Paper presented at the Conference “Southern Modernisms: critical stances through regional appropriations,” held in Porto, February 19-21, 2015, and published in the proceedings (see there for the images).

Abstract

In 1980 Vieira de Almeida introduced Choay’s famous distinction between a progressive and a culturalist model in town planning in Portuguese architectural history. He did so with a twist: instead of using it to characterize attitudes towards the planning of cities and their relation with the past, he proposes this distinction for architectural production in the early 20th century. Since then, this distinction has been frequently adopted in Portuguese historiography, especially when discussing the two architects which Vieira de Almeida elected as representatives of the progressive and culturalist models: Miguel Ventura Terra and Raúl Lino.

While in architectural historiography this freely appropriated distinction has proven very fruitful, providing, for example, the conceptual instruments to revisit both architects beyond the problem of ornamental style their work until then often had been confined to, it is more problematic when turning it back to its original planning context. To argue this I will discuss Ventura Terra’s short but important activity in town planning in Lisbon, as member of the first Republican town council (1908-1913). It will be argued that the complex relationships and many factors which condition and form Ventura Terra’s planning projects cannot be adequately grasped by terms such as culturalist or progressive. The modernity of his projects and proposals for the town of Lisbon imply a coexistence of distinct values and multiple motivations, and appropriations of both local, place-specific elements and international planning models.

Ventura Terra’s planning activity and art history

One of the less-known aspects of the production of the architect Miguel Ventura Terra (1866-1919) is that of town planning and urban design (Xardoné, Costa, & Rufino, 2009). Terra was one of the Republican representatives elected for Lisbon during the municipal elections of 1908, two years before the overthrow of the Monarchy. In this function he became heavily involved in planning projects.1 Raquel Henriques da Silva (2006) has emphasized the relevance of his work and argued it is founded on an idea of the city which both respects history and is open to expansion and modernization. Thus she suggested it could be interpreted as a synthesis of Françoise Choay’s opposition between ‘progressive’ and ‘culturalist’ attitudes towards planning and urban heritage (Choay, 1965). 2

Choay’s terminology was first introduced in Portuguese architectural history by Pedro Vieira de Almeida (1986), who elected Terra and Raul Lino as representatives of respectively the progressive and culturalist model. This highly original appropriation, focusing on architecture’s relationship to the past, provided for conceptual instruments to revisit both architects beyond the problem of ornamental style their work until then often had been confined to (Ramos, 2011a). Almeida would continue to work on this topic, proposing an idea of modernity founded as much on (increasingly critical) continuity as rupture (Almeida, 1994), on which Silva relies to formulate her hypothesis. That Silva proposes to consider Terra as having surpassed Choay’s opposition thus at least signalizes a certain discomfort in turning her model back to its original context of town planning and heritage.

An important argument of Silva is Terra’s attitude towards urban heritage: he considers it as a legacy to be preserved as long as it doesn’t obstruct development. However, Choay herself had noted her models are only to be found in its pure form in discourse, as they consider the city as a reproducible object and not as a process or a problem (Choay, 1965, p. 26). Both models refuse the actually existing city by calling either on the past or on the future, that is, by invoking a normativity based on history or modernity which is their necessary utopian element. Any concrete intervention into the city would always include elements of both models in varying proportions, and can only be considered relatively progressive or culturalist.

This is an important counter-argument to Silva’s hypothesis, as the practice of town planning or urban design cannot but be some sort of synthesis or compromise between both extremes. In this sense one could as well propose some sort of ‘enlightened progressivism’ regarding Terra’s attitude towards heritage, more in line with Almeida’s view. There is however something discomforting with this idea, what I think lead Silva to her proposal of a synthesis. In Terra’s planning practice the relation between heritage and modernization does not really seem to constitute a dilemma between mutually exclusive terms. The coexistence of ‘progress’ with persistences and survivals of the past didn’t pose what Ramos (2011b, p. 26) calls in another context the anguish of choice. Perhaps, in line with ideas about the constitutional porosity (Cabral, 2007, p. 15) or impurity (Ramos, 2011b, p. 25) of modernity in Portugal, it could be argued that for Terra the past was inevitably present but not necessarily an obstacle.

It is in this sense that I will propose here that the basic problems Terra faced may have been others than those which Choay’s models help to make visible. To do so, I will place Terra’s work as town councillor against a background composed both of local concerns and ideas circulating internationally trough the late ‘formative phase’ of town planning.3

Urban aesthetics

If during the first decade of the 20^th^ century ‘progress’ was much discussed in Portugal, this was not exclusively social, economic or political progress. Architects and other intellectuals also discussed the ‘artistic progress’ they felt Lisbon was in need of. These discussions are an important background for Terra’s proposals for the city and can be organized around what I will call an ‘urban aesthetic,’ and which covers the frequent but not very consistent appearance of terms as estética citadina, estética da cidade, estética urbana, estética municipal or also estética da rua, das edificações, etc.4 As was happening around Europe at the basis of this idea was a critique of the aesthetic insufficiency of the modern city (Collins & Crasemann Collins, 2006; Zucconi, 1992; Bohl & Lejeune, 2009). Though this international context and its protagonists are hardly ever mentioned in Portugal the discussion around an ‘urban aesthetic’ is best seen against this background.5 The situation in Lisbon is in this sense quite similar to the one Piccinelli (1992) describes in Milan before the first World War: journalist, writers and other intellectuals used the concept of estetica urbana to react in a common front against what they considered purely hygienist approaches ruining the city.

While in Milan, as elsewhere, this reaction developed into an (international) dialogue and systematic theoretical reflection in Portugal it hardly goes beyond a basic consensus on the lack of aesthetic quality of the city. The above-mentioned terms forming this constellation of an ‘urban aesthetic’ are never defined nor differentiated from each other. Though it is quite possible to inventory imaginations and literary fictions of a different city according to Choay’s models these didn’t translate into competing programs. They mostly coexisted without major problems, converging in an apparent consensus of different interests.6 In this sense in Portugal I think it makes more sense to talk of ‘urban aesthetic’ as a common place than a real concept.

One of these converging interests was that of architects, who’d constituted a class association in 1902 (SAP, Society of Portuguese Architects) and attempted to appropriate the issue as their special domain in order to fortify there weak social and professional status (Monteiro, 1906). They argued that architects were the professionals qualified to deal with the city’s ‘aesthetic’, that is, to exercise aesthetic control over the urban environment, and thus claimed their right at a more relevant public role.

This becomes very clear in a statement they delivered to the Town Council of Lisbon in 1907 (Sociedade de Architectos Portuguezes, 1907). Under the title ‘The aesthetic of the capital’ (A esthetica da capital) the architects called for a ‘regulation of the aesthetic of building’ (a esthetica da edificação) to combat the ‘criminal freedom’ of those suffocating the city with banal constructions ‘devoid of the most elementary conditions of beauty’ (desprovidas das mais elementares condições de belleza). The ‘heartbreaking appearance’ (aspecto desolador) of the modern city due the absence of legislation was a ‘sad testimony to the lack of artistic education of the country’ (triste testemunho da falta de educação artistica do paiz) and of ‘progress of art and civilization’, in contrast to practices of ‘cultured countries’ (paizes civilisados).7

It is especially interesting to see how the assert public right at intervention over (private) architectural façades by defining the street as public space (logradouro dos municipes), thus justifying the exercise of ‘artistic censorship’ (censura artistica).8 The last paragraphs define the place of architects within this panorama and ask for municipal regulation over the city’s aesthetic, introduction of aesthetic appreciation of future buildings and the creation of a specialized body composed by artists for its supervision.

The fundamental question is thus aesthetic control of the built environment. Only architects could save the city from aesthetic failure, as city-building was not merely a science, susceptible of codification, but also an art depending on intuition or feeling in response to place.

Ventura Terra as town planner

When in 1908 Ventura Terra—an active member and former president of the SAP—is elected town councillor he consequently takes with him a program in favour of aesthetic control of public space. This is precisely one of the main points in his outline of study proposals presented during one of the first municipal sessions, together with the study of a general ‘improvement plan’ of the city focusing on the riverside and strategic urban projects such as the execution of the Eduardo VII park, the solution of a traffic bottle-neck (Rua do Arsenal) or the creation of a green belt around the city (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 1908, p. 398-399).

Figure 1. Graphic rendering of Terra’s proposal for the riverside. On the left, the enlarged fish market. (“Lisboa futura,” 1910).

Figure 2. Graphic rendering of Terra’s proposal for the Rua do Arsenal, to be enlarged through an arcade for pedestrians. (“Lisboa futura,” 1910).

None of his projects were executed and little of the documentation on his larger improvement plan seems to have survived.9 Here I want to focus on the role played by the idea of an ‘urban aesthetic’ in Terra’s activity and trace its presence in his project for the Eduardo VII park.10

This project was in fact a variant of an 1899 project already in (slow) execution, which was itself a re-elaboration by the municipal Department of Public Works of an original 1895 project by the French entrepreneur Henri Lusseau. The revision of this project was for the town council a priority, as its ever-postponed execution was the very image of the city’s frustrated desires of modernization and the 1910 revolution invested the site with additional symbolism (the Marquês de Pombal square and the lower part of the park were strategic to the revolution’s success). Terra’s re-elaboration of the project was one of the first causes of conflict with the engineer since 1909 responsible for the Department of Public Works, Diogo Peres. Aesthetic factors seem to have played a major role in this conflict and were an important motive for Terra’s reorganization of the municipal machinery.

From the start aesthetic considerations played a significant role in the town council’s decisions (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1909, p. 58, 104, 116, 147, etc.) though legislation in defence of ‘aesthetic control’ proved more difficult (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1910, p. 10-11). During the second half of 1909 a Commission of Municipal Aesthetic (Comissão de Estética Municipal) was created on Terra’s proposal (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1909, p. 491) in order to—as the architects had asked for—supervise municipal control over the city’s aesthetic and ‘artistic comfort’ (conforto artistico), in which there is a significant concern with taking advantage of the ‘magnificent panoramas’ of the city, besides the aesthetic appearance of public spaces (avenues, squares, parks, etc.).11

This commission will be an important organism backing up Terra’s plans for the Eduardo VII park later on (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 59), when it causes increasing conflict between Terra and Peres. Peres files two highly critical reports on Terra’s variant project and later states his critiques publicly (“O Parque Eduardo VII,” 1912), for which he is officially reprimanded.12

Surely for this reason Terra attempted to remove the project’s elaboration as much as possible from Peres’ control. In June 1911 he has it transited from the garden section to the architectural section, directed by José Alexandre Soares, a follow architect, with the argument it was ‘a work in which art dominates’ (uma obra onde predomina a arte), especially the arts of landscape architecture (arquitectura paisagista), monumental architecture and ‘urban architecture’, which I think could be interpreted as urban design (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 353). In July he further proposes to reorganize the entire Department of Public Works, dividing it into two new Departments, one of Architecture and another of Engineering, in an attempt to remove aesthetic issues entirely from Peres’ influence (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 449).

He gives as a reason the need to distinguish between the distinct competences and responsibilities of engineering and architecture, thus ending their confusing and the long-standing subordination of the latter to the first in municipal (and national) institutions (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 449). His reorganization thus had an exemplary intention, backed by international good practices.13 The Department of Architecture would, besides architecture, be responsible for Parks, Gardens and Cemiteries as well as those sections related to the ‘embellishing’ (aformoseamento) and ‘comfort’ of the city (general composition of the city plan, urban furniture, including ornamental pavement, public art, occupation of public space). The Department of Engineering for works of its speciality, surveys, public amenities (sewage, water, gas, electricity), pavement and roads. The creation of the Commission on Municipal Aesthetics and the reorganization of the municipal Department of Public Work will be Terra’s most lasting interventions; they are only reviewed during the municipal reform by the Estado Novo during the 1930s, in which some key points remain.

Having this in mind, the Eduardo VII project can be considered as a showcase for Terra’s complete improvement plans, first step towards his riverside regeneration, as he states when work starts (“Lisboa transforma-se… Vão começar as obras do Parque Eduardo VII,” 1911). It had to show the advantages of an ‘aesthetic’, architectural approach, as both more efficient and with better results than the ‘old’ engineer-based approach. In this sense it doesn’t surprise to see Diogo Peres appear in 1914, after the town council leaves office in January 1913, as one of the promoters of the project’s suspension and substitution for the earlier project from 1899 he championed (“O Parque Eduardo VII,” 1914). The only trace left of Terra’s proposal is the house built on the one lot sold in two failed auctions, and by then finished.14 However, this substitution didn’t solve the financial problem Peres correctly had assessed (“O Parque Eduardo VII,” 1912), causing a de facto impasse in the park’s construction only solved during the 1940s (Tostões, 1992).

It is in this sense instructive to explore the ‘aesthetic’ points of conflict on the park. Terra’s proposal aimed at solving the problem of financing the park’s construction by selling small lots on the parks’ fringes for ‘artistic’ residencies. Another fundamental change was the location of a future Exhibition Palace. Peres considered surrounding a park by buildings an a priori bad idea and defends the stylistic unity and ‘harmonious whole’ of the 1899 project. He in fact insists on visual arguments regarding the palace’s location,15 on the scenographic perspective of the palace, dominating the city and picturesquely framed by the park but otherwise separated from the city itself. Looking at artistic renderings of the 1899 project (figure 4) it is easy to see how they imagine the park as an enclosed area of nature, as a refuge of small waterfalls, soothing water and meandering paths in which to forget the horrors of urban civilization.

Figure 3. 1899 Project for the Eduardo VII Park. The palace is located North. Nearby the circular square below is an artificial lake. (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 1936).

Figure 4. Photographic reproduction of an oil painting with artistic rendering of the lake and waterfall of the Eduardo VII Park. The oil painting was probably produced for the 1900 Paris exhibition. (Lima, n.d.).

Figure 5. Miguel Ventura Terra’s project for the Eduardo VII Park. The palace has moved to a vast promenade nearby the square below and the park is surrounded by small lots for housing. (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 1936).

Terra’s fellow architect Adães Bermudes (1912) answers Peres’ objections and correctly diagnoses the problem. He notes the arguments of functionality which Peres doesn’t consider at all in his preference for a placement on the park’s top:

  1. the palace is to be visited, and the top of the park would hamper access;

  2. its function it is to exhibit what is inside and not to watch the views, for which a proper construction (such as a watchtower) would be much fitter;

  3. the trees of the park would impede the very view from the park’s top, or else it would have to be park without trees.

Similarly he counters the idea of placing it immediately nearby the Marquês do Pombal square, as Peres had considered in alternative, for the logistic problem of access and circulation it would create. He thus argues Terra’s idea is the only valid one.

\

The background to these divergences seems to have been Peres’ conception of the park as an enclosed artwork against Terra’s approach which considers it as a public space. For Terra artistic elements are to be organized according to criteria of usability and functionality which should not be sacrificed to an imagined aesthetic harmony or unity. His proposal, by putting the palace right in front of the Marquês de Pombal square (predictably a future point of convergence), and by creating an inviting promenade at the very start of the park, would open up the park to urban life and thus constitute it as urban public space.

The same reasoning can be noted in his defence of the residential belt around the park. A series of isolated and artistically distributed houses surrounded by greenery would be much more attractive than the original fencing he elsewhere defined as chicken wire (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1909, p. 428). They would also help to mediate the considerable height differences along the park’s limits, up to 8 meters, which the 1899 project solved by slopes. Terra thus uses architecture as transition space. While the slopes and fences would set the park apart from the city, isolate it, architecture could mediate the heights and integrate the park into urban space. Similarly, the palace could function as an entrance rather than a wall.16 Architecture was to mediate public space, an idea similarly present in other projects of his (figures 1 and 2). This shows that while architecture seems to dominate his projects, the real object of intervention is public space.

The conflict between Peres and Terra thus shows different perspectives on what the park’s design should aim at: in Peres’ case, the park and palace should be designed in order to aesthetically frame the city, to create impacting visual images, while for Terra the starting point is that the park should be a stage for social interaction and cultural events. In this sense, the aesthetic considerations of Terra, his fellow architects and other intellectuals are very much related to modernization: for them, the revitalization of public space was to be a motor for urban regeneration, and though this revitalization was primarily aesthetic, this was not understood in a purely formal or aestheticist sense.17

Place and paradigms in Ventura Terra’s planning activity

In a discussion of what the idea of a city as a work of art could mean Brandão (2003) proposes two possibilities: either it is the manifestation of individual aesthetic impulses reproducing a culture of authorship or it must be an ‘open work’ in constant process. On my account, Terra can not really be identified with the first, though it might go too far to consider the second option. His activity is however close to Brandão’s definition of urban design as being in close relation to the problem of public space and as the ‘cultivation of the urban’ (Brandão, 2005, p. 117)

Terra’s planning activity in Lisbon—however short and apparently without result—implies the coexistence of multiple values and motivations, and appropriations of both local, place-specific elements and international ideas and ideals. It is perhaps better understood without the horizon of historicist normativity implied by Choay’s model (Brandão, 2005, p. 198), and instead should start from the confrontation of contemporary ideas, models and theories on planning and the specificities of place. As argues Joyeux-Prunel (2014, p. 7), the study of ‘peripheries’ should focus on ‘space and circulations before constructing evolutions.’

I want therefore to end with the need for Portuguese art history to revisit this period, and that such re-visitation should start by considering the modern as an ‘impure, polyphonic process’, as Ramos (2011b) has provocatively argued. For this task, labels such as Choay’s or others need to be used critically and at times may be obstacles rather than aids, for they can hide in plain sight some of the places to be visited. ‘Urban aesthetic’ is just an example: the abundance in sources of such terms has never been taken serious beyond the status of epochal curiosities or misplaced ideas of ‘aestheticization.’ I hope I have shown it can be useful to have a closer look to them.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on PhD research funded by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH/BD/85324/2012).

References

A futura ponte sobre o Tejo. (1911, April 16). A República.

Almeida, P. V. de. (1986). Modelo progressista, modelo culturalista. In P. V. de Almeida & J. M. Fernandes, História da arte em Portugal: A arquitectura moderna (pp. 72–89). Lisboa: Alfa.

———. (1994). A noção de “passado” na arquitectura das décadas difíceis. O caso de Lisboa. Rassegna, XVI (59), 52–63.

Barata, A. M. (2007). A discussão estética acerca da qualidade arquitectónica das construções da Capital nas primeiras décadas do século XX. Arte Teoria, (10), 128–135.

———. (2010). Lisboa “caes da Europa”: Realidades, desejos e ficções para a cidade (1860-1930). Lisboa: Colibri/IHA.

Bermudes, A. (1912, May 19). Outro sino, outro som. O Parque Eduardo VII. A Capital.

Bohl, C. C., & Lejeune, J.-F. (Eds.). (2009). Sitte, Hegemann and the metropolis: modern civic art and international exchanges. London; New York: Routledge.

Brandão, P. (2003). Alguns “flashes” sobre lugares, pássaros, sinos e mesas, ou o “Outro” como ética, no design urbanoq. In P. Brandão & A. Remesar (Eds.), Design de espaço público: Deslocação e proximidade (pp. 5–14). Lisboa: Centro Português do Design.

———. (2005). Ética e profissões, no Design urbano. Convicção, responsabilidade e interdisciplinaridade. Traços da Identidade Profissional no Desenho da Cidade (PhD thesis). Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Belles Arts, Barcelona.

Camara Municipal de Lisboa. (1908-1913). Actas das sessões da Camara Municipal. Lisboa: Camara Municipal de Lisboa.

Câmara Municipal de Lisboa. Serviços da Planta da Cidade e Expropriações. (1936, July 7). Projecto dos arruamentos do Parque Eduardo VII. Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa.

Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (Ed.). (2010). Lisboa e a República: Centenário da vereação republicana em Lisboa, 1908-2008. Actas do Colóquio Nacional Lisboa e a República, Lisboa, 2008. Lisboa: Câmara Municipal.

Choay, F. (1965). L’urbanisme: Utopies et réalités. Une anthologie. Paris: Seuil.

Collins, G. R., & Crasemann Collins, C. (2006). Camillo Sitte: The birth of modern city planning (Dover edition.). New York: Dover.

Figueiredo, R. (2007). Arquitectura e discurso crítico em Portugal (1893-1918). Lisboa: Colibri/IHA.

Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution. An introduction the town planning movement and to the study of civics. London: Williams and Norgate.

Joyeux-Prunel, B. (2014). The uses and abuses of peripheries in art history. Artl@s Bulletin, 3(1), 4–7.

Ladd, B. K. (1987). Urban aesthetics and the discovery of the urban fabric in turn-of-the-century Germany. Planning Perspectives, 2(3), 270–286.

Leal, J. C., Maia, M. H., & Cardoso, A. (2013). Architectural theory and the vernacular in Pedro Vieira de Almeida’s writing. In J. C. Leal, M. H. Maia, & A. Cardoso (Eds.), To and fro: modernism and vernacular architecture (pp. 105–116). Porto: Centro de Estudos Arnaldo Araújo.

Lima, A. C. (n.d.). Pintura a óleo do Parque Eduardo VII - Cascata e lagoa. Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa.

Lisboa futura. A projectada Avenida de Santos ao Caes do Sodré. (1910). Illustração Portugueza, (213).

Lisboa transforma-se… Vão começar as obras do Parque Eduardo VII. (1911, June 2). A Capital.

Mangorrinha, J. (2010). À esquina de Lisboa: O perfil dos vereadores da mudança e a política urbanística (1908-1913). In Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (Ed.), Lisboa e a República: Centenário da vereação republicana em Lisboa, 1908-2008. Actas do Colóquio Nacional Lisboa e a República, Lisboa, 2008 (pp. 125–155). Lisboa: Câmara Municipal.

Mattos, J. M. de M. de. (1903). A casa portuguêsa. Outro depoimento. A Construcção Moderna, 4(93), 67–69.

———. (1906). Lisboa no anno 2000. Illustração Portugueza, II (5-7), 129–133, 188–192, 220–223.

———. (1908). Um rasgão atravez do Bairro Alto. A Construcção Moderna, 8 (247), 146–147.

Monteiro, J. L. (1906). As novas edificações de Lisboa. Anuario Da Sociedade Dos Architectos Portuguezes, 2, 19–21.

O Parque Eduardo VII. (1912, May 17). A Capital.

O Parque Eduardo VII. (1914, March 30). Occidente, (1269), 101–102.

Piccinelli, A. (1992). Monneret de Villard e la versione italiana. In G. Zucconi (Ed.), Camillo Sitte e i suoi interpreti (pp. 29–33). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Portal (pseud.). (1900). A esthetica das ruas. A Construcção Moderna, 1(21-22).

Ramos, R. J. G. (2011a). Disponibilidade moderna na arquitectura doméstica de Raul Lino e Ventura Terra na abertura século XX. In M. D. Mesquita (Ed.), Revistas de Arquitectura: Arquivo(s) da Modernidade (pp. 78–111). Lisboa: Caleidoscópio.

Ramos, R. J. G. (2011b). Raízes e caminhos: Marques da Silva e a arquitectura do século XX. In R. J. G. Ramos (Ed.), Leituras de Marques da Silva: reexaminar a modernidade no início do século XXI (pp. 15–27). Porto: Fundação Instituto Arquitecto Marques da Silva.

Reis, A. (Ed.). (2010). Lisboa republicana: espaço e memória, 1910-1926. Lisboa: GEO.

Remesar, A. (forthcoming). City aesthetics to and fro. On new urban decorum?

———. (2006). Ventura Terra em contexto. In A. I. Ribeiro (Ed.), Miguel Ventura Terra. A arquitectura enquanto projecto de vida (pp. 10–30). Esposende: Câmara Municipal de Esposende.

Unwin, R. (1909). Town planning in practice; an introduction to the art of designing cities and suburbs. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

Santos, M. P. dos. (2011). ‘Estou Atrasado! Estou Atrasado!’ Sobre o Atraso na Arte Portuguesa Diagnosticado Pela Historiografia. In A. Barata, A. S. Pereira & J. R. Carvalho (Eds.), Representações da Portugalidade. Alfragide, Caminho

Sociedade dos Architectos Portuguezes. (1907). Esthetica da capital – Representação á Camara Municipal de Lisboa. Anuario Da Sociedade Dos Architectos Portuguezes, 3, 21–22.

Sonne, W. (2003). “The entiry city shall be planned as a work of art”. Städtebau als Kunst im frühun modernen Urbanismus 1890-1920. Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte, 66(2), 207–236.

Tostões, A. (1992). Monsanto, Parque Eduardo VII, Campo Grande. Keil do Amaral, arquitecto dos espaços verdes de Lisboa. Lisboa: Edições Salamandra.

Xardoné, T., Costa, R., & Rufino, M. de L. (Eds.). (2009). Arquitecto Ventura Terra, 1866-1919. Lisboa: Assembleia da República.

Variante do projecto do parque Eduardo VII, aprovado em janeiro de 1900, elaborada segundo a proposta apresentada pelo Ex.mo Snr. Vereador Miguel Ventura Terra em sessão da Camara Municipal de 3 de dezembro de 1908. (1910, June 25). Lisboa, Arquivo Municipal.

Vasconcelos, T. (2008). O plano Ventura Terra e a modernizaçao do Funchal (Primeira metade do século XX). Funchal: Empresa Municipal “Funchal 500 Anos.”

Villaverde, M. (2007). Iberian boulevards and city center areas. Barcelona, Madrid and Lisbon in late 19th and early 20th centuries (PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Zucconi, G. (Ed.). (1992). Camillo Sitte e i suoi interpreti. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

  1. On this election and town council, see Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (2010) and Reis (2010). The Republican Party would continue its series of political gains until the revolution of 5 October 1910 abolished monarchy. Terra continued town councillor until 31 January 1913. Afterwards (1913-1915) he would produce an urban improvement plan (plano de melhoramentos) for the city of Funchal, capital of the Madeira archipelago (Vasconcelos 2008). ↩︎

  2. Further study of Terra’s planning activity did not follow Silva’s hypothesis. On the contrary, a study (Mangorrinha, 2010) in the context of a Colloquium on the first Republican town council, extolling the ‘intensely utopian’ character of Terra’s work, re-inscribes it in the very narratives of decadence, periphery and delayed transmission from which Silva had attempted to uncover it. For a critique of such models of progress and delay, see Santos 2011. In Mangorrinha’s account, though he doesn’t mention Choay’s or any other interpretative model, Terra becomes an extreme case of (frustrated, visionary) progressive utopianism, imprisoned in the confining limits of a local, backward culture. ↩︎

  3. I will use the designation ‘town planning’ as it is the most current British expression at the time (for example, Unwin, 1909, or Geddis, 1915), but take it to cover the whole spectre of city-building varieties being cultivated around Europe and the USA at the start of the 20^th^ century. For an overview, Sonne (2003) and Bohl and Lejeune (2009). ↩︎

  4. These discussions have already been discussed by Barata (2007) as a movement in favour of the aesthetic quality of the city’s architecture, and more exhaustively by Figueiredo (2007), who defines it as a campaign in favour of the city’s ‘aesthetization.’ On ‘urban aesthetics’ see also Ladd (1987) and Remesar (forthcoming). ↩︎

  5. However, one of the first texts on the matter starts precisely with a brief notice on the 1900 Congrès d’Art Public, held in Paris during the International Exhibition (Portal, 1900). ↩︎

  6. Thus, Melo de Matos, a clear promoter of progressive urban ideas (Mattos, 1906, 1908), was also an enthusiastic defender of the idea of adapting traditional styles for urban residential construction (Mattos, 1903). ↩︎

  7. A little further: ‘Em todos os paizes não só nas suas capitaes, como nas suas cidades mais grandiosas, de ha muito tempo que é lei o embellezamento das fachadas, havendo alguns onde os proprietarios têem que construir subordinados a um typo de architectura que dê unidade á praça ou avenida, e outros em que se estabelecem premios para as fachadas da mais bella concepção artistica, sem que todavia entre nós até hoje, n’um triste dexleixo pela marcha triumphal da civilisação, nos tenhâmos occupado de tão importante assumpto.’ (Sociedade de Architectos Portuguezes, 1907) ↩︎

  8. This idea of a public right over the aesthetic appearance of public space, and thus over its vertical planes constituted by architecture, had already been stated in 1900 (Portal, 1900). ↩︎

  9. Different sources mention the existence of detailed plans included in a general, vast improvement plan (“Lisboa transforma-se… Vão começar as obras do Parque Eduardo VII,” 1911; “A futura ponte sobre o Tejo,” 1911; Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 339-340), though the municipal archive doesn’t seem to preserve any of it but approved partial projects such as those for the Eduardo VII park, the enlargement of the Rua do Arsenal or the amplification of the fish market (Mercado 24 de Julho). ↩︎

  10. “Variante do projecto do parque Eduardo VII, aprovado em janeiro de 1900, elaborada segundo a proposta apresentada pelo Ex.mo Snr. Vereador Miguel Ventura Terra em sessão da Camara Municipal de 3 de dezembro de 1908,” 1910, at the Municipal Archive of Lisbon. ↩︎

  11. The Commission was composed by the municipal President, the directors of the Department of Public Works and of its subsection of Architecture; from outside the municipality, an architect, painter, sculptor and art critic elected by the Royal Association of the Fine-Arts, and members of the Council of National Monuments, the National Society of Fine-Arts and the architect’s Society. (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1909, p. 491) The Commission isn’t completely organized until next year (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1909, p. 542, 820). Its real functioning is difficult to reconstruct, as the minutes of their meetings either do not exist or are not yet located in the Municipal Archive, though they regularly appear in the municipal minutes as being consulted or giving opinions on matters relating to aesthetic issues. ↩︎

  12. This process can be followed throughout the municipal minutes (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1908-1913) as well as the copies of departmental notices (Copiadores de ofícios) kept at the Municipal Archive of Lisbon. ↩︎

  13. Thus, the architects’ Society, Council of Art and Archaeology and National Society of the Fine-Arts celebrate the decision (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1911, p. 491, 507, 522). Terra himself presents his reorganization at the IX International Congress of Architects in Rome (2-10 October 1911) and relates it to the congress’ conclusions on the separation between architecture and engineering (p. 740-741). ↩︎

  14. Terra himself was the architect, and it was certainly fruit of a deal between him and the owner, the Paris-based artist Artur Prat, to function as a showcase. With the project’s suspension, instead of an idyllic setting between artistic houses and greenery, Prat’s house remained for some 20 years surrounded by a building site. Today it is cased into a glass and iron structure ironically housing the Order of Engineers, almost as an involuntary monument to the engineer’s victory in this particular instance of the engineer-architect conflict. ↩︎

  15. For example: ‘Uma fachada monumental sobre a Rotunda[the Marquês de Pombal square], ennobreceria a praça, tornando-a grandiosa e imponente,’ or ‘um dos pontos de vista mais bellos da cidade, que é o alto do parque d’onde os olhos estendendo-se ao longo da Avenida vão repousar sobre as aguas espelhejantes do rio e os fundos verdejantes dos montes da Outra Banda.’ (“O Parque Eduardo VII,” 1912) ↩︎

  16. ‘A construcção do palacio a uns 150 metros de distancia da Praça do Marquez de Pombal, justifica-se pela necessidade de o tornar facilmente accessivel ao publico e de ser assim sem duvida, mais bella a sua situação. Entre a rotunda da Liberdade e o palacio e aos lados d’este, seria construida uma ampla esplanada ajardinada com lagos, quedas de agua, estatuas e balaustradas etc., seguindo-se depois o Parque do qual (…) a vista ficaria perfeitamente desafogada sobre a cidade, Tejo, etc.’ (Camara Municipal de Lisboa, 1910, p. 579) ↩︎

  17. ‘Esse grandioso fóco de arte e de belleza [the Eduardo VII park] será o primeiro marco de moderna civilisação, que enobrecerá a cidade e que a collocará ao lado das grandes capitaes. Esse fóco será o diapasão por onde se afinará a transformação esthetica dos nossos burgos. Elle será o educador do gosto publico e d’elle irrardiará a arte vencedora e consoladora.’ (Bermudes, 1912) ↩︎