones en el urbanismo de Buenos Aires, Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estticas Mario J. Buschiazzo , 3738, 20022004, 211253. K. Brunner, Manual de Urbanismo, vol. I (Bogot: Imprenta Municipal, 19391940), 19, 24. Ibid., vol. II, 13877, 18990. Almandoz, Urban Planning and Historiography in Latin America , 957. As it has been demonstrated by V. Fraser, Building the New World. Studies in Modern Architecture of Latin America 19301960 (London: Verso, 2000), 1518. A. Gorelik, Das vanguardas a Braslia. Cultura urbana e arquitetura na Amrica Latina (USA: Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2005), 102119. Ibid., 121122. C. Contreras, Qu cosa es la planificacin de ciudades y regiones (1927), in Planificacin y Urbanismo visionarios de Carlos Contreras. Escritos de 1925 a 1935 , ed. G. Snchez Ruiz Gerardo

Planning Perspectives


22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33. 34.

(Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Universidad Autnoma MetropolitanaAzcapotzalco, Universidad Autnoma de San Luis de Potos, 2003), 6566. Le Corbusier had been invited to visit Buenos Aires, Montevideo, So Paulo and Rio a tour undertaken in 1929, while the second Congrs International dArchitecture Moderne (CIAM) took place in Frankfurt. Caride, La ciudad representada, 218. A. Almandoz, Urbanismo europeo en Caracas (18701940), 2nd ed. (Caracas: Equinoccio, Fundacin para la Cultura Urbana, 2006), 341350. Rotivals previous stay had been during the late 1930s, during which he had worked on the first plan of Caracas. M. Rotival, Planification et urbanisme Urbanisme 82/83 (1964): 4245. F. Violich, Cities of Latin America. Housing and Planning to the South (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1944), 158, 169, 173. F. Violich, Caracas: Focus of the New Venezuela, in World Capitals.Toward Guided Urbanization, ed. H. Wentworth Elredge (New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday, 1975), 24692. Pereira, Notas sobre Urbanismo no Brasil: construes e crises de um campo disciplinar, 81. C.M. Lamparelli, O iderio do urbanismo em So Paulo em meados do seculo XX. O Padre Lebret: continuidades, rupturas e sobreposioes, DANA. Documentos de Arquitectura Nacional y Americana 37/38 (1995): 125131; M.C. Leme, A formaao do pensamento urbanstico no Brasil, 18651965, in Urbanismo no Brasil, 18951965, ed. M.C. Leme (So Paulo: FUPAM, Studio Nobel, 1999), 2038. Fraser, Building the New World, 230. See for instance M. Hebbert, Town Planning versus Urbanismo, in 11th Conference of the International Planning History Society (IPHS). Planning Models and the Culture of Cities (Barcelona: IPHS, 2004), 8998; N. Taylor, Urban Planning Theory since 1945 (London: Sage Publications, 1998). Almandoz, Planning Latin Americas Capital Cities, 319. I have tried to explain this post-war transition in A. Almandoz, Urban Planning and Historiography in Latin America; Entre libros de historia urbana. Para una historiografa de la ciudad y el urbanismo en Amrica Latina (Caracas: Equinoccio, 2008), 15481. In relation to the Anglo-American context, see for instance N. Taylor, Urban Planning Theory since 1945, 5474.

Copyright of Planning Perspectives is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.