city and river: urba n plans in the argentina of the … · 2012. 5. 12. · 15th international...

15th INTERNATIONAL PLANNING HISTORY SOCIETY CONFERENCE

CITY AND RIVER: URBAN PLANS IN THE ARGENTINA OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

JAVIER FEDELE A. CONICET – UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL LITORAL (Argentina) Address: C. Pujato 3179 - S3002ADO - Santa Fe / Argentina Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Many times, the relationship between a city and the territory to which it belongs is to be found in the relationship between the urban structure and some element of the natural geography. Rivers, lakes, seafronts, are pieces which participate in a city’s network of spaces, and their roles and meanings are dependent on that articulation with the territory.

During the first half of the 20th century, water courses and/or their coastlines would be incorporated by city planners into their interventions in a slow but progressive process which became increasingly systematic. The inclusion of these special units as substantial elements of urban plans went through different stages, and it went from a project particular to that specific place to structural piece of the plan, marching to the beat of the consolidation of city planning as a practice having a scientific statute and seeking technical and social consensus.

In this paper, we examine such process, and we analyze differences of opinion amongst scholars regarding professional scope and responsibilities, strategies for action, and aesthetical discussions contained in urban plans of those times for Argentinian towns on the largest navigable course of the Paraná and the Río de la Plata rivers basin.

INTRODUCTION: URBAN PLANS AS HİSTORİCAL SOURCES

Urban plans are very important in that they condense evidence of the status of the discussion on cities. Both technical and political documents, urban plans are bearers of a knowledge sprung from academic and professional environments, and they serve as measure of how much social recognition is given to the ideas which originate in those environments and the extent of the insertion of such ideas in the public government structure. In this capacity, they contain ideas, concepts, stands and meanings which are typical of the time in which they are formulated. Urban plans are powerful because they summarize, in one document, perceptions of problems, identification of conflicts and resolution of issues concerning the city, and because they are the place where the struggles between social actors are resolved.

The river in its relationship with the city, and as key element of the relationship between the city and its territory, will be studied in different urban plans which give account of the institutionalization of knowledge, and of the intervention of urban plan designers on the city as representatives of a specific discipline. In Argentinian town

C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n i n g h i s t o r y

planning and its attempts at creating specific instruments, urban plans are the most important tool for the generation and exchange of ideas on the city. We will focus on urban plans as source which will allow us to evaluate the way in which the Argentinian pampas coastal-region cities and their banks were urbanistically designed in the first half of the twentieth century.

For this matter, in the context of Argentinian cities, the 1920s were an important time, since in those years the urban coastline started having a leading role as social, political and cultural subject-matter, one which gained identity as an issue, until, eventually, it became a technical urban matter. This can be seen in the formalization, in that first half of the twentieth century, of the urban plans for the cities of Rosario and Buenos Aires, located on the basin of the “Paraná” and the “Río de la Plata” rivers, whose presence determined the birth and the political, economic and urban evolution of these cities. The situation involves a knot of issues and meaningful events ─also with the participation of emblematic personalities involved in the international debate, like Hegemann and Le Corbusier─, which were the subject of a research study which will be partially dealt with in this paper.

The coastline started gaining relevance in the context of the strong urban expansion which was taking place both in Rosario (Martínez San Vicente, 1985, 21) and Buenos Aires (Scobie, 1977, 14). Two strategies conflicted with each other –one of them postulated that the city should grow towards the inland, and the other one suggested that the consolidation of the central area of the city should take place in the coastline area. At one point, the distance which separated the central area of the city from the lands available for urbanization started to increase more and more, situation made worse by the incipient public transportation system’s deficit. This scenario affected the profitability of urban expansion. Besides, the importance which international urban planners’ views on the city gave to the provision of green spaces [in this sense, the proposals for Chicago and Boston which included river parks and lakes typical of the period called “City Beautiful” (Sica, 1981, 73) were not a minor fact] helped to make all the looks converge on the coastline and to confer significant value to coastline areas as spaces for urban growth and renovation.

TRADİTİON: THE RİVER AS A PİECE TO RECOMPOSE SCENERY

The first urban strategies which focused their attention on river banks as important pieces of urban plans were devised in the city of Buenos Aires in 1923. Up to that time, the only attempts to include river banks in projects had been of a nature particular to that especific place, and the important role played by banks in a city's general structure and in global intervention strategies had not been well sized up.

There had been some green-space interventions by landscape architects. The creation of government offices like the Department of Parks ("Dirección de Parques y Paseos"), with the participation of foreign professionals like Carlos Thays and his local successors, like Carrasco, had consolidated a way to operate in the urban space. These practices, which saw the coastline as a place passible of being put into order and of being taken advantage of as parks and/or riverside paths, led the way.


In 1916, with Carrasco as head of the Department of Parks, the “Costanera Sur” (Southern Riverside Path) started being built in Buenos Aires, these works being part of an ambitious regional coastline project 1. The lack of connection between this new space ─lost among port premises and rests of old failed developments─ and the consolidated urban structure would reveal the inefficiency of those interventions, and would point to the need for a larger scale of intervention in order to meet the goal of devising a riverside path and/or park which would have their own identity in terms of use and would have continuity with the city environment.

In 1923, a plan was designed whose main subject of discussion and proposals was the above-mentioned issue ─which the plan attempted to solve. Furthermore, a plan developed by the Building Aesthetic Committee ("Comisión de Estética Edilicia”, CEE) around 1925 proposed to restore a park or riverside path similar to those of the original past, before the big-scale port infrastructure severed the relationship between the city and the “Río de la Plata”:

“The natural conditions of our capital city and its own tradition called for the finding of a way to recover its most beautiful feature, i.e., to give the city back its appearance of city situated by a big estuary.” (CEE, 1925, 203).

Figure 1- Comisión de Estética Edilicia . Avenida Costanera, 1925, (29cm x 40cm) [Proyecto Orgánico para la urbanización del municipio, 1925, 206].

The remodeling of the government headquarters in "Plaza de Mayo" (May Square) and their opening to the river, the reorientation of the “Parque del Retiro” (Park of Retiro) and its levelled area towards the estuary, and the northbound layout of the “Avenida Costanera” (Riverside Avenue) were the three big projects aimed at tidying up the coastline and, subsequently, at guiding and characterizing the transformation of the entire city. The above-mentioned initiatives were supplemented by the beautification of the southern quarter, an urban area adjacent

1 For this intervention and other related interventions on public spaces along the coastline of Buenos Aires, see Novick, A.“The Notion of Urban Project From a Historical and Cultural Dimension. Proposals for the Costanera of Buenos Aires.” In: 11th International Planning History Society Conference. Barcelona: 2004.


to the government administrative headquarters. All these projects would allow for the city to be “relaunched”, taking into account its own historical, natural and human-built features, by establishing

“(...) two main points which serve as starting point of the radial system: The two big squares “Plaza de Mayo” and “Plaza San Martín (Parque del Retiro)”, whose partial projects reflect the importance we ascribe to them”. (CEE, 1925, 91).

Although the plan suggests making interventions ─which are called "suburban beautification"─ in several locations, it focuses its attention on the urban centre as subject of an intervention made possible by its river. The river plays a major role in the urban plan as element which serves as reference for the development of the concept and image of the city. However, in order to think of the river as structural component, there is still the need for other ways to conceive the city, other ways to understand the urban phenomenon ─and these will be developed by other important figures, in other cities.

SCİENCE: THE RİVER AS A RESOURCE TO İNTERPRET THE CİTY AS A WHOLE

In the context of the disputes over the use of the coastline which brought railway companies and port operators into conflict with city authorities, a key episode in Argentina will open an important chapter because, even though it failed to change the tendency of the conflict, it led to a debate and to the systematization of unprecedented urban proposals. In 1935, the “Regulatory and Extension Plan” (“Plan Regulador y de Extensión”) in the city of Rosario will set an accurate methodology and will define city components and their links within a unified system of relationships, thus representing one of the most advanced developments of the urban practices which were emerging nationwide and which would summarize the status of the discussion.

It was an advanced plan because of the way in which it tackled the issue of the railway companies' occupation of coastal lands: not only did the plan’s primary decisions deal with such railway and port-operation problems, but also they established a park system ─all this with a structural coherence which made it impossible to conceive one thing without the other. Water courses had a prominent role in the park system proposed by the plan. Especially the Paraná River coastline, but also the two inner streams, became key pieces of the plan.

At that point in time, the urban coastline was turning into a scientific problem. The role it played as part of the city was gradually being understood, and, as town planning progressively improved its procedures, urban coastline became a key piece needing systematical redefinition. Through the coastline, and in this way, an attempt was made at transforming the entire city positively and methodically. With the intention of marking the beginning of a new stage, Rosario's 1935 Plan critically referred to previous urban plans by saying that

...“they all lacked an appropriate method, unified views, an overall conception and foresight.” (Della Paolera; Farengo; Guido, 1935, 9).


New fetish for the newly-born science, the urban dossier ─examples of which, for the plan’s authors, were France's dossier urbain or England’s civic survey─ will show, throughout its evolution, the city's problem: the occupation of the coastline by railway and port infrastructure, which deprives the city of its rich landscapes, obstructs the traffic and creates divisions which prevent city growth (Della Paolera; Farengo; Guido, 1935, 10). Over and above its operative success, the urban dossier would provide evidence of the existence of issues, would rationalize them and would put forward a demonstration of the proposed solutions.

Figure 2- Plano General, 1935, (54cm x 51cm) [Plan Regulador de Rosario, Rosario, 1935].

The premise for the solution to the problem ─already mentioned in the dossier─ was to straighten the coastline up by assigning different coastal spaces for different uses ─railway/port use and landscape use. Thus, the coastline got segmented into


a social space and a production space as differentiated parts which, through their different roles, would become unified in the structural order.

The insufficient number of squares and parks existing within the urban area made it inevitable to look at the coastline as a source for the recovery of green spaces with a landscape value. Such was the commitment to this idea that it was said that

“The park systems, distributed within the building areas in a balanced way and supplemented by the incorporation of beaches, bathing resorts and other suitable places along the Paraná River coastline, will need to be the required solution to the problem of free spaces in Rosario”. (Della Paolera; Farengo; Guido, 1935, 13).

That coastal infrastructure which was indispensable, like the port premises, fenced-in in the south of the city, was also surrounded with intermediate green spaces located apart from the mass of buildings, on the high hill, and looking onto the port premises in the low area. That way, the issue of “the organic unity of the urban centre as a whole” was settled at all levels through the orderly integration of the coastal area in the city's stratified network of spaces.

The plan's core focused on that. A double movement ─determined and thoroughly looked into─ aimed at the railway/port infrastructure in order to restore the relationship between the city and the river as a way to recover open spaces for the city. It was a simultaneous, coordinated double action, which not only got its legitimacy from a current factual need, but also was based on a historical interpretation of the city and on a forecast of its future potential, synthesizing schedules through the methodology. In short, the coast was the place where the greenery and the landscape were recovered, the traffic was organized and land-use was planned. In this way, more layers of meanings and roles for such a unique space as the coastline superimposed to the ones accrued over time. In 1931, Hegemann was invited by the City Hall to visit Rosario 2 and give his opinion on the urban plan which was taking shape. He fully supported the plan’s strategy and he displayed his American town planning resources, which, through his vast and active experience, he had synthesized so well with his original education in the European tradition.

This plan rehabilitated the river for urban, public and landscape use; the river's accesses and connections to the city’s primary network of spaces, to the urban area, were organized from the coast. Thus, the coast, along with the streams basin, made up the park system which framed the city as first level of definition ─a sort of “emerald necklace” 3─ to which the other elements characteristic of the different urban network organization levels were added, by following a systematic, layered procedure.

2 The record of his visit and his view were compiled in Hegemann, W. Problemas Urbanos de Rosario. Rosario: Municipalidad de Rosario, 1931. 3 In reference to Hegemann's strategy for Boston, presented in Berlin's Urban Planning Exhibition in 1910. See Hegemann, Werner, “Catalogo delle esposizioni internazionali di urbanistica: Berlino 1910 - Düsseldorf 1911-12 / Werner Hegemann. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1975.


ART: THE RİVER AS PLASTİC ELEMENT OF THE AVANT-GARDE.

Le Corbusier developed a proposal for the city of Buenos Aires with the "Río de la Plata" as protagonist. He identified this fluvial space with the image of Argentina itself and with the material for his urban plan. The image of Buenos Aires in those days of 1929 got captured in the sketch he made around the end of his penultimate lecture in the city ─and which was generally used as cover image of most of the editions of the book Précisions, which brings together his lectures. The sketch, showing the cité d´affaires on the “Río de la Plata”, was a condensation of his journey, because it included both his impressions on arrival and the proposal which he left pending when he left:

“I draw a river. The purpose is definite: To go from one point to another: river or idea”. (Le Corbusier, 1978, 164).

In his lectures, the river and its course were an allegorical image in his account of the urban process in Paris. They also were an allegorical image for Buenos Aires ─assimilation of the meander law to the building processes of the city─, apart from being the material place where the urban proposal would be formulated based on the same river which inspired the metaphor, reinforcing the referent and its meanings. The waters were the site for “the big job” which Le Corbusier came looking for in America and which, indeed, he already brought with himself on the ship.

Figure 3- Le Corbusier. Facing the Atlantic. Buenos Aires developed by the magnificent spectacle of architecture and urbanism, 1947, (29cm x 21cm) [La Arquitectura de Hoy, 4, 1947, 50].


The “Río de la Plata” was the place he chose to undertake the city’s transformation operation: “the place of contemporary town planning”. On seeing the city from the ship, he acknowledged the importance of the coastline as a place where Buenos Aires’ urban being was condensed, as the essential place in the life and functioning of the city, as a place which articulated the city’s status of riverport city, city of exchange and command centre. He pointed out the place and decided that it was defining and a repository for his art rules. He used the coast straight line ─without bends and stretched for greater cleanness─ as supporting platform for his proposal of the cité dáffaires:

“(...) on my first impression of the city, stretching out on the banks of the river, I´ve built the city which Buenos Aires could be.” (…) “at a predestined place on the banks of the ‘Río de la Plata’, at the end of a giant estuary… a huge city is already stretching out, it's already kicking, the enormous head of a barely formed body.” (Le Corbusier, 1978, 226-7).

On the river's waters he situated a head with a “strong penetration into the hinterland” in order to transform the city “without hope”, the “inhuman” city which he paid little attention to in his configuration and which, for him, was destined to survive “in the form of pieces of old meanders ─inert, fallen into disuse, marshy, stagnant", old meanders by the side of the straight river course to which he gave body in the intervention with the typical forms which he had already proposed in Urbanisme 4. He shaped as objet-type the cité with which he made the river monumental, and, with this, he would embark on the transformation of the city so as to create, in that spot of the “Río de la Plata”, “one of the essential centres of the world”. That’s how Le Corbusier saw, represented and operated in the territory he came across in his first contact with the American continent.

The energy and previous experiences of l’esprit nouveau were what gave him the lucidity to strip close elements like the “pampa” and the river of layers which naturalized them in everyday life, diluting their presence, and, after that, to put those elements on full display with a simplicity that articulated the elements of the place with a geometry typical of a purist picture. There lie the creative merit of the cité and its powerful effect. But it was necessary to remove the cité from an statute of art in which the urgency of the action would end up prevailing over the sensibility of the geographical phenomenon where the city was rooted and which Le Corbusier wanted to represent in a plan for the city. That was the focus of Le Corbusier’s Plan for Buenos Aires: the cité dáffaires on the river, the idea that he will leave before returning to Europe:

“(...) Nature has made this meeting of the Pampa and the ocean possible, in an infinite and flat line. Man is here to act, to express himself. Then, Buenos Aires, sheer human creation, sheer creation of the spirit, huge block erected by man, on the river waters and standing up in the sky of Argentina. There is in this hope something intoxicating, something ennobling.” (Le Corbusier, 1978, 229).

Le Corbusier had put so much trust into the cité dáffaires that his attention remained focused on it. His obstinacy made him apply himself to fulfill “a big assignment” and, later on, to progress with the plan, and he refused to visit

4 Le Corbusier. Urbanisme. Collection de “l'Esprit Nouveau”. Paris: Les Éditions G. Crès & Cie, 1924.


Argentina again if those things did not happen 5. Unfortunately, this was the case, and neither the “big assignment” nor the plan really materialized. The urban plan was formalized in 1940 6 thanks to the boost resulting from the interest of local referents who promoted its implementation, though with scarce success.

SENSİBLE, ANALYTİCAL AND SYNTHETİC URBAN PRACTİCES

The 1925 Buenos Aires Building Aesthetic Commission Plan (“Plan de la Comisión de Estética Edilicia de Buenos Aires”) focused its attention on a determined city and an accurate image of that city: that of the “charming colonial city”. The interventions on the coastline sought to recover spaces which condensed the coastline’s sensible shape and, with the reestablishment of its scenery through a picturesque aesthetic, to give back the old city’s appearance.

In this plan, the river became the place which allowed for the reunion of the city with its recovered identity, with its supposed idyllic time in the past, reconstructed from the sensible effect of the scene. The river was the plan’s protagonist, and, through its recovery, the plan aimed at going beyond the mere improvement of a particular space: its aim was to make the river the image of the whole city. The way in which this operation was conceived is even more assimilable to beautification plans than to the so-called “modern” urban plans, in which the components are part of a structure defined by analyzing a whole.

That’s why, later on, with renewed awareness about the importance the river had for the city and its territory, Guido called for town planning to respond to the different conditions of the different cities, and not of just one city in particular. Main driving force behind the 1935 Plan for Rosario ─with two types of town plannings─, Guido was trying to translate an interpretation of Argentinian cities into an urban plan 7. Within the ensemble, the dividing axis was represented by the location of the city either on a water course or in a mediterranean position.

His proposals were the result of an analytical view which was very different from Le Corbusier’s synthetic view. That's the reason of the controversy between these two approaches, which started even before Le Corbusier set foot in Buenos Aires. But their difference of opinion on the way to approach the urban fact and to intervene on it was fruitful in that it allows us to understand the debate of those days 8. A study based on the reference and its intricate network of historical circumstances, as

5 See LIERNUR, Jorge and PSCHEPIURCA, Pablo. La red austral. Obras y proyectos de Le Corbusier y sus discípulos en la Argentina (1924-1965). Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes and Prometeo, 2008. 6 Le Corbusier outlined his plan fundamentals during his journey to Buenos Aires in 1929. Later on, he continued working on it, and he partially included it in his works published in 1939. The final version will be prepared in Paris between 1938 and 1940, with the collaboration of Ferrari Hardoy and Kurchan. 7 See Guido, A. Reargentinización edilicia por el urbanismo. Buenos Aires: Amigos de la Ciudad, 1939. 8 Guido will publish a book --in French—in which he will give his opinion on Le Corbusier’s ideas on occasion of the latter’s visit to Buenos Aires in 1929. Guido, A. La machinolatrie de Le Corbusier. Rosario: SE, 1930.


opposed to the application of self-referential plastic postulates; the urban dossier and the analysis procedure, as opposed to an objectual-type resolution as initial and final decision. The Buenos Aires cité d´affaires remained almost identical from 1929 until the plan was formalized in 1940, and it was the main piece of the latter, its “frozen” portrait depicting an abstraction of the “Río de la Plata”. The analytical view and the synthetic gesture, respectively.

Guido’s analytical view explains why he took Hegemann and his American experiences as reference and point of support. In his turn, Guido was able to live similar experiences himself during his stay in the United States. Several traces of this can be seen in the fundamentals and decisions of his subsequent urban plans, both the Rosario (the riverport city) and the Tucumán (the northern mediterranean city) plans. To Rosario he assigned the image of the American east city, the city of New York with its riverport and skyscrapers, which he will praise in his book “Catedrales y Rascacielos” (”Cathedrals and Skyscrapers”). The book includes pictures representative of that typology in the latter city and many sketches by Hugh Ferris ─one of them depicting a skyscraper whose morphology is very similar to that of the prominent “Monumento a la Bandera” (Flag Memorial) which Guido will later design.

CONCLUSİON: HİSTORİOGRAPHİC CATEGORY DİSCUSSİON

Paradoxically, Guido’s plan, which was classified by historiographers as an strategy with a merely local identity, was inspired by the image of New York, while Le Corbusier, from the avant-gard ranks, calling it “pathetic paradox” in his lectures in Buenos Aires. Guido published “Catedrales y Rascacielos” in 1936. In the book, he gives an account of his stay in the United States in 1933. In 1937, Le Corbusier published “Quand les cathédrals étaient blanches”, product of his 1936 journey to the United States. Again, their roads met and clashed, like it had happened some years before, with “La machinolatrie” and “Précisions”. This suggests that maybe their roads intersected more than what has been believed up to the present time, and that maybe the debate was not on the alleged “culturalism” of Guido's plans as opposed to the alleged “progressive ideas” of the 1940 "Plan Director” for Buenos Aires. Instead, it is possible that the debate may have involved other polemics as fruitful as the above-mentioned ones, or even more suggestive and pluralistic when it comes to understanding the controversies about the way in which they planned to transform the city in those times.

The differences between the 1925 Building Aesthetic Commission Plan for Buenos Aires, Della Paolera, Farengo and Guido’s 1935 plan for Rosario, and Le Corbusier’s 1940 plan for Buenos Aires are so remarkable that it is possible to postulate a change of paradigm ─in fact, this is what town planning historians do: they talk about the evolution of “urban art” into “modern town planning” or “scientific town planning”, and from the “city beautiful” into the “city efficient”, and then into the “rationalist town planning” (Bragos, 1998, 13), adhering to categories of the global history of town planning.

But, all in all, the transit from one category to another is more important than the purity of each category itself ─which is more to the liking of taxonomies. The


analysis of such progress is made easier by focusing on a particular piece rather than on each plan’s general idea. By focusing attention on a space unit, like the river, the transitions from one category to another are visualized as a process riddled with facts which relate with one another in order to define new conditions and determinations.

Figure 4- Guido, A –left- and Le Corbusier –right-. Book covers with graphic details of the authors [La machinolatrie de Le Corbusier, 1930; and Précisions sur an état Présent de I' Architecture et de I'Urbanisme, 1930].

Facts which transcend the debates of those times, which focused on other topics, like city layout and diagonal streets. When historical analyses focus on those topics without making a critical review of them (Crasemann, 1995, 214), the result is lack of differentiation between proposals which are very different, like those of the Plan for Rosario and the CEE for Buenos Aires (Crasemann, 1995, 223). Crasemann even incorrectly attributes this plan for Buenos Aires to Forestier, as a result of having placed the emphasis on aspects limited to the landscape architecture which was typical of urban art categories at a time when the river was starting to become problematized in a more complex way and allowed for new intervention practices.

For these reasons, in those change processes there are tensions, possibilities and conditionings for the transit from one category assigned to one plan into another category assigned to another plan. And maybe the analysis made by this transition is more suggestive than paradigm defining nuclei and the periods which these paradigms themselves explain. Hierarchies like “pre-town planning” and “town


planning”, and ideological distinctions like “culturalism” and “progressivism” 9, are insufficient for providing a conclusive explanation of some of the plans, which were very complex in terms of scope and were inspired by many sources. Among other things, the comparative evaluation of the plans allows us to glimpse counterweights in which a modern configuration stands out (over and above the avant-garde centred in Le Corbusier and the so-called “progressive” town planning), a town planning type which can also be considered to be modern ─although based on the continuity of a historic accumulation─, an urban-architectural modernity which is more complex and more pluralistic, since it mixes with other inspirations.

Through all these plans, knowledge and city projects became systematized, ideas from the debate on the city were absorbed and processed, the changing paradigms of the town planning field were translated, conflicts were put forward and local settlement ambitions were condensed. And in all these plans the river was an essential element, a spatial and cultural component which played its part in the initiatives. On its coastline, collective enterprises settled, and proposals for the organization of uses and physical reformulations were made which contributed the strongest and most identifying contents to the plans, and also their image as symbolic source for the city. All in all, we can research and verify, once again, the relevant meanings of this geographical feature in town planning practices.

REFERENCES

Almandoz, A. Entre libros de historia urbana. Caracas: Universidad Simón Bolívar, 2008.

Bragos, O. “La primera generación de planes reguladores en la Argentina: del arte urbano al urbanismo”, Anais do V Seminário História da cidade e do urbanismo, Campinas SP, Brasil. 1998.

Choay, Francoise. L´Urbanisme, utopies et réalités. Une anthologie. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965.

Crasemann Collins, Ch. “Urban Interchange in the Southern Cone: Le Corbusier (1929) and Werner Hegemann (1931) in Argentina”. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. SHA University of California Press, Vol.54, No. 2, June 1995, 208-227.

CEE - Comisión de Estética Edilicia. Plan Orgánico para la urbanización del municipio. Buenos Aires: Intendencia Municipal de Buenos Aires, 1925.

Della Paolera, C. M.; Farengo, A. and Guido, A. Plan Regulador y de Extensión. Rosario: Municipalidad de Rosario, 1935.

9 Both dichotomies refer to the categories developed by Francoise Choay in her classic work: Choay, Francoise: L´Urbanisme, utopies et réalités. Une anthologie. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965. Almandoz lucidly criticizes these categories for their dramatic effect, reductionist of experiences which contain more hybridity than it is conferred to them by the separation of models. See Almandoz, A. Entre libros de historia urbana. Caracas: Universidad Simón Bolívar, 2008.


Guido, A. La machinolatrie de Le Corbusier. Rosario: SE, 1930 [Spanish summarized version in Guido, A. “La Maquinolatría de Le Corbusier”, Revista del Colegio de Arquitectos. La Habana: Colegio de Arquitectos, Vol. 15, No. 2, February 1931, 29-42].

Guido, A. Catedrales y rascacielos. Buenos Aires: Colegio Libre de Estudios Superiores, 1936.

Guido, A. Reargentinización edilicia por el urbanismo. Buenos Aires: Amigos de la Ciudad, 1939.

Hegemann, W. Catalogo delle esposizioni internazionali di urbanistica: Berlino 1910 - Düsseldorf 1911-12 / Werner Hegemann. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1975.

Hegemann, W. Problemas Urbanos de Rosario. Rosario: Municipalidad de Rosario, 1931.

Le Corbusier. Urbanisme. Collection de “l'Esprit Nouveau”. Paris: Les Éditions G. Crès & Cie, 1924. [Spanish edition: La Ciudad del Futuro. Buenos Aires: Infinito, 1962].

Le Corbusier. Précisions sur an état Présent de I' Architecture et de I'Urbanisme. Paris: Editions G.Crès et Cie, 1930. [Spanish edition: Precisiones respecto a un estado actual de la arquitectura y el urbanismo. Barcelona: Poseidón, 1978].

Le Corbusier. Quand les cathédrales etaient blanches: voyage aux pays des timides. Paris: Libraire Plon, 1937. [Spanish edition: Cuando las catedrales eran blancas; viaje al país de los tímidos. Buenos Aires: Poseidón, 1958].

Le Corbusier. “Plan director para Buenos Aires”. La Arquitectura de Hoy. Buenos Aires: Kraft, No. 4, April 1947, 5-53.

Liernur, J. and Pschepiurca, P. La red austral. Obras y proyectos de Le Corbusier y sus discípulos en la Argentina (1924-1965). Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes and Prometeo, 2008.

Martínez San Vicente, I. La formación de la estructura colectiva de la ciudad de Rosario. Rosario: Curdiur, 1985.

Novick, A.“The notion of Urban Project from a historical and cultural dimension. Proposals for the Costanera of Buenos Aires”. In: 11th International Planning History Society Conference. Barcelona: 2004.

RIGOTTI, A. M. Las invenciones del urbanismo en Argentina, 1900-1960. Rosario: PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, 2005.

Scobie, J.R. Buenos Aires. Plaza to Suburb, 1870-1910. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974. [Spanish edition: Buenos Aires: del centro a los barrios, 1870-1910. Buenos Aires: Solar, 1977].

Sica, P. Historia del urbanismo. El siglo XX. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios de Administración Local, 1981.

city and river: urba n plans in the argentina of the … · 2012. 5. 12. · 15th international...

Documents