My PhD thesis. Follows the abstract, the thesis can be read in its entirety here.

This study tries to tackle the notion of “urban aesthetics” as it was articulated throughout the first three decades of the 20th century in Portuguese writing on the city, and practised in different forms of spatial production. A diffuse vocabulary – estética urbana, estética citadina, estética da cidade, das edificações, da rua … – signals a persistent understanding of the city as a work of art, both in the way it was experienced – an “urban aesthetic” – and contrived – an “urban aesthetics.” The general ambition of this study is to give visibility to and to reconstruct the conditions of legibility of this set of writings and practices which responded to the once alluring call of the aesthetic. The territory elected to trace the conceptual and practical unravelling of these ideas – so intricately linked to the particularities of place – is Lisbon. In this city, the topic becomes almost unavoidable in writings on urban presents and futures after 1900. Aesthetic arguments were consistently and insistently employed to critically describe urban beauty or, more frequently, urban ugliness, to advocate aesthetic improvement and to justify or criticize concrete ideas and projects. This phenomenon is studied against a background of intense international exchange during this formative phase of the modern planning disciplines, from Town and City Planning to Städtebau and Urbanisme. Aesthetic considerations were manifestly present, and it is argued that aesthetic discourse in Lisbon signals the reception of internationally circulating ideas, words, images and people.

More precisely, this study proceeds to a kind of archaeology of the gaze and discourse of “urban aesthetics,” studying the functions it performed within different social, cultural and political contexts and the relations and tensions with relevant urban realities which pervaded it. One conclusion is that the notion of an “urban aesthetics” remained ill-defined, a common place relying on shared adversity to the modern urban landscape rather than any explicit program or solution. Subsequently, the assimilation by municipal regulation and institutions of public demands of “aesthetic supervision” is reconstructed. The four years of municipal council activity of the architect Miguel Ventura Terra, from 1908 to 1913, were crucial in this tentative articulation of actual practices of aesthetic control and urban design, even if along the subsequent decades they were never given the desired legal and institutional breath. Finally, during the 1930s the vocabulary of “urban aesthetics” was appropriated by a new generation of architects, urban planners and politicians and put at the service of the urban ideals of a dictatorial New State, signalling the persistence of aesthetic considerations in the local institution of the discipline of planning.

An epilogue proposes that the viewpoint of urban aesthetics can contribute to new perspectives over the production and experience of Lisbon during the first decades of the 20th century.