PILOT PLAN - Le Corbusier en Bogotá

Le Corbusier, project for the Plan Director (1950): First and second stages of execution of the Civic Center. © FLC Archivo Pizano.
Part three
PILOT PLAN
Bogota: The nomadic mural that Le Corbusier painted | Jaime Sarmiento
129

The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper
An interview conducted by María Cecilia O’Byrne (MCO’B) and Ricardo Daza (RD) on 1 August 2009 1
MCO’B:
Germán, first and foremost we’d like to thank you for your
support in the publication of the technical report on Le Corbusier’s
Pilot Plan for Bogota. Without your generosity, your
time, your archive, and your copy of the Plan, the project
would have been impossible. The work done in preparation
for this interview and the conversations between us have
been a real learning.
Germán, it’s well known that there were three Colombians
who worked at Le Corbusier’s practice: Rogelio Salmona, Reinaldo
Valencia, and yourself. How did you come to find yourself
at 35 Rue de Sèvres, and what did your work there entail?
GS:
Alongside Paris, Berlin, New York, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro,
and the smaller cities of Italy, Greece, and the Orient
that inspired the young Charles-Edouard Jeanneret Gris, Bogota
was a small Andean city of no importance that had no
place in the geography of his mind.
It was a matter of fate that during his time in New York,
when he was working on the architectural plan for the United
Nations building in 1947, he met the Colombian diplomat
Eduardo Zuleta Ángel 2 , who had been instructed by the
mayor of Bogota—Fernando Mazuera Villegas 3 —and a
group of architects that thought highly of the Swiss-French
master, to invite him to visit the Colombian capital. The Colombian
officials already had in mind that they might sign a
contract with the famous urban planner. The invitation was
issued, the architect accepted and in June 1947 his flight
from New York landed at Techo airport, which was in a di-
130 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
lapidated state. Le Corbusier must have been surprised by
the enthusiastic welcome he received from the architecture
students and young professionals, all of them adherents of
his theories on modern architecture. The Ciudad Universitaria,
the original main campus at the Universidad Nacional
had already been built, with examples of architecture that
bore his hallmark.
I was part of that group of enthusiasts, two or three months
before my graduation. We accompanied him on his excursions
around the city, and we attended his conferences at the
Colón theatre. For an inexperienced and malleable mind like
mine, simply seeing Le Corbusier in the flesh was an intense
experience.
I wasn’t one of those who had direct contact with him. I
always kept a respectful distance. The language barrier in
combination with my shyness prevented me from approaching
him. As they spoke French, Fernando Martínez, Carlos
Arbeláez, Carlos Martínez, Hernando Vargas Rubiano, Rogelio
Salmona 4 , and other young students had the honour of
exchanging views with him. Nevertheless I still had this utopian
idea, which I think of today as daring, that I might end
up working in the great man’s practice. I enrolled in French
courses, won a scholarship, and a year and half later I set
sail from Cartagena. The vessel docked on the Côte d’Azur
to allow two passengers to disembark—Alberto Peñaranda
Canal, a childhood friend, and myself. We caught a train to
Paris, arrived at the Gare du Nord, and I quickly installed myself
in a cheap little hostel in the Latin Quarter, Boulevard St
Germain and Rue de Seine, two blocks from the famous Deux
Magots cafe and La Hune bookshop.
Fernando Mazuera with Le Corbusier during one of his visits to Bogota
(undated).
Two weeks later, I knocked nervously on the famous architect’s
door at the well-known address of 35 Rue du Sèvres. I’d
got permission from the authorities at the student reception
centre in Paris to see if the practice would take me on under
my scholarship.
I was turned down, but I knew Salmona, who had already
spent two or three months there. He had got to know Le Corbusier
in Bogota. After the Bogotazo (the widespread riots
that followed the assassination of presidential candidate

Photograph of Germán Sampler in Paris, during his
work with Le Corbusier there. © G. Samper
Drawing by Germán Samper, done in Bergamo, Italy, during the VII CIAM Congress in 1949. © G. Samper
There are few photographs of Salmona in Paris. Here,
in an Argentine asado, appear Le Corbusier, Salmona
(in the center) and Samper with a guitar. © G. Samper
Poster for the VII CIAM in Bergamo – 70 x 50 cm, Offset printing, 1949,
Milan. Müller-Brockmann, Josef and Shizuko. History of the Poster. New
York: Phaidon Press Inc., 2004.
Jorge Eliécer Gaitán on 9 April 1948), Rogelio had decided
to leave Colombia and he was accepted at the practice.
Salmona introduced me to the Greek architect George Candilis
5 , who was working on the preparation for the seventh
International Congress of Modern Architecture which was to
take place in Bergamo, Italy, the following year. I offered my
help, and got into the studio by the backdoor. A month later,
and thanks to an approach Peñaranda had made on my behalf,
the Colombian ambassador requested a meeting at the
practice in support of my joining the company. It felt like a
historic moment for me—suddenly there I was at the practice
with Le Corbusier and the Colombian ambassador. It was a
complete surprise for the architect to discover that I’d already
been working at his office for a month. In the end I was there
for five years.
Reinado Valencia timed his approach to the practice well,
a year later when—with the contract for the Pilot Plan already
signed—they were looking for Spanish-speaking architects
who knew Bogota.
RD:
There are various accounts of working life in Le Corbusier’s
practice. Some say it was tough and demanding. What was
your experience of the conditions there? What was the atmosphere
like?
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
131

Photograph of Reinaldo Valencia at the signing
of his professional certification in April,
1947. © Familia Valencia.
The mural at the back of the atelier was done
in three days by Le Corbusier in 1947 after he
arrived from New York (and perhaps Bogota?).
He is, in his atelier, with a group of his asistants.
© FLC
132 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Drawing by Germán Samper of the Atelier at 35 rue de Sèvres. © G. Samper
Photograph of Germán Samper and his wife Yolanda, in the Atelier at 35 rue de Sèvres.
© G. Samper
GS:
We’ve all got an idea of what an architect’s practice is like.
Excellent facilities, a magnificent reception area attended by
a beautiful, young woman. A pleasant wait, surrounded by
photographs of the company’s projects, an ample conference
room where the clients are received, the table covered
in blueprints ready for presentation. In our mind’s eye we can
see well laid out and well illuminated drawing boards, storage
and display systems, a library full of neatly filed reference
books and of course a space for relaxation where you can
drink coffee or water and chat to your colleagues.
The space in which the most important architect of the 20 th
century worked on his prolific ideas was nothing like that at all.
Number 35 Rue de Sèvres, near the Sèvres-Babylone metro
station, stood in front of a pretty French park surrounded by
railings and well-used by the people of the neighbourhood. A
branch of Le Bon Marché, the famous Paris department store
dating back to the 19 th century, also opened on to it.
The entrance was via a tatty little lobby. To the left was access
to a church, from the Roman period if I remember rightly
and still standing, and in front a worn-out old door which
opened into the cloister of a former convent. Walk about 30 or
40 metres down one side of a large patio and at the end you
came to a secondary, wooden staircase, its steps worn down
by years of use. Two flights led down to an open space that
served as an information point, entrance lobby and waiting
room all rolled into one. On the right a doorway leading to the
studio, and a window through which you could see the office
of Madame Jean and the young Jannine, which measured no
more than 2.5 by 2.5 metres. This was Le Corbusier’s administration
department.
A narrow corridor led from the aforementioned reception
area to his office—a cubicle of 2.26 by 2.26 by 2.26 metres,
rigorously modular 6 , with no windows, a small table, and two
chairs, one for him and the other for a visitor, and adorned
with one of his own sculptures.
The next office was that of the architect Andre Wogensky,
the manager of the practice. It had a window that looked out
over the general office area, which was nothing more than a
side-corridor of the convent.

In it, the drawing boards stood on the right against a wall
shared with the nave of the church on the other side. On the
left, a row of vertical windows and flat auxiliary desks, and at
the end a mural by Le Corbusier closed off the long narrow
space that constituted the studio.
The drawing boards had mechanisms that allowed you to
adjust their height and angle, and the customary slot through
which to feed the paper, allowing you to draw comfortably at
the top of the sheet. Primitive hooks driven into the wall held
the rolls of plans for the project in hand. We drew in pencil,
and inked in our designs with modern graphics tools that had
replaced the obsolete ruling pen—a form of Chinese torture
that would mean nothing to the young of today. Lettering and
elevations were done by hand in Chinese ink, which came in
little bottles so unstable that you had to stick them to a piece
of board to stop them falling over—something that was nevertheless
a daily occurrence. And of course there were the
rulers, T-squares of various sizes, and triangular scales.
Apart from at drawing boards, there really wasn’t much
space. As a reminder of those times, I’ve got a photograph
in which Le Corbusier is talking to the Panamanian architect
Efraín Pérez Chaniz based in Puerto Rico, and on the left B. V.
Doshi and myself are checking over a set of plans on the auxiliary
desks. I’m going into all this, because the youngsters I
meet seem to ask me for such details all the time.
Le Corbusier didn’t come to work in the mornings. He went
running with his dog in the stadium in front of his apartment
and spent his time painting. He noted ideas for projects on
bits of A4 paper, and sometimes he’d be in touch with the
office by phone.
He came in on the dot of two p.m. He arrived in a little twodoor
MG convertible which he parked in the street, a way of
knowing whether the boss had arrived or not.
During the morning, before Le Corbusier’s arrival, Wogensky
would talk to us and determine which of us most needed
to discuss developments in their projects with the great man.
The one lucky enough to be chosen had a red pin put beside
his name on the list of colleagues stuck to a corkboard on the
wall. Le Corbusier would consult the list and go straight to the
drawing board of the person indicated. He’d have a bundle
of coloured pencils in his hand and he might stay there for a
couple of hours, commenting, suggesting changes, using his
coloured pencils, lecturing, chatting about favourite places
he’d visited.
After a consultation like that, the next step was always to
date the plan, clear the slate and start again from scratch
incorporating the modifications he’d suggested. That’s why
some of the projects went on for years. During the working
hours that Le Corbusier was there, no one moved from
his work station. At midday those of us who spoke Spanish
would go to lunch together at nearby restaurants where
they used paper tablecloths—an ideal opportunity to resolve
design problems that were the order of the day in the
studio.
Le Corbusier would generally assign a project to just one
person, who would be responsible for it. Sometimes, if a project
had to be handed over quickly, he would form a team.
The pilot studies for Bogota and Chandigarh had a number
of architects working on them, and the same was true of the
Justice Palace in the Indian city, which they wanted to start
building very quickly. So Maisonier was responsible for the
Ronchamp chapel; Tobito for the governor’s palace; Doshi,
Salmona, and Michel for projects in Ahmenabad; Samper for
the Secretariat 7 . When I left the practice, I went through the
design plans for the Secretariat and took some photographs.
I’ve got just over 100 photos associated with those plans, a
treasure trove that one day would be worth investigating and
publishing.
In conclusion, Le Corbusier’s studio was more than modest.
I’d say it was uncomfortable, it looked terrible, its procedures
and ways of working were primitive and chaotic, but
the ideas were always brilliant. The latter was clearly a product
of the great man’s knowledge, his enthusiasm, his Messianic
character, his constant focus on the subject of urban
order and the discovery of an architecture for the 20 th century
in which he lived, and which inspired him to come up with
new concepts wherever he was: at home, in a hotel, on a
plane, independent of his modest studio.
Photo of the atelier’s interior in 1951. In the center, Le Corbusier with Efraín
Pérez (turned away)/. In the background, to the left, Doshi and Samper. © G.
Samper
MCO’B:
Bogota contracted three architects to produce the Regulatory
Plan for the city—Le Corbusier, Josep Lluís Sert, and Paul
Lester Wiener. Three questions arise: Who was Le Corbusier
in 1949? Why did he go into partnership with Sert and Wiener?
The technical report refers to a Master Plan, but the part
that Le Corbusier was in charge of is known colloquially—
amongst other things—as the “Pilot Plan”, while the part Sert
and Wiener worked on is known as the “Regulatory Plan”.
Could you clear up that ambivalence?
GS:
In his life as an architect, urbanist, painter, writer, and fighter,
Le Corbusier went through three very distinct periods, framed
by the two world wars.
The first, his training, was a glittering period. Deciding
that it would have been a mistake to study in the arts academies
of the time, he set off aged 18 in search of an encounter
with history, learning from the great architectural works of
the past. Each historical period had a cultural means of expression
particular to its time. By way of travel sketches, writings
from his destinations, postcards, photographs, and all
the other evidence he came across, he discovered that there
was a harmony between architecture and social, economic,
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
133

Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, Voyage d’Orient, 1911: three views of the Acrópolis from mount Licabeto. The second, in contrast, is a recollection of the Süleymaniye
Mosque in Istanbul. The four drawings are placed one after the other in the Carnet No. 3 in Voyage d’Orient. © FLC
Outline by Charles Edouard Jeanneret (Le Corbusier) of Dom-
Ino houses (1914), which shows different forms of aggregation
of the module. © FLC 30285
134 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier and P. Jeanneret, project for the League
of Nations competition in Geneva (1927-1928).
© FLC Œuvre Complète V. 1
Le Corbusier: Perspective view of the
business center in the City for Three Million
Inhabitants (1922). © FLC 29711
and cultural activity. The lessons he learned from his travels,
which are chronicled at the Le Corbusier Foundation in Paris,
stayed with him and guided him for the rest of his days.
The second period, between the wars, the second and
third decades of the 20 th century, was rich in excellence. He
felt that new times heralded technological advances but that
architecture was lagging behind. Aeroplanes, transatlantic
liners and the machinery of the industrial age were evidence
of a new era to come, and he felt it was essential to create an
architecture in keeping with the times. Two graphics sum up
the broad spectrum of his discoveries: the famous drawing
that synthesises the new technology of construction, anticipated
in domino houses, minimal homes, and a panoramic
vision of Paris as a city of three million people. It is a period
of unlimited creation, of an architecture that was not only concerned
with functional content, but also with historical transcendence
and aesthetics. His paintings evoke purism and
minimalism. Homes should be produced in series and be industrialised
and standardised.
The project that best sums up this period was the competition
for the League of Nations building in Geneva, a contest
opened to more than 300 submissions from every corner of
the planet. The submissions split into two groups—those of
the beaux arts academies, and those of the modernists. The
judges’ panel was also split between the two schools and
wasn’t able to make up its mind. It selected 12 projects to
pass on to the client, who after shifting the goal posts and
asking for new proposals, decided to go with the plans of
three classical architects, but with the recommendation that
they include some adjustments based on Le Corbusier’s
submission. A terrible plagiarism. The idea was to use the
functional ideas of Le Corbusier, but draped in classicism.
That was how it was designed, and that was how it was built.
Thirty years later or more, an extension was built that was
100 percent modernist.
A moral triumph for Le Corbusier, but at the same time one
of his first frustrations. The League of Nations competition,
extended across the whole of Europe, was the catalyst for
the formation of a group of modernist architects whose mem-

Jean Giraudoux, Le Groupe CIAM France, CIAM Urbanism – The Athens Charter,
1ª ed., Plon, Paris 1943: book cover. © FLC
Le Corbusier, CIAM Grid of Urbanism, The Aplication of the Athens Charter,
Boloña 1948: book cover. © FLC
Le Corbusier, The Paris Plan from1937: “The new, modern dimesions and the
apreciation of historical treasures contribute a delicious grace”. © FLC Œuvre
Complète V. 3
bers held their first meeting in La Sarraz castle in Switzerland,
and agreed to hold regular study groups under the name of
the International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM).
These meetings consolidated Le Corbusier as the indisputable
leader of the modernist movement.
In the end, the CIAM was a community of friends, all of
them excellent architects, who shared the same ideas and
were focused on the design of homes 8 . At the fourth conference,
a meeting that took place on a boat bound for Athens,
an urban planning code was drawn up. It came to be
known as the Athens charter. Le Corbusier later revised it,
and it became the group’s fundamental roadmap. It set out
four key functions of city life: living, working, cultivating body
and mind, and circulation. But we shouldn’t forget that this
was a group of architects, without any other specialists, that
put forward a rigid zonification of cities that challenged the
urban reality in which activities and uses were integrated and
interrelated.
The seventh conference, in Bérgamo, Italy, focussed on
the “CIAM grid” as means of analysing a city; the eighth, in
Hoddesdon, England, on what they called the “city’s heart”,
which contemplated a fifth function and which in some ways
was the beginning of a contradiction with rampant compartmentalisation.
The ninth congress, in Aix in Provence, covered
the environment. It was a return to the scale of architecture
and the beginning of its break-up. I was lucky enough
to take part in those three informal meetings of a few butselected
participants, and have the opportunity to converse,
amongst others, with Giedion, Gropius, Rogers, Van Eyk,
Albini, and Sert.
At the same time as the CIAM focussed on theory, in Paris,
Algiers, Buenos Aires, and Rio de Janeiro, Le Corbusier
put his talents as an urban designer into practise. It wasn’t
a question of a cold analyst, with statistics in hand and the
help of specialists, working out options for urban development;
they were the designs of a plastic surgeon who imagined
new ways of occupying space that were unthinkable in
pre-industrial times but conceivable in modern ones.
In Buenos Aires, the highways plan saw the city crisscrossed
with arterial roads, and the office buildings actually
constructed out into the sea crowned it all. In Rio de Janeiro,
a series of curved buildings snaked around the bay, blending
into one of the most spectacular natural settings a city could
have. In Algiers, a radical skyscraper was the piece de resistance
of his proposals.
In Paris, he put forward audacious plans to replace a
large part of the historic centre, creating in its place a “radiant
city” of long, zigzagging redent blocks that left the space
underneath them free for parks and recreational areas. Le
Corbusier dared to dream.
Skyscrapers much higher than he envisaged have already
been built out into the sea in the Middle East. Buildings
in parks raised up on reinforced concrete stilts or “pilotis”
have already been built in Brasilia, something that was
inconceivable in the 1950s. In Europe itself, there has been
rampant construction of large office complexes in London,
Berlin, and in Paris itself in the Defense area. Le Corbusier
had the guts to draw what he thought.
Today the term “urban design” is given to mean the suggestion
of spaciousness in simple zoning maps, ground
planes, and models; it goes much further than urbanism limited
to two dimensions and comes together as the specialisation
known as urban design.
So Le Corbusier arrives in Bogota, somewhat bitter about
what happened with the League of Nations building, famous
for proposing utopian solutions and with the theories of the
Athens charter already being questioned.
His third period, the post-Bogota period, extended from
the 50s until his death and saw him give free rein to his creativity.
Alongside his prolific painting he became passionate
about aesthetic expression in architecture. It was a time of
intensive and evocative use of reinforced concrete, but no
longer in search of prototypes suitable for reproduction and
industrialisation, nor with minimalist ends. On the contrary, it
was a search for unique, highly personalised solutions. There
was the housing unit project in Marseille; the Ronchamp
chapel; the La Tourette monastery; the Carpenter centre in
Harvard; the civic centre in Chandigarh; other projects in Ahmenabad;
the Brazil building at Paris’s university city, at the
foot of Swiss Pavillion, the masterpiece of his second period.
It was, shall we say, his brutalist period.
Before we analyse the Regulatory Plan for Bogota, we should
learn a bit about Josep Lluís Sert and Paul Lester Wiener.
Wiener was American and he came into play relatively late in
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
135

Germán Samper, drawing of of a detail of the unité in Marseille (undated).
© G. Samper
136 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Germán Samper, drawing of the interior of the Chapel in Ronchanp (undated).
© G. Samper
Germán Samper, drawing of the Secretariat building in Chandigarh, made in June of 1960 © G. Samper
Germán Samper, drawing of the north face of the convent in Tourette (chapel, “bell
tower and alters”. August 3 rd , 1975. © G. Samper

Photograph of Paul Lester Wiener and Josep Lluis Sert in Bogota
(undated). © FLC L4-4-17.
Plan of Bogota from 1947. © FLC 616
the day. Josep Lluís Sert, on the other hand, was a figure with
a deep background in our subject. He was Catalan, and as
such close to Latin America. A renowned architect at home,
he joined the CIAM and eventually became its president.
In Hoddesdon, it was he who led the thinking behind a fifth
function—a city’s heart. He was close to Le Corbusier, having
worked in his practice and as a friend. Under Franco he fled
to the United States, where he became dean of architecture
at Harvard University.
He linked up with Wiener and opened an urban design
office. The mix of American urban technology and the influence
of a Spaniard aware of our traditions emerged as an
option for Latin American cities: Chimbote (Peru); Ciudad
de los Motores (Brazil); Medellin, Cali, and Tumaco (Colombia).
Sert was in fashion, and he contributed to his friend Le
Corbusier winning the contract for Bogota. But in Colombia
opinions were divided. Some thought of Le Corbusier as too
modernist and so a risk, while others—such as Eduardo Zuleta
Ángel—enthused about his work. An equitable solution
emerged. Le Corbusier would develop the Pilot Plan and Sert
the Regulatory Plan.
RD:
Germán, who do you remember the city of Bogota at the time
Le Corbusier visited it, around 1947 to 1949?
GS:
The patient awaiting surgery was a peaceful, quiet city cut
off from the rest of the world. An Andean city in the centre of
the country, far from the sea. Set at the foot of mountains on a
beautiful savannah, its writers were in love with it, its people
worked in cattle-farming and there were estates that families
passed down from one generation to the next.
I was born and raised in Bogota, and I come from a family
of high achievers in industry and education. I got to know
the city from a young age, as I travelled back and forth from
home to school, from 72 nd Street to 10 th Street, 60 blocks in
crowded trams. As a recent graduate I agonised over the
events of 9 April 1948, which took place while I was working
in my first job for the municipality.
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
137

Photograph of the Ciudad Universitaria, when construction began, in 1935.
© IGAC
Map drawn by the Ministry of Public Works of Bogota indicating the areas
affected by the riots of April 9 th , 1948. Germán Samper, who had recently graduated
from the Universidad National de Colombia, participated in the project.
© IDPC–MdB
138 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Bogota would have had a population of between 500,000
and 600,000 at the time, and although it had already begun
spreading northwards, it was still a highly centralised city.
You couldn’t buy anything outside the city centre—any urgent
needs in the residential neighbourhoods were met by small
corner shops. People bought food at the market and took it
home on donkey-drawn carts.
The Bogotanos were somewhat sad people. They dressed
in dark clothes and wore wide-brimmed hats. The men did
their business in the cafes, where the women didn’t go. And
the poor went around barefoot or in canvas sandals, their
worn-out hats crumpled and their ruanas, or ponchos, torn.
The city’s limits were defined by two rivers, the San
Agustín and the San Francisco. The markets took place in
what is now Santander park and on the banks of the San
Francisco in an area flanked by three churches that still stand
today. Santander park was surrounded by French-style railings
and colonial houses, except for two corners where the
Photographs of the damage from April 9 th , 1948. © IDPC–MdB
Hotel Granada and Hotel Regina were built in French neoclassical
style. The streets were cobbled or unsurfaced and
there were few cars. Poverty became more apparent, the
poor moving into rooms in the central area that the betteroff
had left in search of better conditions in the outskirts, in
neighboarhoods such as Teusaquillo and La Merced, now
that motorised transport was becoming more common.
Three clubs—the Jockey Club, the Gun Club, and the
Country Club—provided a social life. There was a thriving
middle class and a good education system. The architecture
consisted of colonial and republican houses, still in use
by their owners, and there were fabulous churches, some of
which have unfortunately since disappeared. The “garden
city” architecture of the outskirts changed radically in appearance,
reflecting changes in urbanist style and typology.
Modern architecture was just about to take off. The government
of Alfonso López Pumarejo 9 had already founded
the main campus at the Universidad Nacional, also known as
the White City. Two European architects, Leopoldo Rother 10
and Bruno Violi 11 , arrived in Colombia, bringing with them the
good of the new. The simple, modest city was ready to receive
Le Corbusier.
MCO’B:
Germán, how was the contract for the Pilot Plan awarded?
There are a number of stories about how the team for the
Regulatory Plan was drawn up. Can you remember any of
them? After the famous meeting in Cap Martin, in which Le
Corbusier, Sert, Wiener and Ritter took part, how was the
Paris team formed and what does it tell us about the contract?
GS:
From the time of his first visit to Bogota, Le Corbusier hoped
he would be awarded the urban design plan. It was the hook
that brought him to our city. But correspondence that has
since come to light tells us that the mayor, Fernando Mazuera,
had doubts about using an architect he felt was too
modernist. It’s hard to know what a businessman like Mazuera
was thinking when he used the term “too modern” 12 .
It probably wasn’t to do with the aesthetic concept, because

a semi-modern version did not exist. Perhaps Mazuera, who
travelled regularly to Paris, had seen Le Corbusier’s plans
such as those for his “radiant city” to redevelop the French
capital. They were certainly daring in their ideas about new
land use and ownership, and maybe they worried the mayor,
who came from a country that was only just starting to talk
about horizontal ownership.
Then there was an event that would shake up the process
of deciding whether or not to issue a contract for an urban design
plan for Bogota. On 9 April 1948, the assassination of the
presidential candidate Jorge Eliécer Gaitán at a time when
he was all but certain to have won the election sparked a catastrophe.
There were no leaders or political parties trying to
capitalise on the anger expressed by the rioters. It was more
a matter of looting and the burning of buildings. Several days
later it was reported that apart from the human cost, Bogota’s
principal loss had been architectural, and particularly so in
the city centre. The situation sped up the process of contracting
Le Corbusier, and things were finalised when the decision
was taken to divide the Plan, with Le Corbusier working on
the Pilot Plan and Sert and Wiener on the Regulatory Plan.
The Office of the Regulatory Plan for Bogota (ORPB) was set
up, and charged with gathering initial information and then
later setting the whole thing in motion. The contract envisaged
four scales: regional, metropolitan, urban, and central.
It also envisaged the following phases. First, initial information
gathering by the ORPB; then an initial sketch to
be done in Paris. Phase three would be the Pilot Plan under
Le Corbusier and phase four the Regulatory Plan to be
developed by Sert and Wiener. Finally, the ORPB would be
charged with implementation.
In putting together his design team in Paris, he knew he
could count on two Bogotanos at his practise whose work he
already knew. My scholarship had come to an end, so he had
to take me on as a member of staff, which he duly did.
He also announced that Fernando Martínez Sanabria 13
would manage the project in Paris, which pleased us, as he
was not only a friend, but a professional whose competence
and capabilities we were well aware of. In correspondence
that has since come to light, we learned that Martínez had
been recommended by Josep Lluís Sert, who knew his compatriot
and had worked with him on the Pilot study for Tumaco.
Fernando Martínez left for Paris via New York, where
he met Sert. He spent ten days there, which he referred to
afterwards as the worst of his life, and then he went back to
Bogota without us really knowing why. Meanwhile, the Colombian
architect Reinaldo Valencia, who we didn’t know, arrived
at the practice looking for work. What a surprise! He turned
up just at the right moment, he was accepted and he stayed
for a year.
RD:
Germán, how was the Pilot Plan developed?
GS:
As laid down in the contract 14 , the Plan for Bogota envisaged
an initial phase called the basic scheme, and in August its
implementation was agreed upon. Because it was summer,
and the holiday period, the meeting took place in Cap Martin,
where Le Corbusier would take refuge to relax and to work.
He stayed in a room attached to house of fisherman friend,
who was also known to architectural historians such as Cabanon—a
cubicle of 3m by 3m, with the furniture laid out so
he could work, sleep, relax and wash there. There are books
about the little place that was eventually to witness his death.
Of course, the working group consisting of Le Corbusier,
Sert, Wiener, and Herbert Ritter, the head of the Bogota office,
had to hold their meetings in a fitting place. There they
produced the guidelines for the scheme, such as the city’s
limits, general road network, residential areas, work areas—
especially industrial areas—the relocation of the market, and
the city’s links with the region. What to do about the centre
must have been a matter of great debate, during which they
traced a circle marking the centre’s limits, made 7 th Avenue a
more important thoroughfare, and spoke of raising population
densities. They also touched on the subject of the Plaza
de Bolívar and its civic character, the site of the presidential
palace, the ministerial buildings, and the town hall.
The rolls of plans for the scheme arrived in Paris shrouded
in mystery, and we were told that they could only be opened
when Martínez was present. After 50 years, the memories get
a bit fuzzy. When at last we saw them, they became like the
Bible for our project. The decisions already taken could not
be modified. What I don’t know is where those plans ended
up. They’re not at the Le Corbusier Foundation.
The essence of the project was quite simple: it was to undertake
an analysis of the four scales—regional, metropolitan,
urban, and central—in terms of the urban functions recognised
by the CIAM—living, working, developing body and
mind and getting around. The presentation and crossover of
these variables was plotted using the CIAM grid.
Of course the crossover of the variables led to discussions
on a number of different aspects: on the regional scale,
where to locate the international airport, what its road links to
the city would be like, what to do about the surrounding villages,
and what influences the water courses of the savannah
would bring to bear.
On the metropolitan scale, how to work with area’s natural
water supply, and how to manage the areas outside the
agreed limits, such as Cundinamarca Avenue (today known
as the NQS trunk road). On the urban scale, a clear compartmentalisation
of the four functions, colour-coded according
to the CIAM’s norms. And on the central scale, changes of
usage, raising population densities, and the treatment of the
space next to the Plaza de Bolívar.
Although 9 April was never spoken about, Le Corbusier
had visited the destruction brought on by the riots in the city,
and he must have thought that restructuring the public and
Le Corbusier, the Cabanon en Cap-Martin
(1951): view from the cabana facing toward the
Mediterranean. © FLC L3-5-63
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
139

Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): plan BOG 4209 – Regional:
overview map of areas for housing, work, and phsyical and
spiritual diversion. © F. Pizano.
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): plan BOG 4212 – Civic Center: overview map of areas for housing, work, and phsyical and spiritual recreation. © F. Pizano.
140 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): plan BOG 4210 – Metropolitan:
overview map of areas for housing, work, and phsyical and spiritual recreation.
© F. Pizano.
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): plan BOG 4211 – Urban: overview map of
areas for housing, work, and phsyical and spiritual recreation © F. Pizano.

private spaces would be relatively straightforward. The centre
would become the focus of attention. We’ll come back to
this later on.
It’s clear that we Colombians on the team were simple
drawers. We couldn’t take decisions that might deviate from
what was known as the San Martin steering document. Some
adjustments were made after Le Corbusier’s visits to Bogota,
and following recommendations by Sert, who was consulted
from time to time 15 .
MCO’B:
We know that Le Corbusier was contracted for the Master Plan,
or Pilot Plan, and Wiener and Sert for the Regulatory Plan. Le
Corbusier must have been proposing more general ideas and
guidelines than his colleagues. Le Corbusier: Pilot Plan; Wiener
and Sert: Regulatory Plan—how did they interconnect? Indeed,
there is something that has been spoken of very little. In
his book on the Pilot Plan and the Regulatory Plan 16 , the Colombian
architect Carlos Hernández suggests that they were
two very distinct projects. When you look at the plans for each,
the differences are obvious. In your opinion, what are the similarities
and differences between the two projects?
GS:
Le Corbusier handed over the Pilot plan in 1951. It went
through a period of revision and then it was turned into a provisional
decree, while the Regulatory Plan was implemented.
Technically speaking, Wiener and Sert’s mission was clear
but difficult. As a Spaniard, Sert had a different urban vision.
Various urban plans were under design in Latin America:
Ciudad dos Motores, Chimbote, Lima, Cali, Medellin and Tumaco.
First and foremost they were meant to come up with
realistic, viable solutions. Their position on the grid layout was
emphatic: the block must be respected as it gives scale to
the city. They proposed a combination of high-rise buildings
contrasted with low platforms fed by patios that maintained
the parameters of blocks, and above all the concept of the
street and square as public spaces. The block was the unit
of development and the scale of transformation, where possible,
was applied to the centres of the blocks.
Based on that thinking, Wiener and Sert proposed a
central zone for Bogota that preserved the grid layout and
identified two focus points for development. A recreation and
cultural centre near 26 th Street, around the bullring, linked
to Santander park by a new pedestrian street crossing the
blocks of 7 th and 5 th Avenue. They keep 7 th Avenue pedestrianised
as it leads to towards the Plaza de Bolívar, and widen it
as Le Corbusier had proposed. In short, Sert respects the grid
and proposes volumetric solutions inserted within the blocks.
“Difficult times.” That was how Sert described the twoyear
period in which the Regulatory Plan was implemented,
and during which the city was in limbo as far as the issuing
of licenses was concerned. There were 40 urban projects
outside the perimeter waiting for approval. The Pilot Plan was
a secret. There were changes of leadership—at least four
new mayors in that period. Colombia had a military president
and Bogota a military mayor, and government priorities
shifted. The same professionals who at the beginning had
lauded the urban projects now began to criticise them. The
developers felt particularly affected. The project’s credibility
suffered, and presidential initiatives introduced new, unexpected
projects: the northern highway, El Dorado airport, the
National Administration Centre. The city began to grow in an
improvised way.
Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan for Bogota had always been controversial
and he was blamed for its failure. We need to touch on
various subjects in order to address these questions.
I took part in the project, and motivated by a desire to
reveal what became of it, I have resolved to investigate the
aspects I don’t know about, and which are contained in correspondence
held at the Le Corbusier Foundation in Paris,
and at Harvard university, where the plans and documents of
Josep Lluís Sert and Paul Lester Wiener are archived.
I want to confirm my thesis that the Pilot Plan was valid and
feasible, and that it reflected the thinking of the time. With the
perspective that comes with 60 years of the city’s development,
the sensation I have is that the Plan fell through at a
historically difficult time and in an adolescent city that was
barely beginning to grow. We might say that Pilot Plan was
done at a bad moment for Bogota.
The Pilot Plan and the Regulatory Plan were parts of a single
project. The Pilot Plan cannot be seen as a definitive document.
It was just one of the design phases in a process that
should have culminated in the handing over of the Regulatory
Plan. The two teams’ proposals were inseparable from one
and other. The Regulatory Plan should have developed some
aspects of the Pilot Plan and made its proposals viable. The
Regulatory Plan had the last word.
Let’s look back at how the two projects were linked. Le
Corbusier came to Bogota to hand over his project at the
ORPB office in the presence of Wiener and Sert. Herbert Ritter
was no longer the head of the office, and had been replaced
by Carlos Arbeláez. Fernando Mazuera was no longer
mayor. He had been replaced by Santiago Trujillo. Le Corbusier
was under pressure. He wanted to travel to India, where
he’d been selected to design the new city of Chandigarh, and
to delay handing over his Pilot Plan for Bogota 17 . Sert had two
pieces of advice for him. One, not to delay the handover; and
two, not to give a three-dimensional presentation of his plans
for the centre. Le Corbusier took the first piece of advice on
Photograph of Le Corbusier, Carlos Arbeláez Camacho, Paul Lester Wiener
and Josep Lluis Sert on the Savanna with Bogota in the background (undated).
© FLC L4-4-18.
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
141

Sert and Wiener, Regulatory Plan for Bogota (1952): Civic Center plan © IDPC–MdB
142 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan

oard, but not the second. It would be seen later how much
the plan for Chandigarh reflected his experience with the Pilot
Plan for Bogota and how it would be brought to fruition successfully.
As far as the Pilot Plan for Bogota is concerned, I’d prefer
not to go into all the aspects and scales of the Plan—the
regional, the metropolitan, the urban—as these have been
studied many times. Rather, I’ll concentrate on the centre,
which is where the principle objections arose on behalf of
the government, the public, and urban planning professionals.
But before I do, let me just raise a question about the
project as a whole. Did Bogota have the social, economic,
operational, and technical potential to implement the Pilot
Plan? The answer is that 60 years later, Bogota has a population
of 7 million, that is 14 times that of the city in the 1950s.
It’s a city that is liveable. It has its problems of course, but the
key matters have been attended to: housing, including help
for the informal sector, education, essential services, public
transport, business, recreation. So what happened?
RD:
What did happen? It’s been said many times that the Pilot
Plan was a failure for Bogota, that it had no real effect on the
city’s development. Do you agree with that? How can we talk
about the failure of a plan that was never carried through?
GS:
Let’s take this bit by bit. The central zone can be studied from
two points of view: the zone as a whole, or the civic centre
in itself. Let’s take the first one. In urban planning terms, the
area can be viewed through two lenses: in two dimensions,
or in three, suggested by Le Corbusier. In the first case, the
problems of an area are resolved by recommending an increase
in the density of living space, areas of administrative
work, banking businesses, government offices, hotels and
recreation areas. It becomes a multi-use area, a meeting
place. In terms of mobility, a ring road is designed around the
sector. 3 rd and 10 th Avenues and 6 th and 26 th Streets, with car
parks recommended at the entrance to the zone. 7 th Avenue
would be pedestrianised, opening into the Plaza de Bolívar.
Le Corbusier arrives in Bogota (photograph that was used by the press at
the time).
Drawing by Germán Samper of Brasilia in October of 1993: view of congressional buildings. © G. Samper
Le Corbusier, Obus Plan for Algeria (1932) © FLC
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
143

Rafael Esguerra, Enrique García Merlano, Danial Suárez, Juan Meléndez and Nestor Gutiérrez, Antonio
Nariño Urban Center – CUAN (1952). The project was composed of: housing for 3000 inhabitants (789
apartments divided between 7 13-story towers and 6 5-story towers spread over 14 hectares), large
park area, theater, supermarket, laundry, school, experimental vegetable garden, church and recycling
plant. © IDPC–MdB
Photograph of La Defense, Paris, around 1970. Taken from the internet.
144 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Assistants from Proa magazine, the project “Ciudadela
del empleado” (1946) was a neighborhood
adjoining the historical center of Bogota, in which
the architects proposed housing for six times the
population at that time, in buildings from four to
twelve stories high, placed in an area in which 72%
was made up of public space (gardens, parks and
roads). © Proa
This is how the roads were eventually built.
On the other hand, viewed through the lens of three dimensions
means it has to be interpreted in a different context.
In his creative period during the 1920s and 30s, Le Corbusier
proposed a break with the block layouts of European
cities dating from the 19 th century and before. He criticised
the “street-corridor” and declared that new residential areas
would be separate from a road network made up of large
highways. The buildings would not touch the ground, leaving
the ground clear for pedestrians who would walk through expansive
green spaces. Le Corbusier applied this design for
a utopian “green city” to his proposals for the historic centre
of Paris, for Buenos Aires, Algiers, Rio, and the other cities
where he intervened as an urbanist.
It was more a visual exercise in reflecting the “new times”,
as he often said, rather than a mandate to build in that way.
It was a way of relating his proposals to old urban structures.
Was it possible to make his theory reality? Absolutely:
in Brasilia a scaled-down version of his buildings was comprehensively
adopted, in Bogota the Antonio Nariño complex
was built, in the centre, on the site of what is now the Third
Millennium park, Colombian architects proposed a workers’
tenement neightbourhood. Mexico, Caracas, and Chile all experimented
with such complexes, which were, more or less,
the application of the CIAM’s theories that were in their prime
at the time. In Europe, other architects designed similar complexes.
There is La Defense in Paris itself. In central Bogota,
the project made the type of homes envisaged by Le Corbusier
a reality.
Blocks such as his “housing unit”, the systems he called
“redents” were incorporated into the colonial city, at times
blurring the parameters of the existing layout. In Marseilles
another of his “housing units” was being built, all of which
gave Le Corbusier the sense that his theories were becoming
reality 18 . He had publicly declared his conformity with
octagonal design and he had criticised the new layouts in
the north of the city. Four years previously, in association with
Oscar Niemeyer, he had designed a building for the education
ministry in Rio de Janeiro that employed a revolutionary
application of the block. The three-dimensional drawing of
the centre was simply a demonstrative exercise of his recommendation
to revitalise the area, but it became the source of
scandal. Sert’s Regulatory Plan envisaged a city centre with
well-preserved colonial blocks and other architectural forms
that was easier to apply. His was the last word.
Le Corbusier dreamed of a civic centre near the Plaza de
Bolívar. His first sketches for the redevelopment of the area
appear in his travel notebooks 19 . In the Pilot Plan he proposes
expanding the public space to make room for a tower housing
the government ministries according to scale set by the
town hall. He envisaged a number of different sites for the
presidential palace, and proposed housing the embassies to
the east towards the mountains. The aerial view is a unique

Le Corbusier, photograph of the Unité d’Habitación in
Marseille during its construction. © FLC
Le Corbusier, proposal for the utilization of blocks in Río de
Janeiro: tradition and new methods. © FLC
Le Corbusier, perspective of the Plaza de Bolivar in Bogota with the Civic Center project in its 1951
version, superimposed on a photograph of the historical city Germán Samper states that he drew
up the draft of the perspective and Le Corbusier finished it. © FLC R2-15-14 y 15
Le Corbusier, sketch of the project for the city of Chandigarh, published in,
“Souvenir of the Indian Independence”. © FLC
Le Corbusier, Chandigarh (1951-1965): general view of Lake Sukhna with the
Capital in the background. © FLC Œuvre Complète V.8
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
145

Photograph of Plaza de Bolívar (undated) © IDPC–MdB
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, project for the National Administrative Center
(CAN), Master Plan, location plan. Built during the dictatorship of general Rojas
Pinilla (1953 to 1957). ©
146 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Photograph of Le Corbusier in
front of a poster of Air India.
© FLC L4-3-68.
document, which shows Le Corbusier’s intention to leave his
mark on Bogota, but it was never part of his contract. A letter
from Carlos Arbeláez to Sert, in which he writes that on orders
from above the presidential palace should be removed from
consideration, confirms the end of this particular chapter.
Meanwhile, Le Corbusier was designing a civic centre of
four buildings for Chandigarh. Three of them were built, evidence
of the architect’s last period. It’s not difficult to imagine
the type of projects Le Corbusier would have designed for
Bogota. Today, 60 years later, we’ve got a square renovated
by Fernando Martínez that in some ways is very similar to
Le Corbusier’s proposals. There’s a neoclassical presidential
palace, an enlarged legislature, the town hall block with its
administrative offices outside the centre, and the complex of
the national administration centre that houses the ministries
on El Dorado Avenue. The city is a collective work, developed
over time by thousands of minds.
MCO’B:
So, in the scheme of things, what, as far as you are concerned,
were the causes of the Pilot Plan’s supposed failure?
GS:
There are many reasons for the failure of the Regulatory Plan
and, as a consequence, of the Pilot Plan. I’ll describe a few:
In the 1950s horizontal ownership laws had only just been
put in place but they certainly hadn’t been regulated. There
was no experience of the design and use of various properties
in one building and on one plot. There was even less
awareness of the concept of urban renewal. Only in recent
years—with Act nine of 1989 and Act 388 of 1997—has there
been a judicial basis for the development of urban complexes.
Later, construction norms were adopted, which opposed
regulation by height and which led to development plot by
plot and the Manhattanisation of the city. It’s not by chance
that our urban skylines resemble those of US cities.
The astronomical growth in urban populations has meant
that decisions about development have been improvised according
to the rushed politics of each government.
Serious construction methods didn’t exist. The first urban
developments of their kind were carried out by the ICT and the
BCH and were limited to 30 or 50 units. As such, construction
technology was still on the handicraft level. The concept of
managed development was non-existent. But above all, there
wasn’t the political will. The Pilot Plan and Regulatory Plan were
contracted by enthusiastic officials but received for implementation
by indifferent ones. It was a period of great change, in
which leaders didn’t last long and political programmes had
nothing to do with the ordered development of cities 20 .
MCO’B:
The Chandigarh project came into being when Le Corbusier
had already handed in the technical report for the Pilot Plan to
the Bogota authorities in September 1950. The contract with
the Indian authorities was signed at the end of 1950. Between
February and March of the following year, Le Corbusier travelled
to the site where the new Punjabi capital would be built. In
April he came back to Bogota for a fifth time, bringing new material
to discuss with the authorities and with Wiener and Sert.
Is it possible to compare the Bogota and Chandigarh
plans, or establish parallels between them? Is there any kind
of relationship between the two cities?
GS:
Just as he was finishing the Pilot Plan for Bogota, Le Corbusier
was awarded the design of Chandigarh, which naturally he
was enthusiastic about.
The urban plan, which started from zero, was fed by his experience
of the recent Bogota plan—the basic structure of the
sectors, the hierarchical road network of seven highways, linear
parks rigorously applied, and the creation of an octagonal urban
area. In India, V4s are recommended as commercial and
service roads—because of its serious overcrowding, the country’s
roads were a custom that needed to be maintained. At the
head of the city, its crown—against the spectacular backdrop
of the Himalayas—were the government offices, which this time
Le Corbusier was responsible for. It’s strange that India should
become the country that adopted his proposals.
He was also responsible for the scenic areas, and in Paris,
with information gathered about trees in India, he started

Le Corbusier, project for Chandigarh (1951-1965): the architect N. M. Sharma
indicates the city’s business center (sector 17), on the area plan. © FLC Œuvre
Complète V.8
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota: photograph of Germán Samper smiling,
in front of the plan for the Civic Center BOG 4220, in its “Cultivate the Body and
Spirit” version. © G. Samper
Le Corbusier, project for Chandigarh (1951-1965): panoramic drawing of the
Capital. © FLC
Le Corbusier, project for Chandigarh (1951-1965): tree-planting project
LC CHAND 4475, signed by Germán Samper, responsible for this section of
the project. © FLC 5283.
Le Corbusier, project for Chandigarh (1951-1965): tree-planting project V4 LC
CHAND 4469, signed by Germán Samper, responsible for this section of the
project. © FLC 5284.
schemes to plant different species that today are mature trees.
Le Corbusier was told by the authorities not to work with
high-rise buildings, because local customs didn’t make them
viable solutions. Again his desire for a tower to house the
ministries was thwarted and he was obliged to replace it with
a lower, more longitudinal building that I was lucky enough
to design. Those who’ve visited Chandigarh say that it’s a
beautiful and habitable city.
RD:
Finally, Germán, what influence did your experience in Le
Corbusier’s practice have on your architecture and on your
work as an urban planner? Did it have an impact on Esguerra
Sáenz and Samper?
GS:
After five years of working with an architect of the calibre of
Le Corbusier, with his strong personality and highly characteristic
architecture, it wasn’t easy to find my own path. I’ve
thought a lot about this and come to some conclusions that
I’d like to share with you.
Le Corbusier’s influence on the projects I’ve worked on
as designer at Esguerra Sáenz and Samper is clear. There’s
a freedom in the way the organism, that is to say the architect,
shapes and forms himself as he goes along, looking for
rationality without being subject to the pre-established canons
such as symmetry, axes of composition and other design
practices from earlier times. There’s a strong sense of what
role each part of the town council should play. There’s also a
search for the essential in each space, but at the same time a
simple, elemental treatment; what would be called minimalist
today. There is a phobia of the superfluous, the decorative.
Structure plays an important role in this kind of architecture,
and especially in the use of concrete, a material that is synonymous
with the architecture of our time and which still doesn’t
cease to surprise us.
The Sena building was an attempt to maximise the potential
of the material, and the Avianca building can put into
the same category, where structure is the protagonist. The
head office of the Banco Central Hipotecario has 30-meter-
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
147

Esguerra, Saenz, Urdaneta and Samper, SENA building (1958): perspective of
the project. © G. Samper
148 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Esguerra, Saenz, Urdaneta and Samper, drawing of the firm’s three buildings in the northeast edge of the Parque Santander: edificio Avianca (1967-1970); Banco
Central Hipotecario (1963-1967) and the Museo del Oro (1968). © G. Samper
Esguerra, Sáenz and Samper, Raul Fajardo, Velez and Jorge Manjarréz. Edificio
Coltejer (1972). Drawing by Germán Samper, project perspective.
© G. Samper

long windows on the lower floors and 9-meter corbels on the
upper floors, and the Pan American building has 18-meterlong
windows and exterior columns. In the Coltejer building,
too, structure is the main aspect. The Gold Museum, on the
other hand, with its impeccable geometry and uncompromising
perspective, is born more of Le Corbusier’s purist period,
as are the CAM building in Cali and the convention centre in
Cartagena. The first buildings I mentioned draw more on his
last, brutalist period, when I was at his practice.
It was perhaps inevitable that at some point, living in Colombia
and experiencing its inequality, I would come to question
my career path and my social responsibility. I came across a
self-build project for a group of 100 homes, and it changed
my way of thinking. I began thinking about cheap housing
solutions for people on low incomes. I mean the La Fragua
project. For the vast majority of the population, housing is a
challenging issue and and a social engagement. Progressively
designed self-build houses came to mind, and I began
to move away from the urbanist idea of “housing units” raised
to free up the ground beneath them.
I distanced myself from the proponents of the horizontal
and vertical garden city and began to focus on the idea of
low-rise, compact and high-density housing. I started to explore
new ways of occupying space, urban precincts shaped
by architecture that set me on a radically different course to
that of Le Corbusier’s “radiant city”. This process led to my
designs for the tenement blocks of Real de Minas in Bucaramanga
and Colsubsidio in Bogota, and the Previ project in
Peru. I began to feel the need to write a book on the subject.
The strange epilogue to this tale is that Le Corbusier had
proposed this type of housing in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, but
the plans were buried. Recognising the significance of the
prototypes proposed by him 60 years ago, and that are still
valid nowdays, is an act of justice to whom was my.
63. Drawing by Germán Samper, Museo del Oro (1968): perspective of the project. © G. Samper
Germán Samper, project for La Fragua, Bogota (1958): perspective of a group of houses. © G. Samper
Germán Samper, Ciudadela Real de Minas, Bucaramanga (1977): perspective of the plaza. © G.
Samper
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
149

María Cecilia O’Byrne Orozco: Architect, Universidad de los Andes(1988),
Master’s Degree in History of Architecture (1993) and Ph.D. in Architectural
Projects (2008) at Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya, Escuela
Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Barcelona with the dissertation Le
Corbusier’s project of the Venice Hospital, directed by Josep Quetglas.
Associate Professor at Universidad de Los Andes. Director of the research
group Project, City and Architecture of the same university since 2008.
Director of the journal DeArquitectura (may 2008–February 2010). Participated
on the program of educational development between may 2004 and
may 2006. Beneficiary of the studies funding of Fondation Le Corbusier
(2003) and of the scholarship for studies abroad Cataluña of the Generalitat
de Catalunya (2005). Coordinator and professor of de Master Program
Project, City and Architecture, directed by Antonio Armesto, in the UPC-
ETSAB (2002-2007). She has written numerous articles, among others, in
Massilia, anuario de studios lecorbuserianos y en Le Corbusier – Plans.
Winner in the funding of the Consejo Nacional Profesional de Arquitectura
y Profesiones Auxiliares for the publishing of the books Le Corbusier
in Bogota, 1947-1951 (2008) and Spirals, labyrinths and swastikas in the
museums of Le Corbusier, 1928-1939 (2009).
Ricardo Daza Caicedo: Architect, Universidad Nacional de Colombia with the
project Counterproposal of the south University, which received the prize
‘Salón de Octubre’ in Medellin. Master in History, Art, Architecture and City
at the Universidad Politécnica de Barcelona (1997), with the support of a
scholarship of Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana. The thesis Looking
for Mies, published in Barcelona and translated to English and German.
Ph.D. at Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya, with a scholarship
from Colciencias and the support of Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
His research reconstructs day by day the famous Travel to the Orient that
Le Corbusier made in 1911. Ricardo Daza has been visiting professor of
various universities and research centres in Colombia and abroad.
150 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
1 There are two versions of this interview, an audio and a printed one. The
printed version is a text written by Germán Samper in response to questions
we had set previously. The audio is a recording of an interview we
did with him at his home on 1 August 2009. We decided not to transcribe
the interview, given the meticulous and thorough written answers Germán
provided in preparation for it. Rather we have kept the two formats. The
above is the written version, and the accompanying DVD contains the audio
version. The two compliment each other.
2 Eduardo Zuleta Ángel had the honour of being Colombia’s representative
at the first ever UN general assembly, which took place on 10 January
1946 in the presence of diplomats from its 51 member states. He headed
the commission that studied, approved and awarded the contract for the
new organisation’s headquarters in New York, and he became friends with
Le Corbusier.
3 Fernando Mazuera Villegas was born in Pereira on 20 August 1906 and
died in New York in 1978. He was mayor of Bogota twice, first from January
1947 to March 1948 under the government of Mariano Ospina Pérez; and
again after the fateful Bogotazo, from 19 April 1948 to 24 March 1949. This
meant he was in office at the time of Le Corbusier’s first visit in June 1947,
and the two men signed the contract for the masterplan on his second
visit in February 1949.
4 At the time, all except Carlos Martínez were young architects who had
graduated from the National university in Bogota. They all had links to the
academic world and became important figures in modern architecture in
Colombia. Along with Jorge Arango, Carlos Martínez founded the magazine
Proa, which he edited for 30 years. He was also dean of the faculty of
architecture at the National university.
5 Yeóryos Kandýlis (1913-1995), better know as George Candilis, studied
architecture in Athens. At the 1933 CIAM he met Le Corbusier, who later
entrusted him with leading the French engineering company Ascoral. He
Above: Esguerra Saenz and Samper, Ciudadela Colsubsidio (1986). Below: GX Samper Arquitectos, project for the
Ciudadela Colsubsidio, Bogota (1986-2010): plan of the project. © G. Samper
then joined Atbat in Africa, where he was responsible for a number of
world-renowned projects. He was also a member of Team 10.
6 Le Corbusier, Modulor, Essai su une mesure harmonique a l’echelle humaine
applicable universallement a l’architecture et a la mécanique,
Edición L’architecture ‘aujourd’hui, Boulogne, 1955.
7 Each design produced at 35 rue de Sèvres was signed against by the person
responsible in a register known as the “black book”, which means that
one can see who drew up the plans for each of the projects at the practice.
The first signature of a Colombian to appear was that of Rogelio Salmona
on 16 August 1948. The first signature relating to the Bogota project appears
on 8 February 1950, and registers a sketch by Le Corbusier. The last
three entries for the Bogota project are signed by Samper, Valencia and
Salmona. They register drawing numbers 4307 to 4309 and are dated 1
April 1951.
8 The CIAM were set up by a group of European architects in Switzerland in
1928. The acronym refers both to the organisation, the International Congress
of Modern Architecture, and the annual conferences it organised.
The idea was to create a united front of the Modern movement to counter
the predominant Beaux Arts tradition in Europe. In 1933, the fourth CIAM
published the Athens charter, an attempt to put down in writing the fundamentals
of the modern, or functional city. Following growing criticism from
Team 10 – itself set up at the 10 th CIAM – and a polarisation of opinions
within the group, the CIAM ceased to function in 1959. Le Corbusier had
stopped taking part some years before.
Cf. Eric Munford, The CIAM Discourses on Urbanism 1928-60, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Londres, 2000.
9 Alfonso López Pumarejo (31 January 1886 – 20 November 1959) was
twice president of Colombia, from 1934 - 1938 and from 1942 – 1945. He
was elected as a Communist party candidate to his first term, which he
called “revolution on the march”, and he instituted important constitutional
reforms to modernise the concept of the Colombian state. He implement-

ed much change during his terms in office, including agricultural, fiscal
and education reforms, and introduced economic policies similar to those
of the New Deal in the United States.
10 Leopold Seighfried Rother Cuhn (1894 – 1978) was born in Germany and
began his career there. He fled to Colombia in 1935, where he worked for
the Public Buildings Directorate until 1961. He produced the majority of
his architectural works during this period, including Bogota’s university
city (the original main campus at the National university) and the National
building in Barranquilla. From 1938 until his death he was also a lecturer at
the Universidad Nacional. He was made a Colombian citizen in 1948 and
was awarded the Boyacá cross in 1977.
11 Bruno Violi (1909 – 1971) was an Italian architect born in Milan. He arrived
in Colombia in 1939 and remained there for the rest of his life. From 1945
he worked for the National Buildings Directorate, and was for many years a
visiting professor at the National and Javeriana universities. He designed
a number of important institutional, residential and office buildings.
12 In a letter to Eduardo Zuleta Ángel, La Corbusier reveals his worry about
the silence from Bogota and his sadness at the prospect of losing his work
in Latin America to Sert and Wiener. He had heard rumours from Bogotathat
the mayor Fernando Mazuera considered him “too modernist”. The
letter is dated 2 February 1948 and carries the reference FLC H3-4-258.
13 Fernando Martínez (1925 - 1991) was born in Madrid and lived in the
Spanish capital until he was 13. He graduated in Colombia from the Universidad
Nacional, where he subsequently lectured for many years in urban
planning. He was a CIAM member and worked with the Office of the
Regulatory Plan for Bogota (ORPB) to draw up the report for the Cap Martin
meeting. He designed a number of important buildings in Colombia,
including the Caja Agraria building in Barranquilla, the economics faculty
at the Universidad Nacional and the Wilkie house.
14 The contract that sets out the terms and conditions for the development
and implementation of the regulatory plan (reference FLC H3-4-473)
15 Following the Cap Martin meeting, which produced the masterplan, a correspondence
was struck up between Sert, Le Corbusier and the ORPB. It
consisted of recommendations and news about the Bogota project from
the practice in Paris to the ORPB, requests for information, news from the
Bogota office, and many clarifications from Le Corbusier, which often included
the dispatch of schemes and drawings to Bogota and to the office
of Wiener and Sert in New York.
16 Carlos Hernández, The Modernist Ideas of the 1950 Plan for Bogota: the
work of Le Corbusier, Wiener and Sert, the Urban Culture Observatory,
Bogota city council, 2004.
17 The period leading up to Le Corbusier’s third visit to Colombia, from 18
February to 22 September 1950, was a difficult time for the masterplan.
In an October 1949 letter to Le Corbusier (reference H3-4-173), Wiener
wrote that the political upheaval in Colombia had put the country on hold,
and that “civil war” was expected. Herbert Ritter, the director of the ORPB
at the time, wrote to Le Corbusier on 28 November 1949 (reference H3-4-
165) to tell him that he had been dismissed and that Fernando Martínez
would no longer be working with the office on the masterplan. In addition,
the central and municipal governments who would receive the plan were
no longer Liberal but Conservative. On his two 1950 trips, Le Corbusier
spent a total of 40 days in Colombia.
18 A 1953 letter from Le Corbusier to Félix Trujillo, the mayor of Bogota at the
time (reference FLC H3-4-28) recounts the inauguration of the Marseilles
housing unit and its tenants’ association the year before. The party to mark
to the 25 th anniversary of the CIAM was also held on the roof there, while
1,500 people slept below.
19 The first drawing of the civic centre is dated February 1949 and appears
in folder number B5-332. There are two perspectives, one of which shows
the Primada cathedral with a tall building beside it. Below a view of a
street, with the words “the market is raised to the second floor”.
20 Le Corbusier had to deal with many mayors of Bogota in a short period
of time, which made completing the Plan more complicated. The mayors
in office during the contract period for the Pilot Plan were Fernando
Mazuera (from January 1947 until March 1948, and from April 1948 until
March 1949); Manuel de Vengoechea (10 days during April 1948); Carlos
Reyes Posada (1949); Gregorio Obregón (1949) and Santiago Trujillo
(1949 - 1952). During the contract period for the Regulatory Plan, the city’s
mayor were Manuel Briceño Pardo (1952 -– 1953); Colonel Julio Cervantes
(1953 – 1954); and Roberto Salazar Gómez (1954 – 1955). Over the same
periods, the presidents of Colombia were Mariano Ospina Pérez (1946 -–
1950); Laureano Gómez Castro (1950 - 1951); Roberto Urdaneta Arbeláez
(1951 – 1953); and, following a mi
The Pilot Plan seen by Germán Samper | M. C. O'Byrne and R. Daza
151

Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan
Patricia Schnitter Castellanos
This article examines the period that the architects Sert, Wiener,
and Le Corbusier spent in Colombia dealing with the vicissitudes
of their proposal for the Plan Regulador para Bogota
(Regulatory Plan). It identifies four moments during the
“coming and going” that occurred between signing the contract
in 1947 and the delivery of the Plan in 1953. These moments
coincide with the preparation of the Pilot Plans for the
cities of Medellin and Cali as well as the role they played in
the International Congresses of Modern Architecture (CIAM).
The presence of Sert and Wiener in Colombia and, of course,
that of Le Corbusier, provided a direct line of contact between
these figures of the architecture associated with the CIAM
and Colombian architects, enabling modern thinking on town
planning to be introduced and to gain ground in the country.
Le Corbusier’s visit and the signing of the contract
Le Corbusier’s visit to Bogota in June 1947 opened up the possibility
for Josep Lluís Sert and Paul Lester Wiener to work in
the country with him as consultants on the Regulatory Plan for
the Colombian capital—though the contract would not eventually
be signed until 1949. After his visit Le Corbusier commented
to Sert that it was possible he would be contracted as
a consultant on the Bogota Master Plan and proposed that Sert
should join him; in a letter to Sert from July 1947 Wiener wrote:
I am glad you mentioned the fee that Corbu has obtained for
consulting work for the master Plan of Bogota, […] I am very
glad for his sake and presume that he will go to Bogota several
times a year. In all cases where we collaborate we should
make it a point that our names receive the proper recognition.
152 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
This suggests that Le Corbusier had commented on the possibility
of his participation to Sert and invited them to collaborate
too. 1
However, the first contract Wiener and Sert signed in Colombia
was not for the Bogota Regulatory Plan but to provide
advice on the Pilot Plan for a small city in the south of the country,
Tumaco, which had been partially destroyed in October
1947 when fire devastated the center. Faced with this tragedy
the national government decided there should be a response
from the center and designated the Sección de Edificios Nacionales
(Section for National Buildings) of the Ministry of Public
Works to prepare the corresponding plans. 2
The proposal to employ Wiener and Sert on the Plan for
Tumaco came from the architect Jorge Gaitán Cortés, Technical
Director of Edificios Nacionales, towards the end of 1947.
Gaitán Cortés, a graduate of Bogota’s Universidad Nacional
de Colombia had completed his studies at Yale University between
1944 and 1945; it is not entirely clear whether he was
a student of Sert’s during his time at the university, but Sert’s
reputation, and that of Wiener, were such at this time that he
considered it safe to contract them, confident that they would
apply the principles of “modern urbanism”.
The presence of Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener in Colombia
provided local architects with the opportunity to develop
contacts with representatives of the CIAM approach to architecture,
and as a result series of events was put into motion
that saw the introduction of the ideas of modern urbanism to
the country and the expansion of those ideas.
The advice provided for the Tumaco project, which was
developed in stages, provided Sert and Wiener with an opportunity
to intersperse the work they were developing at that
time in Lima with the commitments of their New York practice.
Furthermore for Sert, who was president of the CIAM, the
contract provided an opportunity to disseminate in Colombia,
as well as Peru, the ideology of the CIAM recently redefined
in the sixth Congress held in Bridgewater (United Kingdom). 3
Sert had remarked on this opportunity to Giedion, the secretary
of the CIAM, before his visit to Lima:
I intend to stay down there until the beginning of May. From
Lima I hope to be able to work for CIAM by organizing a local
group there and establishing closer contact with all Latin
American delegates. [...] I will work on the preparation of the
VII th congress program which, as I told you in a previous letter,
needs clarification. It will be very useful to get Corbu’s
“grilles” as soon as possible. 4
By February 1948, when Wiener and Sert arrived in Bogota
to start work on the first stage of the contract, the team of architects
working at Edificios Nacionales had been engaged
in gathering the necessary information for some time. Gaitán
Cortés accompanied them to the islands of Tumaco and el
Morro, in order to inspect the destruction of the city and the
site where it was to be rebuilt. This stage was very productive:
a preliminary Pilot Plan was rapidly established, and a maquette
built. The team assigned to work on the Tumaco Plan
was led by Jorge Gaitán Cortés (later to be replaced by Gonzalo
Samper) and included the architects Eduardo Mejía,
Hernán Vieco, Fernando Martínez, Édgar Burbano and Luz
Amorocho. Sert emphasized the great enthusiasm with which
the young architects at Edificios Nacionales approached the
project. On his return to Lima at the end of the first stage, he
wrote in a letter to Gropius: “We are very busy working here

and have got a new job in Bogota so that I do not expect to be
back in New York until June 2 nd . [...] There is a very fine group
of young people in Bogota. They are doing excellent work. A
group of ten is going to join the CIAM”. 5
The Colombian CIAM group was established during this
subsequent visit to Bogota. Sert wrote to Le Corbusier saying,
“Bogota forme un ASCORAL local, qui sera le CIAM Colombien
selon vos indications”. 6 In his first visit to Colombia
in June 1947, Le Corbusier had proposed the establishment
of a cell of the Assemblée de Constructeurs pour une Rénovation
Architecturale (ASCORAL). “The ASCORAL is an
international association of professionals, linked as a result
of their training, to the urban question, and whose aim is the
improvement of living conditions around the world “, he told
the Colombian press during his visit. 7 Members of the group
included Jorge Gaitán Cortés, Álvaro Ortega, Gabriel Solano,
Fernando Martínez, Augusto Tobito, Juvenal Moya, Eduardo
Mejía, Alberto Iriarte, Gonzalo Samper and Jorge Arango
Sanín, 8 most of whom worked at Edificios Nacionales.
Sert also mentioned the group of young architects to
Giedion:
“There is a very good young group over there—the best after
Brazil. We held a CIAM meeting and a local CIAM group
with ten members has been formed. They are interested in
participating in the next Congress. [...] Naturally, this is a temporary
group that will submit their work for consideration to
next Congress”. 9
The group was officially admitted during the seventh Congress
held in 1949 in Bergamo.
The Tumaco work continued during the first three months
of 1949. At the same time, the Colombian CIAM group was
working on the presentation of the Tumaco project which was
to be presented at the seventh Congress in July, according to
the parameters proposed for the CIAM grilles that had been
established by Le Corbusier and the French Ascoral group. 10
The grille was a method of visual presentation explained by
Le Corbusier in the following terms: “The experience I had at
Bridgwater, made me determined to find some visual method
that could do away with these mountains of paper; for though
the eye can register exceeding [sic] quickly the reading of
reports is an exceeding slow job”. 11
The great enthusiasm with which the young architects—
and in particular their representative—championed the “New
Architecture” and the transformations it could effect in the
country characterized the atmosphere leading up to the Congress.
In May 1949, Gaitán Cortés mentioned his interest in
entering politics to Wiener and Sert; he wanted to stand for the
Bogota city council representing the Sociedad de Arquitectos
e Ingenieros (the Society of Architects and Engineers) and
with the backing of the Federación Nacional de Sindicatos
de la Construcción (the National Federation of Construction
Groups). One of his motivations was to defend the Bogota
Regulatory Plan from possible attacks and to begin to work
for the legislative framework that would be necessary for its
implementation: “Our generation is the only one that can resolve
our problems, and the truth will be evident very soon”. 12
The diffusion of the New Architecture created interest
among professionals in joining the CIAM. The need to permit
new architects into the group and the emergence of a
broader perspective created a certain level of expectation,
which Gaitán Cortés mentioned to Sert and Wiener:
I believe that the system of closed doors and complete isolation
is necessary in Europe, where the struggle between our
tendency and the conservative gentlemen is violent and has
been going on for many years now. In Europe it is the reactionaries
who have power and not us. But in the Americas,
and above all in South America, and especially in Colombia,
the CIAM is far from being the opposition—far from it: we
hold the reins. We are the ones who get things done, not the
people weho criticize. 13
The training of groups in the different Latin American countries,
the creation of architectural schools, and the enthusiasm
of the young architects were sufficient motivation for
organizing a congress in the Americas. In June, before the
seventh Congress in Bergamo, Sert commented to Gropius:
[….] I believe that the proposal for the next Congress to deal
with architectural education is a good one, and I have been
considering the possibility of suggesting having this con-
gress somewhere in the American continent. […] There are
quite a few young groups in South America, as you know,
and the universities and schools of architecture are easier
to reorganize there than in many European countries. Quite
a number of them, like the University de Los Andes, are just
starting anew, and there are many good people who would
be willing to adopt the CIAM proposals. Cuba, Bogota or
Lima would be possible meeting places, and I am sure we
would get a very lively Congress, although many people from
Europe would not be able to attend. This would reverse the
present situation in that many people from America cannot
go to Europe to partake in the Congress today. This Congress
should be held in 1951. 14
Concerning the possibility of holding a Congress in America,
Gaitán Cortés said to Sert:
It seems like a wonderful idea to me. I think, without exaggerating,
that it is only fair that we should meet in this new continent.
It would give it a truly international character, increase
levels of optimism among the new groups, especially the
South Americans. It would let the Europeans see our problems,
our enthusiasm and our possibilities, and in general,
for all these reasons the CIAM would receive an invigorating
shot that would do it a lot of good. 15
He proposed Bogota as host for the Congress, bearing in
mind, if the proposal were accepted, that by 1951 a series of
urban planning proposals would have been developed in the
country that could be presented. This would imbue the projects
with great importance, as well as providing an important
incentive for their completion. In 1949 the contracts for the
Pilot Plans for Medellin, Cali, and Bogota had all been signed
and were in the process of being elaborated.
The Colombian group’s request for CIAM membership
was accepted and it was agreed that the Plan for Tumaco
would be presented at the Congress. However, the truth of
the matter was that shortly after the reconstruction of the city
was announced in the press it became clear that funds for
the project had run out; it was never to fulfill the expectations
announced at the start. Towards the end of the 1950s,
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan | Patricia Schnitter
153

when conversations were initiated about developing new cities
in Venezuela, Sert commented to his friend, the architect
Carlos Guinand, in Caracas: “The job with the Orinoco Mining
Company seems extremely interesting although starting
a new city is one of the most difficult problem [sic]. We have
had this experience with our Brazilian project and with those
of Chimbote and Tumaco”. 16
The creation of the CIAM group in the city of Medellin may
be associated with Le Corbusier’s first visit to Colombia in
1947, when he went to the city between 25 and 27 June. The
architect Antonio Mesa Jaramillo wrote:
We should be very proud of this visit by one of the greatest creative
geniuses in the history of humanity and we should accept
his teachings with fervor, ensuring that this visit marks the beginning
of a new era of greatness for Medellin fulfilling its promise
to become the most beautiful and efficient city in Colombia. 17
With these words Mesa Jaramillo ended his “Welcome to Le
Corbusier”, an article in which he explained the theory of the
Radiant City. Le Corbusier had given a public talk at the Palacio
de Bellas Artes, toured the city, and visited the Architecture
Faculty. When he was asked his opinion about the direction
the city should take, he said that it was impossible for
him to answer, because he did not command all the facts. In
his lecture he had spoken of the vastness of the discipline of
architecture, which ranged from furniture to building design
to the improvement of whole cities. “So it’s a question of clarifying
your intentions”. Mesa Jaramillo wrote in his article that
Le Corbusier explained how in modern cities it was important
to separate pedestrians from cars completely. In his view, the
problem faced by man [sic] consisted in creating an environment
where he could exercise his four essential functions: to
live, to work, to develop his physical and spiritual identity, and
to travel from place to place 18 .
Mesa Jaramillo occupied an important position in Medellin
as promoter of the New Architecture. As Dean of the Architecture
Faculty at the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana between
1949 and 1961, he advanced the positions of the CIAM
in a series of articles in different publications. In 1950, he
had participated in the commission established to evaluate
154 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
the Pilot Plan, and arranged contact between his students
and Sert and Wiener during their regular visits to advise on
the Regulatory Plan. According to the terms of a 1951 law,
his role as Dean of the Architecture Faculty gave him membership
on the plan’s managing committee. He was also the
delegate of the newly created Medellin CIAM group that had
been accepted by the eighth Congress held in the United
Kingdom. The young architects who took part in the group
were known as the 9AC (Nine Contemporary Architects). The
group intended to prepare a presentation for the ninth Congress
to be held in Aix en Provence, but in the end were unable
to send any projects there.
Le Corbusier ‘s visit to Colombia in 1947 had stimulated
the interest of Colombian architects in creating CIAM groups,
and this interest was strengthened as a result of the contact
with the CIAM president, Josep Lluís Sert, which began in
1948 when contracts were awarded for various urban development
plans in the country. However, as the plans progressed,
interest in the CIAM groups declined, as the difficulty
in maintaining them became clearer. Additionally, it is
likely that ongoing discussions between the young architects
played a role, too, because the truth was that circumstances
in Latin America were very different to those in other parts of
the world. Sert understood this at an early stage, as is clear
from the following comment to Giedion in 1952:
There is no doubt that world matters change and that young
people are not living under the same conditions we did twenty
years ago. It is not only a lack of interest, but, we should
not forget that work conditions have changed and that the
fight for Modern Architecture cannot be engaged on the
same basis of before [sic]. For example, young Architects
in South America are all doing Modern, good or bad, and no
one discusses the approach any longer. The problems they
have to face are those of better building techniques, materials,
and the different social approaches to the whole matter.
They cannot do very much about this as individuals. They do
not see what the congress has to offer them [...]. 19
Meanwhile, in Bogota the final decisions were still to be made
about the Regulatory Plan, and concerning Le Corbusier’s
contract as consulting town planner, as Sert informed Le Corbusier
after he had passed through Bogota in development of
his role as advisor to the Tumaco plan. The mayor, Mazuera,
had recently resigned; his replacement appeared indecisive
and had not yet approved the decree authorizing the budget.
Sert also referred to the recent visit of Marcel Breuer to
Bogoa:
Breuer qui a été à Bogota dernièrement a fait des démarches
pour avoir cette commande, il est pousse par une partie des
jeunes. On nous affait aussi des propositions pour cette affaire,
mais nous avons dit au Maire et aux jeunes que c’est
vous qui devez faire ce travail, puisque c’est a vous qu’ils ont
parle le premier, et parce que vous pouvez le faire mieux que
personne d’autre. La plus part des jeunes sont de cet avis, le
Maire je crois aussi, mais la politique s’en mêle...! Nous vous
disons tout ça confidentiel ment. 20
Le Corbusier replied:
Vous me dites que le Maire a démissionné. Vous me dites
que Breuer a été à Bogotá faire des démarches pour avoir
la commande des plans de la ville. Je trouve cela révoltant,
autant de la part de Breuer que de la part des Colombiens.
On m’a fait venir à Bogotá en avion, préparer une organisation
ATBAT considérable pour Bogotá, discuter pendant
plusieurs séances avec leur envoyé spécial à Paris. Il ne va
de soi que sans le Plan de Bogotá je ne fais pas une succursale
ATBAT en Colombie. Je trouve tout cela très inamical
de la part de ceux qui ont trempé dans cette affaire. Je vous
demande, amicalement, de bien vouloir juger sur place de
la situation. Je vous laisse discuter pour moi. Je vous donne
copie de nos dernières propositions. 21
The events of 9 April 1948, provoked by the murder of the
political leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in Bogota, caused the
destruction by fire of a vast area of the commercial center of
the city, increasing the urgency of the reconstruction plans.
Completion of the Bogota Regulatory Plan was more pressing
than ever 22 .
In September 1948 the Bogota city council 23 approved the
establishment of the Oficina del Plan Regulador para Bogota

Wiener, Le Corbusier and Sert in Bogota to sign in 1949 the contract. © FLC
(Office of the Bogota Regulatory Plan, or OPRB), agreeing “to
contract internationally recognized foreign technical experts
in the production of regulatory proposals in order to structure
the office”. 24 The architect Herbert Ritter was named as director
of the OPRB and a five stage work plan was adopted. 25
During a brief visit to Bogota between 25 and 28 February
1949, Le Corbusier signed the consultancy contract jointly
with Wiener and Sert. The magazine Proa 26 wrote:
the unexpected visit passed by almost unperceived here. But
today, modern architects all over the world will know that Le
Corbusier will be developing the town planning study that the
Colombian capital is crying out for.
The contract was to run from the beginning of March 1949
and be completed by August 1952. The local press reported
the event: “The Regulatory Plan will be developed in Bogota,
New York and Paris”.
A vital step has been taken for the future development of the
city, because [the Plan] employs a realistic approach, correcting
certain intrinsic defects in the new theories of town
planning and architecture.
[...] the architect Sert said that for the first time in history the
Regulatory Plan of a city is to be elaborated simultaneously in
three different places: Bogota, New York and Paris.
We have divided the technical work up into sections in order
to be able to complete the work as quickly as possible.
We—Sert said, referring to himself and Mr. Wiener— will work
in the most cordial and friendly of ways with Professor Le
Corbusier, focusing always on what is most appropriate to the
needs of Bogota. We have reached a technical agreement to
produce a Regulatory Plan, and we trust that the result will be
satisfactory to all. 27
Le Corbusier’s contract with the city as consultant on the Regulatory
Plan established the following functions and services:
a) technical advisor responsible for developing the basic
preliminary scheme during the second stage of the Plan, b)
technical advisor responsible for developing the Plan Director
(Pilot Plan), that is, during the third stage of the Plan, and
c) technical consultant during the preparation of the Regulatory
Plan, that is, during its fourth stage.
Sert and Wiener were contracted as: a) technical advisors
to the OPRB during the first stage comprising the analysis
of the city, b) technical advisors responsible for the second
stage, c) technical consultants during the elaboration of
the Pilot Plan, and d) technical advisors to the OPRB for the
development of the Regulatory Plan. Their duties included
leading and overseeing the work of the OPRB during the first
stage, elaborating the basic preliminary scheme in coordination
with the consultant for the other stages and with the
OPRB, acting as technical advisors for the development of
the Pilot Plan, and developing the Regulatory Plan jointly with
the OPRB. 28
Development of the Pilot Plan
During the months following the signature of the contract, the
OPRB worked on the analysis of the city and the collection of
materials for the meeting planned for Paris in August where
the outline of the plan would be agreed and which Herbert
Ritter, Director of the OPRB, would attend. In the end, the
meeting was held in Roquebrune-Cap Martin between the 6
and 22 August, with the participation of Le Corbusier, Sert
and Wiener as well as Ritter. 29
The second meeting was held, as planned, in Bogota in
February 1950. Its objective was to “program and define the
first phases of implementation, and analyze data, plans, and
the OPRB’s early proposals”; Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener
were expected to remain in Bogota for two weeks. Before
traveling to Colombia, Le Corbusier expressed his uncertainty
concerning the progress it was hoped the meeting would
achieve, but Wiener and Sert recommended that, because of
the delicate political situation in the country, it was advisable
to fulfill the terms of the contract and travel to Bogota. 30
The political violence in Colombia between the principal
political parties, the Liberal and the Conservative, had intensified
towards the end of 1949. Congress had been closed in
November, and in protest at this authoritarian measure of the
President Ospina Pérez the Liberal Party had abstained from
voting in the presidential elections, which went ahead anyway,
leading to the unopposed election of the Conservative
candidate Laureano Gómez. In a letter to Wiener and Sert,
Herbert Ritter, director of the OPRB, explained:
The situation in the country is chaotic, with an average of
twenty deaths a day. Nobody does any work. [...] In the city
the situation is as follows: [the mayor] Obregon’s resignation
has been accepted and Santiago Trujillo Gómez named as
his replacement. [...] I expect to be sacked along with the
employees of Public Works on Monday, because the new city
council meets on 1 November. 31
The architect Carlos Arbeláez Camacho, who had previously
been in charge of the National Building Section of the Ministry
of Public Works, was appointed as the new director of the
OPRB.
Wiener and Sert arrived in Bogota after presenting the Medellin
Pilot Plan and met with Le Corbusier and the technical
group at the OPRB. In a press release the OPRB provided information
on progress to date and on the most important activities
of the architects during the time they had spent in the
capital. The communiqué concluded by saying “the mayor, the
members of the [OPRB] and Messers Le Corbusier, Wiener,
and Sert wish to explain what they have achieved up until now
in order to avoid erroneous conclusions that have been drawn
concerning the activities of the Bogota Regulatory Plan”. 32
During this visit to Colombia, Le Corbusier, Wiener, and Sert
were invited by the mayor of Barranquilla to develop a Regula-
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan | Patricia Schnitter
155

Le Corbusier, Carnets 2–D14–29 : “the city of Baran[quilla]// the industrial city
stretches to the sea // highway // Puerto Colombia // pink Magdalena River //
lagoon // dike // sea // ocean waves the 8 th of March of 1950 // (from the plane)”.
© FLC L4-4-14
tory Plan for the Caribbean port city, which at the time was undergoing
a process of industrialization and economic growth.
The reactivation of its port was leading to accelerated growth
that, as in the case of Cali and Medellin, was rapid and disorderly
and had, in less than twenty years, transformed a quiet
village into a bustling commercial and manufacturing center.
After visiting the city, Le Corbusier said that it urgently required
a building regulation plan “because it is very probable
that over the next few years [Barranquilla] will become a major
city, easily rivaling other important South American cities
as a result of its industrial activity and, above all, it’s extremely
important fluvial and maritime port activities”. 33
It is expected that this city in few years may become a great
city, of intense movement, which easily rival the great cities
of South America for its industrial movement and, above all,
because is a center of fluvial, maritime and air activity of tremendous
importance.
After the visit the three architects communicated their proposed
fees to the mayor, but nothing came of the approach
because the administration was unable to cover the high
costs implied.
156 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Following the February meeting in Bogota, the OPRB was
granted greater autonomy under the terms of Act 154; it absorbed
the various town planning sections within the Municipal
Office of Public Works according to a division of responsibilities
whereby the existing staff of the OPRB concentrated on
research activities and the newly incorporated sections on the
development of the Regulatory Plan, direct service provision,
and relations with the public; additionally, a planning advisory
board was created, chaired by the mayor. The OPRB maintained
constant communication with Sert and Wiener. One of
the principal challenges consisted in the difficulty of granting
requests to construct new residential complexes and establish
service provision when the road plan was yet to be decided, as
approval might compromise the future development of the plan.
Furthermore, the growth of the city was unstoppable and the
most urgent challenge involved the definition of the city limits.
The deadline for completion of the plan was August 1950. On
7 August the Conservative president Laureano Gómez was
inaugurated, most Liberals refusing to accept his government
as legitimate, “a fact that was used as justification for all
kinds of violence committed against the new administration,
while for Conservatives it was enough to accuse all Liberals
of disloyalty”, 34 and producing a climate of speculation about
how the political situation might develop.
On 1 September, Le Corbusier, Wiener, and Sert arrived
again in Bogota in order to present the Pilot Plan to the mayor
and other high-ranking officials. The press reported that an
exhibition would be organized to present the plan, providing
a detailed presentation of the development and progress of
the city, in which “the advantages of the machine age and the
sufferings it has brought with it would be compared”, and allowing
the public to understand why the Regulatory Plan was
necessary. 35
Approval of the Pilot Plan
Once the plan had been delivered, the OPRB initiated a process
of examination of its pros and cons and discussion of its
approval that, it was expected, would last one or two weeks.
After this stage, the plan would be handed over to the Mayor
and thence to the President. 36 Le Corbusier, Wiener, and
Sert remained in the city for three weeks attending a series of
meetings. Subsequently, Wiener and Sert were to go to Cali to
present the plan for that city and then to Medellin to continue
their consultancy activities there before eventually returning
to New York. However, before finally leaving the country they
returned to Bogota to gather information about the development
of the Regulatory Plan.
Back in New York, Sert wrote to Gropius, telling him about
different aspects of his work in South America: “Work down
there was very interesting. Our plans for Bogota, Medellin
and Cali have been approved, and we have now come to the
most difficult moment—how to start the architectural working
plan”. 37 In truth, this was a very difficult period involving the
transfer of the general guidelines established in the Pilot Plan
to the concrete realities of each section of the city.
By November 1950, complications had arisen concerning
the approval of the Plan for Bogota; Wiener and Sert explained
to Le Corbusier the situation that had developed after
he had left. The principal objection to the Pilot Plan came
from the developers. There were 40 new development proposals
outside the city limits to the north and the south of
the city, covering an area of 18,000 hectares, equivalent to
approximately half of the urban area at the time. “It’s a major
challenge detaining this development. The only way to do
it would be with a Presidential Decree. [...] It’s a very delicate
situation”. At this stage the Pilot Plan had still not been
published or shown to the public, remaining confidential until
the Presidential Decree was approved. In the meantime, the
mayor, Trujillo Gómez, approved a series of public works that
were to be completed over the next five or six years, and had
already been included in the Pilot Plan. These included the
construction of the central wholesale market, new streets and
avenues, and low income housing. 38
Le Corbusier’s contract stipulated a final meeting in New
York in February 1951 in order to coordinate the research
necessary for the implementation of the Regulatory Plan.
After presenting the plan and returning from Colombia, Le

Corbusier had not received any feedback from the authorities.
For this reason he wrote to the mayor, informing him that
he had signed a contract to construct a new capital for the
Punjab: “Je ne suis pas mécontent du résultat obtenu par ce
qu’il s’agit là d’une Capitale entièrement neuve á construire
dans un site magnifique et cela avec la plus grande rapidité.
Je suis persuadé que vous partagerez ma satisfaction” 39 and
requesting some kind of communication so that he could
organize his next journey to India. The meeting planned for
New York was postponed until May and scheduled instead
for Bogota at the insistence of the mayor.
In May, Wiener and Sert were preparing their return to Bogota
in order to attend the meeting. In a letter to the architect Jacqueline
Tyrwhitt, Sert wrote, “We are working very hard these
days on the Bogota plans. The Pilot Plan has been officially
approved and the necessary legislation passed. This means
very much to us, as it affects the future of all our work in Colombia
very favorably”. 40 Sert was working at the time with
Tyrwhitt finalizing the publication of the book The Heart of the
City, as well as preparing the grilles for Chimbote and Medellin
that were to be presented at the eighth CIAM Congress
in July 1951.
The official acceptance they had been awaiting since the
presentation of the Plan was finally achieved with the promulgation
of Decree 185 on 5 April 1951. As a result, the Pilot
Plan acquired legal status as the provisional city planning
document and as the basis for the elaboration of the Regulatory
Plan, which was to be developed in detail over the next
two years by Wiener and Sert working with the OPRB. National
Decree 0693 had made it possible to overcome the
obstacles and facilitate approval. 41 The Pilot Plan was presented
in a series of public talks at the Sociedad Colombiana
de Arquitectos, which culminated with a public exhibition of
the plan, held between May 14 and June 20 at City Hall; Le
Corbusier and his advisors Sert and Wiener attended the inauguration.
The postponed New York meeting was held in Bogotabetween
11 and 25 May. The agenda included an analysis
of social housing, the organization of sectors, the road sys-
tem, the wholesale market, the presidential palace and civic
center, the city limits, and land outside the municipal boundary.
42 Future collaboration between the advisors was also discussed
at the meeting: the area occupied by the civic center
would be the subject of close collaboration during the period
of the contract, while any changes to the Pilot Plan and the
development of the Regulatory Plan for the rest of the city,
though the responsibility of Wiener and Sert, would require
the approval of Le Corbusier.
Once the meeting had concluded, Wiener and Sert traveled
to Cali, where they presented the Pilot Plan to industrialists
and journalists. Since the presentation of the plan the previous
year it had not been publicized further. Next, they went
to Caracas, where they initiated their advisory role for the planning
of the cities of Puerto Ordaz and Ciudad Piar in eastern
Venezuela. 43 From there they returned to New York to complete
preparations for the eighth CIAM Congress to be held in Hoddesdon
in the United Kingdom between 7 and 14 July.
During the eighth Congress, Sert and Wiener presented
the plans for the Medellin civic center that formed a part of
the Pilot Plan for that city, as an example of a new city center,
and Le Corbusier presented the Bogota civic center as a
model for a new kind of urban structure for a national capital.
In Bogota, the press reported the Congress under the
headline “From London: What they said about the Pilot Plan”,
summarizing the criticisms that the Colombian architects who
attended made of the plans for the Bogota civic center. 44
The Regulatory Plan
When Wiener and Sert left, the OPRB was faced with a very
serious situation. According to Arbeláez Camacho, the
OPRB’s director:
There is a great deal of uncertainty and discontent among
the public because of a series of unanswered questions
that have paralyzed a large percentage of activities in the
city. The mayor is extremely agitated by this situation, which
threatens to destroy everything that has been achieved up till
now and all future official planning. 45
He made particular mention of the road system, green spaces,
and zoning, suggesting that Sert should travel to Bogota for
no more than a month, accompanied by a team of transport
experts, in order to resolve the problems with the outstanding
projects. This would make it possible to find solutions to the
multiple problems that implied changes to the Pilot Plan, by
finding concrete solutions on the ground to problems it was
very difficult to resolve on paper.
Finally, between August and September 1951, Wiener
went to Bogota to meet with Arbeláez Camacho, the architect
Francisco Pizano, and other employees of the OPRB,
examining issues related to the practical implementation of
the Pilot Plan, such as street layout and categorization, the
plots where the markets and their surrounding areas were to
be built, the light industrial zone, and residential areas. 46
The problem of housing for the low income population was
also examined. A first group of 435 houses that the consultants
had worked on jointly with the OPRB was to be built on
the lands of the former Quiroga Hacienda, now property of the
city. It was to be financed by the Instituto de Crédito Territorial
(the Territorial Credit Institute, or ICT, responsible for developing
social housing). 47 The scheme was handed over the following
year. Two kinds of housing and construction methods
were selected: a system using load bearing walls topped with
hollow-brick vaulting, and all-concrete walls and vaults. The
inputs for the second method were provided by a Colombian
company called Vacuum Concrete using a patented US technique
involving an on-site process that the architects Álvaro
Ortega and Gabriel Solano had been using in Bogota.
It should be mentioned in passing that Ortega and Solano
represented an important alliance between engineers
and architects that introduced the possibility of technological
improvement to modern Colombian architecture. Ortega and
Solano had worked with Gaitán Cortés at Edificios Nacionales,
and had designed the baseball stadium in Cartagena.
A significant building built at this time was the bus service
station in Bogota, on which the engineer González Zuleta had
worked, and whose concrete-membrane vaulted roof had impressed
Le Corbusier, as he commented in a letter to Sert at
the end of 1951:
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan | Patricia Schnitter
157

Je t’envoie par même courrier les deux premières esquisses
des villas que je dois construire à Ahmedabad et dont les
plans sont acceptés. Je suis parti de l’abri des tramways de
Solano (?) à Bogotá. Cet abri de tramways partait du Modulor.
Je félicite Solano pour son beau travail, je lui demande
par tes soins l’autorisation d’employer son très beau parasol
qui est un véritable outil architectural pour les Indes. Et je te
prie de demander à Solano comment il construit son parasol,
par quelle méthode de coffrage? Est-ce au sol ou est-ce directement
à hauteur définitive? Veux-tu prier Solano de m’envoyer
des plans de béton armé et de coffrage. 48
The roof of the now-demolished bus service station represented
one of the most audacious experiments in vaulted
concrete membranes attempted in the country. The approach
had encouraged both Le Corbusier and Sert to explore and
apply similar techniques in their own designs, as can be seen
in Sert’s proposals for several social centers in Bogota and for
the church in Puerto Ordaz in Venezuela. Membrane vaults
offered a low-cost structural solution that was easy to manufacture,
esthetically pleasing, and functional. Sert made precisely
this point to the Caracas architects when he was working
on the Puerto Ordaz project: “Question of the chapel, very
expensive, in Bogota the bus station very cheap, the design is
very simple and can be carried out at no great cost”. 49
The image of the bus station, which was so suggestive
to Sert, was included in the Chimbote grille presented at the
eighth CIAM; a photograph was used on one of the screens,
alongside the following comment: “Kind of structure that
could be used for the shopping center. In Chimbote, where
it does not rain, a lightweight covering that protects from the
sun and maximum free space for the market, stalls, etc.” 50
Returning to the Regulatory Plan: in development of his
advisory role, Sert traveled to Colombia in early 1952 to continue
his work with the OPRB, as had been agreed upon with
the mayor. He stayed in the country for three or four weeks,
including Medellin in his itinerary, to continue his advisory
role on the Regulatory Plan there. Sert and Wiener explained
to Le Corbusier the situation that had developed in Bogota
since he had left, describing how it fell between the conflicts
158 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
that required immediate solutions, and the future aspirations
of the plan:
We must take advantage of your “vote de confiance” in handling
the many obstacles and conditions that arise almost
daily, but we are holding to the doctrines of your Pilot Plan. We
only regret that you cannot be in New York during this period.
We had not expected to make so many visits to Colombia but
the Mayor insisted that a meeting be held every three months
in Bogota and no meetings are permitted in New York. We,
therefore, had to meet all immediate problems that arose in
the city and tried to clear up conflicts between the immediate
reality and the future aspirations of the Plan. 51
In May 1952, the mayor Trujillo Gómez wrote to Wiener and
Sert, expressing concern at the quantity and technical quality
of the work specified in the Regulatory Plan and stating that in
the seven months left to them (the deadline having been extended
from August to November 1952) the architects would
not be able to present their report according to terms of the
contract. As a result, the mayor suspended all payments
pending the satisfactory completion of the terms of the contract.
52 Wiener, who was in Bogota at the time tried to resolve
the situation talking personally with the maire Trujillo Gómez.
Trujillo Gómez proposed extending the terms of the contract
to two years, calculated to be the period that the OPRB
would need to deliver the pending information and statistical
traffic and population studies that had delayed delivery of the
plan. Nevertheless, as Wiener and Sert argued, extending
the contract did not appear to be the most suitable option,
as further delay would lead to discontent and impatience towards
the Regulatory Plan. 53
At the end of 1952 Contract 586 was signed, modifying
the previous contract signed in 1949, and putting an end to
the uncertainty of the previous months. The naming of a new
mayor, and the resignation in September of OPRB director
Carlos Arbeláez Camacho and his colleagues the architect
Pizano Brigard and the engineer Forero Vélez, generated a
crisis in the institution, 54 which was made worse because the
new director, the engineer Ernesto González Concha, had
not agreed with extending the contract.
During those months headlines such as the following appeared
in the press: “The Regulatory Plan a Failure? The City
will not Renew Contract with Wiener and Sert”. 55 The article
argued that the studies were not essential, as they could be
carried out by Colombian architects. Another headline, accompanying
interviews with various architects of opposing
views on the topic was more positive: “The Regulatory Plan
has not Failed, nor should it Disappear say the Professionals”
56 .
The Regulatory Plan, then, and its authors, were subject
to a certain loss of prestige. The headline to a signed editorial
by the editor Carlos Martínez in November’s edition of
the magazine Proa asked: “Has the Bogota Regulatory Plan
Turned to Dust? “ 57 These comments, even though several
were rather tendentious, reflected the sense of dissatisfaction
with the development of the plans. Some months before,
the Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos had organized a
symposium on regulatory plans, involving a debate chaired
by the architect Carlos Martínez that involved, among others
Wiener, who was in the city, Nel Rodríguez and Francisco
Pizano. Gauging from comments published in the press, the
Medellin plan was the most highly thought of. 58
During the following year, 1953, work on the Regulatory
Plan continued in the New York office. Some months before,
Sert, in a letter to Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, had written: “We are
now starting the final working phase on the Master Plan of
Bogota, which we must deliver in the next six months. It is
tremendously interesting to see how far our ideas can be carried
into a realistic, finished proposal”. 59 The Plan was to be
handed over in August of that year. The truth, however, was
different. In Bogota, a series of decisions was taken by the
Regulatory Plan advisory board, motivated by the desire to
find immediate solutions to the problems that continued to
affect the city—including decisions on street patterns that
had made it impossible to take decisions affecting sizeable
sectors, the controversial topic of the urban perimeter, and
reserve zones.
The reserve zones, which had been specified in the Pilot
Plan, constituted large areas of land within the city limits on
which it was prohibited to construct housing: they were to

e protected for future development when all the plots in the
central sectors of the city and in other high density neighborhoods
had been developed. The decision by Le Corbusier,
Wiener, and Sert to designate reserve zones was taken because
they believed that the city should be confined to currently
populated areas so as to avoid the dispersion of services
and facilitate their delivery. However, the advisory board
and the OPRB director were of the opinion that the reserves
should be unfrozen, arguing that the measure was prejudicial
to proprietors, unfair, and unconstitutional. González Concha
argued that it “has proved to be inoperative and contrary to
the interests of the city”. 60
The reigning political situation in the country resulted, on
13 June 1953, in a military coup backed by the former President
Ospina Pérez and opposition Conservatives, that saw
General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla take over as President. 61 This
was the first military coup in the country during the century,
in contrast to the characteristic prevalence of coups in Latin
America. The coup permitted a few years of peace, until Rojas
Pinilla fell in 1957. Santiago Iriarte, Wiener and Sert’s legal
representative in their dealings with the city, told them that the
change in government had been favorable:
Administratively, the changes up till now have involved ministers,
governors and mayors, but the lower grade administrative
personnel have remained the same. Colonel Cervantes,
who has been named as Mayor of Bogota, has a reputation
as one of the best educated men in the Army, and I believe
he will do a good job. Personally, I hardly know him, but I
don’t believe he will put any obstacles in our way, but on the
contrary will provide us with efficient support. 62
On 17 August, Sert handed over the final documents of the
Regulatory Plan for Bogota to the Mayor Colonel Julio Cervantes.
63 In a series of public talks in the conference chamber
of the city council, Sert explained the plan to an audience
of city employees and technical advisors from the OPRB. In
an interview with the press he said,
The general objection to the Regulatory Plan involves asking
how it will be possible to achieve what we recommend if
Bogota does not have enough money. Well, my answer is: the
Regulatory Plan proposes a series of long term public works
and improvements, because t is calculated for a population
of 1,680,000, that is twice what it stands at now. [...]
I believe that in order to transform a city you need: 1 st , a Regulatory
Plan that brings together ideas and guidelines; 2 nd ,
legislation and finances that make it possible to implement
the Plan and 3 rd , courage, vision and determination on the
part of the authorities to carry out major works […]. 64
After the presentation
Sert left for Cuba, where he had been invited to give a series
of lectures, and in September he assumed the post of Chairman
of the Graduate School of Design at the University of
Harvard, replacing Walter Gropius.
Colonel Cervantes said the recommendations contained in
the Regulatory Plan would not be adopted immediately, but that
if they are to be adopted it will be following a public debate,
[...] if [the experts] have taken three years preparing it, the
municipality will take several months examining the most
suitable norms to apply in the case of Bogota. The Regulatory
Plan is a proposal, and the use we make of it will be
determined by what is best for the city”. 65
In his declarations the mayor made it clear that before any
decision was made on the plan it would be submitted to extensive
debate. In order to make it available for the interested
public to read it was published in the journal of the Sociedad
Colombiana de Ingenieros. 66
At the end of 1953, Wiener and Sert told Le Corbusier
that the technical aspects of the Regulatory Plan had been
approved according to the terms of the contract, but that this
did not mean that all of specifications had been accepted.
For this to occur a detailed study would be required, and approval
would depend on a series of factors, including financial
considerations. They hoped to have the chance to show
him the plans, since the last time they had met this had not
been possible because of the ninth CIAM Congress. Referring
to the civic center they said:
We put it on the final plans, just as you had drawn it in Bogota
with [Augusto] Tobito. The carrying out of this Civic Center
does not depend on us, as our work has been completed.
We may go for one more short visit to Bogota and at that
time we will inquire what they intend to build. So far we have
heard of no plan to actually construct the Civic Center. We
will keep you informed. You know that if there is any chance
of doing anything in your favor, we will naturally do so. We
suggest that the best thing for you to do is get in touch with
your friend Zuleta Angel, as he may talk to the new President
of Colombia in your behalf. 67
The extension of the contract stipulated that Wiener and Sert
would continue to act as consultants and advisors to the OPRB
for a year after the presentation of the plan, at which point the
contract would be considered terminated and final payment
made. Wiener returned to the country in August 1954, in order
to meet with officials and respond to the questions that had
emerged from their study of the Regulatory Plan, which had
not been advancing. 68 The OPRB had been designated as a
dependency of the office of the Secretary of Public Works and
its activities relegated among the municipal priorities. 69
During the years following its presentation, a series of
public works not included in the Regulatory Plan were carried
out, giving the city a configuration that was very different to
the one proposed. The major road known as the Autopista
Norte, whose construction had been decided by the Ministry
of Public Works before the Plan was presented, encouraged
development towards the north of the city while the new international
airport and the proposal to develop a Centro Administrativo
Oficial (Official Administrative Center, CAO) encouraged
expansion in the west. The decision of the President to
build an administrative center outside the city implied that the
national government’s administrative offices that, according
to the original proposal, were to be housed in the civic center
would be located there instead.
In 1955, Carlos Arbeláez Camacho 70 wrote to Sert and
Wiener requesting them to express their opposition to the
plan to build the CAO in the west of the city. The debate was
joined in Bogota, and the citizenry expressed their opposition
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan | Patricia Schnitter
159

to its construction. 71 The decision to build the CAO in El Salitre
(in the west) had been taken and was unstoppable; nevertheless,
for Arbeláez it was, as he wrote to Sert and Wiener,
important that they should express their opposition:
We believe it is our duty to express our opinions so that tomorrow
they will not be able to say that those of us with a
moral duty to speak out cravenly accepted the change. That
is why we believe it is very important that you intervene, especially
because your declaration would come from people
who are independent, qualified in the subject, and have an
objective vision of the problem [...]. 72
Wiener returned to Bogota in 1956, as part of “an official mission
of the government of the United States” that was touring
several Latin American countries in fulfillment of a program
of educational exchange. To mark his visit, the Sociedad Colombiana
de Arquitectos had organized a round table on Architecture
and Town Planning, which included the topics of
land use, traffic management, suburban development and “in
particular the question of the proposal to build an Official Administrative
Center in breach of the specifications contained
in the Bogota Regulatory Plan”. 73
On the Regulatory Plan the press commented: “it appears
that very little has been done, but there has been a lot of effort
put into modifying its terms”. 74 The general feeling was that
the study of the Plan and the other work developed by the
OPRB had become stagnated. “Bogota is erupting in anarchy,
without borders, an orphan of all necessary and requisite
guidance “, 75 a situation that was parallel to political developments
in the country: “everything is done intuitively and
violently at the margins of the legal”. 76
As Wiener wrote in the report he prepared on his visit for
the State Department, in his opinion the political situation in
Colombia was oppressive to architects in the country:
I found my colleagues, on the whole, rather disturbed by
the political situation. Dictatorship is oppressive to them. It
impinges on their liberty in many ways, and I found much
reticence to talk freely. They have to comply with the prevailing
government attitude in order to participate in government
projects and to keep their jobs. 77
160 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
In the end the round table that had been programmed on
the CAO was canceled. According to Wiener, “the architects
showed much nervousness and fear in expressing themselves”
and in his opinion Bogota gave the impression of a
city under siege. He commented, nevertheless, that despite
these circumstances “there has been considerable building
activity, and real estate speculation continues rampant”. 78
Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, President of the country at the time,
wished to keep himself in power, a desire that deepened the
conflict that had been generated between the regime and
the political parties. On May 10 1957, Rojas Pinilla resigned
as president in response to the pressures resulting from the
situation, naming a military junta that would take over from
him until August 1958 when a period known as the Frente
Nacional, or National Front, would begin. 79
The decree that had created the administrative jurisdiction
known as the Distrito Especial de Bogotá (Bogota Special
District) at the end of 1954 required the preparation of a
plan covering the whole of the area that would deal with problems
that had not been adequately addressed in the Regulatory
Plan. This constituted the basis of the Plan Distrital, or
District Plan, of 1958, which included the zoning and road
plan proposed in the Pilot and Regulatory Plans, but with an
increase in the urban perimeter to include an extensive part
of the savanna, giving a semi-circular form to the city. The
ambitious road scheme that emerged from this proposal is
known as the Plan Mazuera, after Fernando Mazuera, who
was at this date once again Mayor of the city.
During the 1960s, with the restructuring of Bogota’s city
council, a new process of planning was initiated, in which
Jorge Gaitán Cortés participated actively, first as member of
the council between 1958 and 1960, and subsequently as
Mayor between 1961 and 1966.
Patricia Schnitter Castellanos graduated as an architect from the Universidad
Pontificia Bolivariana, UPB, in Medellin (1982) and received a Ph.D. in
Architecture from the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, ETSAB (2002),
with the thesis José Luis Sert y Colombia. De la Carta de Atenas a una
Carta del Hábitat, Published in 2007. She is presently a full professor and
the coordinator of the Architecture and Urbanism Laboratory (LAUR) in the
Faculty of Architecture at the UPB, Medellin.
1 Letter from Wiener to Sert. In Josep Lluís Sert Special Collection, Harvard
University, (JLS SC HU), E3, 11 July 1947.
2 Act 48 of 1947 (December 16) approved the reconstruction of Tumaco.
The Act was regulated by Decree 534 of 1948 (February 13). Article 2 of
the Decree defines the contents of the plan for construction on the Island
of El Morro, which is to be the responsibility of the National Buildings Section,
and authorizes the “use of the services of a foreign town planner” to
do this.
3 Among the policies proposed to achieve the objectives agreed at sixth
CIAM were to “Popularize its principles as widely as possible, by means
of books, periodicals exhibitions, [...] and other means of addressing the
people of all countries”. In The aims of CIAM: Grille CIAM d’Urbanisme,
(Paris: L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui 1948).
4 Letter in Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne Special Collection,
Harvard University, (SC HU CIAM) C4, 16 December 1947.
5 Letter in Paul Lester Wiener Special Collection, University of Oregon (PLW
SC UO), 3 March 1948.
6 Letter in Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur, Eidgenössische
Technischen Hochshule Zürich (GTA ETHZ), 7 March 1948.
7 “El maestro Charles Le Corbusier propone crear célula de la “Ascoral” in
Colombia“, in El Tiempo, (Bogota, 22 June 1947) 3.
8 In “List of Latin American delegates and members of CIAM”, GTA ETHZ.
In a subsequent list additional names are found: Herbert Ritter, Carlos
Arbeláez, Gabriel Serrano and Bruno Violi, while J. Moya and G. Samper
do not appear. “List of members of the Colombian group”, SC HU CIAM,
A1. In a subsequent letter dated 12 May 1949 Gaitán Cortés informed Sert
that Hernán Vieco had been accepted as a member of the group..
9 Letter, GTA ETHZ, 6 March 1948.
10 As Jorge Gaitán Cortés informed Wiener and Sert by letter, PLW SC UO,
12 May 1949.
11 Le Corbusier, “The CIAM Grid.” Opening session, seventh CIAM, Bergamo.
SC HU CIAM: B5.
12 Letter from Gaitán Cortés, PLW SC UO, 26 May 1949.
13 PLW SC UO, ibid.
14 Letter from Sert to Gropius, SC HU CIAM: C6, 21 June 1949.
15 Letter to Sert , PLW SC UO, 3 July 1949.
16 Letter, PLW SC UO, 7 December 1950.

17 “Saludo to Le Corbusier”, in El Colombiano (Medellin, 25 June 1947) 3-4.
18 Lecture by Le Corbusier, in El Colombiano, Medellin, 26 June 1947.
19 Letter from Sert to Giedion, GTA ETHZ, 31 March 1952.
20 Letter from Sert, in Lima, to Le Corbusier, GTA ETH, 7 March 1948. Marcel
Breuer visited Bogota at the end of October 1947. It is known that he acted
as consultant to the municipality on the project to construct a worker’s
neighborhood on the site of the hacienda Quiroga and concerning the relocation
of the central wholesale market. In El Tiempo (Bogota, 21 October
1947) 1, 15.
21 Letter from Le Corbusier, in Paris, to Sert, in Lima, JLS SC HU: E29, 22
March 1948. Concerning the possible advisory role to the Instituto de
Crédito Territorial, see the correspondence between Le Corbusier, Garcés
Navas (Director of the ICT), and Bodiansky (representative of the ATBAT
between August and November 1947). JLS SC HU. The role was never
agreed upon.
22 In “Levantar la ciudad moderna sobre los escombros del pasado”, Carlos
Niño Murcia presented an analysis of the events that occurred on that date
and its fundamental influence on the development of Bogota. In “El saqueo
de una ilusión. El 9 de abril: 50 años después”, Número (Bogota 1997).
23 Act 88 of 1948.
24 Carlos Arbeláez Camacho, “El Pilot Plan de Bogotá”, in Registro Municipal.
Hechos y notas. (Bogota, 1951) 181.
25 “Contrato No. 104, para la prestación de servicios como urbanista-consultor
en la elaboración del Plan Regulador de Bogotá con el Architect Le
Corbusier”. In Anales del Concejo de Bogotá. Año XVI, No. 1773, 8 July
1949.
26 In Proa 21 (Bogota, March 1949).
27 Interview following the official visit of the mayor Mazuera Villegas, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 26 February 1949).
28 Contrato No. 103. In op. cit., Anales del Concejo de Bogotá, 8 July 1949.
29 Le Corbusier, Wiener, and Sert met from 6 August onwards; Ritter joined
them after 14 August. In “Memorandum. Meeting in France”, PLW SC UO,
August 1949.
30 Letter, JLS SC HU: E30, 19 January 1950.
31 Letter, PLW SC UO, 26 October 1949.
32 “Estudio especial sobre el perímetro de Bogotá acometen en el Plan Regulador“,
in El Tiempo (Bogota, 28 February 1950) 9.
33 ”Que Barranquilla necesita plano para edificaciones, dice Le Corbusier”,
in El Espectador, Bogota, 28 February 1950.
34 David Bushnell. Colombia. Una Nación a pesar de sí misma
(Planeta:Bogotá, 1996) 280-281.
35 “El Pilot Plan for Bogota será presentado en una exposición”, in El Tiempo
(Bogota, 2 September 1950) 21.
36 “Una o dos semanas durará el estudio del Pilot Plan”, in, El Tiempo (Bogota,
8 September 1950) 19.
37 Letter to Gropius, SC HU CIAM: C7, 29 November 1950.
38 Letter from Wiener and Sert to Le Corbusier, JLS SC HU: E30, 17 November
1950.
39 Letter from Le Corbusier to the Mayor Santiago Trujillo Gómez, JLS SC HU:
E30, 20 December 1950.
40 Letter from Sert, SC HU CIAM: C8, 9 April 1951.
41 Arbeláez Camacho sent Sert and Wiener the Decree and commented that
President Gómez “after studying it carefully, signed. As you will see from
the text itself, the Plan has been guaranteed “. Letter PLW SC UO, 19 April
1951.
42 In “Resume of meetings held in Bogota Colombia from May 11-25 1951”,
PLW SC UO.
43 Wiener and Sert were subcontracted by the Oficina de Planificación and
Vivienda (Planning and Housing Office) in Caracas (October 1951) to prepare
town plans and preliminary building projects in these cities, located
in the confluence of the Orinoco and Caroní rivers and the Cerro Bolívar.
44 Arturo Laguado, “Desde Londres, lo que dijeron del Pilot Plan”, in El Tiempo
(Bogota, 8 August 1951)4.
45 Letter, PLW SC UO, 25 July 1951.
46 Memorandum of the discussions between Paul Lester Wiener and the
OPRB between 20 August and 19 September 1951, in Bogota. PLW SC
UO.
47 This site is the same as the one initially analyzed by the Ministry of Public
Works and the city of Bogota, advised by Marcel Breuer, in 1947.
48 Letter from Le Corbusier to Sert, JLS SC HU: E31, 8 December 1951.
49 Letter from Wiener and Sert to Francisco Carrillo and Moisés Benecerraf in
Caracas, PLW SC UO, 26 March 1953.
50 Chimbote Grille, JLS SC HU. It should be noted that the Colombian architect
Alberto Iriarte was working in Wiener and Sert’s office in New York,
where he was responsible for preparing the grilles for the Congress building.
51 Letter to Le Corbusier, JLS SC HU: E32, 2 May 1952.
52 Letter, PLW SC UO, 15 May 1952.
53 Letter to the lawyer Santiago Iriarte, legal representative in Bogota, who
was in charge of modifying the contract, PLW SC UO, 17 October 1952.
54 “Renunció el director and dos altos funcionarios del Plan Regulador”, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 17 September 1952)1, 11.
55 In El Tiempo (Bogota, 27 September 1952) 1, 17.
56 In El Espectador (Bogota, 27 September 1952).
57 In Proa, 65 (Bogota, November 1952).
58 “Sobre planos reguladores conceptuaron in el symposium de la Biblioteca
Nacional”, in El Tiempo (Bogota, 9 July 1952) 16.
59 Letter to J. Tyrwhitt, SC HU CIAM: C12, 26 November 1952.
60 “Actividades y determinaciones de la oficina del Plan Regulador”, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 3 June 1953) 8.
61 Marco Palacios. Entre la legitimidad y la violencia. Colombia 1875-1994.
(Bogotá: Norma 1995) 211.
62 Letter, PLW SC UO, 14 July 1953.
63 “Bogotá será Distrito Especial”, in El Tiempo (Bogota 22 August 1953) 1, 11.
64 El Plan Regulador divide la ciudad in 42 distritos. Sert explica los estudios
que hizo con Wiener”, in El Tiempo (Bogota, 24 August 1953) 1, 11.
65 “Públicamente debe debatirse el Plan Regulador, dice el alcalde”, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 8 September 1953) 1.
66 The Regulatory Plan was published in the journal Anales de Ingeniería No.
640, July, which circulated from October 1953 onwards.
67 Letter to Le Corbusier, PLW SC UO, 30 November 1953.
68 During his presentation in August 1954, the engineer Julio Carvajal said
it was necessary to implement the Regulatory Plan and expressed the
urgent need to create a capital district that would make it possible to develop
regional plans for the Sabana de Bogotá (the fertile plateau on which
Bogota is built) and the incorporation of neighboring towns into Bogota. In
Anales de Ingeniería (Bogota, September 1954).
69 The previous director, Ernesto González Concha, resigned in October
1953, from which date the activities of the Junta de Planificación (Planning
Board) had been suspended.
70 After resigning from the OPRB, Arbeláez travelled to London and Paris to
engage in postgraduate studies; in 1955, he was back in Colombia, working
in the Banco Central Hipotecario (the state mortgage bank).
71 “Declaración sobre la proyectada Ciudad Oficial se está firmando”, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 1 February 1955) 1, 22.
72 Letter, PLW SC UO, 12 March 1955.
73 “Mesa redonda sobre el CAOS presidirá el Architect Wiener”, in Intermedio
(Bogota, 24 February 1956) 1, 13. Newspaper produced by the publishers
of El Tiempo to replace the newspaper that had been suppressed
by the government.
74 “Bogotá está estrangulándose”, in El Independiente (Bogota, 24 February
1956) 1 and final page. The newspaper replaced El Espectador, which
had also been closed by the government.
75 “El Plan Regulador”, in Intermedio (Bogota, 25 February 1956).
76 Idem.
77 Paul Lester Wiener, “General comments on my Central and Latin American
Tour. November 15, 1955- May 7, 1956. Grant 262-6. Report on Colombia”.
Department of State, International Educational Exchange Service, PLW SC
UO, 15 June 1956.
78 Idem: 12.
79 Period between 1958 and 1974, created as the result of an agreement
between the Liberal and Conservative Parties, endorsed by plebiscite, to
alternate in power.
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener: Vicissitudes of the Bogota Regulatory Plan | Patricia Schnitter
161

Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan 1
Doris Tarchópulos
...“No, I don’t give lectures. But once the Pilot Plan has been
delivered there will be 1,000 topics for your students: they will
be passionate about the problem, they’ll spread the word, the
public will be interested, and a body of open-minded professionals
will be trained by the younger generation!” 2
Le Corbusier
In the mid 1940s the United States Department of State commissioned
a series of studies to determine the role that Latin
America would play in the new post war political context. The
period was marked by the discussion of the most suitable development
paradigm for the region. One likely strategy was to
champion urban planning and architecture as suitable means
of developing economies and societies in the region. This approach,
based on the theories of Rostow 3 , had the advantage
of at the same time creating opportunities for US industry and
combating the spread of Communism. Aid would focus on
countries that had been US allies in the Second World War
and would support democratic processes and free trade.
Technical and economic assistance would be channeled
through the recently created International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development.
Regional and national urban planning strategies were
guided by a new generation of architects and town planners
who dictated how to design and construct cities, homes, and
appliances, according to the aesthetics of the modern, which
provided visual confirmation that rapid and efficient development
was being achieved. The conditions were in place: on
the one hand, town planning in the period was influenced by
a small group of individuals who dominated the cultural scene
in the field of development. On the other, local governments
162 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
were interested in adopting the modernist aesthetic as this
would help them project themselves as agents of progress.
To a greater or lesser extent, the new planning approach was
part of a great utopian project that it was believed would build
a new world.
It was in this context that Sert and Wiener presented their
ideas in Latin America; they were framed within the doctrine
of the Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM)
and the Athens Charter, whose methods and concepts captured
the imagination of public administrators, professionals,
and the public at large, and which were incorporated into
plans for cities in Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and
Cuba. Within the framework of US developmentalist policy,
an aid package was identified to support urban planning
processes— including plans for Colombia’s principal cities,
which were prepared in fulfilment of Act 88 of 1947 4 and
promoted by a group of Colombian architects that included
Jorge Gaitán Cortés 5 , Colombia’s representative at the CIAM.
The company Town Planning Associates (TPA), headed by
José Luis Sert and Paul Lester Wiener, was contracted to advise
on the development of the Planes Reguladores (Regulatory
Plans). In 1948 they were granted contracts to develop
the Pilot Plan for Tumaco and the Plan for Medellin. The first of
these consisted in the Plan for the Reconstruction of Tumaco,
a port city on the Pacific Coast that had been destroyed by
fire on 10th October 1947 and which was developed with
the collaboration of Jorge Gaitán Cortés and Jorge Arango,
directors of the Sección de Edificios Nacionales (Section
for Nationally Important Buildings) of the Ministry of Public
Works, and of the Planning Commission for the Reconstruction
of the Port City of Tumaco, in which the architects Gon-
zalo Samper, Fernando Martínez Sanabria, Eduardo Mejía,
Edgar Burbano, Hernán Vieco, and Luz Amorocho took part 6 .
Subsequently, TPA carried out the studies for a system of
prefabricated buildings in the Alcázares neighborhood of
Bogota, promoted by the Instituto de Crédito Territorial (the
Territorial Credit Institute, or ICT, responsible for developing
social housing) where Jorge Gaitán Cortés 7 had just taken
over as head of the Technical Department.
Le Corbusier’s connection with the Plan for Bogota resulted
from a series of unique circumstances. In 1947, Eduardo
Zuleta Ángel 8 was Colombia’s representative at the United
Nations. Since 1946 he had been chair of the commission
to study and approve the different designs for the new UN
headquarters in New York. Le Corbusier was one of the ten
architects invited to participate in the tendering process, and
in February 1947 he journeyed to New York to work for four
months in the workshop established for the competition. 9 His
project, known as Maquette 23A, was chosen as the basis
of the design, but responsibility for the oversight and construction
of the building process itself was handed to the US
architect Wallace Harrison, co-designer of the Lincoln Center
and the Rockefeller Center, and personal friend of Nelson
and John D. Rockefeller Jr., who had donated the site the
headquarters were to be built on. This was a serious blow
for Le Corbusier and for Zuleta Ángel, who had given his full
backing to the design, and who now invited Le Corbusier to
visit Bogota with a view to participating in architectural projects
there.
Le Corbusier accepted Zuleta’s offer and arrived in Bogota
from New York for the first time on 16th June 1947. Sev-

© FLC 31560
© FLC 31563
© FLC 31565
© FLC 31564
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
163

eral architects and about 300 students received him in Techo
airport in Bogota and, on first glimpsing him, shouted “Down
with the Academy, Long live Le Corbusier!” 10 A leading group
of young architects, including Carlos Martínez Jiménez, Gabriel
Serrano, Vicente Nasi, and Rafael Obregón, had the
opportunity to listen to the words of the master in Colombia
while a generation, including Hernando Vargas Rubiano,
Jorge Arango, Carlos Arbeláez Camacho, and Jorge Gaitán
Cortés, were able to get close to the mythical figure. The
atmosphere of absolute intellectual fanaticism makes it very
difficult to put the event into its proper perspective. Le Corbusier
proposed founding a branch of the Association des
constructeurs pour la rénovation architecturale (ASCORAL)
in Colombia, which would help to improve housing quality; 11
he suggested that Colombian cities should follow the path of
progress. 12
During the ten days he spent in Bogota, Le Corbusier
gave two lectures in the Teatro Colón: “Town Planning as
the Supreme Provider of Social Order” and “The Nature of
Modern Architecture in the World and the Region”. The first
of these lectures was introduced by Eduardo Zuleta Ángel,
in his capacity as Minister of Public Education. 13 In the lectures
Le Corbusier made three fundamental points: first, the
architectural revolution that derived from the use of reinforced
concrete and steel; second, the revolution of the four routes,
based on land, water, and air transport; and third the three
human establishments of machine-age civilization. 14 As well
as a press conference and an official meeting with the mayor
of Bogota Fernando Mazuera, Le Corbusier accepted invitations
from Zuleta Ángel, the Colombian Society of Architects,
and the ICT, and visited the Faculty of Architecture at the Universidad
Nacional (National University). At the end of the visit
he spent the weekend with mayor Mazuera in his weekend
home, where it was agreed that Le Corbusier would produce
a plan for the future development of Bogota. 15 He also discussed
several plans with national authorities and technical
staff at the ICT, which he agreed to work on at the Ateliers
des Bâtisseurs (ATBAT). There were three concrete proposals.
The first, requested by the national government, referred
to the Plan Directivo (Pilot Plan) for Bogota and the definition
164 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
of standards for educational establishments; the second involved
the design of a housing scheme in the Los Alcázares
neighborhood; the third, the creation of a prefabrication industry
16 .
On his return to Paris, Le Corbusier responded to these
proposals by entering into correspondence with José Vicente
Garcés Navas, who was at that time Director of the ICT. 17 The
correspondence revolved around the definition of a consultancy
contract for the prefabrication of the houses in Los
Alcázares. Le Corbusier proposed that the work should be
assigned to ATBAT, working through a subsidiary in Bogota,
which he expressly stated should be established by Vladimir
Bodiansky and an architect who should travel to Colombia
for the purpose. However, the task of developing the Plan for
Bogota was delayed as a result of the violent events of the
9 April 1948—the fateful bogotazo—in which a considerable
number of the buildings in the center of the city were destroyed.
Le Corbusier was concerned about the terms of the
contract, above all when he discovered that Marcel Breuer
had visited Bogota and might be offered a role in the planning
of the city. 18 Nevertheless, he was informed that the Decree
ordering the creation of a research team for the Regulatory
Plan, recruitment of internationally reputable professionals,
and the creation of the Oficina del Plan Regulador de Bogotá
(Office of the Bogota Land Use Plan, or OPRB). 19 He contacted
Zuleta Ángel in order to obtain more information about
the contract, and was informed by Rogelio Salmona that Sert
and Wiener were demanding that they should be given the
Plan for Bogota contract as a condition for developing the
Plan for Medellin. 20 Taking advantage of Sert’s frequent trips
to Colombia, Eduardo Zuleta Ángel, who had been named
Foreign Minister in the wake of the bogotazo, gave him the
task of revising the plans for the reconstruction of the Foreign
Ministry and the Palacio de San Carlos, seat of the President
of the Republic, which had been destroyed during the events
of the 9 April. 21
Subsequently, the Mayor, Mazuera, travelled to Paris,
where he met with Le Corbusier. In mid-February 1949, Sert
and Wiener were in Colombia in connection with their contracts
for the plans for Cali and Medellin, and Mazuera in-
formed them of the decision to contract them directly for the
Bogota plan too, because the Bogota Municipal Council was
reluctant to contract Le Corbusier. Sert discussed the matter
with Zuleta Ángel and Mazuera, and suggested a formula
whereby he, Wiener, and Le Corbusier would work together. 22
Le Corbusier was given the contract to develop the Master
Plan or the Anteproyecto Piloto (Pre-Pilot Plan), employing
Sert and Wiener as consultants, and they would subsequently
be responsible for developing the Regulatory Plan, or Plan
General de Urbanismo (General Urban Plan), with Le Corbusier
as consultant. 23 The impasse was resolved within two
weeks and on 2 March Le Corbusier met with Sert and Wiener
in Bogota to iron out the details; the contract was signed
on the 30 th of the same month. The opportunity provided by
these meetings was also used to define the methodology to
be used by the OPRB, led by Herbert Ritter Echeverry, and to
bring together the materials and studies of the city necessary
for the elaboration of the Pilot Plan.
The Transfer of Corbusian Urbanism
The Plan was developed simultaneously in Le Corbusier’s
workshop in Paris, the TPA offices in New York, and the OPRB
in Bogota. That this occurred in the late 1940s is significant
in terms of the technical transfers implied by this exchange
between the great masters of urban planning and a select
team of local architects, authorities, other players involved in
the construction of the city, and the population at large. But
it was also significant because of the international resonance
the process had for CIAM’s own approach to urban planning.
Nevertheless, the appointment of Le Corbusier quickly
generated opposition from politicians and members of the
public. One individual, writing under the pseudonym “El Bogotano”
and with obvious architectural training, published
several open letters to Mazuera in the newspaper El Espectador,
after the paper had published an interview about the Pilot
Plan for Bogota with Jorge Gaitán Cortés. 24 El Bogotano argued
against Le Corbusier’s expensive contract, highlighted
the failure of similar plans in Europe, and argued in favor of

local professionals and the town planning ideas of Karl Brunner.
The letters provoked a response from Gaitán Cortés, who
mentioned the problems associated with Brunner’s alleged
political partisanship, and questioned his technical competence
to plan for the future of the city; he also defended the
Regulatory Plan, the creation of the OPRB and the decision
to carry out a series of studies to develop the methodology of
the Plan. 25 The architect José María Montoya Valenzuela and
the engineer Julio Carvajal also intervened in the debate. 26 El
Bogotano even criticized the Unité d’Habitation in Marseilles,
leading to a heated debate in the press concerning the different
models of housing—horizontal and vertical—that Le
Corbusier should use in Bogota. 27
In the meantime, in Paris, Le Corbusier was beginning to
put together the team that would work on the Plan, and insisted
that the OPRB should contract one or two architects
from Bogota who understood “the customs, the climate, the
region, the regulatory framework and problems… and the
legislative and administrative context”, who would be available
to work in the atelier in Paris and guarantee the suitability
of the Plan. The architect chosen was Fernando Martínez
Sanabria, who had already expressed interest in the role 28 .
The Summer Sessions in Roquebrune-Cap Martin
In accordance with the agreement established in March, Le
Corbusier met with Sert, Wiener, and Ritter in Roquebrune-
Cap Martin between 6 and 22 de August 1949. Le Corbusier
29 also expected Fernando Martínez, for whom he had reserved
a room in the Hotel des Roches, where everyone was
staying, but he did not attend. Le Corbusier himself stayed
in E1027, property of his friends Jean Badovici and Eileen
Grey, where the working meetings were also held, using information
Ritter had brought with him from Bogota. Before
arriving in Roquebrune-Cap Martin, Ritter, Sert, and Wiener
had attended the seventh CIAM meeting in Bergamo. During
the subsequent three weeks of work they agreed the general
outline of the current circumstances of the city, the basic
preliminary scheme and the outlines of the Plan proper, in
particular the aspects related to the viability of the city, the
metropolitan area, and the region, and the distribution of population
density and land use, according to the functional division
set out in the Athens Charter. They also agreed on the
division of responsibilities between Le Corbusier, the OPRB,
Sert, and Wiener, in what the group called the “Protocol of
Cap Martin”. Other decisions were made, too; for example,
that when Rogelio Salmona, Germán Samper, and Fernando
Martínez Sanabria joined the Paris team they should maintain
professional confidentiality concerning the Plan, and that Sert
would send Le Corbusier the standard US models governing
major road intersections. 30
At the end of the year, Santiago Trujillo Gómez was named
as the new mayor of Bogota and in November 1949 he appointed
Carlos Arbeláez Camacho 31 as the new director of
the OPRB. 32 In mid-January 1950, Sert and Wiener were engaged
in the preparations for the meeting that it had been
agreed would be held in Bogota in February and informed Le
Corbusier of what he might expect to find when he arrived.
They sent him a press cutting to give some idea of the local
expectations concerning the visit, and warned him that it
would not be advisable to present plans or drawings on this
occasion because it might appear that they had been based
on insufficient information. They suggested he should stay
in Bogota for at least two weeks so that he could personally
resolve the problems associated with the Plan and, because
Ritter had resigned as director of the OPRB, hand over materials
to the new appointee. They underlined that, bearing in
mind the delicate political situation, it was important to fulfil
the terms of the contract to the letter. They also told him that
Fernando Martínez Sanabria had been obliged to return to
Bogota from New York, and that he would be unable to continue
on to Paris to join the group working on the Plan. 33
Corrections in Bogota and Advances at a Distance
Le Corbusier arrived in Bogota on 16 February 1950, following
a stopover for business reasons in Barranquilla. 34 In Bogota
he met with Sert and Wiener, who had arrived from Me-
dellin where they had spent a few days presenting the Regulatory
Plan for that city. The idea behind the meeting was to
incorporate the work the OPRB 35 had developed according to
the Protocol of Cap Martin and the contract. 36 As part of the
agenda of the visit, Le Corbusier and his colleagues met with
the Mayor of Bogota, Santiago Trujillo Gómez, in order to inform
him of advances in the Plan. 37 They also took advantage
of the opportunities to carry out field work and to clarify certain
points that had awoken their interest and that would subsequently
be incorporated in the Plan. 38 During the working
sessions in Bogota, Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener examined
and commented on the results of the work of the OPRB over
the previous six months, made the necessary adjustments,
and defined a work plan for the subsequent months, this time
under the leadership of Carlos Arbeláez Camacho. 39
In his notebooks, Le Corbusier registered his personal
and professional impressions of the work on the Plan. During
the first days of March he reflected on the potential that the
Candelaria neighborhood and the Plaza de Bolívar had as the
site of the civic center 40 and emphasized that it was important
to designate the Candelaria and the entire northern side
of the Plaza de Bolívar, from the Cathedral to the Church of
San Ignacio, in order to protect the view and the urban landscape,
with the mountains rising behind. 41 But he also noted
the division of the city into numbered blocks, whose distribution
to the north and the south were organized around a point
centered on the civic center. He noted that this division was
viable, that it responded to precise functions, that there was a
clear coefficient of density, differentiation between the status
of different lots, and that land valuations responded logically
to these factors. He also included data on markets and water
supply management. 42
He also reflected on the report that was to be presented
with the Plan and considered assigning a young ASCORAL
jurist to research the legal regime in different European countries
concerning the grouping of lots for shared businesses,
which would be presented to the French Ministry of Reconstruction.
43 But he was also thinking about Bogota’s hydrograhy
and how to alter in part or completely current distribution
methods by channeling the water in the Arab style in open
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
165

canals. 44 He recognized that the Plan represented a source of
experimentation for the CIAM in which several of its members
were involved in producing different kinds of housing. 45
In his notes he reminded himself to look again at the layout
of the outlying markets in the well-demarcated neighborhoods
and the horizontally constructed working class areas, 46
and he included a warning that in the small-scale plans and
zoning diagrams commercial areas, housing, and industry
should be indicated by circles. 47 On 5 March he made a couple
of sketches of the layout of the center of the city. 48 The
first 49 covers the area between Carrera 50 one and Carerra ten,
showing the poor housing between Carreras one and four,
the steep rise towards the mountains between Carreras one
and two, the presence of the Embassies between the Carreras
four and three, or four and five, along Calle nine. The second
sketch 51 is the same as the first but includes the Avenida
Jiménez, marking the vegetation–covered hills at its point of
origin in the mountains and the density of building and the
difficult terrain where it crossed the Carrera four towards the
mountains.
When he reached Paris, Le Corbusier agreed with Rogelio
Salmona, Germán Samper, and Vincent Solomita—who
had replaced Fernando Martínez Sanabria—on how the work
should be continued. 52 In the meantime, in Bogota, Carlos
Arbeláez continued working on the Plan, raising a series of
doubts with Sert, Wiener, and Le Corbusier. In particular he
requested advice on the placing of the central wholesale
market and the neighborhood markets, the road plan, the alterations
to the route of the Avenida Cundinamarca (today
the Carrera 30/ Avenida Ciudad de Quito), and the width of
Calles 11, 19, and 22. Sert and Wiener asked Le Corbusier to
respond to Arbeláez, since he was at that time working on the
road layout 53 .
At the same time, Rogelio Salmona and Germán Samper
were preparing the drawings for the Civic Centre proposal 54
as well as larger-scale drawings of the internal organization
of the neighborhoods comprising the districts, or Sectors.
They drew the Civic Centre using colored pencils, placing
the buildings and circulation routes freehand according to
the rectangular blocks that defined the specific street pattern
166 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
of this part of the city. They prepared the schemes for the
neighborhoods in the same way, organized around access to
the communal centers where the markets, educational establishments,
government buildings, and leisure spaces were
concentrated 55 .
In April, they carried out the density calculations for the
different sectors. This time they used the same graphic system
of representation, but encompassing the whole of the
city. They also carried out a series of calculations to gauge
the profile of the existing city, the divisions between neighborhoods,
the area covered by each, and their populations.
The result was a plan over which it was possible to lay the
representation—in matrix form—of the codified Sectors, with
the rows heading north-south and the columns east-west.
The plan included a table showing the density calculations. 56
The plans showing the division of the city into sectors were
prepared in the same way. Preliminary drawings were prepared
in which the projected layout was superimposed over
the existing pattern of streets and watercourses in an attempt
to resolve the uneven outline of the city’s neighborhoods. The
density study was used to decide the initial placement of the
markets within the districts 57 .
The results of this work were fed into the decision-making
process during the preparation of the Pilot Plan, but a series
of plans (specifically, BOG Urbain 4211 and BOG Centre
Civique 4220, dated 30 June 1950) were excluded from the
final version because of the rejection of Corbusian housing
designs provoked among professional and political circles
by the letters of El Bogotano published in the press. Despite
the fact that it was a plan covering the whole city, BOG Urbain
4211, for example, provided considerable detail on the
positioning of the different public buildings and the kinds of
housing planned for the civic center, as well some examples
of the new kinds of housing—H1, H2 and H3—that would be
built among the existing urban fabric.
The work of Salmona and Samper was helpful to Le Corbusier
when he responded to Arbeláez’s request for more complete
information on the sectoral markets, 58 since the work to break
the city down into sectors, identifying the structure according
to which each sector would have a central market supplied by
the principal, or municipal, market, had just been completed.
He pointed out that the geographical capacity of each sector
varied according to its location in the city and above all in
relation to population density. Le Corbusier sent BOG 1135 to
the OPRB and to Sert and Wiener, with each sector colored
yellow and identified with an alphanumeric code, suggesting
that each sector should be supplied by the central wholesale
market and, eventually, directly by indigenous groups from
the Sabana de Bogota—the fertile plateau on which the city
is built. 59 In response, Sert and Wiener recommended that the
new markets should be situated on the principal communication
routes in order to avoid heavy traffic in residential areas,
so as to ensure that life there could be lived as peacefully as
possible 60 .
At the beginning of May, Arbeláez requested information
on the width of Carrera 11 and Calles 19 and 22, because he
was in discussion with the mayor about a decree to widen
some roads in the city. 61 Sert and Wiener insisted to Le Corbusier
that he should send his sketches of the road layout,
although they expressed the opinion, too, that it would be a
mistake to take this kind of decision before the Pilot Plan was
finished. They assumed that Arbeláez was subject to strong
pressure and that it was their duty to help him to get the Plan
accepted quickly. But they were not prepared to do anything
without first coming to an agreement with Le Corbusier, believing
that they should act together in all aspects of their
work. They proposed requesting a period of grace to allow
the problem to be resolved while more information emerged
on the situation in Bogota. 62
Sert and Wiener did not approve of the plan PP1012A that
Arbeláez sent, which included a proposal for a new “Avenida
del Progreso” with which the OPRB proposed replacing
the Avenida Cundinamarca. They thought the decision contradicted
the boundary role that had initially been assigned
the Avenida Cundinamarca in the Protocol of Cap Martin and
confirmed in the Bogota meeting in February. Furthermore,
it seemed to them that the Avenida del Progreso might be
transformed into a major road that would come to compete
with the Carrera 10; they assumed that political or private in-

© FLC 31566 © FLC 31567 © FLC 31568
© FLC 31572
© FLC 33688 © FLC 33689-v
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the proposal for the
housing sector “neighborhood organization,” dated 23-03-1950, signed by
Salmona © FLC 33686
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the proposal
for the housing sector “neighborhood organization,” dated 23-03-
1950 © FLC 31556-v
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
167

Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan and the “density
study,” (see zoning map), dated April, 1950 © FLC 31550
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and its
“density study” (18 April, 1950) © FLC 31552-v
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and its
“density study” (12 April, 1950) © FLC 31551-v
168 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan,
and its “density study” (April, 1950) © FLC 31547-v
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan,
and its “density study” (April, 1950) © FLC 31548
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and the “density study – map of constructed and open areas” (18 April, 1950) © FLC 31549

terests were behind the proposal and that, for this reason,
they needed to talk to Arbeláez in order to understand the
situation better. They asked Le Corbusier his opinion so as
to ensure a unified position on the matter, asking him also to
send the drawings that had already been prepared for the
Pilot Plan, arguing that they should maintain permanent communication
in order to ensure everyone was kept abreast of
developments. 63
Le Corbusier responded by sending the most recent
fruits of his work on the Plan, including the colored plans
BOG 4201 that specified the urban and regional arteries,
and BOG 4202, taken from the report on the relationship between
housing and work, which established the natural limits
between residential areas and the civic center. The Avenida
Cundinamarca, furthermore, formed a part of the regional
network, envisaged as a transport system linking Bogota with
Venezuela, the eastern plains, or Llanos, and the Magdalena
River, meaning that it responded perfectly to the requirements
both of housing and of work. Le Corbusier told Arbeláez he
was opposed to the designation of the Avenida Las Américas
as a principal route, on the grounds that it was an unplanned
route, which did not carry much traffic and was not important
either for housing or work. He considered, also, that the major
traffic circle planned for the intersection between the Calle
26 and the Avenida Las Américas should instead be put at
the point where the Avenida Cundinamarca and the Jiménez
crossed. 64 After a few days, Arbeláez stated to Le Corbusier
that he agreed with plans BOG 4201/02, and at the same
time made some additional comments and handed over four
further plans prepared on the basis of studies carried out by
the OPRB 65 .
Arbeláez felt pressure to approve some neighborhood
plans and he asked Sert and Wiener to present the Pilot Plan
before the 7 August, the date on which Laureano Gómez was
to take office as the new President of the Republic. Arbeláez
preferred to negotiate the Plan’s approval with the outgoing
president Mariano Ospina Pérez, who had promoted the idea
of the Plan and kept up to date with its progress. Sert and Wiener
agreed that ideally the Plan should be approved as soon
as possible, but did not agree that a journey to Bogota in July
would guarantee approval and doubted that Le Corbusier’s
work was advanced enough to be able to present early. 66
They sought Le Corbusier’s opinion on whether he
thought it would be possible to come to an agreement with
the new presidential regime once the work was eventually
completed, and recommended that he should not include
his three dimensional drawings, as it would be easier to gain
approval of the Pilot Plan if they were not presented. Once
official approval had been gained for the proposed zoning
the system of roads and freeways, it would be possible to
return to the three dimensional ideas. They insisted that Le
Corbusier should send them the plans in their current state,
without any extra interpretation, so that they could express
their opinion on what should be presented according to the
terms of the contract; they also suggested that Le Corbusier
should review them one more time before sending them in
order to ensure that no technical requirements were omitted.
As a simple precaution, they reminded him that a written report
should be presented along with the drawings, and they
recommended that he be careful to ensure that he omitted no
details, so as not to delay or prevent the approval of the plan
and the corresponding payment. 67 Le Corbusier was at that
moment completing the definitive plans and he considered
it impossible to bring the presentation date forward to 7 August,
not least because his plane ticket was reserved for the
31 st of that month. 68
When they received plans BOG 4208 and 4201-02, Sert
and Wiener sent their observations to Le Corbusier after, once
again, insisting that he should omit the three dimensional
drawings from the papers that he would carry with him when
he brought the Pilot Plan to Bogota. They agreed that the urban
planning proposal should be presented in three dimensions
and the road scheme and zoning should take this aspect
into account, but they insisted that it would be easier to get
approval if they were not presented at this stage. 69 Additionally,
they commented on the civic center, the kinds of housing
and the road network. On the civic center, they reminded Le
Corbusier that the contract stipulated that the three stages of
the plan’s development should be presented and that for this
reason the plans should specify the important buildings that
were to be preserved, as well as illustrate how the area would
evolve over time from the present to completion.
They suggested that he should look again at the size of
the cul-de-sac in neighborhood unit H1, and that he present
the complex within the overall context of the city, indicating
the evolution it would undergo as the process developed. 70
In relation to the buildings designed along the lines of the
Marseilles Unité, H-4, they said that it was unlikely that the
Bogota authorities would agree to the proposal to build 24
buildings of this type, because of the cost implications and
other aspects associated with the crisis in which the country
was submerged. They also warned that the proposal would
provoke an unnecessary storm of protest at the Plan, suggesting
that that part of the proposal be shelved for later.
Once again, they repeated that it would be neither useful nor
practical to provide three dimensional projections for such a
large project, and recommended that the Pilot Plan should
focus simply on defining the areas where high rise and low
rise housing was to be built. They presented the same arguments
when it came to housing of the Radiant City type (H3),
reminding Le Corbusier that the Pilot Plan should include a
study of the civic center proposal, limited to the area adjacent
to the Capitol and counseling, once again, that he provide no
three dimensional projections yet because the detail should
only be presented in the Master Plan, by which time they
would count with all the information on the existing buildings.
Concerning the road network, Sert and Wiener noted that
almost two kilometers separated the Avenida Cundinamarca
and Carrera 14, and reminded Le Corbusier that Arbeláez
had sent him a diagram of the proposed Avenida del Progreso.
They felt that the plan BOG-4208 did not show all the
service roads that extended from the principal arteries, and
expressed the hope that all would appear on the final plans,
including the ways in which the new roads were linked to existing
ones. Sert and Wiener referred to their experience with
the Plan for Medellin, where the local technical teams had
insisted that the plans showed the transition from the current
street pattern to the new one. In similar vein they suggested
to Le Corbusier that the 1:1000 plans should indicate the development
guidelines for the areas surrounding the Bull Ring
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
169

and the sector between Carrera 10 and the Avenida Caracas.
71 Finally, Sert and Wiener expressed the view that Le
Corbusier’s plans to create a great park along the length
of the river San Cristóbal would be complicated, because
the city would have to acquire as much land to build the
park as for the whole of the rest of the Plan. Based on their
experience, they suggested a maximum area of about half
of what Le Corbusier proposed, suggesting a band about
200m wide similar to the area bounding the Quebrada del
Arzobispo river 72 .
Alongside a series of questions that Arbeláez asked Le
Corbusier about the mayor’s plans for the road system he
stated that the OPRB was now able to exercise much more
control over the development of the city, and mentioned a request
that had been made to reconstruct an area of housing
along the lines of the contemporary principles of the neighborhood
unit. One of the plans Le Corbusier sent was useful
in establishing the street pattern and service provision, in
explaining the concept of a well thought-out neighborhood
unit to the new proprietors and as a basis for the subsequent
alterations made to tailor the proposal to the existing plots. 73
For his part, Le Corbusier clarified several of the questions
posed by Arbeláez concerning the plan BOG 4214. In
relation to the new Avenida that the mayor proposed building
to connect the football stadium, the Ciudad Universitaria (the
campus of the Universidad Nacional), and Calle 45, 74 he was
of the opinion that that the existing Avenida Cundinamarca
could fulfil this purpose. He corrected the route that would
run along a cutting defining the western limit, accompanying
the Avenida Cundinamarca along its north-south trajectory,
so as not to conflict with the railroad track that would itself
subsequently be replaced by a high-speed dual carriageway.
Le Corbusier highlighted a series of intersections on the
plan that he promised to analyze later. 75 He also indicated
that plan BOG 4214 illustrated the current layout of the city
and the boundaries of the undeveloped land and the corresponding
road systems so that they could be harmonized
with the current network. On the same plan he indicated the
sites of the markets, shopping centers, schools, footpaths,
and pedestrian interchanges in the neighborhoods, which
170 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
were to be kept separate from the vehicle routes. He rejected
the proposal to pave the Calle 26 in the stretch between
the Avenida Cundinamarca and the Avenida Las Américas,
precisely at the site of the Ciudad Universitaria; authorized a
secondary road to run in a cutting along the line of the Avenida
Cundinamarca; and stipulated that the entrance to the
Ciudad Universitaria should be on the Calle 45. 76
The OBRB team continued to work on the Plan and requested
that Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener should review
the neighborhood unit scheme. Sert and Wiener wrote to Le
Corbusier immediately, 77 commenting that this seemed to be
the first occasion on which the OPRB might be able to influence
the development of a new neighborhood, applying the
criteria agreed upon during the most recent planning sessions
in Bogota, since the had been consulted on neither the
design of the buildings nor the specifics. Sert and Wiener
expressed approval of the general principles used in the design
and celebrated it as an encouraging step in the right
direction. They suggested to Le Corbusier that when they
were together in Bogota, they should explore all aspects and
use their influence to take the fullest possible advantage of
this favorable situation because, for now, the most constructive
thing would be to encourage the OPRB team and leave
well enough alone, so its members could on get on with their
work. Sert and Wiener made arrangements to present the Pilot
Plan in Bogota, and reminded Le Corbusier to prepare
a written document that should be presented alongside the
Pilot Plan; they suggested that they should meet for at least
three days in New York before travelling to Bogota so that
they could arrive with a unified position. Le Corbusier arrived
in New York on 27 August and left for Bogota, with Sert and
Wiener, on the 31 st . 78
While they were preparing the version of the Plan for presentation,
the Bogota press began to prepare the ground for
the visit of the experts with the publication of another interview
with Jorge Gaitán Cortés who, by mid-1950, had been
appointed Dean of the Architecture Faculty at Universidad de
los Andes. Gaitán provided a detailed explanation of functionalist
planning and of the constitutive elements of the city
according to the plan: the civic center, housing or residen-
tial sectors, and the work districts, along with their four basic
functions—housing, work, circulation, and the cultivation of
body and mind. In the specific case of the Plan for Bogota, he
suggested that readers should bear in mind the importance
of the construction industry, whose very large number of employees
could live spread across different districts as long as
the city provided a good circulation and transport system. He
also expressed his agreement with the architect Gabriel Serrano,
who had argued that if high rise apartment blocks were
built in the center of the city, the popuation of the new middle
class neighborhoods would disappear in response to the
low quality of the transport system, a factor that would weigh
against the mobilization of workers towards the center 79 .
For his part, Arbeláez Camacho spoke in the country’s
most important newspapers about the imminent return of Le
Corbusier, Wiener, and Sert to present the Pilot Plan. He defended
Le Corbusier against the accusations that had been
made concerning the failure of the Unité in Marseilles, and
announced that an exhibition would be held in September
that would provide information on the problems faced by the
city and the solutions offered by the Plan. 80 The negative atmosphere
surrounding the Plan reappeared on the front page
of El Espectador, and Arbeláez was obliged to write to the
editor 81 explaining the role of the OPRB, describing its team
of outstanding professionals who had carried out research
into the current conditions of the city. He described the virtues
of the Plan and its role in guiding the urban future of the
capital, defending Le Corbusier’s suitability as the architect
and town planner who had been chosen to develop it.
The promotion of the exhibition on the Pilot Plan began
a week before the arrival of Le Corbusier, Wiener, and Sert.
Arbeláez presented the proposal to the press 82 as the first
architecture exhibition ever to be held in the country; it would
be held in a temporary marquee on the site of the Orphanage
building on the Carrera seven between Calles 18 and
19, which had been destroyed during the tragedy of the 9
April. The marquee in question was the Temps Nouveaux Pavilion
designed by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret for the
Paris International Exhibition of 1937. Arbeláez described its
content as a novel collection of works presented in different

scales and formats that would illustrate for the visiting public
the evolution of “Bogota: four centuries of the city”.
Arbeláez explained to the press that the exhibition would
consist of photographs and drawings of Bogota’s architecture
from Colonial times onwards, and would illustrate the
transformation in the urban landscape and building styles up
until the modern era. It would compare the advantages of the
machine age with the sufferings it had brought, and liken the
city to a diseased organism that, once submitted to diagnosis
and treatment, is restored to health. Arbeláez said that by the
time they reached this point in the exhibition visitors would
recognized that the city required a Regulatory Plan to provide
direction to its future development. At this stage the exhibition
would present the Pilot Plan that the international experts
were bringing with them. The exhibition would be accompanied
by the projection of films and by lectures. Its principal
aim was to give those who attended a clear idea of what the
city was hoping to achieve with the implementation of the Pilot
Plan.
The Presentation of the Pilot Plan
Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener arrived in Bogota on 1 September
1950. Le Corbusier told the press that he was carrying
the Plan with him, that it met all the requirements of
the contract signed with the municipal authorities and that
it would now be possible to visualize the restructuring and
development of the capital and the conditions under which
they would be achieved. The plan was the fruit of a year’s
hard work and had been prepared with the participation of
Colombian architects working in his offices in Paris, including
Germán Samper and Rogelio Salmona. Le Corbusier
said that he was pleased with the results, and thanked the
architects and experts in Bogota who had provided exceptionally
important information on demographic, geographical,
social and economic factors without which it would have
been impossible to prepare a Plan capable of establishing
the basis of an ordered development process for Bogota. He
insisted that the journalist should not omit to mention that this
Plan constituted a general approach that would establish the
bases for the resolution of Bogota’s problems, while his colleagues
Wiener and Sert, working in New York, and in contact
with Bogota, worked on the Regulatory Plan. 83 Among his
most important collaborators in this phase of the Pilot Plan,
in addition to Salmona, Samper and Vincent Solomita, who
had worked with him in the atelier, were Francisco Pizano de
Brigard, Augusto Tobito and Jaime Ponce de León, who had
collaborated on the architectural aspects; Jorge Forero Vélez,
who had worked on water supply and the sewage system;
and Carlos Riveros and Gonzalo Roa of the OPRB, who
had provided geographical survey information. 84
Le Corbusier presented the Pilot Plan, accompanied by
Sert and Wiener, amid great expectation on the part of the
population in general and the communications media in particular.
The mayor, Santiago Trujillo Gómez, called a meeting
attended by the technical staff at the OPRB, members
of the employers’ organization the Asociación Nacional de
Industriales, the retail association the Federación Nacional
de Comerciantes, bankers, and other official and semi-official
organizations. In the meeting the mayor created a group involving
several of the participants in the meeting, which was
charged with preparing a thorough analysis of the Plan. As
Le Corbusier and his partners were going to work out of the
OPRB offices for two months, the idea was to provide feedback
that would be incorporated into the final revision and
approval of the Plan (El Siglo 1950).
However, the Pilot Plan was kept a closely guarded secret.
No one outside the group of experts knew what it was like. The
exhibition was cancelled. The mystery was explained by the
fact that if its contents were disclosed before the regulatory
decree was hadned down, the 3,000 building firms active in
the city at the time would unleash a wave of speculation. However,
despite the absence of detialed information that access
to the Plan itself would have provided, it was general knowledge
that it comprised a general project for the whole city
inspired by the Athens Charter (Wolf 1950). Le Corbusier’s
visit occupied the cover of the magazine Semana—one of the
country’s most important—while the inauguration of the new
President Laureano Gómez was relegated to the lower left-
hand corner. The five-page story in the Arts section praised
the work of the architect and provided specific information on
the content and methodology of the Pilot Plan. 85
During his time in Bogota, Le Corbusier produced a significant
number of sketches and technical notes along with
philosophical and personal reflections in his notebooks. As
the airplane bringing him to Bogota flew over the savannah,
his attention was drawn to the River Bogota, which confirmed
his “Law of the Meander” and the sketches that he had made
for his book Precisions. 86 He noted the impressions left by
his walk through La Candelaria. But his principal focus was
on the guidelines that would enable the Pilot Plan to establish
the range of service equipment necessary for daily living,
such as the V1, V2, and V3 pedestrian-free rapid transport
routes; recreation and leisure sites such as cinemas, local libraries,
neighborhood clubs, and the communal centers to be
built along the V4s, or principal streets in the neighborhoods;
and the cafés, neighborhood shops, imported goods stores,
butchers, bakeries, workshops, police stations, medical centers,
and pharmacies on the V5s. In other words, he introduced
a range of services that were complementary to housing,
and which defined the sector and the neighborhood 87 .
Le Corbusier visited the Universidad de los Andes and
observed the architecture classes given by Gaitán Cortés
and Pizano. He was impressed by the youth of the professors
and the Dean and made a note to request that Claudius Petit,
the French Minister for Reconstruction, create a housing
school that would award a state-recognized diploma to young
professors, creating a “science of housing”, and establish a
series of courses in Paris, the United States, the Soviet Union,
Italy, Spain, and France. Next he wrote a note reminding himself
to ask Wiener or Arbeláez for a photostat of the licenses
for the Plan for Bogota so that he could send it to Claudius
Petit and explain how the OPRB and the CIAM team, the Architecture
Faculty at the Universidad de los Andes, Pizano,
Arbeláez Camacho, and Gutiérrez worked together on the
Pilot and Regulatory Plans. 88
Le Corbusier made other notes too, for example on the
land-locked nature of Bogota. From Monserrate, the mountain
that rises above the city to a height of 3,000 meters, he
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
171

questioned the city’s position in the middle of the Andes.
Though he recognized that it might have made sense in the
Colonial period, he struggled to find an explanation for its
continued importance, concluding that it was probably due to
the economic and commercial influence of the United States.
From above, it seemed to him that “the inhabitants of the city
are mad, squeezed onto the pavements, abused by the North
American cars; they are always busy. They live behind a veil
of unconsciousness” 89
Between the 19 and 20 September, Le Corbusier made
notes on the intense work sessions on land values and social
housing. His notes on a meeting about the implementation of
the plan with Mayor Trujillo Gómez included questions concerning
the participation of the population in the initial stages
of the Pilot and Regulatory Plans, on the general principle of
the three dimensional valuation of assets, and how to calculate
value using the French notion of “services rendered”
(services prestés) in each functional category: housing, offices,
manufacture, industry, commerce, recreation, etc. He
argued that public works generate benefits and that the recovery
of costs should be calculated according to the costs
or benefits for different population groups. 90
On the impact of general charging levels resulting from
the implementation of the Pilot Plan, 91 Le Corbusier noted that
the “services rendered” would be evaluated by a board of experts
who would value properties using a coefficient for each
urban function crossed with the characteristics of land ownership.
If the owners or co-owners failed to make the obligatory
contribution they would be obliged to sell the land or agree
to join a board of co-proprietors establishing in this way the
conditions necessary to bring about the “third dimension”. 92
Thus, as the Pilot Plan divided the city on the basis of estimated
land values, it was possible to create groups to carry out
public works corresponding to each sector. Each component
should have its defined size, limits, and formal and functional
characteristics and equipment levels that would guarantee
its full functioning, as well as make it possible to calculate the
costs required to bring it about 93 .
Le Corbusier recommended a single tax be levied to create
a renewable, rotating “Urban Progress Fund” that could
172 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
be renewed indefinitely, if necessary, and used to finance the
improvement of public utilities. Finally, he concluded that “a
valuation of this kind could only be achieved if Pilot and Regulatory
Plans have been adopted”. 94 Le Corbusier identified
four factors affecting social housing: the social-ethnographic
(referring to the theories of Paul Rivet), the technical, the dimensional,
and the economic. 95 At the same time he made
sketches in which he reflected on the functional meaning of
the family and the communal or the public, and sketched out
a housing model designed to respond to these functions. 96
Once the long work session in Bogota was over, Le Corbusier
returned to Paris on 22 September. Before travelling,
he drew two sketches of the Plaza de Bolívar, outlining his
plans for the civic center. 97 Sert and Wiener stayed in Bogota,
elaborating a plan that included the unplanned developments
outside the municipal boundaries, which covered
some 18,000 hectares, and most of which were illegal. 98 Wiener
considered that it would be very difficult to put an end
to this problem and, with Sert, he prepared a memorandum
for the Mayor and the President recommending the creation
of a regional consultative committee that would work under
the direction of the OPRB to create a plan to control such
developments in the future. 99 Sert believed that only a Presidential
Decree could resolve the problem. The situation was a
delicate one because most of the objections to the Pilot Plan
came from private developers. This was the reason for the
decision to keep the Plan secret and reveal it only after the
Presidential Decree had been approved. 100
Presentation of the Pilot Plan and Final Adjustments
On 10 May 1951, Le Corbusier arrived in Bogota from New
York and Wiener and Sert from Cali. The visit was planned
to advance different activities on the ground: the planning of
the road system and housing, finalization of the plans for the
central wholesale market and surrounding area, the definition
of the bases for the first five year plan, the study of the overall
legislative framework, defending the plan in public, and attending
the inauguration of the exhibition on the Pilot Plan that
had been organized by the OPRB on the fourth floor of City
Hall. The exhibition was inaugurated on 14 May and was attend
by Mayor Santiago Trujillo, Minister of Education Rafael
Azula Barrera, several ex-mayors, municipal secretaries, and
members of Bogota’s municipal council 101 .
The exhibition, which was open to the public until 27 June,
had three sections: “Why is the Pilot Plan Necessary?”, “What
is a Pilot Plan?”, and the presentation of the Pilot Plan itself.
Additionally, a maquette of the civic center was on display,
alongside photo-montages of the project for the Presidential
Palace prepared by the OPRB, and the five year work plan,
which included a new railway station, the completion of the
Avenida Caracas and of the Carrera ten both in the north and
the south of the city, the construction of the Avenida Los Llanos
and the completion of the Avenida Cundinamarca. 102 Although
the content of the exhibition was different from what Arbeláez
had envisaged a few months previously, it was a total success.
It was visited by the general public, politicians, leaders of the
neighborhood improvement committees, prestigious professionals
and students of architecture and engineering, all of
whose opinions were registered by the national press 103 .
In the working meetings in which Le Corbusier, Sert, and
Wiener; the people working on the Plan at the OPRB; and
the mayor participated, decisions were taken on a series of
topics, including changes to the profiles of roads such as
the Avenida Cundinamarca and the definition of the zones of
influence lying outside the urban perimeter but with regulated
population densities that might qualify them to receive the
same level of public services as the neighborhoods included
within the perimeter. 104 They also worked on the text of the
Decree by which the Pilot Plan would officially be adopted
and on the text of another measure to authorize the road plan.
Finally, they agreed the Five Year Work Plan, which included
the following activities: 105
- Tree planting and the transformation of river banks as set
out in the Pilot Plan.
- The construction of ten model houses in the Quiroga
Housing Development as set out in the Pilot Plan. These
would be evaluated before the definitive construction of
40,000 low-cost houses.

Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan (undated) © FLC 31555
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and the “definitive plan of
neighborhoods and nomenclature (sector divisions)” (17 April, 1950) © FLC 31557
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and the
“circulation study– Zone A, first stage,” signed by Samper (26.04.1950) © FLC
31553
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
173

Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the metropolitan plan, and the “nomenclature
study for housing, work, and spiritual and physical recreation”, signed by
Samper (April, 1950) © FLC 31554
174 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and the “neighborhood study” (April,
1950) © FLC 31558-v
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): draft of the urban plan, and the
“Markets – neighborhood study” (April, 1950) © FLC 31559

- The construction of the central wholesale market on land
ceded by the National Railroad, as set out in the Pilot
Plan.
- The conclusion of road construction as set out in Road
Plan 106 included in the Pilot Plan. 107
Some Conclusions
In spite of all the vicissitudes inherent in any planning process,
for Le Corbusier, the directors and staff of the OPRB,
the Colombian architects who worked on the plan in Le Corbusier’s
studio in Paris, and for Sert and Wiener in their role
as advisors, the elaboration of the Pilot Plan involved an intense
and drawn-out process of learning and teaching. But
the process also involved the Bogota municipal council and
the offices of the Mayor and the President, as well as private
developers and local schools of architecture. Despite the distances
involved, the elaboration of the plan involved a level of
methodological harmony that was the result of the academic
training of the members of the OPRB team, their fluency in
French, and their identification with Le Corbusier’s doctrine in
general and the Athens Charter in particular. In addition to the
technical transfer implied by the process, it converged on the
production of a series of synthetic images of a project for a
city that went beyond the collective imagination to constitute
a series of technical reference points that transcended the
contradictions produced as the process advanced.
As well as the direct interaction between the members of
the OPRB, the piecing together of the Plan generated an unprecedented
number of urban planning studies both for city
and country. This involved the participation of other teams of
professionals from fields including geography, cartography
and demography, who also applied their expertise to the solution
of the new technical demands that emerged as a result
of the Plan. Furthermore, the members of the OPRB had the
opportunity to collaborate with professionals from other disciplines
to develop the shared goal of creating the future city.
The press and specialist magazines played an important
role publicizing and documenting events connected with the
Plan, both in terms of the overall progress of the process and
during the working visits of Le Corbusier, Sert, and Wiener.
The news items, editorials, interviews, reports, expressions of
opposition, and the discussions involving technical experts,
politicians, and columnists that appeared in the country’s
leading newspapers informed the general population about
the principal contents of the Plan, the problems it sought
to address, and—above all—the idea of the city that it proposed.
It is certainly the case that, in addition to the drawings,
the sketches, and all the other documents it produced,
the Plan left its traces on those who collaborated in its production,
on the city of Bogota, and on its inhabitants.
Doris Tarchópulos is an architect. She has a postgraduate specialization from
the Universidad Autónoma de México and is a doctoral candidate in the
Departamento de Urbanística y Ordenación del Territorio (Department of
Urban and Territorial Planning) at the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña.
She was Director of the Instituto de Vivienda and Urbanismo (Institute for
Housing and Town Planning) at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota,
between 1993 and 2002. She has been recognized as a researcher
by the Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia and la Tecnología
(Colombian Institute for the Development of Science and Technology,
COLCIENCIAS) since 1996 and as a Director of Research Groups
since 2002. She is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Architecture
and Design at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
1 This article forms a part of my doctoral thesis, “Las Huellas del Plan para
Bogota de Le Corbusier, Sert y Wiener” (The Traces of the Plan for Bogota
Developed by Le Corbusier, Sert and Wiener), initiated in 2005 at the Departamento
de Urbanística y Ordenación del Territorio of the Universidad
Politécnica de Cataluña, supervised by Joaquín Sabaté and José María
Ezquiaga. In the thesis I explore the historical, methodological, and practical
importance of the process and results of this planning experience. I
was supported in writing the thesis by a research grant from the grant
from the Departamento de Urbanística y Ordenación del Territorio of the
Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, the Fundación para la Promoción de
la Investigación y la Tecnología of the Banco de la República de Colombia
and the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
2 FLC D16’–191, reply from Le Corbusier to Eduardo Mejía, Dean of Architecture
at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, when Mejía asked him to
speak to his students and teaching staff during one of his visits to Bogota,
1950.
3 This policy was based on the positions of the US economist Walt W. Rostow,
who, during the Second World War, worked at the Office of Strategic
Services, precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Rostow was
one of the key figures behind the Marshall Plan and author of the book The
Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, published in
1960. See Michele Alacevich, Andrea Costa, “Developing cities: Between
Economic and Urban Policies in Latin America after World War II”, in Social
Science Research Network (July 2005). Internet. Available: http://papers.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=825504
4 Among other things, the Act stipulated that cities with more than 200,000
inhabitants and budgets above 200,000 pesos were required to “…develop
a land use plan that indicated the planning process for future urban
development. The plan should include details of the alterations and improvements
to the existing built up area as well as plans for future housing
development, public buildings, leisure facilities, religious sites, public
spaces, parks, schools and other necessary buildings”.
5 Jorge Gaitán Cortés was born in New York in 1920. He graduated in architecture
from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in 1942 and undertook
postgraduate studies at Yale University. He was the Colombian
representative at CIAM. Between 1947 and 1948 he was co-director of the
Sección de Edificios Nacionales (Historically Important Buildings Section)
of the Ministry of Public Works, where he was behind contracting TPA to
be in charge of the Plan for the Reconstruction of Tumaco. In 1948 he was
appointed director of the Technical Department at the Instituto de Crédito
Territorial, recently created to provide social housing across the country.
He taught at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia and was dean of the
architecture faculty at the Universidad de los Andes. He occupied several
public positions: member of the Bogota Municipal Council, president of
the Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos and mayor of Bogota between
1961 and 1966. Gaitán died at age 48 in Bogota in a traffic accident while
he was Editor of El Espectador, one of Colombia’s leading newspapers.
See Julio Dávila, Planificación y Política en Bogota: la Vida de Jorge Gaitán
Cortés, Alcaldía Mayor de Bogota, IDCT, Bogota 2000.
6 Carlos Martínez, “Consideraciones generales sobre el Plan de Tumaco
elaborado por el Departamento de Edificios Nacionales del Ministerio
de Obras Públicas”, in PROA 15 (Bogota, September 1948) 11-29.
José Luis Sert, Paul Lester Wiener, “Urbanisme en Amerique Latine”, in
L’architecture d’aujourd’hui 33 (Paris 1951).
7 Remember that Gaitán Cortés had been behind the decision to contract
TPA to develop the Plan for the Reconstruction of Tumaco when he was
co-director of the Sección de Edificios Nacionales of the Ministry of Public
Works. He also represented Colombia at the CIAM.
8 Colombian lawyer and jurist: Colombian representative before the United
Nations; chair of the Preparatory Committee for the First Period of Sessions
of the UN General Assembly; Colombian delegate to the constitutive act
that created the Organization of American States; Colombian Foreign Minister
and Minister of Public Education; ambassador to the United States,
Peru, and Italy; and Rector of the Universidad de los Andes.
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
175

9 “TIME Workshop for the World”, in The New York Times (New York, 1 June
1947).
10 C.H Santos, “Bogotá es una ciudad sin modelar, opina el gran urbanista
Le Corbusier”, in El Tiempo, Bogota, 17 June 1947.
11 “El Maestro Charles Le Corbusier propone crear Célula de Ascoral en Colombia”,
in El Espectador (Bogota, 22 June 1947) 3.
12 Carlos Arbeláez, “Le Corbusier Polemista”, in PROA 8 (Bogota, August
1947)11-13.
13 “Que Bogotá se está demoliendo mal, insinuó anoche Le Corbusier”, in El
Espectador (Bogota, 19 June 1947).
14 Arbeláez, “Le Corbusier Polemista.. op.cit.
15 “Le Corbusier planeará en Paris la ciudad del futuro”, in El Espectador
(Bogota, 23 June 1947).
16 FLC, Colombia: Le Corbusier notebooks, Paris, 1947: 5.
17 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J.V Garcés Navas, 6 November
1947, referring to the offer of consultancy services to the ICT.
18 Vous me dites que Breuer a été a Bogota faire des démarches pour avoir
la commande des plans de le ville. Je trouve cela révoltant, autant de la
part de Breuer que de la part des Colombiens”. See JLS SC HU, letter
from Le Corbusier to J.L Sert, Paris, 22 March 1948.
19 Created by Acuerdo 88, 8 September 1948, Concejo de Bogotá, regulated
by the mayor, Mazuera, and organized directly by Sert and Wiener.
20 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J.L Sert, Paris, 27 July 1948.
21 “Reconstrucción del Palacio de San Carlos”, in El Espectador (Bogota
1948).
22 JLS SC HU, Letter from J.L Sert to Le Corbusier, Cali, 16 February 1949.
23 Contract Number 104, “Contrato para la prestación de servicios de consultoría
en urbanismo para la elaboración del Plan Regulador de Bogota
con el arquitecto Le Corbusier”, Alcaldía de Bogotá, 16 March 1949.
24 C. Pardo “Planeando la Ciudad del Futuro: Qué es el Plano Regulador
de Bogotá. Entrevista a Jorge Gaitán Cortés”, in El Espectador (Bogota
1949).
25 Jorge Gaitán, “Aclaraciones para El Bogotano: El Plan de la Ciudad”, in El
Espectador (Bogota, August 1949).
26 J. M Montoya, “Carta a El Bogotano: Sobre el Plano Regulador”, in El Espectador
(Bogota 1949); Julio Carvajal, “La Modernización de Bogotá:
Cómo se hace el Plan Regulador” in El Espectador (Bogota 1949).
27 “De Nuevo Le Corbusier”, in El Bogotano (Bogota 1950). “El Bogotá Futuro”,
in El Espectador (Bogota 1950).
28 Architect born in Madrid, Spain, in 1925. Arrived in Colombia with his parents
in 1938, refugees from the Spanish Civil War. Studied architecture in
the Universidad Nacional de Colombia and in 1947 joined the team at the
Ministry of Public Works working on the Plan for Tumaco, led by Sert and
Wiener. See Fernando Martínez Sanabria, Biografías, Gran Enciclopedia
de Colombia, Círculo de Lectores, 2004. Internet. Available: http://www.
lablaa.org/blaavirtual/biografias/martfern.htm. JLS SC HU, letter from Le
Corbusier to J. L Sert, 31 May 1950.
29 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to the manager of the Hotel des
176 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Roches, Paris, 8 June 1949. Reservation for José Luis Sert, Paul Lester
Wiener, and wives, and for Herbert Ritter and Fernando Martínez.
30 FLC, Le Corbusier Travail de Bogota, Cap Martin, 21 August 1949: 1.
31 Born in 1916 in Paris, France. Primary education in Brussels at the Ecole
des Dames Trinitaries and the College Saint Boniface. Secondary education
at the College Saint Boniface in Belgium and the Colegio San Bartolomé
in Bogota. Subsequently, travelled to New York where he studied
in the Blessed Sacrament School, completing his secondary education at
the Colegio Alemán in Bogota. Graduated in 1943 from the Universidad
Nacional de Colombia. In 1945, began teaching Introduction to Architecture
at the Nacional University of Colombia and was accepted into the
CIAM. Following the catastrophe of the 9 April 1948, Arbeláez and other
architects proposed creating a specialized organism for the reconstruction
of Bogota, and in 1949 he was named Director General of the Departamento
de Edificios Nacionales at the Ministry of Public Works. In 1951,
while continuing to teach at the Universidad Nacional, he began teaching
a course on the history of urban communities at the Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana. He was director of the OPRB between 1950 and 1952, when he
travelled to London to study at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government,
and in the School of Planning and Regional Research. In 1953 he
moved to Paris, where he studied at the Ministère de L’Urbanisme. In 1961
he was appointed President of the Sociedad Colombiana de Arquitectos
and in 1962 was founding director of the Instituto de Investigaciones
Estéticas at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. In 1967 he was named
General Secretary of the Academia Colombiana de Historia. He died on
24 May 1969, aged 52. “Carlos Arbeláez Camacho”, Biblioteca Virtual
del Banco de la República. Internet. 23 November 2008. Available: http://
www.lablaa.org/blaavirtual/biografias/arbelcar.htm.
32 FLC H3-4-165, letter from H. Ritter to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 8 November
1949.
33 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
19 January 1950. Martínez returned to Bogota. Preparatory Instructions for
the working meeting in Bogota, February-March 1950.
34 In Barranquilla, Le Corbusier met with Enrique Álvarez, Elberto González-
Rubio, and Roberto MacCausland, mayor of the city, to discuss a planning
role. With the fees from this job he planned to buy a farm outside
Paris, promising to reserve a part of it for Wiener. FLC D14-12 and 13, Le
Corbusier, Sketchbooks, Vol. 2 (1950-1954), (Cambridge:MIT Press, The
Architectural History Foundation, Fondation Le Corbusier, 1981).
35 At this time the OPRB had 60 employees, and an annual budget of
275,000 pesos. See “Arquitectura: La Ciudad y el Mundo”, in Semana
(Bogotá: Sección Arte,, 7 Oct. 1950) 22-27.
36 “17 puntos comprenden la labor preliminar para el Plan Regulador”, in El
Tiempo (Bogota, 21 February 1950).
37 “Le Corbusier informa al Alcalde Mayor”, in El Siglo (Bogota, 21 February
1950).”Le Corbusier. Entregó ya su ‘Plan Piloto’”, in El Tiempo (Bogota
1950).
38 “17 puntos comprenden la labor preliminar”. op. cit. “Dos sitios se discu-
ten para la Estación de Ferrocarriles”, in El Espectador (Bogota, 28 February
1950).
39 “Exposición sobre el Plan Piloto habrá en el mes de September”, in El
Siglo (Bogota, July 1950).
40 FLC D16’-156, 158
41 FLC D16’-159
42 FLC D16’-164
43 FLC D16’ - 165
44 FLC D16’-168
45 FLC D16’-176
46 FLC D16’- 178
47 FLC D16’-181
48 In his notes he also recognized that “there [was] a wealth of talented architects
in Bogota: a weakness in the area of Fine Arts, which means there is
more scope for the spirit of architecture”, FLC D14-47.
49 FLC D14-27
50 Bogota’s road system is a grid pattern principally made up of numbered
carreras that run roughly north–south and calles running east-west. Some
of the more important streets, which do not always conform to the grid pattern,
are called avenidas. There are some other variations to nomenclature
and layout, but these are not significant for the purposes of this article
(Translator’s note).
51 FLC D14-28
52 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J.L Sert and P.L Wiener, Paris, 16
March 1950.
53 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
12 May 1950.
54 FLC 31560, 31561, 31563, 31564, 31565, 31566, 31567, 31568, 31572,
33688, 33689.
55 FLC 33686, 31556
56 FLC 31550, 31547, 31548, 31552, 31549
57 FLC 31551, 31555, 31556, 31557, 31558, 31559
58 FLC H-3-4-123, letter from Le Corbusier to Carlos Arbeláez, Paris, 14 April
1950.
59 Le Corbusier is insists that Sectors is the exact term that should be used to
describe the divisions in the city, because of its geographical characteristics
and population density: “secteurs”. Nous avons admis cette appellation
exacte et definitive”. Ibid.
60 FLC H3-4-115, letter from J.L Sert y P. L. Wiener to C. Arbeláez, New York,
27 April 1950.
61 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
5 May 1950.
62 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener, New York, 7 June 1950.
63 JLS SC HU, J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York, 12 May
1950.
64 FLC H3-4-107, letter from Le Corbusier to C. Arbeláez, Paris, 26 May 1950.
65 The plans are: Plan for the construction of individual dwellings and apartments,
by zones and years; plan showing the distribution of inhabitants

of the city, plan of Bogota broken down by functional activity, and a commercial
growth scheme. See FLC H3-4-99, letter from Carlos Arbeláez to
Le Corbusier, Bogota, 6 June 1950.
66 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
21 June 1950, in which they receive questions from Arbeláez.
67 ibid.
68 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J. L. Sert and P. L. Wiener, Paris, 22
June 1950.
69 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
21 June 1950.
70 ibid.
71 ibid.
72 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener, New York, 29 June 1950.
Observations on Le Corbusier’s drawings for the Pilot Plan.
73 FLC H3-4-99, letter from C. Arbeláez to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 6 June
1950.
74 FLC H3-4-91, letter from C. Arbeláez to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 23 June
1950.
75 ibid.
76 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J. L. Sert and P. L. Wiener, Paris, 6
July 1950.
77 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener, New York, 12 July 1950.
78 JLS SC HU, letter from Le Corbusier to J. L. Sert and P. L. Wiener, Paris, 24
July 1950.
79 “Habla la Gente que Piensa: Cómo será el Plan Regularizador. Charla con
el Decano Jorge Gaitán Cortés”, in El Espectador (June 1950).
80 “Exposición sobre el Plan Piloto habrá en el mes de Septiembre”, op. cit.
81 Arbeláez Camacho Archive at the Universidad Javeriana, letter from C.
Arbeláez to the editor of El Espectador (Bogota, 2 August 1950).
82 “Una Interesante Exposición de Arquitectura se hará en Bogota”, in El
Siglo (Bogota, 25 August 1950).
83 “El Plan Piloto de Bogotá será presentado en una Exposición”, in El Siglo
(Bogota, 2 September 1950).
84 ibid.
85 “Arquitectura: La Ciudad y el Mundo”, in Semana (Bogota, 7 October1950).
86 FLC D15-58, 61, 62.
87 FLC D15-65.
88 FLC D15-68, 69, 70, 71.
89 FLC D15-77, 78.
90 FLC D15-86.
91 The Impuesto de Valorización is a tax imposed on properties that increase
in value as a result of the construction of public interest buildings, the
proceeds being earmarked for their maintenance and other costs accrued
(Act 25, 1921; 195 1936; 113 1937; 1ª 1943).
92 FLC D15-87
93 FLC D15-87
94 FLC D15-89
95 FLC D15-90
96 FLC D15- 91
97 FLC D15-93,94
98 JLS SC HU, letter from J.L Sert and P. L. Wiener to Le Corbusier, New York,
17 November 1950.
99 FLC H3-4-85,86,87, letter from P.L Wiener to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 28 October
1950.
100 FLC H3-4-82, letter from Le Corbusier to C. Arbeláez, Paris, 17 November
1950.
101 “Los Urbanistas Le Corbusier, Wiener y Sert llegarán a la Ciudad el Próximo
5 de May o”, in El Siglo (Bogota 1951).
102 “El Perímetro Urbano ganó 3.000 hectáreas. La exposición del plan así lo
demuestra”, in El Siglo (Bogota, 15 May 1951).
103 “La exposición sobre el Plan Piloto está siendo muy visitada”, in El Siglo
(Bogota, 15 May 1951). “Muy visitada la Exposición del Plan Regulador en
el Municipio de Bogotá”, in El Espectador (Bogota 1951). Julio Carvajal,
“El Plan Piloto y el Plan Regulador. Puntos contemplados en el Plan Piloto
que deben analizarse y pesarse a toda conciencia”, in El Espectador (Bogota,
24 May 1951).
104 “El Plan Piloto. En siete zonas fue dividida la ciudad. Reglamentadas las
urbanizaciones y los servicios”, in El Tiempo (Bogota, 6 April 1951).
105 “Las obras principales en los cinco primeros años del Plan”, in El Siglo
(Bogota, 30 May 1950).
106 Alcaldía de Bogotá, Anales del Concejo, Decreto 480 1951.
107 Alcaldía de Bogotá, Anales del Concejo, 3. Decreto 185 of 5 April 1951.
Le Corbusier and Bogota: More than Just a Pilot Plan | Doris Tarchópulos
177

The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 - 1951
Juana Salcedo Ortiz, Philip Weiss Salas and Marcela Ángel Samper
One of the least explored aspects of the Pilot Plan for Bogota
(PPB) of 1950 has been its method of presentation. The technical
report was submitted following the grille CIAM and the
Pilot Plan’s civic center in the grille MARS 1 format. The use of
these two grids invites exploration of the methodology of the
Pilot Plan proposal and analysis of the use of the grids within
the framework of the urbanism proposed by the International
Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM) 2 .
Volker Welter has rstated the importance of analyzing
the way in which the CIAM architects used the grids insofar
as they were modern instruments that moved between the
search for urban universality and local specificity. 3 Although
they have been seen as evidence of a shift among the postwar
CIAM architects towards the search for an approach to
specific local circumstances, the grids, at the time, represented
a systematic approach in the search for the universality
ushered in by modernity. 4 Following Welter, addressing this
issue through analysis of a specific grid enables focus on a
particular situation and on what happens when it is translated
to the grid. It is also, therefore, of particular relevance to study
the way in which these presentations juxtapose photographs
and specific urban situations with architectural proposals that
respond ‘coherently’ to urban life. 5
In keeping with the general idea of the publication of a
facsimile of the technical report of the Pilot Plan and its accompanying
articles, the presentation of the CIAM and the
MARS grids in exhibition format seeks to open up new areas
for discussion of the Pilot Plan, which reflect on the use of the
grids as a method of analysis and presentation of projects. 6 .
To this end, the first part of this article presents a brief history
of the grids in the context of CIAM. The second part explores
178 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
in detail the use of the grids in the Pilot Plan for Bogota. Finally,
the third section explores the process of redevelopment and
reinterpretation of the CIAM and MARS grids of the Pilot Plan.
History of the grids
“You find yourself before an attempt to provide urbanism with
an element of measurement.... a real methodology!” 7 .
Le Corbusier
At the seventh CIAM (1949), Le Corbusier said that the urbanism
grid was above all a tool for thinking and for communicating
thinking, ready to be used by urbanists. 8 The French
Ascoral group developed the grid under the direction of Le
Corbusier in December 1947, with the aim of resolving the
‘disastrous misunderstanding’ that existed between technicians,
the authorities, and the public (the users). 9 The experience
of the sixth CIAM in Bridgewater in 1947—the first to
take place after World War II – led Le Corbusier to propose
the creation of a grid that would facilitate the systematization
and comparison of the urbanism studies to be presented at
the next Congress.
For Le Corbusier, architects and urbansist lacked a methodology
for thinking properly about planning, one which
would clear the ground and simplify the information. 10 The
development of methods of analysis and projection is not
uncommon in his work; his studies The Modulor (1942-53)
and the Climatiquè Grid (1952-56) testify to this. Seeking out
systematic forms of projection was a constant interest of this
architect, who regarded them as “tools for uniting and pacify-
ing, for breaking down barriers, instruments for sharing ideas
and objects”. 11
The grid was a formal representation of the interest of
the leaders of CIAM in establishing a systematic language
which would facilitate the understanding and comparison
of the projects that took part in each congress. Di Biagi has
commented that interest in a common representation of CIAM
projects was evident, particularly at the sixth Congress of
1933. At this Congress, the panels of the 33 cities studied
were required to be created under the same analytical criteria,
to the same scale, and with the same representation techniques.
The guidelines even recommended which ink should
be used. 12 The need for a common language and method
was mentioned by Le Corbusier during the Congress. He expressed
that the amount of information on the panels was like
Le Modulor. Image taken of Le Corbusier, Modulor 2 (La parole est aux usagers)
Suite de Le Modulor 1948, Ed. from l’Architecture d’aujourd’hui, Collection
Ascoral, Bolougne 1955, p. 303. © FLC

La Grille Climatiquè. Images taken of Le Corbusier and his workshop at rue de Sèvres 35, Œuvre Complète 1957-65, Girsberger, Zurich 1965, p. 108. © FLC
Plans and instructions for the CIAM grid. Image taken from: Ascoral, Grille
CIAM d’ Urbanisme. Mise en Pratique de la Charte d’Athènes, L’Architecture
d’Aujourd’hui, Paris 1948, p. 7, 10. © FLC
a ‘mine’ from which the precious metals should be extracted:
“it is necessary to analyze and classify, looking through a filter,
through the prism of modern times”. 13
The CIAM grid, proposed 15 years later, can be seen as
the filter which allowed the synthesis of the ‘mountains of paper’
which the urban planner had had to struggle with. For
Le Corbusier, the grid was the visual method par excellence
which enabled planners to “get the terribly slow process of
report reading out of the way.” 14 With the publication of the
CIAM Grille (1948) the Ascoral group introduced the grid and
gave instructions for its application and use at the Seventh
Congress, which took place the following year in Bergamo. 15
The grid was presented as a ‘modern tool’ for analysis,
synthesis, presentation, and reading of a theme and its many
presentation possibilities were highlighted: as a classifiable
dossier; as a presentation diagram for display; or as a poster
that could be folded. 16 The grid was the implementation of
the Athens Charter, published by Le Corbusier in 1942, and it
showed CIAM’s continuity of thought in the quest for the functional
city. 17 The grid was configured vertically based on the
four functions of habitation –which are regarded as crucial to
urban forms– and each function was assigned a color: habitation
(green), work (red), cultivation of body and spirit (blue),
circulation (yellow), plus a column for miscellaneous functions.
On the horizontal axis, ten themes were proposed for
addressing the city: environment, occupation of the ground,
built volume and use of three dimensional space, facilities,
ethics and aesthetics, economic and social impacts, legislation,
financing, phases of construction, miscellaneous and
reactions –of a rational and emotional order– to these themes.
The intersection of themes and functions created a series
of rectangular divisions which, depending on the problem,
could be used in whole or in part and enabled a wide range
of questions on urbanism to be addressed. 18 Using this tool,
urbanism projects could be systematically analyzed and a
new method would be configured based on certain specific
themes and expressed in a standardized language. 19
The CIAM grid was used for the first time at the seventh
CIAM – the only occasion on which all projects were presented
using this method. The grid proposal intensified, as Eric
Mumford has shown, tensions within the organization. During
the Congress, some critics of the grid felt that it was difficult
to compare and that its visualization always needed an explanatory
commentary on the part of the authors. Its detractors
also expressed doubt about the ability of this method of
working to clarify a large number of important problems. 20 In
response to the criticisms, Le Corbusier said: “We must find a
way to work or a procedure, and once we’ve found it we must
perfect it. Improve the grid as much as you can, but don’t
destroy it!” 21
The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 | J. Salcedo, P. Weiss, M. Ángel
179

Drawing of the MARS grid. Image take from Josep Lluis Sert, El corazón de la ciudad: por una vida más humana de la comunidad, Hoepli S.L, Barcelona 1955, p
107.
For the eighth CIAM that took place in Hoddesdon in 1951,
the projects were presented in the MARS grid, a simplified
version of the CIAM grid proposed for the presentation and
analysis of town centers – the main theme of the Congress. 22
This grid dispensed with the themes and the four urbanism
functions proposed in the Athens Charter and focused on the
description of the civic center; its features and volumetry; the
proposal for its construction; and the social life it offered during
the day, at night, on Sundays and on special occasions.
During the Congress there was criticism of the functional
city and it was declared that the Ascoral grid was unfit for
the presentation of projects at the next congress. 23 For this
reason, the organizers declined to impose or propose a grid
for the submission of projects on the invitation to the ninth
CIAM. Instead, they invited the participants to propose their
own grids, arguing that by giving total liberty to the groups
they would be able to compare the styles of representation
that each had adopted, and on this basis, determine the valid
functions of a definitive grid: the ‘habitation grid’. 24
180 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
The grids in the Pilot Plan for Bogota
As has been mentioned, the complete proposal for the Pilot
Plan was produced using the CIAM grid in spite of the fact
that it did not participate in the Seventh Congress at Bérgamo,
but in the following one. The Pilot Plan’s civic center was
presented at the eighth CIAM, in Hoddesdon, and, following
the instructions of the CIAM, it used the MARS grid format.
The final report of the Pilot Plan was submitted in 1950
and was presented for the first time in this publication. It followed
the CIAM grid methodology in the form of a classifiable
dossier. The presentation of the Pilot Plan in the grid shows
the importance of this tool as a practical method for organizing,
classifying, and presenting information in Le Corbusier’s
studio. The Colombian architect Germán Samper, who at the
time worked in the studio in the Rue de Sèvres, hand-made
five copies of the Pilot Plan following this method. In the report
submitted to the Bogota Mayor’s Office, the themes proposed
in the grid correspond to the following four scales of
intervention: regional, metropolitan, urban, civic center and
sector.
A presentation format of the Bogota version of the grid
has not been found in the archives. Germán Samper has
pointed out that in Le Corbusier’s studio, the grid was produced
only as a classifiable dossier but was never submitted
in presentation format. 25 The grid was used in the projection
process for the Pilot Plan and there is a photograph of this,
taken at a meeting in the Office of the Regulatory Plan for
Bogota (OPRB).
Some documents show that the grid was used in the
OPRB, not only as a presentation method, but also for analysis
of the urban problems and conditions of the city. Correspondence
between Le Corbusier, Wiener and Sert, and the
OPRB reveals the importance that the production of the grid
may have had as a practical means of organizing and classifying
the preliminary information. In a letter sent to Herbert
Ritter on 17 March 1949, Wiener and Sert asked the OPRB to
prepare the analysis report in accordance with the Ascoral
grid. Its preparation required information on the physical,
human, and historical geography of Bogota and also information
referring to facilities, land use, the economy, and the
finances of the city and its region. The OPRB organized the
graphical information according to the parameters proposed
in the CIAM grid and then sent the analysis for proof-reading
to New York. 26
In a letter sent by Rogelio Salmona to Le Corbusier on 1
August 1950, the architect related –from the Rue de Sèvres
studio– that he had been preparing the exhibition that would
take place in the Mayor’s Office and that both the CIAM grid
for Bogota and the technical report translated into Spanish
were now complete. 27 Tarchópulos has indicated that for the
Pilot Plan exhibition at the Bogota Mayor’s Office the Ascoral
grid was used, together with the 3-D models of the civic center
and some photo-montages. 28 However, there is no photographic
record showing that the grid was used to present
the project to the people of Bogota. In the exhibition, the presentation
of the Pilot Plan was accompanied by a series of
plans on which were plotted studies of the population and
the problems and conditions of the city. Similarly, images and
photographs were presented which showed the city before
the Pilot Plan.

Photograph of Le Corbusier, Sert, Wiener and Arbeláez in the OPRB, published in Cromos magazine, Bogota, September 9 th , 1950.
Reconstruction of the grids for the Pilot Plan for Bogota
The objective of this exercise is to put into a format provided
by Le Corbusier the plans of the Pilot Plan technical report,
which had always been seen as independent plans in dossier
format and which, when they were brought together in
presentation format, offered another perspective on the Pilot
Plan. The presentation of the technical report plans which
were recomposed in this publication developed one of the
presentation alternatives – the folding poster version of the
CIAM grid. Similarly, the Pilot Plan’s civic center plans were
organized in the MARS grid format. These plans had been
presented at the eighth CIAM in this format, and are unpublished
documents that are part of the collection of the Fondation
Le Corbusier.
The grid that is presented does not correspond exactly to
the instructions set forth in the CIAM grid (1948), but instead
provides an alternative way of solving the problems that arise
by making the report plans fit the exhibition panel –tableau
d´éxposition–. The basic problem we had when trying to classify
the dossier plans on the panel is that more than one plan
was superimposed within the same box, which made it impossible
to view simultaneousluy the complete report.
It was decided to follow the organization of the report by
scales of intervention –regional, metropolitan, urban, civic
center, and– of the Pilot Plan instead of classifying them according
to the themes put forward in the instructions of the
CIAM grid (1948). This decision was taken following the structure
of the dossier and after the discussions that took place on
the different means of organizing the plans in the grid. 29 The
different scales intersect with the four functions of urbanism
– habitation, work, cultivation of body and spirit, and circulation–
set down in the instructions of the grid. The columns for
the scales in the Pilot Plan are accompanied by the urban file,
which comprises four plates which diagnose the problems of
the city based on the four functions.
The presentation by scales enable all of the plans contained
in the dossier of the technical report to be displayed
and elucidated in full. In this version, housing is included as
a scale which is consistent with the proposed and classified
in the habitation function. The grid presents one of the three
typologies presented in the Pilot Plan: a tree for every house.
Additionally, as provided for in the general instructions, a
miscellaneous column is included to place complementary
information which is not strictly classifiable by function or
scale. The exercise proposed is consistent with the previsions
of Le Corbusier, for whom the grid was a flexible structure
which allowed different possibilities for the organization
of information.
The plans which make up the grid form part of three
copies of the Pilot Plan, although most of the report’s plans
are composed of facsimiles from the personal collection
of Germán Samper. Some plans from the technical report
from the collection of the Frances Loeb Library at Harvard
University, which are not part of Samper’s report, are also
included in this presentation. Based on a copy of the technical
report of the Pilot Plan submitted to the OPRB which is
in the Universidad Nacional, it was possible to reconstruct
the information on the urban file, the photographs of the 3-D
plans of the civic center, and the detailed plan of the Civic
Center. The information for the reconstruction of the plates
was also taken from the Pórtico magazine (1952), from the
photographs of the 3-D models found in the Foundation Le
Corbusier and those of the IDPC (Bogota District Institute for
Cultural Heritage). 30
Moreover, the plans contained in the reconstruction of the
MARS grid of the Civic Center of the Pilot Plan were those
used to present the project at the Hoddesdon CIAM in 1951
in this format. For this reconstruction, the encoding set in the
grid was followed exactly. Three plans which form part of the
presentation, but which do not correspond with the codes set
down in the grid, are entered in an additional seventh column.
***
The aim of this article has been to rework the grids which
formed part of the Pilot Plan with the hope that their publication
will facilitate future research on the methodological dimension
of the Pilot Plan. Thus, it also encourages new studies
that will approach the use of the grids in CIAM urbanism
as analytical and presentational tools.
The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 | J. Salcedo, P. Weiss, M. Ángel
181

Exhibition grid of the Master Plan for Bogota © PCA-Uniandes research group.
Photograph of the Master Plan exhibition in the Bogota Mayor’s office, published
in El Espectador, Bogota, May 27 th , 1951, p. 1 Sunday issue.
182 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Exposition chart of the Pilot Plan for Bogota. © PCA-Uniandes research group.

The CIAM grid was put forward as a methodology for addressing
the problems of the city and developing urbanism
projects. For Le Corbusier, urbanism was the fundamental
point of all problems and architects had to develop a complex
understanding of the city. 31 The grid provided a practical
means of understanding urban dynamics and addressing
urbanism projects.
The reworking of the Bogota CIAM grid suggests questions
about the use of the grids as tools ‘for thinking and for
communicating thinking’ in the context of urbanism. Le Corbusier
believed that the grid would be a useful tool for architects,
insofar as it made it possible to address a wide range
of issues and organize, classify, and analyze them, by simplifying
the information. Thus, urbanism would move towards
“the construction of an intellectual architecture in the midst
of chaos”. 32 As a means of communicating, Le Corbusier
considered the CIAM grid a strategic weapon to communicate
and improve relations between architects, the authorities
and the general public. 33 However, as a communication
tool the CIAM grid generated considerable problems. As
was mentioned above, at the Bergamo Congress, criticisms
were based fundamentally on the difficulty using the grids to
explain urban projects. As a hypothesis, it is proposed that
these problems could result from a lack of hierarchical organization
within the plans. Because they are all on the same
level in the grid, each plate has the same value as the others.
This makes rapid understanding of the project difficult, since
it demands attentive and analytical study.
The grid facilitates an approach to the way in which Le
Corbusier understood urbanism and the project of the mod-
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1951): MARS grid, Civic Center. © PCA-Uniandes research group.
ern city. The choice of a wide range of themes for the grid
shows his interest in giving order to the complex political,
social and economic dimensions of the city. The themes
presented in the instructions were those that Le Corbusier
considered essential for the analysis of the conditions and
problems of an urban situation. Furthermore, the habitation
functions employed since the Athens Charter (1942), were
the parameters which were to be used to configure urban
projects. In this sense, the CIAM grid oscillated between the
search for universality and an approach to local specificity
by presenting a range of general aspects that could be used
to analyze any city. The CIAM grid, as a methodology, facilitated
the specific situation of a city to be articulated with
universal urban analysis parameters.
The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 | J. Salcedo, P. Weiss, M. Ángel
183

Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogota (1950): CIAM grid. © PCA-Uniandes research group.
184 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 | J. Salcedo, P. Weiss, M. Ángel 185

Juana Salcedo Ortiz (Bogota, 1984). Architect, Universidad de los Andes
(2009). Soon to receive the title of historian at the same institution. Recipient
of the Colciencias scholarship on the ‘Virginia Gutiérrez de Pineda’
Young Researchers and Innovators Program, Colciencias, for the research
proposal “Imagining Tumaco: New housing for a modern city on the Pacific
coast of Colombia, 1948”. Member of the PAC research group, Universidad
de los Andes . First Mention in the Architecture Students Yearbook
of the Colombian Society of Architects 2010, Housing in Santa Teresita:
interventions in conservation areas of Bogota.
Philip Weiss Salas, Architect, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota (1980) and
Master of Architecture, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (2007). Architect
planner with extensive experience in the field of housing and also
in public space projects, institutional buildings and those of a corporate
character. Some of his projects have been selected in the Biennials of
Architecture in Colombia and published in various national and international
journals.
As associate professor and founding member of the research group City
and Architecture Project of the Department of Architecture at Universidad
de los Andes, he has developed extensive academic and teaching
experience, putting into practice, through teaching and research, different
thematic and methodological approaches in education on projects in
architecture.
Marcela Angel Samper, Architect, Universidad de los Andes (1983) and Master
of Science in Architecture Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
MIT (2000). Experience in design, development and coordination of
housing projects, urban projects, public space projects, institutional and
office projects, independently and also in association with other architects.
(GX Samper, Weiss/Cortés architects, Lorenzo Castro, Camilo Esguerra
Solano among others). Teaching Professor of Universidad de los Andes
in the area of Projects from 1997 to the present. Founder member and researcher
in the Proyecto (Project) research group: City and Architecture—
PCA, enrolled in Colciencias, Department of Architecture at Universidad
de los Andes Researcher, curator, coordinator and designer of montages
for architecture and urbanism exhibitions as head of the Department of
Architecture at the Museum of Modern Art Bogota 4 1 / 2, Archive of the
Ministry of Public Works and Transport from 1905 to 1960, Alvar Aalto, Karl
Brunner, Vicente Nasi, Mario Botta, “The house in modern architecture in
Colombia”, among others.
186 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
1 The MARS grid was the second version of the CIAM grid for the eighth
Congress in Hoddesdon in 1951.
2 The CIAM was founded in La Sarraz (Switzerland) in 1928 by a group
of twenty-four European architects, leaded by Le Corbusier, Gabriel
Guévrékian, members of the Swiss Werkbund and the art historian Sigfried
Gideon. As Mumford argued, CIAM references to the organization,
as well as the congresses that had a fundamental role in the construction
of a unified sense of the Modern Movement in Architecture, as it is
known today. The first Congress took place in La Sarraz, where the group
CIAM was officially founded. In the second Congress, in Frankfurt (1929),
was discussed the existenzminimum. The third one, in Brussels (1930),
had as main topic the rational lot development. The fourth one, in Athens
(1933), discussed the functional city. The results from that Congress
would be published years later in the Athen’s Charter. The fifth Congress,
in Paris (1937) had as main topic housing and leisure. The sixth one, in
Bridgewater (1947) was the first one that took place after World War II.
In this Congress were discussed issues related to the reconstruction of
cities after the war. The grille CIAM was used in the seventh Congress,
in Bergamo (1949), that had as main topic the architecture and the arts.
The grille MARS was used in the next Congress at Hoddesdon (1951),
that centered the discussion in The heart of the city. Eric Mumford, The
CIAM discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960, MIT Press, London 2002. The
Pilot Plan for Bogota is the only remaining Colombian project that was
developed using the grid. The CIAM grid was also used for the Tumaco,
Cali, and Medellin plans. Medellin and Bogota were both presented in the
MARS grid for the Eighth CIAM. Tumaco was presented in the CIAM grid
for the Bérgamo Congress in 1949. However, no record of the presentations
has been found in the archives.
3 Volker Welter, “Talking as architectural and communicative tools”. Paper
presented at the conference Team 10. Between Modernity and the Everyday.
Faculty of Architecture, Delph, 5-6 June 2003. Internet. 8 August
2009. Available: http://www.team10online.org/research/papers/delft2/welter.pdf
4 Welter 4
5 Welter 8. The need to address this issue has also been mentioned by
Tarchópulos, for whom the methodological dimension is one of the aspects
that invites more detailed study of the Pilot Plan for Bogota. Doris
Tarchópulos, “Las huellas del Plan para Bogotá de Le Corbusier, Ser y
Wiener,” Scripta Nova, Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales
Co. X, 218 (2006). Internet. 15 Aug. 2008. Available: http://www.ub.es/
geocrit/sn/sn-218-86.htm
6 See the study of the grids as tools for analysis and projection in: Giancarlo
Motta and Antonia Pizzigoni. La máquina del proyecto/La Machina di projetto
(Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 2008).
7 Le Corbusier. “Descripción de la retícula del CIAM. Bergamo Congress
1949.” El corazón de la ciudad: por una vida más humana de la comuni-
dad, ed. Josep Lluis Sert (Barcelona: Hoepli S.L.,1955) 171-176, 174.
8 Le Corbusier 172
9 Ascoral, Grille CIAM d’Urbanisme. Mise en Pratique de la Charte
d’Athènes (Paris: L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, 1948) 2. The Ascoral group
was set up semi-secretly by Le Corbusier in 1943, during World War II. Its
purpose was to establish a coherent doctrine in relation to the built environment
and to promote CIAM urbanism to official and industrial customers.
Eric Mumford, The CIAM discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960 (London:
MIT Press, 2002) 154. The list of members of the Ascoral group who took
part in the creation of the grid is indicated on the cover of Ascoral, Grille
CIAM d’ Urbanisme, 1948.
10 Le Corbusier 1955,180.
11 Le Corbusier, Le Modulor V. 2 (Bolougne:Editions de l’Architecture
d’Aujourd’hui, 1955) 303.
12 Paola Di Biagi, “Los CIAM de camino a Atenas: espacio habitable y ciudad
funcional”. Available: http://www.planum.net/archive/documents/
dibiagi-ciam-art-spagn.pdf. The participation of Otto Neurath, a Viennese
social scientist and an expert in the development of graphic information
systems between 1931 and 1935, reveals the level of interest within CIAM
in setting up a standardized system for graphic communication of their
formal and programmatic interests. Ver Nader Vossouhian, “Mapping the
Modern city: Otto Neurath, the international Congress of Modern Architecture
(CIAM), and the politics of information design”, Design Issues Vol. 22
I. 3 (2006): 48-64.
13 Le Corbusier, “de la exposición oral de la sesión del 29 de julio”, Parámetro
52 (1972): 25. Quoted in Paola Di Biagi, “Los CIAM de camino
a Atenas: espacio habitable y ciudad funcional”, http://www.planum.net/
archive/documents/dibiagi-ciam-art-spagn.pdf.
14 Le Corbusier 1955, 171.
15 See Ascoral, Grille CIAM d’ Urbanisme. Mise en Pratique de la Charte
d’Athènes, 1948.
16 “The presentation may, according to the need of the case, take any of
three forms: DOSSIER, in which the documents are classified in files [by
function or by theme], a public or private EXHIBITION, as a wall display or
in holding screens… or mounted on cloth and folded like a tourist map”,
Ascoral, Grille CIAM d’ Urbanisme, Idem, 10.
17 Le Groupe CIAM-France, Urbanisme des CIAM. La Charte d’Athènes.
Avec un discours liminaire de Jean Giraudoux (París: Plon, 1943). Trad.
Esp., Principios de urbanismo: la carta de Atenas. Dicurso preliminar de
Jean (Barcelona: Giraudoux, Ediciones Apóstrofe, Colección Poseidón
1978).
18 CIAM grid 6.
19 CIAM grid.
20 Eric Mumford, The CIAM discourse on Urbanism, 2002: 191.
21 Le Corbusier, “Descripción de la retícula del CIAM, Congreso de Bérgamo
de 1949”, 1955: 175.
22 “The English MARS (Modern Architectural Research) Group was founded
by architect and engineer Wells Coates and others in 1934 as the English

wing of CIAM. It was an exclusively London-centered organisation and
drew its members from the avant- garde architects and indices in Eng-
land, and the refugee architects who came into the country at that time”.
Arthur Korn, Maxwell Fry, Dennis Sharp, “The M.A.R.S. Plan for London”,
Perspecta, Vol. 13, Published by The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta,
pp. 163-173, 1971, p.173. Consultado vía Web en Agosto 8 de 2009,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1566974.pdf.
23 Catherine Blaine, “Team 10. The French Context”. Conference presentation
Team 10. Keeping the language of Modern Architecture Alive, Faculty
of Architecture, Delf, 5-6 January 2006. http://www.team10online.org/research/papers/delft2/blain.pdf,
12.
24 Memorandum circulated by Ascoral, January 11, 1953 [FLC D3 (2)476-
479]. Quoted in Catherine Blaine, “Team 10. The French Context”, 2006.
Some of the Nineth Congress is analyzed by Welter. See Welter 2003.
25 Interview with Germán Samper, 12 September 2008. Philip Weiss, Marcela
Marcela Ángel and Juana Salcedo.
26 For more information on the information required for analysis of the city see
FLC H3-4-84, letter sent by Wiener and Sert to Herbert Ritter, then Director
of the Office of the Regulatory Plan for Bogota, 17 March 1949. Part of the
analysis by the OPR can be seen in the publication that Pórtico magazine
made on the Pilot Plan for Bogota. See Revista Pórtico, special double
edition 11-12 on the Pilot Plan, Medellin 1952.
27 See FLC H3-4-55, 1 August 1950. Tarchópulos, Hernández and Schnitter
mention the implementation of the CIAM Urbanism grid in the Bogota
Plan. Schnitter claims that the plans for Medellin, Calí and Tumaco were
also produced in the Ascoral grid. See Patricia Schnitter, José Luis Sert
y Colombia. De la Carta de Atenas a una Carta del Hábitat (Medellin:
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, 2007) 137; Doris Tarchópulos “Las huellas
del plan para Bogotá de Le Corbusier, Sert y Wiener”, Scripta Nova.
Revista electrónica de geografía y ciencias sociales Vol. VII num. 146
(2003). http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-218-86.htm#_edn1#_edn1; Carlos
Hernández, Las ideas modernas del plan para Bogota en 1950: el trabajo
de Le Corbusier, Wiener y Sert (Bogota: Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá, 2004).
28 Tarchópulos 2006, 10.
29 During our research there were many discussions on the organization of
the plans in the CIAM grid with the architects María Cecilia O’Byrne, Ricardo
Daza, Juan Carlos Aguilera, and especially with Nancy Rozo and
Fernando Arias, lecturers at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, to
whom we extend our warmest thanks. In this sense, the Bogota version
of the CIAM grid which is presented in this publication is the product of a
collective effort.
30 For greater detail, see the exhibition panel in image seven. It was considered
pertinent to produce the plate of the urban file corresponding to the
circulation function, although it is not included in the copy of the report of
the Universidad Nacional. The plate was produced using the same source
as the other plates, based on the information contained in the Pórtico
magazine. Revista Pórtico, Special double edition 11-12, on the Pilot Plan,
Medellin 1952.
31 Le Corbusier, El Corazón de la ciudad, 171.
32 Le Corbusier, 172.
33 Le Corbusier, 171.
The CIAM Grid and the MARS Grid in the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950 | J. Salcedo, P. Weiss, M. Ángel
187

Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier in the Civic Center of the Pilot Plan for Bogota, 1950
Juan Carlos Aguilera
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: Civic Center plan BOG 4220, Esc. 1:2000 – Circulation © FLC 605
188 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
“With regard to habitat, there is a problem of prime importance;
it is a fundamental problem which reveals two opposing
theses: “the horizontal garden city” and “the vertical garden
city”. 1
The Bogota town plan was developed in five pages of volume
four of the Complete Works 1946-1952, 2 after the presentation
of the CIAM urban planning grid. We know how much interest
Le Corbusier had in the publication of his texts, in which word
and image react against each other and this intensifies the
search for unity in his thought. We not only need to think that
to understand the Plan for Bogota, we first need to know what
came before it. Thus the grid, adopted at the seventh CIAM
congress, in Bergamo (Italy), provides the methodology for
studying the Plan
The first of the four functions corresponds to habitation, or
what suggests that the development of the city, for Le Corbusier,
starts from the very idea of habitation.
Researching habitation becomes more complicated when
we think of intervention in the “heart” of the city: the civic center.
The urban and architectural proposal for the civic center
of Bogota is presented in three pages of the volume mentioned,
but perhaps it is the latter that most accurately establishes
the relationship between habitation and civic center in
the plan. The plan, in accordance with the FLC file, corresponds
to FLC plan 605, 3 and was developed by Le Corbusier,
Josep Lluis Sert, and Paul Lester Wiener, and is dated 30
June 1950.
In effect, the plan is the expression of a double dynamic:
the internal, which corresponds to the development of
any project; and the external, which covers those demands

which, away from the drawing board, affect and modify the
development of the project.
In the first case, the plan is the convergence point of two
ways of thinking and making the city: Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse
type and the pragmatic planning of Josep Lluís Sert.
In other words, the context in which the plan was developed
can be seen as a pivotal point of the positions between the
Bergamo (1947) and Hoddesdon (1951) CIAMs.
In the second case and on a local scale—and this is relevant—the
city is halfway between the large town and the
small city. The municipal authorities, aware of the situation,
would establish measures to act on it. But once again, the
city would become the point of convergence between two
models: the city viewed as the stage for the development of
collective endeavor, against the view of it as the stage for the
idea of ‘progress’, based on private interests.
The two perspectives come together in the Plan for Bogota.
The idea of a city which projects itself upwards would
soon be abandoned for the ‘benefits’ derived from the city
that spreads itself horizontally.
Words and Drawings
An architectural drawing—a scheme that records on paper
the conception of a thought, of a cycle, even a design of the
future.
Le Corbusier, Manière de penser l’Urbanisme, 1946. 4
a. Words for a subsidiary of the Constructors’ Studio in
Colombia
Just before the end of his first visit to Bogotá, 5 Le Corbusier
received a letter from José Vicente Garcés Navas, manager
of the newly formed Territorial Credit Institute (ICT), 6 in which
he confirms his interest in establishing activities with ATBAT
(Atelier des Bâtisseurs), 7 in Paris:
I am pleased to confirm, through this letter, the verbal agreement
we made last Saturday (June 21, 1947) at Hotel Granada,
concerning the way in which the Territorial Credit Institute,
Colombia’s national body responsible for improving urban
and rural housing, can use your extensive knowledge and
valuable experience and that of the «ATBAT» organization
that you have established in Paris (SIC). 8
Among the new activities proposed for development, the ICT 9
planned to develop urban and high-rise housing. Thus the
letter continues by expressing the desire to work with ATBAT
on the development of Los Alcázares, a suburb to the northwest
of the city:
1. The Territorial Credit Institute requests that professor Le
Corbusier study the options that he judges suitable for the
planning of the “LOS ALCÁZARES” suburb that this institute
will construct in the city of Bogotá. This study does not relate
to the whole of the urban development, as there is a part
which must be constructed without delay, according to what
has already been planned and approved by the Municipality
of Bogotá; the other side of the development was clearly demarcated
on the map studied by Professor Le Corbusier and
will be sent to him in Paris, together with a scaled drawing
of the same development and also individual and collective
housing and social centers which must provide services
to the whole neighborhood of “Los Alcazares”. These social
centers are a mixed school for boys and girls, a theater, a
club, a sports area and a food shop, a pharmacy and general
stores to serve the neighborhood. 10
It should be emphasized that the demands of the municipal
agencies pointed in the same direction as the suggestions
made by Le Corbusier, 11 for whom housing (logis) comprised
two elements: the container (le contenant) and the extensions
of the dwelling (les prolongements). 12
The letter continues by emphasizing two of the issues
that, in the same way, would be a constant in the research:
housing type and pre-fabrication:
2ª Professor Le Corbusier may freely [sic] present the housing
types and other things for this area of “LOS ALCÁZARES” but
the Institute will send to Paris copies of the individual housing
types that it will build in the area already referred to, in order
to inform him about Colombian norms and customs in relation
to individual houses.
3rd The institute is very interested in establishing prefabrication
plants, for standardized elements that can be used
in various types of housing and it would be ready to agree a
contract with the ATBAT organization of Paris for an expert in
these matters to come to Colombia to explore the possibility
of setting up a factory, which could be achieved by forming
a company whose partners would include: ATBAT, Paris; the
Territorial Credit Institute and the cement and eternit factories
which have their headquarters in Bogota (sic). 13
The importance attributed to the dwelling and the extensions
of the dwelling has been emphasized, as has the study of the
housing types and prefabrication.
Needless to say, during Le Corbusier’s visit to Bogota the
project for the Unité d’Habitation de Marseilles 14 was being
developed and we should not overlook the project for the Ferme
Radieuse (1933), in which the similar principles to those
being followed for the Los Alcázares 15 project had already
been established.
Three weeks later, on 15 July 1947, Fernando Villegas
Mazuera—the mayor and a city trader—wrote to Le Corbusier,
enquiring about ATBAT’s costs for four pieces of work:
the development of the Master Plan for the city; the establishment
of the office for the development of the plan; the availability
of two town planners, and the establishment of a bridge
between Bogota and Paris. 16
Le Corbusier’s reply of 12 August, to both Fernando Mazuera
and J.V. Garcés Navas confirms his interest in establishing
a subsidiary in Bogota, and emphasizes the training
capacity that should be developed there. 17
The technical importance that Le Corbusier attaches to
the formation of the subsidiary is recognized when he expressly
indicates it to Bodiansky, who was then technical director
of ATBAT and manager of the works of the Unité of
Marseilles. In fact, some days later he wrote:
A mission comprising Mr. Bodiansky, ATBAT Technical Director,
accompanied by a qualified town planner, will go to
Bogotá. This mission will probably leave France on October
15. I myself, after a stopover in New York, will go to Bogota in
November or early December.
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
189

Mr. Bodiansky will have full powers to reach an agreement
with you about the work you want my group and the Colombian
ATBAT organization to undertake and all necessary concerns
(sic). 18
***
The conversation became more tense. Le Corbusier was
continually sending “reports” to the authorities on his projects,
in particular on high-rise housing. 19 His interest in the
implementation and activity of ATBAT in distant lands is an
established fact.
The situation became more complex following the events
that occurred after the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan
on April 9, 1948. The city center was the scene of unrest that
led to the so-called “Bogotazo”, a situation to which Le Corbusier
was not indifferent—he had already expressed his position
on the damage to cities after the devastation of war. 20
Although not many buildings were destroyed, the media presented
Bogota as a devastated city. 21 Far from paying attention
to the press reports, Le Corbusier looked beyond them,
understanding that he might be able to crystallize his urban
planning theories in a live project.
But for some this was not the case, particularly the magazine
Proa, which saw in the events of 19 April an opportunity
for the development of the plan by the ”modern architects”. 22
Two facts, in spite of their immediate relative impact, indicate
the change that was already being contemplated in the
city by the municipal authorities:
Among the measures issued, two pioneering decrees are
noteworthy: on April 21, decree number 1286 became the
first law of horizontal property and on 28 April number 1370
also became law, declaring as a public utility the whole of the
block that separated the National Capitol Building from the
Nariño Palace. 23
Thus, the instruments that could be used to implement the
plan were started to become laws: The first, which was focused
on high-rise housing; and the second, which was introduced
to enable the relevant expropriations to be made.
190 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
b. The drawings in the plan
The first diagrams for the development of the civic center can
be observed in plan FLC 31560, January 1950. The drawings
are part of a study of the area that extends from the Plaza
de Bolivar to 26th Street. The roads around which the civic
center is organized are already defined as parallel to the
mountains: 4th, 10th and 14th Avenues and, perpendicular
to these, 6th Street, Jiménez Avenue and 26th Street. Other
drawings point to the arrangement of the Units to the eastern
side of 10th avenue, towards the center.
The diagram of 10 January 1950—drawn to the same scale
as the previous one—makes no reference to the housing
blocks. It is more accurate in relation to the office blocks to
be used by the ministries, which are starting to give shape
to the civic center. 10th Avenue also starts to show its dual
character, as a fast main road and also as an access route
to the area of moderate traffic flow. Similarly, the points of intersection
and possible conflict with the perpendicular routes
are starting to be highlighted.
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: plan of the Civic Center, © FLC 31560
Three weeks later, on the plan for the civic center, developed
in Paris on 2 February, plan FLC 31564, traces of
an overlay paper confirm this study of the central zone. But
especially in the case of housing, it is to be noted that there
are drawings that suggest four units on 10th Avenue, between
Jimenez Avenue and 26th Street, on the same side as
in the previous plan. 10th Avenue is becoming the focus of
increasing development, especially at its intersections with
6th Street , Jiménez Avenue and 22nd and 26th Streets.
In a sketch in his notebook dated 28 February, the
drawings marked in purple indicated in the previous plan are
seen as the possible development of the eastern side of 10th
Avenue from the Bull Ring towards the south. These are very
detailed drawings: the units, which are drawn in red pencil,
have a view of the mountains, which are “the background to
the composition”. 24
On 20 March, FLC 33688, which is to the same scale,
seven units can be seen, located between 10th and 14th
Avenues. These drawings contradict those which suggest

Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: plan of the area around the Plaza de Bolívar (10 th
January, 1950, 1:2.000) © FLC 31561
the Units be placed on the west side of 4th Avenue. Colors
are used emphasize the hierarchy being defined for the roads.
Brown is used for high-speed roads, while ochre represents
roads of less intense traffic flow but which will be used to link
the different units. Each unit has a parking area and the distances
between each one are starting to become more regular.
On two plans of 22 March different possible locations for
the housing areas are marked—possibly in attempt to study
which would be the best area.
On the first, FLC 31565, a significant detail can be observed:
a green strip which descends from the mountains, 25 to
4th Avenue, with another strip extending to 7th Avenue establishing
a border with the housing area to the northeast of
the civic center, on which 13 lines are drawn in two strips. It
should be noted that three of these are located between 10th
Street and Jiménez Avenue, since these have been traced on
top of others that were oriented according to the direction of
the streets and avenues of the city.
The second diagram, FLC 31568, shows 16 units arranged
on the south side (northern side of 6th Street) and on
the west side of 10th Avenue. Some drawings can be seen
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: study of the Civic Center (2 Frebruary, 1950) © FLC 31564
Le Corbusier, drawing of the San Diego sector, in front of the Plaza de Toros, made on his fourth visit to Bogota (28 Frebruary, 1950) Carnet 2 – D15, 181-182. © FLC
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
191

Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: study of the Civic Center (20 th
August, 1950) © FLC 33688
in the northeastern part of the civic center, between Jimenez
Avenue and 26th Street. Despite the apparently improvised
nature of the drawings, it is important to note the intention in
the suggested orientation and distance between the blocks.
c. Drawings for hillsides
Together with the work put forward for the civic center, other
significant events should be noted: on 12 April of the same
year, Carlos Arbeláez Camacho asked Le Corbusier about
the possible location of a piece of land for the construction of
a building by the ICT. 26
The recently founded Institute of Habitation wishes to build a
high-rise collective housing block for its members on a plot
near to the mountains and so, with reference to the diagram I
have sent you, I would like to know if this construction project
will interfere with your plans or not. If not, then these gentlemen
will be able to proceed with their negotiations at their
leisure. Thank you for your opinion in this matter. I hope you
received my previous letter with news of Bogota. 27
This request reaffirms the search for new types of housing in
the city, which was also linked with other specifications in the
building regulations, largely thanks to the work of the chief
architect of the technical section, Jorge Gaitán Cortés. 28
192 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: study of the Civic Center (21 st
March, 1950) © FLC 31565
A week later, on 19 April, Le Corbusier replies to Carlos
Arbeláez, informing him that he will send a letter to Sert and
Wiener explaining his two concerns: first, to establish the location
of the markets in the various areas and, second, to
understand his position in relation to the high-rise block on
1st Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets. 29
The brevity of the letter to Arbelaez contrasts with that
sent to Sert and Wiener, in which, after a series of observations,
he refers to the property in the area indicated:
For my part, I am very happy to see these initiatives come
about, but we must guide them. This is crucial. Also, you will
see in the Arbelaez file a small plan where the block under
consideration is located and in which the type of building we
need to insist on (i.e. a perfectly-oriented habitation of a good
size) has been indicated. This unit goes beyond the block,
and includes parking and a garage. In another annex you will
find, as a starting point, a series of units which are being built
in the area. These units on the hillsides are very interesting for
connection with cars in the upper part and pedestrians at the
bottom. But a compulsory statute will be required for these
residential sectors (certificated apartment buildings).
In this sense, I think that we should be consulted as experts
by the developers of these buildings. Personally, I can make
an agreement to provide the architects with the data required
to draw up the plans fully securely and in compliance with
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: study of the Civic Center (22 nd
March, 1950) © FLC 31568
our planning requirements and which will also make use of
the enormous experience I have in these matters. I would
like you to explore, even with Arbeláez, how we might agree
a contract with those we need to guide in the way I have
indicated previously. This situation will repeat itself often so
our contribution (actually very limited, but extremely precise)
will be priceless. Wiener should consider this issue really and
discuss it with Bogota.
You will find enclosed a file that you will need (a plan and a
duplicate of the letter to Arbelaez, and also the letter to Arbelaez,
plus a copy of this letter, and a set of plans similar to
the previous ones).
If my proposals are accepted, please send a whole dossier
immediately to Arbeláez, without a moment’s delay. 30
Two days later, on 21 April, Le Corbusier answers Wiener and
Sert, referring to a plan which specifies the location of the
property:
Answer to question: the construction of a collective building
on 1st Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets, in accordance
with your sketch which we will call 12 April, 1/10.000, in our
drawings.
Le Corbusier’s response includes two diagrams. The first, H3-
5-4, shows eight units arranged between the winding roads in

Letter soliciting permission to construct a building on the mountainside. (1 st
Ave. between 13 th and 14 th Sts.) © FLC H3-5-7
Le Corbusier, sketch of the area considered for mountain 8 Units, BOG 121-2,
nº 4198, del 20 th April, 1950. © FLC H3-5-4.
the mountains, which contrast with the Cartesian road layout
which takes Plaza de Bolivar as its point of reference. Despite
the schematic nature of the diagram, it is already possible to
identify the elements relating to the separation between the
vehicular and pedestrian systems, their position on the slope,
and access to the property.
The BOG plan 121-2 number 4198 shows in red the location
we accept, which covers a deeper area toward the southeast,
but we accept that we can make a building of this type,
which complies with the templates, and is indicated in our
plan BOG 121-2 Num. 4150. We insist that the “accommodation
units of adequate size” based on the orientation and the
land, and its likely volume in the landscape, are also the best
way to provide performance and efficiency Therefore, your
construction company should take these requirements into
account. For your information and only for your information,
and not for others, we offer plan BOG 121-2 Number 4198,
which indicates the possibility of a limited number of other
similar units; however in k, l, m, n, o, q, there is a matter of
general architecture and efficiency of the plan. 31
The unit is presented with a schematic elevation and ground
plan; but it is still not particularly revealing. It is a block 137
meters long, 24m wide and 60m high positioned on a slope.
The elevation is presented in two bands: a vertical one,
slightly off center, in which are located access and vertical
movement; and a horizontal one, which allows direct access
from the street above, in which the ‘internal street’ is placed
(a height of 2690 meters above sea level is indicated here).
The hillside property is merely an adaptation of previous
approaches, which go back to proposals of 1933 in Algiers—
Ponsik and Lafon Bulding—which would later be recorded in
texts such as Propos d’Urbanisme:
Quite by chance, we have here a simple example of a neat
solution, as opposed to the usual confusion:
City on a steep slope or on a cliff: In A, four-storey dwellings:
the doors face the street, the facades should be on the street,
the street zigzags, the zigzagging houses are chaotic and
the orientation of the dwellings is arbitrary To break through
this there needs to be at least one street at the bottom and
one street at the bottom, in addition to the street that goes in
a zigzag.
In B, a single street, half-way up the slope; lifts half-way up;
economy throughout. In place of confusion, architectural
abundance. A vision of splendor.
The crux of urban planning...
To summarize: the city—no longer a rocky wasteland but a
park, etc. 32
In his notebook there is a similar reflection prompted by the
observation that housing is starting to appear on the mountainside.
In the second diagram, H3-5-2, the number of units rises
to 11. They are perpendicular to the direction of the mountain
and make three bands interspersed among each other. In a
note written to one side, there is a study of population density,
Le Corbusier, sketch for the Units on the hillside, BOG 121-2, nº 4150, 20 th of
April, 1950. © FLC H3-5-5,
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
193

194 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, comparison of the housing on the hillside, which runs along a continous, zigzagging road. In: Propos
d’Urbanisme, Editions Bourrelier et Cie., Paris 1946, p. 89. © FLC
which gives the figure of 320 inhabitants per hectare, derived
by a simple calculation of the 11 units—9 are included in a
square measuring 700 x 600m, each containing an average
of 1,500 inhabitants, which results in 13,500 inhabitants
in the 42 hectares. This rigorous arrangement contrasts with
the established method, which use roads adapted to the topography.
Architecture should not make concessions—quite
the contrary, it is obvious that it must overcome the resistance
of nature.
Our plan, BOG 102-5, Number 4199 presents the maximum
occupancy of the land with eleven units, from which we can
calculate a density of 320 inhabitants per hectare, which is
a good population density for these things. These buildings
automatically guarantee movement of pedestrians, parking,
garage, etc. 33
Le Corbusier ends the letter with an appeal for control over
the possible form that these buildings might take. Final issue:
in order to continue, we consider it essential that the planners
(Le Corbusier, Wiener and Sert) are included as consultants
for the implementation of such buildings, as it would be dangerous
to leave this completely to the initiative of Bogota. This
is for the good of the project. 34
Le Corbusier, sketch of the housing in the mountains in Bogota, in which he
writes: “in the plan // not this but”. Carnet 2 – D15, 1950, no. 76 © FLC

Le Corbusier, partial study of the densities of the mountain Units BOG 102-5, nº
4199, 20 April, 1950. © FLC H3-5-2
Sert and Wiener’s answer to Carlos Arbeláez Camacho
on 26 April emphasized the need to have control over the
property:
With reference to your query about the proposed apartment
block on 1st Avenue between 13th and 14th Street, we agree
with Le Corbusier that any building of this type requires a
special study plan that will affect the Plan for Bogota, and
should be submitted to the Office of the Regulatory Plan for
Bogota (OPRB) and sent to us at an early stage. In this particular
case, the letter from Le Corbusier and the sketches
and diagrams should be kept confidential by you. For the
decision to proceed we will need to know what type and size
of block you are considering, how much land you own and
how much you are going to buy, etc., and a plan, in as much
detail as possible, of your intentions.
All these data should be sent to his office and also to us. 35
And then, suddenly, silence on the subject of the building on
the hillside… 36
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: study of the Civic Center © FLC 31567
d. Words of warning … “tactics”
With regard to housing, in plan FLC 31567 of 30 May 1950, a
particular issue is of note. At the bottom, along 10th Avenue,
the blocks that were being proposed were separated, leaving
a larger area—between Jimenez Avenue and 22nd Street—in
which we read redents. Now three blocks are located towards
26th and 5th Streets, between 6th Street and Jimenez Avenue.
At the top and at the height of 4th Avenue, six blocks
are present, in the same conditions as in the previous plans.
A new type of housing is proposed next to the building in a
fishbone shape.
A fact recorded in the 21 June letter sent by Sert and Wiener
to Le Corbusier is indicative of the differences between the interests
of the two “groups” that had been developing the Pilot Plan.
In effect, it was a suggestion or, better, a warning that to obtain
approval only two-dimensional plans should be submitted:
In order to obtain the approval of the Pilot Plan without undue
delay, it seems tactically sensible not to present the plan in
three dimensions at this stage. This issue should be raised
immediately, once formal approval has been obtained from
the Pilot Plan Board. This will make it easier to use the zoning
plan to configure the streets and the road network, and then
their three-dimensional designs for the final version.
Again, we would appreciate it if you would send us your
plans in their current state without any rendering, to keep us
fully informed and enable us to make the enquiries necessary
for execution of the contract. 37
A week later, despite stating the three-dimensional condition
for thinking about the city, Sert and Wiener repeat their request
not to show—to the municipal authorities—the significant
level of impact expected in the city center. While for
Sert and Wiener the city is an object of immediate impact,
determined by the variables of the moment, for Le Corbusier,
the city goes beyond and imposes itself on bureaucratic interests;
the city demands and lays claim to its autonomy:
Your plan BOG 4208 has just arrived. The BOG 4201-2 plans
were received previously. We would like to make some observations
for your consideration, in addition to what we said
in our last letter, of 21 June, in which we propose, for tactical
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
195

easons, the omission of any three-dimensional material in
the Pilot Plan for the presentation drawings you will present
in Bogotá. We all agree, of course, that the planning of the
city should be done in three dimensions, and the planning
of roads and zoning (land use plan) should take this into account.
But if the three dimensions are not represented at this
time it will be much easier to obtain approval without prejudice
to what is arranged for the future. 38
The third and fourth observations underline the idea of not
presenting Marseilles-type blocks or, more precisely, rejecting
the Ville Radieuse-type plan. Perhaps this topic merits
discussion, because obviously the proposed units are similar
to the Marseilles blocks—then being built—and are merely
another stage in the exploration started in 1907, as Le Corbusier
himself repeatedly stated, and which had been proposed
as “Habitation Units of an appropriate size”. (UHTC).
Observation # 3. The H-2 design, of course, is the ideal, but
we believe it would be very difficult for the Bogotá authorities
to understand at this time the benefits of twenty-four buildings
of the Marseilles type. The financial resources and other factors
required for this are not available at this time of crisis
in Colombia. Apart from these arguments, it would no doubt
provoke a storm of opposition unnecessarily and at the wrong
time. As the master plan is developed, buildings of this type
should be defended in progressive stages. Because no useful
purpose would be served at this time by insisting on a three
dimensional representation of such a large undertaking, it
is recommended that the pilot of the State Plan only gives
written detail for areas used for high and low-rise buildings.
Observation # 4. In relation to H-3, the same argument
applies to Ville Radieuse type residences. In the pilot study
it is suggested that the Civic Center will be limited to the
area just behind the Capitol, and once again the omission of
any three-dimensional representation for the moment, but
which should be included in the Master Plan, when we have
complete information about the existing buildings, which we
currently lack. 39
Once again Le Corbusier refuses to accept this worrying silence....
196 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
The Project
From 1907 to 1950 my research was tireless: the dwelling
was seen as the family temple, worthy of the effort, attention
and love of builders; the home—the sacred home! The dwelling,
the home, has currently fallen to an all-time low in terms
of interest, because of the indifference of professionals.
Le Corbusier, L’Unité d’habitation de Marseilles, 1950. 40
a. FLC 605 - 30 June 1950
Finally, housing in the civic center in the Pilot Plan would be
located at the perimeter in four large areas, FLC 604, in which
it is possible to identify the abbreviations Hepp and Hred. 41
The housing proposal refers not only to zoning, as was
customary in the more pragmatic types of urban planning. By
contrast, the proposal for the civic center FLC 605 of 30 June
1950, also specifies the type of architecture to be developed
in each of the areas, including the intervening areas, which
house the communal services and extensions of the dwelling.
In fact, the housing represents two of the types which Le
Corbusier indicated as appropriate, according to the nature
of the location, orientation and climate; these are the fishbone
block and the en redent block. 42
According to the plan, there are 22 Units 43 and four blocks
en redent distributed over four areas.
In the northwestern sector, Hepp is defined as the area between
Jiménez Avenue and 26th Street, below 4th Avenue. 44
There are five units in this extensive area which clearly
separate pedestrians from vehicles. Given its proximity to 7th
Avenue—the main thoroughfare of the city—three vehicular
routes connect with 4th Avenue. The areas include sports
areas and facilities. The area to the south of Jiménez Avenue,
which on previous plans showed housing in two positions:
housing blocks with an east-west orientation or blocks that
maintain the direction of the streets and avenues.
The second area is located to the northwest, between the
10th and 14th Avenues and between Jimenez Avenue and
26th Street; the sector is identified as “red”—i.e., proposed
for the construction of blocks en redent, although not only this
type of block, as fishbone blocks would also be proposed for
this area. There are nine units, divided into two groups: the
first, on the north side of 10th Avenue, has four units slightly
rotated in relation to the others, and a second, of five units and
an area with two blocks in redent. This second group is located
between 10th and 14th Avenue, between Jimenez Avenue
and 26th Street. Also there are two large blocks in redent.
The third, in the southwest corner, between 6th street and
Jiménez Avenue, marked Hepp, has eight fishbone units,
arranged on a continuous green background, on which there
are also facilities and pedestrian walkways. The vehicular access
routes are parallel to the main roads.
The fourth area is located in the southeast, between 4th
Street and 10th Street, 5th Street and 8th Street. It proposes
housing in redent blocks, according to the denomination
Hred, but as in the second sector fishbone housing is also
possible; it consists of two blocks en redent and two units
which maintain the direction of the Cartesian colonial layout—
that is, they are placed parallel to one another, both on 6th
Street and on 7th street.
***
The question that immediately poses itself is: what is the unit?
Up to that moment it was the drawings which had been expressing
its content during the process of development of the
civic center:
The housing unit is the portion of built space in which daily
life unfolds: it does not include the workplace, cultural and
administrative centers, or recreational areas.
It consists of a group of buildings and planted and open land
where there are dwellings and their extensions and the necessary
means of circulation within the “unit”.
The horizontal distances are small enough to make it necessary
to provide some means of mechanical transport within
the area.
The habitation unit is the basic constituent component of the
city.
This notion of the habitation unit should replace, in the mind
of the builder, the mere individual dwelling that serves only to
solve some housing problems.

Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: Civic Center BOG 4212, 30 th June, 1950. © FLC 604 Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: Civic Center BOG 4220, 30 June, 1950, highlighting the residential buildings: in red the
unités, in blue, the Redents buildings © FLC 605,
Le Corbusier, Unité: types volumes. © FLC 605 – Details.
“The habitation unit” is aesthetically opposed, moreover, to the
principle of piecemeal construction of the cities of today, based
on the “dividing” wall and its horrendous consequences. 45
Therefore the drawings, which look as though they have been
drafted somewhat nonchalantly, are in fact Le Corbusier’s
deepest reflection on housing. Patient investigation is no
more than the search for an instrument with which to put a
profession into practice: making the city from its own architecture.
The unit is therefore understood as a tool, an instrument
with which to solve the housing problem:
The instruments will take the form of living architectural “units”,
always of an organic rigor which alone is capable of responding
to the tasks in hand. A temporal measure will limit the distribution
of space: the solar measure of twenty-four hours which
marks the rhythm of all our daily undertakings and activities. 46
The term “unit” has two meanings. The first refers to singularity—on
the urban scale;and the second to the fact that the
component parts of the unit are indivisible yet their essence
remains unaltered—on the architectural scale. Indeed, in
clear opposition to the late nineteenth century urban development
model of the garden city on the periphery, the unit will
be considered a vertical garden city. Once again, the duality
is established based on a desire to preserve the individual
character of the home, integral to the horizontal city, but also
to reaffirm its principles within the relationship between nature
and architecture.
Grouping together various types of housing with hanging gardens
is not enough. What is required is an emphasis on the
fact that housing by itself does not make the city—other urban
realities are needed to complement and extend it:
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
197

Tools are effectively extensions of human limbs. This definition
can be extended to certain products of human ingenuity,
also aimed at supporting the person: the home is instrumental,
the road, the workshop, and so on. 47
This is how Le Corbusier shows that the habitation units are
made up of the home itself, together with all of its extensions:
Habitation Units (the home and its extensions)
Here we are referring to instruments, instruments of habitation
in the hands of living beings, according to well-recognized
psycho-physiological constants which have been enumerated
by experts (biologists, doctors, physicists and chemists,
sociologists and poets). These tools are designed to ease
the conditions of existence, ensure the moral and physical
health of the inhabitants, encourage the perpetuation of the
species by providing the equipment necessary for a perfect
upbringing, provide the joy of living and stimulate and bring
about the development of the socially-oriented attitudes and
feelings which are the foundation of citizenship: citizenship
which generates action that leads the community itself to the
highest level of consciousness and dignity. 48
The two elements are similarly well defined:
Dwelling: The nucleus is, here, a receptacle that meets certain
conditions and establishes meaningful relationships between
the cosmic environment and human biological phenomena.
A man (or a family) will live there, sleeping, walking,
listening, watching and thinking. Static or mobile, he will need
sufficient surface area, in the same way that he needs a range
of places appropriate for his actions. Furniture or tools
are there as an extension of his limbs or activities. Biological
needs imposed by ancient habits and which have gradually
served to construct man’s own nature, require the presence
of specific elements and conditions, under pain of exhaustion:
sun, space, greenery. For his lungs, air of suitable quality.
For his ears, a sufficient quantity of silence. For his eyes,
favorable light, and so on. 49
Le Corbusier’s dwelling was an interior where traditions were
continued, where basic biological conditions were provided,
198 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
and the space needed for rest and family life, essential for the
development of human activities, was guaranteed. Culture,
life, and society, all gathered together in the same space.
But this was not his whole proposal. The dwelling, to make
up the unit, needed the extensions of the dwelling:
The extensions of the dwelling are of two types: first, those
that are strictly material: the domestic water supply, health
care, maintenance of the body in good condition. Second,
those of a more spiritual nature: the kindergarten, the primary
school, the youth workshop. 50
Body and spirit, necessary opposites in the work of Le Corbusier,
come together once again.
b. The unit
Each unit is a block 135 meters long, 24 meters wide and 50
meters high. It has three clearly defined bands: the ground
floor where the pilotis are located—these support the artificial
floor—a central body and an inhabitable roof.
It is midway between the parking area, which in turn links
directly with vehicular routes and green areas, where community
services and extensions of the dwelling are available.
It part of a system made up of vehicles-parking-unit-pedestrian
area. Thus, the unit acts as a filter between the two
clearly differentiated circulation systems. Access, therefore,
is located behind the vehicular system facing the pedestrian
area.
Labeling the unit a filter is not just another way to point
up the constant references to biology in the work of Le Corbusier.
51 This filter allows the operation of two systems that
have to be clearly separated: the vehicle and the pedestrian.
Arranged on the green zone, there are additional facilities:
kindergartens, primary schools, meeting rooms for youth and
adults.
It is obvious that the form taken by the units corresponds
to that of the Marseilles Habitation Units. But it is certainly
more appropriate to refer to the Suitably-sized Habitation
Units (UHTC). In Volume four of his Œuvre Complète, Le Corbusier,
using the third person, defines them as a prototype, a
formal proposal for living conditions in the machine age.
Le Corbusier was given free reign to express for the first
time his complete conceptions of the modern habitat for the
middle classes, which made it possible for him to address
the serious problems of the state of affairs at the time—definition
of the household (different types of apartments for different
forms of home: single people, couples, families with two,
four, six children or more);
Prefabrication of elements of the home;
Independent structure;
Issues of light and sunshine;
“Extensions of the home”;
“Installation of communal services”. 52
The set of images that accompany the presentation of the
prototype belong to Le Corbusier’s second study 53 for the
Marseilles project, on the Boulevard Michelet, but on the
opposite side to the final plot:
The second study was carried out for the Boulevard Michelet,
an extension of the Prado, a flat piece of land admirably
situated in a somewhat easy neighborhood. The unit in its
purest form is oriented east-west so that the Mistral hits the
brickwork on its blind side to the north. 54
The land, unlike the first location, is flat, ideal, and has three
blocks of various sizes, arranged perpendicular to on another.
Now there is a single block surrounded by a set of smaller
structures. The facilities are not yet incorporated into the
unit, FLC 26298. They are organized and linked up with one
another, using a Cartesian system of paths. The main one is
located on the western side at the end of a tree-lined path
and a perpendicular one that crosses the unit, from which
other smaller ones lead towards the different structures referred
to. In his text on Unity Jacques Sbriglio writes:
All elements of the program, specific to the life of a unit, are
now clearly defined and illustrated in the project. The following
are therefore planned: a nursery school, a kindergarten,
a “murondin” model youth club and a swimming pool. 55
The other aspect that needs mentioning is the separation between
vehicles and pedestrians. Vehicles had to go around the

Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: details of the photograph of the
Model of the Civic Center. © Archivo Pizano
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogotá: details of a unit and its access
routes. © FLC 605.
Le Corbusier, La Ville Radieuse. Éléments d´une doctrine d´urbanisme pour
l´equipement de la civilisation machiniste, Éditions Vincent, Fréal, Paris 1935,
p. 41: Lóbulo pulmonar. © FLC
unit to reach the parking lot located on the east side,behind
the main entrance.
Meanwhile, the units of the civic center follow the same logic:
pedestrian and vehicular movements are separated. The
entrances are located toward the “center” of the large blocks,
with their backs to the roads. Therefore, the paths that crisscross
this green center, as in a large park or an American
park-way 56 , organize the facilities at the service of the units.
c. The central body
According to photographs of the model of the civic center
developed by Lucien Hervé’s laboratory in Paris, the main
features of the units can be determined. Two vertical bands, a
horizontal one, and a varied grid are the elements that make
up the facade of the units.
The first vertical band corresponds to vertical circulation,
which, as an extension of the public roads, enters the building.
At the bottom lies the main entrance, lying a third off-center of
the length of the block on the north side; the vertical band extends
until it emerges on the roof. It contains the elevator shaft
and stairwells. The second band, always located to the south,
is the front wall of the apartments that are face in that direction.
The horizontal plane is divided into three bands, with the
17 floors distributed six-two-nine. In the first and third are
located the ascending and descending duplex apartments
arranged along a central corridor. In the middle band, floors
seven and eight, at an elevation of 22.5 m, are located communal
services: cafes and shops.
d. The roof
For the roof, at a height of 50 meters, there are two or three
possible structures, so it is not possible to specify a single
type of roof. A common feature of all is the fact that the traffic
circulation structure stands out, thus accentuating the contrast
between the identified bands. The other structures are
facilities for the central body, such as the gymnasium and
physical education rooms. It should be emphasized that the
roof of the units was the result of a long process in which the
activities, both spiritual and/or physical, would “ascend” to
shape the collective meeting place of the inhabitants.
e. The apartment
The statement: “A cell on a human scale is at the base”, referring
to “the modern city” (which meant the Ema Charterhouse
in Tuscany), 57 has a double meaning. First, the statement
implies the size of the minimal basic unit; but secondly,
this is where the very foundation of the structure to which it
belongs is found: in the city. The recognition of and approach
to the city starts from the basic unit: the apartment.
What is an apartment?Looking at the front of the building,
it will be seen that there is no single type of apartment. This in
itself broadens the scope of the previous statement: the cell
must be on a human scale, on the family scale. Faced with
the criticism of housing classifications—that no two men are
alike, so each house has to be different—one may ask: is a
man the same throughout his life? What is the true meaning of
housing today? Are we born and do we die in the same bed,
as in the past? Just as it is not possible to determine a single,
homogeneous type of family, it is not possible to specify a
single type of apartment.
Given an orientation, it is understood that movement is
central. Apartments, therefore, may have a façade towards
Le Corbusier, perspective of the Marsella-Michelet project– MMI 3787 (March
8 th , 1946). © FLC 26295
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
199

Le Corbusier, location plan for the Marsella-Michelet project – MMI 3794 (May 10 th , 1946) © FLC 26298
200 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan

Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: photograph of the model of the
Civic Center. © FLC L1-4-20, Lucien Hervé
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: photograph of a detail of the
model of the Civic Center. © FLC L1-4-21, Lucien Hervé
both sides or towards one side only. Likewise, frequency of
occurrence permits the development of various types, which
are assembled behind the ever-present grid made up of a
brise-soleil and hanging gardens in the form of loggias.
Again, note that a simple line contains a thorough investigation
going back to 1907. But it would be between 1928
and 1937 that Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret developed
a series of projects called Immeubles Locatifs, 58 which constitute
a bridge between the Immeubles-Villa of 1922 and 1925
and the postwar Unités and are a research laboratory for the
problems relevant to collective high-rise housing and its relationship
with the city.
Units
“The family home is a demagogic illusion”, 59 Le Corbusier
would state. The phrase does not conceal a larger enigma.
Quite the reverse; he is condemning the way the meaning of
housing and the architecture of housing have been usurped.
The question that poses itself is how can an apartment
recover this usurped meaning? The answer can be stated
briefly: for Le Corbusier, the city starts from the apartment.
Le Corbusier, Master Plan project for Bogota: photograph of the model
of the Civic Center © Archivo Pizano
Contrary to the idea of urban planning based on zoning,
the idea of city has its origins in the idea of home itself,
the meeting around the fire. “EFFICIENCY OF THE FAMILY
GROUP”. Ancient words which carry deep and lasting meanings:
“FIRE”, “HEARTH” 60 , he states. The original meaning
of gathering around the fire to prepare food, to continue traditions
and customs, is gradually disappearing.
Another reading might consider the kitchen as the space
in the apartment in which the idea of fire is understood as the
starting point for the true meaning of the city. Suffice it to say
Le Corbusier, “The Urbanized Man” in Architecture du Bonheur: l’urbanisme
est une clef, Forces Vives, Paris 1955. © FLC
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
201

that the kitchen is the meeting place for people and at the
same time is the place where the services of the city come
together: lighting, water, gas, electricity, and the means of escape.
Thus, efficiency and urban planning must start from the
kitchen itself.
Modern society needs to rethink its methods of grouping families
and, to this end, the key definitions include: fire, home,
kitchen and living room—which are one and the same thing.
And there you have it—the family group. 61
***
Concluding by emphasizing the kitchen as the privileged
space for the development of the city shows that the Pilot
Plan for Bogota was the meeting point between two positions,
as has already been pointed out: starting from the recognition
of the implicit meanings in architectural elements or starting
from the city with “novel” explanations that make use of discourses,
logic, and interests which are alien to the city itself.
In other words, the Pilot Plan is the stage for the search
for balance between the city and its architecture versus the
conception of urban planning as a pragmatic endeavor that
obeys laws external to the logic of the city itself, such as the
private demands that subordinate the collective interest.
Le Corbusier could not hide his disillusionment with
events in Bogota, despite openly expressing the importance
of the plan through which he would first develop his earlier
theories, 62 linking the urban area with the land itself, but
always starting from the architectural. His interest at the time
was focused on the development of Chandigarh and the
church in Ronchamp.
But perhaps the clash of the two models led to the city losing
an opportunity to be conceived on collective principles,
rather than being built through subordination of the collective
to private interests.
The timing was precise. The city administration had available,
through the relevant bodies, the tools it needed to build
the city. But, faced with an opportunity to share the “cake”, the
authorities recognized that what was public, what belonged to
the ‘other’, could become private, could become ‘mine’.
202 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, collective works. Sketch that shows how the unit connects with its public services, in Le Corbusier, LA VILLE RADIEUSE. Éléments d´une doctrine
d´urbanisme pour l´equipement de la civilisation machiniste, Éditions Vincent, Fréal, Paris 1935, p.36. © FLC

The proposal presented by Le Corbusier and Wiener and
Sert, would soon be criticized—it would even discarded, and
another plan would be needed, in which the urbanization of
the periphery would unleash uncontrolled expansion across
the savannah of Bogotá.
A few of Le Corbusier’s words, published not long ago,
anticipated who would be the “victims” of the loss of clarity in
the planning of the city:
The victims are not those who are satisfied, the well-fed who
have been roused from their slumber by the buzz of the modern
age. The victims are the poor. Despicable, greedy selfinterest
sets rumors circulating, creates atmospheres and
feeds a special literature written by “troubadors” scribing
away humbly at their desks in newspaper offices, men who
wield the pen, who do not understand the material they write
about, who have no desire to investigate or find out the truth,
men who are determined not to change in the slightest a
viewpoint that is the source of their daily bread. 63
And so the story goes on...
Juan Carlos Aguilera, architect (1991) and Master’s degree in History and
Theory of Architecture (1998) at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
where he works as assistant professor. Nowdays he is working on his doctoral
dissertation, The Immeuble Locatif. Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret,
1928-1937 at the Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya.
1 Le Corbusier, L’Unité d’habitation de Marseilles (Paris: Le Point, 1950) 23.
2 Le Corbusier, Œuvre Complète 1946-1952 (Zurich: Les Editions
d’Architecture, 1953) 42-47.
3 FLC 605-4220. Plan to scale 1:2000, traced on a sheet of 160 x 96,2 cm.
4 Le Corbusier, Manière de penser l’Urbanisme, Éditions de l’Architecture
d’Aujourd’hui, Urbanisme des CIAM (Boulogne: ASCORAL, 1946)110.
5 Le Corbusier’s first journey to Bogota took place between 16 and 24 June
1947, thanks to an invitation from Mayor Fernando Mazuera, through Eduardo
Zuleta Ángel, member of the Colombian delegation to the UN.
6 The Territorial Credit Institute (ICT) was created through the Act 200 of
1939, during the presidency of Eduardo Santos, through which «he made
a commitment to the nation, the regions and the town councils, through
real and effective formulas, to promote the construction of clean dwellings
for rural workers».
7 ATBAT (Atelier de Bâtisseurs) was built in 1947 in Paris, on Le Corbusier’s
initiative. It is a structure that joins an study office, whose manager is Jean-
Louis Lefebvre, and an architectural studio—the studio at Rue de Sévres
35; Marcel Py is the co-ordinator of ATBAT. The study and implementation
of the Unité d’habitation de Marseilles was his first commission, the technical
director was Vladimir Bodiansky and his assistant and interlocutor was
the young architect André Wogenscky. The latter would be the one the Le
Corbusier suggested for the coordination of the work of the ATBAT subsidiary
in Colombia.
8 FLC H3-4-307, letter from J. V. Garcés Navas to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 23
June 1947.
9 In 1942, through Act 1579, the state widened the remit of the ICT to include
problems of urban housing and disposed that this agency “would have a
new section, provided with its own capital which would be responsible for
the provision of loans for public urban housing” and that this capital would
be underwritten and paid in full by the state. But it was only until 1948 that
it played an active role in the construction of housing in the city. The ICT
would play a key role in the development of state housing collectives in
Colombia, thanks to the initiatives of its manager between 1939 and 1947,
J. V. Garcés Navas.
10 Ibid.
11 In the 1930s, conceptions of the city emphasized the need to think about
housing (logis), specially in the Lyrisme des Temps Nouveaux (1939); but
it is from the 1940s that the relation logis-prolongements would become a
constant in his texts: Les trois établissements humains (1945), Manière de
penser l’urbanisme (1946), Propos d’urbanisme (1946), Unité d’Habitation
de Marseilles (1950), L’urbanisme des trois établissements humains
(1956).
12 J. Bézard, Commelin, J. Coudoin, Hya Dayre, Dubreuil, Le Corbusier,
Lyritz, Hanning Aujame, De Looze, Une civilisation du travail, Les trois
étabissements humains, Denoël, Collection urbanisme des CIAM (Boulogne:
ASCORAL Section 5a et 5b, 1945) 198.
13 FLC H3-4-307, 23 June 1947, op. cit.
14 The first plans were made in August 1945, for the first plot of land. The first
stone was laid on 14 October 1947.
15 It should be noted that, in spite of the fact that the project would not be
developed by Le Corbusier, the solution adopted was not that different to
his proposals for the Ferme Radieuse, of 1933. The director was Jorge
Gaitán Cortés, an architect of the Universidad Nacional with a masters
degree from Yale University, president of the Colombian Society of Architects,
chief architect of National Buildings in the Ministry of Public Works
and chief architect of the Technical Section of the Territorial Credit Institute
and the first Colombian delegate to the CIAM.
16 “As per our conversations during your stay in Bogota, we wish to ask you
to consult ATBAT Paris on what would be the total cost to the Municipal
Authority of Bogota for your services in relation to the following: a) Research
and preparation of the Master Plan for the City; b) Establishment,
for this purpose, in Bogota, of an office with all services necessary for the
preparation of the aforementioned plan; c) The permanent presence, in
the aforementioned office in Bogota, of at least two urban planners belonging
to the staff of ATBAT Paris; d) Establishment between the Bogota
and Paris offices of the contact and correspondence necessary for the
former to acquire permanently the management and consultancy services
of the latter”. FLC H3-4-280, letter sent by Fernando Mazuera Villegas to
Le Corbusier, Bogota, 15 July, 1947.
17 FLC H3-4-277, letter from Le Corbusier to J. V. Garcés Navas, Paris, 12
August 1947.
18 FLC H3-4-295, letter from Le Corbusier to Fernando Mazuera Villegas, Paris,
25 August 1947.
19 The new director of the ICT was Silvestre Dangón, to whom V. Bodianski
wrote: Our building in Marseilles has started to rise from the earth, in
spite of all sorts of difficulties, both material and administrative. It will be
something beautiful, I hope. FLC H3-4-262-263, letter to Silvestre Dangón,
Paris, 26 January 1948.
20 Consider, for instance, all the studies of Ch E. Jeanneret and Max Dubois
during the First World War, as well as those that they would develop during
the Second World War. In Sur les quatre routes, shortly before the war,
he wrote: «Le problème du temps de guerre a deux faces: le urgence,
le “N’importe Quoui?” pourvu que l’on produise; et c’est le mot d’ordre
implacable de nos chefs, qui ont raison; mais c’est aussi “La manière de
le faire”, l’art en quelque sort. Ici, l’architecture». Le Corbusier, Sur les 4
routes (Paris: Gallimard, 1941)18.
21 As stated also by Jacques Aprile-Gniset, “there are no more than 136 in
20 blocks”. Jacques Aprile-Gniset, La ciudad colombiana (Bogota: Banco
Popular, 1992) 636.
22 “ ... the planning problem for Bogota, studied years later, frankly became
clear and was partially addressed ... Today the way is clear”, in Proa, 1948.
23 Aprile-Gniset, Jacques, La ciudad colombiana, 638. In Proa 4 (January
1947), there had already been calls to enact a Horizontal Property Act,
which had already started to be introduced in Brazil, Chile, and other
South American countries.
Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
203

24 Later this will be stated again in the technical report for the Pilot Plan:
“A true symphony of architecture and landscape will be composed. The
mountains will be the underlying theme of the composition.” Le Corbusier,
“Elaboration de Plan Règulateur de Bogota. Etablissement de Plan Directeur”,
Paris, 1950.
25 “To the other side of 4th avenue, in the direction of the mountains, there will
be a country park which will protect the horizon”, ibid.
26 The ICT proposals for collective housing towards 1950 were based on
the development of groups of low-rise accommodation and neighborhood
units, but the need for high-rise housing was already being noted; the
first week would the Antonio Nariño Urban Center (CUAN), in 1953, by
five young architects: Rafael Esguerra, Enrique García Merlano, Danial
Suárez, Juan Meléndez and Nestor Gutiérrez, who “adapted the model of
the unité to the requirements of Colombia”.
27 FLC H3-4-126, letter from Carlos Arbeláez to Le Corbusier, Bogota, 12
April 1950.
28 The research group would be coordinated by Jorge Gaitán Cortés, who
would develop—during the period which included the development of the
Pilot Plan and the Master Plan for Bogota—the projects for Los Alcazares
(1948); Muzu Neighborhood Unit, UVM (1949); the Antonio Nariño Urban
Center, CUAN (1951), and the Quiroga (1952) suburb. These are four
examples of research, both in typological and constructive approaches,
which were carried out through the research and materials’ application
center. See Proa 9 (Bogota, November 1947).
29 «Cher Ami, // Votre seconde lettre du 12 Avril m’est parvenue hier. Je vous
réponds sans retard car tout était préparé pour çà et je dirige mon envoi
via Sert and Wiener afin d’obtenir leur accord. Je pense qu’ils vous expédideront
le dossier sans retard, c’est à dire la réponse aux deux questions
posées: // 1º Circulation des marchés de secteurs; // 2º La décision relative
à l’immeuble collectif demandé sur la carrera 1ª calle 13-14. Veuillez
agréer, Cher Ami, mes salutations les meilleures». FLC H3-4-119, letter
from Le Corbusier to Carlos Arbeláez, Paris, 19 April 1947.
30 FLC H3-4-120-121, letter from Le Corbusier to Wiener and Sert, Paris, 19
April 1950.
31 FLC H3-4-117, letter from Le Corbusier to Carlos Arbeláez, Paris, 21 April
1950.
32 Le Corbusier, Propos d’Urbanisme (Paris: Bourrelier et Cie., 1946) 88.
33 FLC H3-4-117, Le Corbusier, letter, op. cit.
34 Ibid.
35 FLC H3-4-116, letter from Wiener and Sert to Carlos Arbeláez, New York,
26 April 1950.
36 The silence is symptomatic and continues to increase. Maybe it’s the result
of a viewpoint contrary to high-rise accommodation. Note, for example,
that the project noted above, the CUAN, whose construction started in
May 1952, promoted directly by the Ministry of Public Works and headed
by Minister Jorge Leyva during the government of Laureano Gómez,
would be severely criticized during the dictatorship of Rojas Pinilla, to the
point of prohibiting its occupancy because the communal living in high-
204 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
rise buildings with so many apartments per floor was “considered amoral”.
37 FLC, H3-4-97, letter from Wiener and Sert to Le Corbusier, New York, 21
June 1950.
38 Ibid.
39 Emphasis mine (bold). Ibid.
40 Le Corbusier, L’Unité d’Habitation de Marseilles, 31.
41 As in the technical report: Hepp and Hred are the names of the housing
areas: “They represent the future gradual transformation of the homes,
which are currently insufficient, in quality buildings. There will be two types
of homes: Hepp: fishbone-shaped accommodation on flat ground, comprised
of housing units which can contain an average of 2000 people who
share services and extensions of their homes. Hred: accommodation of
the same quality but in the form of redents.” Le Corbusier, “Elaboration de
Plan Règulateur de Bogota”.
42 The others are: the Y-shaped block and the staggered level block. Ces
volumes bâtis de la ville verte pourront s’établir de différentes façons: pour
l’habitation: a) type redant ; b) type en y ; c) type frontal; d) type épine;
e) type gradin. Et pour les affaires: b) type y; f) type lentille. Le Corbusier,
Manière de penser l’urbanisme, 71.
43 For practical purposes, the term unit refers to the Unités d’habitation du
Grandeur Conforme or the Adequately-Sized Habitation Units (UHTA).
44 On the opposite side of 4th Avenue, the reports foresees the location of
the hotel area: “in rugged terrain, which complement the good landscape
conditions and are usefully close to the civil and political business areas,
that would attract travelers to Bogota” Le Corbusier, “Elaboration de Plan
Règulateur de Bogota”.
45 Le Corbusier, Manière de penser l’urbanisme, 168-169..
46 Idem, 71.
47 Idem, 55.
48 Idem, 66.
49 Idem, 66.
50 Idem, 67.
51 This doesn’t pre-suppose morphological or anthropomorphic references in
Le Corbusier’s architecture.
52 Le Corbusier, Œuvre Complète1946-1952.: 174.
53 The development of the Marseilles Habitation Unit included “ 4 plots for
a project” as indicated by Jacques Sbriglio: Quatre localisations différentes
qui montrent l’indécision de la politique urbaine, au cours de cette
periode. Pour L.C., l’enjeu était clair : construire une Unité d’habitation,
d’accord, mais pas n’importe où. The first plot, August 1945, in the Madrague
industrial estate to the north of the city; the second, autumn 1945,
opposite the current location; the third, June 1946, Saint-Bernabé, was
declared unbuildable and the fourth, October 1947, on the west side of the
boulevard Michelet. Jacques Sbriglio, Le Corbusier. L’Unité d’Habitation
de Marseilles (Marsella: Éditions Parenthèses, 1992) 32-42.
54 Le Corbusier, Œuvre complète, 147.
55 Jacques Sbriglio, Unité, 35.
56 Le Corbusier’s writings discuss two impressive aspects of the American
city: the motorway and the park-way. “The second of these was born in the
USA and bears the name of Parkway. Its principle is to delicately cut a way
through the fields, guiding pathways also protected from all dangerous
intersections through facilities on the same level or on a different level (p.
81). « America, completely paralyzed in its petrified streets discovered the
parkway at just the right time; Europe, drowning, crushed under its heritage
of ancient cities, has deduced the principle of a regenerative biology of
the built space: habitation units of suitable size”. Le Corbusier, Manière de
penser l’urbanisme, : 91.
57 A cell on a human scale is at the base. / Let me show what routes I have
traveled, through twenty years of attentive curiosity, I have reached some
of these certainties. / The origin of these investigations, for me, date back
to a visit to the “Chartreuse d’Emma” in the vicinity of Tuscany, where I saw
a modern city, crowning a hill. The most noble figure in the whole landscape,
a seamless crown of monks’ cells; each cell has a view over the plain
and has a door to a walled sloping garden. I didn’t believe I could ever
find a more joyful interpretation of the home. The back part of each cell
opened, by a door and a gate, onto a circular lane. The lane was covered
by arches: It was the cloister. This is where communal functions were
carried out - prayer, visits, eating, burials. / This “modern city” was built in
the fifteenth century. /This radiant vision has stayed with me for ever. Le
Corbusier, Précisions, ed. Vincent-Fréal (Paris, 1930).
58 The projects have a variety of heterogeneous features—resulting from differences
in physical, climate, and social variables. These can be located
in rural and urban plots, between dividing walls, and on isolated corners,
on flat terrain and steep slopes, in areas where the seasons vary greatly
and those with a constant climate; their inhabitants may be workers or
members of the bourgeoisie, single people or families, and these in turn,
may be small or large.
59 Le Corbusier, Architecture du bonheur: l’urbanisme est une clef (Paris:
Forces Vives, 1955).
60 Efficience du groupe familial. De vieux vocables précisen la profonde et
permanente signification: «LE FEU», «LE FOYER» Le Corbusier, L’Unité
d’Habitation de Marseilles, 13.
61 Ibid.
62 Nicholas Fox Weber, Le Corbusier: A life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008)
517.
63 Le Corbusier, Manière de penser l’urbanisme,: 139

Words and Drawings: The Unités of Le Corbusier | Juan Carlos Aguilera
205

A Sabana é dominable desde um avião; as montanhas bogotanas, desde uma habitação
Marta Sequeira
1. Fotografia aérea de Bogotá, enviada por Le Corbusier pelas autoridades da
cidade (1947). ©FLC L1-4-17.
A 16 de Junho de 1947, data da primeira visita de Le Corbusier
à Colombia, Bogotá era uma cidade de 500.000 habitantes,
mas cujo crescimento se estimava que lhe permitisse
atingir rapidamente 1.000.000 ou mesmo 1.500.000 habitantes.
A harmonia preexistente corria perigo, estando a cidade
a desenvolver-se fora dos seus limites. Os seus projectos de
desenvolvimento abrangiam uma extensão norte-sul de cerca
de 14 quilómetros e uma profundidade este-oeste de cerca
de 3 a 5 quilómetros. A pedido do Presidente da Câmara
Municipal, a 30 de Março de 1949, Le Corbusier assinou um
contrato como arquitecto consultor relativo à elaboração de
um «plano piloto» para a cidade. 1 Depois de várias etapas
206 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
projectuais, que decorreram ao longo de dois anos cheios
de atribulações, Le Corbusier, devido à falta de empenho
demonstrada pelas autoridades colombianas, acabou por
se desinteressar do projecto. Se é verdade que o plano piloto
de Le Corbusier nunca se tornou realidade, e que desta
forma a sua eficácia nunca poderá ser comprovada, também
é certo que um estudo cuidado do projecto a partir de
um ponto de vista específico – o da habitação – poderá ser
muito enriquecedor para a construção de um entendimento
sustentado da ideia de unidade de habitação corbusiana –
aqui largamente utilizada, dada a necessidade de duplicar
ou mesmo triplicar o número de alojamentos na cidade.
A preocupação pela habitação na capital colombiana
surgiu para le Corbusier desde o primeiro momento: já em
1947, durante as suas conferências no Teatro Colón em Bogotá
2 , tratara de falar precisamente sobre este tema. Um jornalista,
num artigo de um jornal local, relata uma das suas
intervenções do seguinte modo:
«[…] Demostró […] cómo debe existir una ciencia de la vivienda,
y a qué principios, elementales sencillos y humanos,
debe estar sometida esa ciencia. Se extendió a ese respecto,
en una serie de consideraciones sobre los factores elementales
que hacen decorosa una vivienda, sobre el aprovechamiento
del día solar – tesis previamente desarrolla[da]
por él en su libro “Cuando las catedrales eran blancas” – y
sobre la necesidad del humano, a su biología, a sus hábitos,
a la urgencia de alternabilidades y variaciones. De paso,
anotó que las pocas horas de permanencia en Bogotá le habían
demostrado que en esta ciudad hay muchas viviendas
inadecuadas para el aprovechamiento del sol, que es el verdadero
amo.» 3
Este plano director, designado por plano piloto, foi desenvolvido
por Le Corbusier em colaboração com a Oficina del Plan
Regulador de Bogota (OPRB) – dirigida por Herbert Ritter – e
a Town Planning Associates, uma empresa de arquitectura
fundada em Nova Iorque em 1945 por Jose Luis Sert, Paul
Lester Wiener e Paul Schulz. Foi concebido em cinco fases:
análise urbana (desenvolvida pela OPRB), diagrama preliminar
(desenvolvido por Le Corbusier com Ritter, Jose Luis Sert
e Paul Lester Wiener), plano piloto (plano director, desenvolvido
por Le Corbusier), plano regulador (desenvolvido pela
empresa Town Planning Associates com Le Corbusier como
consultor e em colaboração com a OPRB) e a implementação
do plano regulador (acompanhada pela OPRB e a Town Planning
Associates). Le Corbusier, com base na análise urbana
feita pela OPRB numa primeira fase, imediatamente após o
Congresso de Bérgamo de 1949, entre 6 e 22 de Agosto, começou
a trabalhar com Sert, Wiener e Ritter, na riviera francesa
– mais concretamente em Cap Martin –, na elaboração do
diagrama preliminar. Esta segunda fase terminou em Junho
de 1950, em Paris. O documento foi então enviado às autoridades
a 1 de Setembro. Este estudo é composto por quatro
partes – plano regional, plano metropolitano, plano urbano e
proposta do novo «centro cívico» – e dá um especial destaque
à edificação da nova habitação da cidade de Bogotá.
O plano regional, que define, à escala 1/ 100.000 4 , a relação
entre as principais funções urbanas e o contexto geográfico,
económico e social, apresenta o seu zonamento: Tad
(Trabalho administrativo), Tind (zona industrial e artesanal)
e apresenta já, na zona metropolitana, a indicação «Hmet»,
que indica o posicionamento da habitação metropolitana, a
norte e a sul da zona central.

O plano metropolitano, que define, à escala 1/ 25.000 5 ,
a cidade e arredores da sua influência directa, divide precisamente
a cidade em três grandes zonas, às quais correspondem
três tipos de habitação: central («Hcen»), norte
(«Hnord») e sul («Hsud»). Prevê ainda uma zona habitacional
suplementar («Hreserve»), a noroeste, destinada a permitir
suprir um futuro crescimento da população. Por oposição a
uma situação com uma superfície construída de 2.770 ha,
com uma densidade de 220 habitantes por hectare, e que
alberga 500.000 habitantes, Le Corbusier propõe então uma
saturação da zona central delimitada pelos rios Arzobispo e
San Cristobal, e a utilização da montanha até à cota 2.700
para habitação colectiva de alta densidade (350 habitantes
por hectare), possibilitando o alojamento de 1.610.000 habitantes.
O plano urbano define, à escala 1/ 10.000 6 , a subdivisão
racional da cidade em sectores de habitação, equipados
com edifícios de serviços comuns (mercado, comércio, cinemas,
etc.). A construção existente foi analisada e o seu
estado fez variar o tipo da intervenção: alguns bairros insalubres
são transformados em habitação de alta densidade
com serviços comuns; outros são suprimidos, sendo prevista
a sua reabsorção a pouco e pouco; outros, considerados toleráveis,
são apenas transformados; outros, são mesmo conservados;
os terrenos livres, por sua vez, são utilizados de
acordo com os novos estatutos.
O novo centro cívico define, essencialmente à escala 1/
2.000 7 , a zona de encontro de toda a população – na mesma
zona que correspondia ao centro da cidade antiga, «confirmando
a escolha dos seus fundadores» 8 . Apesar de ter sido
sobretudo desenhado com base nos edifícios dedicados ao
poder político, económico, cultural e religioso, não deixa então
de conter igualmente o que poderíamos chamar o seu
sustento, as unidades de habitação. As habitações apresentam
uma densidade de 350 a 650 habitantes por hectare,
numa superfície construída que ocupa 10 a 15% do solo, e
são equipadas com serviços comuns – sendo que nos espaços
livres se encontram escolas e campos desportivos.
Neste plano director surgem edifícios em zigue-zague –
trata-se de edifícios realizados à imagem das unidades de
2. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): plano regional – BOG 4219 (30
de Jun. de 1950. © Arquivo Pizano.
4. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): plano urbano – BOG 4211 (30 de
Jun. de 1950). © Arquivo Pizano.
3. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): plano metropolitano
– BOG 4210 (30 de Jun. de 1950). © FLC 602.
5. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): planta do Centro Cívico
BOG 4211 (30 de Jun. de 1950). © Arquivo Pizano.
A Sabana é dominable desde um avião; as montanhas bogotanas, desde uma habitação | Marta Sequeira
207

habitação dos anos 30, que povoavam o desenho da sua
Ville Radieuse – agrupações de habitações unifamiliares –
intituladas «uma casa, uma árvore», de 3 pisos –, moradias
em banda – «tipo Rochelle» – e pequenos blocos habitacionais
de 3 pisos – «tipo Sert». 9 No entanto, neste plano surgem
sobretudo, em planta, vários rectângulos, de proporção
alongada: tratam-se de unidades de habitação, realizadas à
semelhança do grande prototipo das unidades de habitação
corbusierianas – a Unidade de Habitação de Marselha, contruida
precisamente durante o período de elaboração deste
plano, entre 1947 e 1952. Podemos então constatar que estamos
perante um modelo da aplicação deste tipo habitacional
ao nível urbanístico. 10
Le Corbusier define as unidades de habitação deste plano
do seguinte modo:
«[…] proposent des opérations de valorisation par qualification
et accroissement de densité, posent des problèmes de
regroupement du sol sous des formes diverses qui sont déjà
réalisées dans s’autres pays ou en cours de réalisation, et
qui permettent à une ville de passer d’un stade inférieur et
provisoire, à un stade supérieur et d’avenir.» 11
As unidades de habitação assumem-se como grandes blocos
parelelepipédidos. Em planta, são representadas através
de um rectângulo alongado, assinalado com um H maiúsculo,
cuja profundidade equivale a cerca de 1/6 do seu
comprimento, e cujo sombreado deixa antever uma altura
considerável. De acordo com o o conjunto dos desenhos
das várias fases que completam os desenhos elaborados
durante o projecto para o plano piloto de Bogotá, existem 4
núcleos diferenciados de unidades de habitação: a noroeste
(indicadas na Fig. 8 como A), próximo do centro geométrico
do plano (indicadas no plano urbano como H 4 e na Fig. 8
como B), no centro cívico (indicadas nos desenhos de Le
Corbusier como H ep.p e na Fig. 8 como C) e junto à montanha
(indicadas no plano urbano como H ep.v e na Fig. 8
como D).
Enquanto as unidades a norte do plano (A e B) são pouco
caracterizadas, para além da sua proporção e localização
em planta, as unidades do centro cívico, por sua vez, são as
208 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
mais detalhadas. Na maqueta que abrange a área do centro
cívico, as parecenças entre estas unidades de habitação e a
que estava na época a ser edificada em Marselha, são assinaláveis:
num parque, sobre uns robustos pilotis e separado
8 m do solo real, encontra-se um paralelepípedo horizontal,
uma estrutura alveolar reticulada onde é incorporada uma
grande quantidade de células, justapostas horizontalmente
e verticalmente. Cruzando verticalmente todo o edifício, uma
superfície sem vãos enuncia a existência de um núcleo de
acessos que estabelece a ligação entre o solo, os vários pisos
e o espaço sobre a última laje, ao ar livre. Trata-se do
lugar do edifício que Le Corbusier intitula toit-terrasse, que
alberga uma série de equipamentos destinados a um uso colectivo,
destinados à cultura do corpo e do espírito do homem
e cuja formalização e disposição contrasta fortemente com a
regularidade e repetição constantes no corpo do edifício.
As unidades junto à montanha, por sua vez, são detalhadas
em desenho e numa carta que Le Corbusier envia
a Carlos Arbelaez a propósito de uma proposta privada de
construção de uma unidade de habitação, onde exige que
a orientação dos edifícios seja a proposta e que os seus volumes
se encontrem em perspectiva relativamente à paisagem
– «as melhores formas, de resto, do ponto de vista do
rendimento e da eficácia». A densidade seria de cerca de
320 habitantes por hectare. Enquanto os peões entrariam na
unidade através da cota mais baixa, os automóveis entrariam
na garagem do edifício, posicionada a meia altura, através
da cota mais alta – à semelhança da Maison Locative em
Argel, de 1933. Segundo Le Corbusier, estes edifícios assegurariam
automaticamente a circulação dos peões, o estacionamento,
a garagem, etc. Le Corbusier recomenda então
que os urbanistas (ele, Wiener e Sert) assumam o papel de
consultores para a elaboração destes projectos, uma vez
que «seria perigoso deixar [esta empresa] à iniciativa inteiramente
privada. Isto a bem da causa.» 12 Em carta a Wiener
e Sert, Le Corbusier escreve, revelando a sua preocupação
em controlar até ao final a boa execução dos projectos destas
unidades de habitação:
«Je suis, quant à moi, très amusé et content de voir naître,
surgir ces initiatives, mais il faut guider. C’est capital. […] Sur
6. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): maqueta do Centro Cívico.
© FLC L1-4-20.
7. Le Corbusier, fotograma da obra da Unidade de Habitação de Marselha (17
de Mar. de 1950). © FLC L1-13-130.

8. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): plano urbano com sobreposição de várias propostas parciais de Le Corbusier
para Bogotá. © Montagem realizada pelo Grupo de Investigación Proyecto, Ciudad y Arquitectura, Uniandes.
9. Le Corbusier, Habitation BOG 4300: proposta para um sector de habitação
entre as ruas verticais 34 e 57 e as horizontais 18 e 30. A Unité do sector de
habitação é a denominada «H4» (30 de Mar. de 1951). © FLC 597.
10. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): esquiço do plano urbano
com a localização de, entre outros, dois tipos de unidades de habitação que
não aparecem no relatório final: as de montanha e as que fecham a avenida
Cundinamarca a ocidente. © FLC 607A.
11. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): diferentes vistas da maqueta
do Centro Cívico que inclui vários pontos de vista das unidades de
habitação. © FLC L1-4-33.
A Sabana é dominable desde um avião; as montanhas bogotanas, desde uma habitação | Marta Sequeira
209

12. Le Corbusier: proposta de localização de uma série de unidades de habitação
junto à montanha (20 de Abr. de 1950). © FLC H3-5-4.
14. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): plano urbano. Sobreposição
de várias propostas parciais de Le Corbusier para Bogotá: detalhe que
indica o norte. © Montagem realizada pelo Grupo de Investigación Proyecto,
Ciudad y Arquitectura, Uniandes.
210 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
13. Le Corbusier, esquiço da secção de uma unidade de habitação junto à
montanha (20 de Abr. de 1950). © FLC H3-5-5-001.
15. Le Corbusier, Unité d’Habitation, investigação teórica sem lugar (1944).
© FLC 20572.
un autre plan annexe se trouve indiquée, à titre de principe,
une série d’Unités d’Habitation constituant un secteur. Ces
Unités sur versants (sur la pente des collines) sont très intéressants,
il suffit de les raccorder en haut aux automobiles, an
bas aux piétons. Mais il faut pour ces secteurs des résidences
(immeubles collectifs qualifiés) imposer un statut impératif.
A ce sujet, j’estime même que nous devons être appelés
par les initiateurs de ces constructions á titre d’experts. Je
puis, personnellement, faire une entente fournissant à leurs
architectes les données essentielles leurs exigences urbanistiques
d’une part et d’autre part profitant de l’énorme e[x]périence
que j’ai acquise en ces choses. Je vous prie même de
voir avec Arbelaez comment pourrait être instituée une convention
type entre nous et ceux que nous devons guider de la
manière signalée ci-dessus. Cette circonstance renouvellera
beaucoup et notre intervention (très faible d’ailleurs, mais très
précise) aura une valeur inestimable.» 13
Até aqui, tudo bem. De facto, se compararmos o conjunto
das unidades de habitação deste plano (descritas através
das maquetas e desenhos elaborados por Le Corbusier e
pelos seus colaboradores, assim como através dos seus escritos)
com a Unidade de Habitação de Marselha, simplesmente
do ponto de vista objectual, as semelhanças são inúmeras.
Estas unidades ou são muito semelhantes à Unidade
de Marselha ou não deixam de ser uma evolução relativamente
a este modelo, adaptado a outras necessidades e a
um território específico.
No entanto, se começarmos a comparar estes edifícios
do ponto de vista da sua implantação no território, e, em particular,
se atendermos à sua orientação, deparamo-nos com
algo que corresponde a uma infracção das teorias corbusianas
sobre a unidade de habitação. As plantas do plano director
para Bogotá, com o norte fora do sentido convencional
– neste caso à esquerda –, dissumulam algo que, de outra
forma, poderia ser mais evidente. Enquanto as unidades de
habitação que se encontram a noroeste (indicadas na fig.
8 como A) e no centro cívico (indicadas no plano do centro
cívico como H ep.p e na fig. 8 e 14 como C) possuem uma
orientação convencional e de acordo com as teorias corbu-

16. Fotografia de Le Corbusier com Wiener, Sert, Arbeláez e
um funcionário, durante uma das suas visitas a Bogotá © FLC
L4-4-18.
17. Le Corbusier, Plano Director para Bogotá (1950): esquiço do plano metropolitano com ênfase na pendente das colinas. © FLC 606.
A Sabana é dominable desde um avião; as montanhas bogotanas, desde uma habitação | Marta Sequeira
211

sianas – com as suas fachadas maiores orientadas a nascente
e a poente –, as unidades de habitação próximo do centro
geométrico do plano (indicadas no plano urbano como H 4 e
na fig. 8 e 14 como B) e junto à montanha (indicadas no plano
urbano como H ep.v e nas figs. 8 e 12 como D) apresentam
uma orientação absolutamente díspar – com as suas fachadas
maiores orientadas a nordeste e a sudoeste, aparentemente
sem um vínculo claro com os pontos cardeais. 14
Le Corbusier quebra assim a sua regra de ouro, proferida
por diversas vezes, que indica que a unidade de habitação
é orientada com as suas fachadas maiores viradas a este e a
oeste: «[…] l’Unité d’habitation est orientée est-ouest […].» 15
Esta é, de resto, a orientação não apenas do protótipo da
unidade de habitação construído em Marselha, como também
de outras unidades de habitação que projecta posteriormente
– Nantes-Rezé (1952/53), Briey-en-Forêt (1957)
Berlim (1957), Firminy (1962) –, e das unidades de habitação
existentes nos projectos urbanísticos que realiza – de
Marseille Vieux-Port e Marseille-Veyre (1945), La Rochelle La
Pallice (1945), Saint-Dié (1945), Marseille-Sud (1951), Estrasburgo
(1951) e Meaux (1957).
Porque é que Le Corbusier não cumpre, em Bogotá, esta
regra por ele criada tão pouco tempo antes de se deparar
com a capital colombiana, e que respeita em todos os outros
projectos que contemplam unidades de habitação?
A razão apenas pode estar relacionada com a paisagem
com que Le Corbusier se deparou quando se encontrou com
a capital colombiana, que em nada correspondia ao plano
teórico a partir do qual começou a ser idealizado o modelo
da unidade de habitação. Desde o príncípio que Le Corbusier
se deixara impressionar pelo impacto que a montanha
tinha em Bogotá. Ela não poderia passar despercebida.
Nos seus desenhos, em planta, enfatiza o declive da montanha,
que define claramente um limite natural da cidade.
Numa página do seu caderno de viagem, anota: «ouvrir sur
les montagnes». Em vários escritos, Le Corbusier enfatiza a
importância da montanha no desenho da cidade: «La ville
s’appuie naturellement à la montagne. Son sol est fermé d’un
fond de lac dont les bords se relèvent en cuvette jusqu’à la
chute des montagnes.» 16 «Une véritable symphonie architec-
212 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
turale et paysagiste se développera. La montagne servira de
fond à la composition. Des fenêtres des édifices, la plaine de
la Savane apparaîtra entourée de ses collines.» 17
Acaba mesmo por extrapolar uma ilação de carácter universal:
«Quand on voit les montagnes sur la ville, les arbres dans la
ville, ou là où [on] est en droit de les imaginer dans la ville,
de la ville, - Le Matin, le ciel est la création humaine remis
en contact, alors qu’Alger, comme Bogota chaque jour ont
fermé leurs fenêtres et leurs rues au paysage offert, comme
St Dié qui a dit non et la Rochelle autant, on sait où est le crime
: C’est l’imbécilité, forgée par les écoles, les églises, les
cellules en faveur de l’argent ou de la vanité» 18
Em determinadas zonas da cidade, se as unidades de habitação
fossem dispostas de acordo com os cânones corbusianos,
as unidades de habitação mais próximas da montanha
ocultá-la-íam para as restantes. Assim, tendo como
base uma orientação que não corresponde exactamente à
este-oeste, a partir de cada uma das unidades de habitação
não se deixa de disfrutar permanentemente da bela encosta
da Cordilheira dos Andes.
A seguinte frase de Le Corbusier, referindo-se ao desenvolvimento
que a cidade de Bogotá estava a ter antes do seu
plano piloto ser iniciado, proferida durante a sua primeira estadia
em Bogotá, confirma esta hipótese: «Los habitantes de
Bogotá en su afán de disfrutar el paisaje de la sabana están
dando la espalda al hermoso paisaje de las montañas. La sabana
es dominable desde un avión, las montañas bogotanas
desde una habitación.» 19
Le Corbusier terá ficado deslumbrado com a beleza e o
impacto da Cordilheira dos Andes na cidade colombiana, o
que o terá levado a pensar que, tratando-se de uma oportunidade
para aplicar o modelo de unidade de habitação ao nível
urbanístico, não deveria deixar de a ter em conta. O caso
da aplicação do modelo da unidade de habitação no plano
piloto para Bogotá é uma demonstração de que os modelos
criados por Le Corbusier, tal como o da unidade de habitação,
não estão fixos no tempo; os seus projectos finalizados
e obras construídas não são mais que apenas uma parte de
um projecto maior, não são mais que um fragmento de uma
grande pesquisa empreendida ao longo de uma vida. Sem
se analisar todos estes fragmentos, não se poderá ter uma
noção clara de uma determinada proposta corbusiana; sem
se analisar as unidades de habitação do plano piloto para
Bogotá, pordería escapar-nos algo tão simples como a orientação
de uma unidade de habitação poder ser ditada não
apenas pelo sol, mas também por uma montanha.
Marta Sequeira, licenciada em Arquitectura pela Faculdade de Arquitectura
da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa em 2001 e doutorada em Projectos
Arquitectónicos pela Escola Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Barcelona
da Universidade Politécnica da Catalunha em 2008. Professora Auxiliar
do Departamento de Arquitectura da Universidade de Évora, onde exerce
varios cargos de gestão académica e científica. Investigadora no Centro
de História da Arte e Investigação Artística da mesma universidade. Participou
em diversos projectos de investigação científica. Leccionou, como
professora convidada, em estudos pósgraduados e de terceiro ciclo em
Portugal e Espanha. Autora de vários textos publicados e palestras proferidas
em Portugal, Espanha, Inglaterra e Estados Unidos da América.
1 O primeiro convite do Presidente da Câmara, ainda que informal, já teria
sido feito em Junho de 1947, durante a sua primeira estadia em Bogotá.
2 A pedido do Dr. Eduardo Zuleta Angel, Ministro da Educação da Colombia,
Embaixador, e Presidente da Sede da ONU (que conhecera durante
a elaboração do projecto para a sede da ONU, em Nova Iorque).
3 «Que en Bogotá se Está Demoliendo Mal, Insinuó Anoche le Corbusier»,
1947, FLC X1-15-134.
4 FLC 601A, B e C, denominado pelo atelier BOG 4209.
5 FLC 602, denominado pelo atelier BOG 4210.
6 FLC 603, denominado pelo atelier BOG 4211.
7 FLC 604, 605 A e B, denominados pelo atelier BOG 4212, 4220.
8 «La situation du centre Civique qui est apparue normale après une étude
approfondis du plan régional, du plan métropolitain et du plan urbain, confirme
le choix des fondateurs de la cité.» Le Corbusier, Etablissement du
Plan Directeur, p. 32.
9 O relatório que acompanhava o plano director, entregue em Março de
1950, indicava como uma das quatro regras que eram objecto do urbanismo
moderno, e que se podiam enunciar a propósito deste plano, a
seguinte: «Reconnaître les diverses qualités de population d’une ville et
leur préparer, non pas des logis qui accusent des différences de classes,
mais des logis qui permettent à chacune de ces catégories de disposer

du maximum de bienfaits et de pouvoir d’éduquer de façon à se préparer
pour des catégories meilleures. Ceci a conduit pratiquement à la recherche
et á la proposition de types d’habitation de diverses natures, mais inspirés
des règles précédemment indiquées.» Le Corbusier, Etablissement
du Plan Directeur, p. 7.
10 Uma notícia no jornal Combat, de 13 e 14 de janeiro de 1951, anuncia:
«La cité verticale de Marseille nous en apporte la démonstration. Mais,
alors qu’il ne s’agit à Marseille que de la réalisation d’un élément isolé, en
quelque sorte d’un grandiose échantillon, on apprend que Le Corbusier
se voit confier, coup sur coup, à quelques mois de distance, non plus
l’édification d’une “unité d’habitation”, mais l’organisation architecturale
de deus villes, de deux capitales, l’une à Bogota, en Colombie, l’autre
au Pendjab, dans les Indes.» Jean Audouit, «Le Corbusier va construire
la nouvelle capitale du Pendjab et réorganiser l’architecture de Bogotá»,
Combat, 13-14 de Janeiro de 1951.
11 Le Corbusier, Etablissement du Plan Directeur, p. 38.
12 «Le plan BOG 121-2 n. º 4198 montre en rouge l’emplacement que nous
acceptons, qui couvre une surface plus profonde dirigée ver le sud-est
[…]. Nous exigeons que des “Unités d’Habitation de Grandeur Conforme”
basées sur l’orientation et le terrain, et le volume perspectif dans le paysage
; ce sont d’ailleurs les meilleures formes au point de vue du rendement
et de l’efficacité. Par conséquent, votre société de construction devra tenir
compte de ces prescriptions. Pour vos renseignements à vous personnellement,
et non pas pour les autres, nous vous donnons le plan BOG 121-
2 n.º 4198 qui indique la possibilité d’autres Unités semblables limitées,
toutefois, à k, l, m, n, o, p, q ; il y a une question d’architecture générale et
d’efficience du plan. Notre plan BOG 102-5 n. º 4199 donne l’occupation
maximum du terrain avec onze unités, ce qui permet de calculer une densité
de 320 habitants à l’hectare, c’est une bonne densité pour ces choses
là. De tels immeubles assurent automatiquement la circulation du piéton,
du parking, du garage, etc. Dernière question : nous jugeons indispensable
de demeurer, nous les urbanistes (Le Corbusier, Wiener et Sert) attachés
come Conseils à l’exécution de tels immeubles qu’il serait dangereux
de laisser à l’initiative entièrement libre à Bogota. Ceci pour le bien de la
cause.» Le Corbusier, carta a Carlos Arbelaez, data da 21 de Arbil de
1950, FLC H3-4-117.
13 Le Corbusier, carta a Wiener e Sert, datada de 19 de Abril de 1950, FLC
H3-4-125.
14 Le Corbusier, carta a Wiener e Sert, datada de 19 de Abril de 1950, FLC
H3-4-120.
15 Le Corbusier, Œuvre complète 1946-1952, Girsberger, Zürich, 1953, p.
194.
16 Le Corbusier, Etablissement du Plan Directeur, p. 10.
17 Le Corbusier, Etablissement du Plan Directeur, pp. 32-33.
18 Le Corbusier, FLC, pagina do Carnet D 16’, publicada em Le Corbusier :
carnets, Herscher, Dessain et Tolra, Paris, 1981, vol. 2, n. º 198.
19 «Le Corbusier y su visita a Bogota», Proa, n.º 8, Agosto de 1947, p. 5.
18. Le Corbusier, desenho da praça de Bolivar, assinado
durante a segunda viagem, de Fevereiro de 1949. Carnets
1-B5-332 © FLC.
A Sabana é dominable desde um avião; as montanhas bogotanas, desde uma habitação | Marta Sequeira
213

Bogota is a Corbu city
Fernando Arias Lemos
On September 19 th , 1953 Le Corbusier wrote to Zuleta Angel
(the Colombian representative to the UN and member of the
commission charged with founding the UN headquarters): “I
know your city as well as if I had been born there […] Bogota
is a bit of a Corbu city […] Corbu is a bit Bogotano.” 1 The statement,
instead of overshadowing the original characteristics
of Bogota, offers a technical starting point for seeing Bogota
as a capital steeped in modern architecture.
The ville corbu summed up the ideas from the Master Plan
for Bogota (PPB) and offered what might be called, like in
Toward an Architecture, three reminders for the “foundations
of construction based on logic.” 2
The first is that the ville corbu was designed around autonomous
principles from diverse fields and expressed what Le
Corbusier called côté esprit or ‘spiritual support,’ whose goal
was to harmonize buildings with their urban surroundings. It
could be said that the côté esprit turned the ville corbu into a
living workshop.
The second, a consequence of the first and proof of the
ville corbu’s consistency, is that it proposed a logical relationship
with the city as it was; the ville Corbu grafted itself onto
the city in order to assimilate and transform it. This is why Le
Corbusier urged H. Ritter (director of the Office of the Regulatory
Plan for Bogota [OPRB]) to send him a technician with
experience in Bogota: “It will be impossible to establish an
effective plan for Bogota if I cannot consult with a technician
who knows the customs, the climate, the region, the regulations
and all other aspects of the project.” 3 Eight months
later, Le Corbusier informed his associates Wiener and Sert,
“Samper, Salmona and Solomita have begun to work in Bogota.”
4
214 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
The third is that the ville Corbu formed part of Le
Corbusier’s intimate and existential experience, both continuous
and unending but always based on his uncompromising
insistence to bring together technical knowledge and
the outside world. The ville Corbu was an architectural symphony
that drew on many divergent experiences such as his
personal travels, his work on plans and theories of urbanism
(The Modern City, The Radiant City, the Voisin Plan, and The
Three Human Establishments), projects for civic centers, and
the CIAM (International Congress of Modern Architecture).
Of all his experiences, those of Chandigarh and the UN
site in New York stand out because they were projects undertaken
at the same time that the ville corbu was proposed in
Bogota; their construction enriched the planning process in
Bogota. In April of 1953, Le Corbusier wrote Zuleta Ángel:
In India, I am presently building a true miracle of modern
architecture […] I have built a palace that the whole world
speaks of with astonishment and approval. I would be very
grateful, dear friend, if by virtue of our contact; you could
help me in my old age and spearhead the construction of a
civic center in Bogota so that the edification of the buildings
there reflect my concept of urbanism. 5
Since 1951, the proposed civic center had projected that the
new Palace of Justice be located on the northern edge of the
Plaza de Bolivar. In September of 1952, Le Corbusier proposed
to Wiener and Sert that in its place they build the assembly
he had designed for Chandigarh. Wiener’s response
was: “I received from your office a copy of the capital building
from your designs for Chandigarh. Perhaps it was sent by
mistake and what you really intended to send was the plan
for downtown Bogota. We have received nothing from you
for that project.” 6 It appeared that Le Corbusier’s interest in
relating his experience in Chandigarh with that of Bogota was
inversely proportional to the distance between the project of
a ville corbu and Wiener and Sert.
***
The concept of an ensemble as the project procedures of
the ville Corbu is most clearly seen in the proposal for a civic
center: the composition of a structure organized in stratum or
of successive scenes that constitute a unit of analysis and of
an urban and architectural project.
The scenes from the Civic Center could be described with
the same technique as in the Commedia dell’ Arte, a declic
used by Le Corbusier to quickly introduce a visual image:
“as each character came on stage you could immediately tell
Le Corbusier, first sketch for the “grand inmeuble” in the Administrative Center
of Bogotá (CAB), displayed in the conference at the Teatro Colón, June 20th,
1947. © Proa.

what emotion they would express based on their costume and
way of carrying themselves. This visual image eliminated the
need for tedious explanations and, instead, lead straight to
the action.” 7 The civic center’s architecture, like the characters
in the Commedia dell’ Arte, could be understood through its
character, its order, and its placement on the stage.
It is worth highlighting the declic 8 as an associative moment
in the process of building a ville Corbu. The declic is
inductive; it immediately points to the most general aspects
of the process. To paraphrase Le Corbusier, the declic was
the moment in which one felt affinity or connection, when analogies,
proportional relationships, variations and transformations
were made clear and heterotopia defined. This is why
the ville corbu was an unknown place within someplace real.
Le Corbusier described New York in a declic. He saw cinema,
jazz and the grand immeuble as the equivalents of the
civilization machiniste. Louis Armstrong’s hot jazz was “the
soul’s melody bound to a mechanic rhythm,” 9 and like the
architecture of New York, reflected an age of incessant and
innovative construction that flooded the world and changed
people’s habits (listening and urban); both were writing the
next page in conservatories and schools of art.
In order to understand jazz, it had to be heard “in the clamor
of the skyscrapers and the subways […] Jazz, like the
grand immueble, is an event and not a pre-conceived work.
It is the energy at hand […] Manhattan is a jazz number of
stone and steel […] whose sonorous foundations are already
being built.” 10 Sixteen years later, on a stopover in New York
returning from Bogota to Paris he wrote in his cahier, “Jazz
exists when you dream and enjoy yourself.” 11
Returning to the description of the Civic Center, its first
scene displays the grand immuebles of the ministries, the
unions, and the Mayor’s office—all positioned around the Plaza
de Bolívar.
Placed further out were three large office buildings, arranged
east to west with a single base that faced the northern
edge of the Plaza de Bolívar. Smaller buildings (museums,
commercial galleries, bars, etc.) and five large office buildings
were located along the new Broadway that led from the
Plaza de Bolívar to 26 th St. between 7 th and 10 th Avenues.
Beyond this, appeared the residential area of the Civic
Center: 24 Unités, prismatic buildings longitudinally arranged
north to south, five of which where located in the piedmonts
of the eastern hills; seventeen were placed to the west between
10 th Avenue and Caracas Avenue and two were located
along 6 th Street along with four buildings à redent.
The following area was free of buildings, a tapis urbain
that was a public space that included an open area that served
as the base of the composition of the Civic Center’s system
of circulation, which incorporated pedestrian walkways,
gardens, and roadways that fed the center.
Another scene was based on the preexisting elements of
the city; those sites laid out along 7 th Avenue that formed part
of the traditional city as well as the nine archeological blocks
such as the Plaza de Bolívar, the Cathedral, and the Capitol,
etc.
Finally came the geographic border of the eastern hills,
the immutable mountains, colorfully painted by Le Corbusier.
***
The civic center in Bogota’s ville Corbu was very much like
Manhattan in its character of architectural experimentation
and modernism. But even though Bogota became a place
to build on what had been learned in New York, this similarity
generated criticism as well.
Le Corbusier describes many of the differences with New
York in Deliverance or The End of a World 12 , an unfinished
Le Corbusier, Plan Pilot for Bogotá, BOG 4220 – Centro Cívico, “Transportation”, June 30 th 1950. © Archivo Pizano (original blurry)
Bogota is a Corbu city | Fernando Arias Lemos
215

publication about his experience in Bogota. A telling passage
appears in Mise au point, 13 where Le Corbusier writes:
“In Bogota, in 1950, I had the sensation that we were turning
a new page […] an important page in human history […] the
imminent and eminent end of […] the story of man before the
machine, [Bogota] and, on the other page, the story of man
after the machine has torn life apart [New York]” 14
To turn back the page (of the book on the history of architecture
and cities) meant to create living events, present, conceivable
through the techniques of traditional architecture; to
turn the page meant to do away with deductive rules and
preconceived ideas. That is, the ville corbu in Bogota sought
to remedy the negative effects of the civilization machiniste
of New York. In Bogota, Le Corbusier proposed using a logic
not based on private gain; building the ville corbu was not a
business. Yet the construction of modern cities was a business
opportunity for the bourgeois of Bogota, New York, and
Paris. In his novel, Paris in the 20 th Century (1865), J. Verne
216 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
writes, “In the nineteenth century, when they wanted to create
a new France and a new Paris, did they not also create real
state agencies, branch offices and mortgages in order to do
so?” 15
If in the beginning New York was a dream-like city built
upon the myth of buildings “300 meters high, [built] of stone,
iron and glass, standing tall in the magnificently blue sky—a
new event in human history,” 16 now they left only a feeling of
illusion, of figurativeness, “a brutal and savage image […] of
disorder and artless fury […] of skyscrapers built not of glass
but of stone […] that were both too small and too many […]
like simple stones hanging on steel hooks, stones hanging in
emptiness.” 17
If, for Le Corbusier, the beginnings of the North American
skyscrapers remained archetypes for modeling his project
procedures (“the legend of the tower of Babel […] new white
cathedrals rising above Manhattan […] a new world temple
[…] architecture’s time at hand”), 18 it was clear that this time
of transformation and new creation was quickly coming to a
Le Corbusier, drafts of plans for the civic center, first stage of construction – circular, June, 1950. Final Report,
Elaboration du Plan Régulateur de Bogotá. Etablissement du Plan Directeur. © FLC H3-4-363
Le Corbusier, Carnets 2, D 16’–203: End of the word, February of 1950. © FLC.
Le Corbusier, view of New York in When the Cathedrals Were White (1938).
© FLC

close. The tower and beacon of North America only limited
the possibility of creating a city with which its inhabitant could
identify: they did away with public space, with the exterior. A
skyscraper imposed a private, individual order that existed
by and for itself, capable of containing a city behind its doors
and of closing itself off even from its own grounds, from other
grounds, other buildings on the same block, and from other
blocks.
Property speculation was the melody of the urban reality
of skyscrapers; its main objective was to maximize the profitability
of the land by growing upwards. Skyscrapers seemed
like observation towers on the scene of architectural debate
and planning that distanced them from the rational grand
immeuble: “We appreciate the difference between the audacious
but paradoxical execution in New York and a rational
conception where the whole has instead determined the reciprocal
relationships between its indispensable elements.” 19
Many years later, Koolhaas echoed Le Corbusier’s criticism:
“Manhattan turned into a dry archipelago of city
blocks.” 20 It is important to bear in mind that Le Corbusier
knew midtown Manhattan and many of the buildings there—built
before those in the Finance District downtown—like
the Lever House (Bunshaft and SOM), the Seagram Building
(Mies) and the Guggenheim Museum (Wright). In an entry in
his cahier he wrote: “Downtown and Wall Street are romantic
but inadmissible, provisional and up to now intolerably frenetic.
I have found the place for the Ville Radieuse, between
42 nd and 47 th Sts. [location of the UN]; it is the opposite, victory
over the chaos.” 21
Even though he would later accuse his contractor (W. K.
Harrisson) of theft and plagiarism, the UN site was the only
project which Le Corbusier felt most in tune with. It was “inspiring
even though it lacked coté esprit […] but it has certain
technical failings that may have consequences on the future
of modern architecture. In effect, if it doesn’t work people will
say: “That’s modern!” In his cahier, he wrote: “In the middle
of the horror that is the edified New York, the United Nations
building contributes its bit of the Ville Radieuse. The Ville Radieuse
is the word that says it all!” 22
Le Corbusier, Carnets 2, D 15–52, 1950. © FLC.
It was no coincidence that Le Corbusier described the
project of a grand immeuble for Bogota as:
Similar to the United Nations building, presently being finished
on the East River in New York, which houses the offices
of the Secretary General. We played a fundamental role in
drawing the plans for this construction in 1946-1947 and we
had the opportunity to raise the standards of modern techniques
for designing offices. 23
In September of 1953, Le Corbusier wrote to Zuleta Ángel: “In
Bogota there now is a thoroughly modern civilization, influenced
by the United States in its speed, intensity and precision;
I am certain that the plan can be implemented.” 24
In his sketch of the civic center for the ville Corbu, in
March of 1950, Le Corbusier designated 9 th Avenue Broad-
way. Bogota was connected to New York through that welcoming,
modern street and their similarity would be enough to
change the way people used downtown Bogota.
Like Montmartre, Broadway was that public place of activity
filled with:
The city lights and shining publicity […] multitudes moving
forward like a wave […] tides of on-lookers on their way to the
cinema, the burlesque, the theatre. An ever-changing empire
of light, exploding, crackling, sliding; point-blank constellations
arranged in a kaleidoscope of white, blue, red, green
and yellow light, a milky way where one disappears into the
nightlife of modern times. And on Broadway, torn between
melancholy and exhilaration, I walk along hopelessly searching
for an intelligent burlesque filled with the naked bodies
of beautiful women. 25
Bogota is a Corbu city | Fernando Arias Lemos
217

But these impressions did not arise in any real time or place,
but instead within the public space of the metropolis, lost in
the multitude on that directionless, endless and idle stroll of
ecstatic and analytic dissolution in a space beyond his body.
In the ville corbu, 9 th Avenue – Broadway was a synecdoche
of life and the modern city, it was the scene that offered
an alternative to the brutal and oppressive life of New York,
where life was always the same, without change, without interruption
or delay, where every inhabitant was just another
brick in the wall, a necessary cog in the machine that only
let up “in the quiet laziness of dawn.” The ville Corbu could
well be the curtain rising on the scene of a revolution for life in
New York.
Le Corbusier’s experience in constructing modern buildings
was the grand immeuble. A permanent structural element
that embodied the ville Corbu, it was its physical and moral
heart and proof of the associative character of the project
procedure.
To describe the components of the project procedure of
the grand immeuble we will make use of Le Corbuisier’s reminders
for architects (surface, plan, and volume). The abstraction
of Bogota’s specific geographic conditions does not
keep us from recognizing that the project faced both a technical
reality and the need for the preservation of the hierarchical
and universal activities of a capital (daily, nightly, Sundays
and holidays, one-time events, religious holidays, solennités
gouvernementales, and public rallies).
The point is to suggest that the grand immueble represents,
in terms of its experience, a rational architectural unit,
which transformed the urban panorama into “buildings that
reflect my concept of urbanism.” 26 In Le Corbusier’s terms, it
was a cell capable of producing alternative growth and order
in the modern urban organism.
The surface is the guideline for the three components of
the project procedures. The first is the floor plan, which lays
out the arrangement and distribution of the grand immeuble.
The floor plan is the:
Unitary guideline that distributes […] and defines spaces according
to a practical order and the architect’s own sense of
218 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
aesthetics […] and is also a summary, an analytical table of
materials […] that contains an enormous number of ideas and
indicates a general direction. The floor plan is the generator,
the coming-together of all things, an austere abstraction,
a dry visual reduction. It is a battle plan […] the collision of
volumes in space. Without a good floor plan, nothing exists,
everything is fragile and transient, and everything is poor. 27
Through a ‘typological cycle’ that was developed over thirty
years, the plan shows the variations and transformations
of architectural drawings in their transition from cruciform to
Cartesian-heliothermic and then to rectangular plans. The
common factor in the typological cycle is its attempt to resolve
the basic conflicts between structural function and users’
needs. For example, the cruciform plan’s spatial isotropy was
corrected in the Cartesian grand immeuble because “the
base did not conform to the light’s path, along an axis […]
the base’s new form takes the shape of a chicken’s foot. . .to
improve stability and lighting.” 28
Rowe highlighted the characteristics of the Corbusian
plan, saying that it contained “nothing passive, residual or
slow-moving.” Later he added that the base was the “common
logic [of the whole building] through which all parts were
connected and that imposed a system to which all parts were
subordinate.” 29
The second surface element is the building enclosure that,
while forming part of the structural subsystem (of beams, walls,
roofs, etc.), is also an element of composition because it supplies
the glass paneling (pan de verre) and the ‘sun-breaking’
brise-soleil, which interact with light, view and space.
The building enclosure was separated (analytically, visually,
and structurally) from the functions of the supporting
elements (columns and beams) and the functions of the supported
elements (walls and partitions) through a technical
‘domino’ system; the paneling was disassociated from the
main structure by placing the building’s weight over its pillars
and drawing these back from the façade line. According to
Rowe, this system allows composition to be focused on individual
sections of the building in order to create movement
within the vertical space (piercing the surface), and to “exchange
the freedom of the base freedom for the freedom of
the section […] a document illustrating a basic mathematical
regulation.” 30
This glass paneling allowed for the greatest amount
of light within the building and also divided the traditional
functions of the window (to ventilate and illuminate). Le Corbusier
argued for the need to de-Vignolize architecture by
giving windows a much more important role:
Vignola pays no attention to windows but instead the space
between windows [columns or pilasters]. I de Vignolize: architecture
should stand on lightened floors […] and its purpose
be to maintain its works through walls cut with uninterrupted
horizontal windows to illuminate their constricted and
disagreeable interiors. The façade becomes a panel of glass,
of crystal. 31
The first trial of the pan de verre was the “neutralizing wall”,
where air was circulated between two sheets of glass to stabilize
exterior and interior conditions. This design was improved
through the incorporation of camera mechanisms that
would allow the glass enclosure to be “adjusted at will. For
me light is the fundamental base of architecture. I compose
with light. I adjusted, you let the light shine where it wants.” 32
Even though the project never took off, it was the beginning
of the formulation of brise-soleil/brise-pluie that improved the
technical inadequacies of previous experiments and created
new relationships between natural aeration, ventilation and
illumination. The brise-soleil, a system of protection and ventilation,
was another example of the role experience played in
the ville corbu’s project procedure. The brise-soleil was the
outcome of Le Corbusier’s extensive study of traditional Mediterranean
‘defense mechanisms’: transitional diaphragms
between the exterior and interior, generators of wind currents,
extensive parasols, wooden folding shutters, etc.
The third characteristic element of Le Corbusier’s use of
the surface was for it to act as the link between the plan and
the surrounding grounds. Situated on a low base that was left
free of walls and that exposed only the beams supporting the

Le Corbusier, Carnets 2, D 16’–188, March, 1950. © FLC A: The “square” or platform; B: the “prism” or block of the “grand inmeuble” in
Bogotá. Reconstruction of the plan in three corridors. © F. Arias.
transition slab, The Hall of Lost Steps (La Sala de los pasos
perdidos) acted as the entryway to the rest of the grand immeuble—another
example of the domino-style technical system.
The ‘hall’ was made up of a single floor that allowed free
circulation and a virtually unobstructed view of the landscape
outside.
The grand immeuble connected with the Civic Center
through its locus, that ideal topography created by the esplanade
extending from the hall. Bernini’s colonnade in San
Pietro reminded Le Corbusier of its original purpose, to allow
free circulation: “everything is circulation […] a fundamental
[…] that supports nothing, but offers us the gentle image of
the cylinder.” 33 Hypo-style halls and semi-circular chambers
were both models adapted for circulation and mobility.
These flat, Corbusierian-style esplanades had many variations,
from different isotropic sections, to tree-covered paths,
to an open, pedestrian platform. Le Corbusier also suggested
variations in the Master Plan for Buenos Aires (1937-
1938), whose business center was located on a platform
above the Río de la Plata; and also in New York and Bogota,
where this esplanade encompassed six and twelve blocks
respectively. In Chandigarh, the surrounding area included
slopes and was designed like a “downward pointing grand
immeuble.”
In the Civic Center in Bogota this outer area “organizes
pedestrian circulation
[…] will be divided into different levels connected by ramps
[…] and takes up a space 200 meters wide and 600 meters
deep running East to West. This surface rests on an inclined
plane that descends from the mountain.” 34
The grand immeuble’s volume is expressed in its vertical form
that is supported by the base, which included the Hall of Lost
Steps, auditoriums and conference rooms. The base could
also include a terrace garden connected to the auditorium
that could be used as an open-air theater.
This purely vertical form, “self-sure from top to bottom,
regular, free of staggering or trimming […] combined with the
need for stability and wind resistance, [that] will become a
Bogota is a Corbu city | Fernando Arias Lemos
219

Le Corbusier, photos taken by Lucien Hervé in Paris of the Civic Center model, 1950
and 1951 © FLC, L1-4-32
220 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, United Nations project: view of the complex published in UN – Headquarters (1947) © FLC

characteristic form of the plan,” 35 was the result of an algebraic
equation: the function between “the height and extension
of available ground,” 36 the relationship between vertical
and horizontal dimensions.
Le Corbusier pointed out that the vertical element (architecture)
determined the sense of the horizontal (nature) in
such a way that it came to life by creating “the space of absolute
proportion, a right angle […]. Crystallization, the fixation
of the place where man becomes still because there is a total
symphony, a magnificence of affinity.” 37
The vertical form of the building’s main body was produced
through the application of a versatile, standard plan that
provided “endless possibilities of variation [interchangeability]
and would ensure that necessary changes could be made
over time […] in a perfect economy of use.” 38 On the other
hand, this forceful vertical figure was divided in horizontal
sections separated by technical floors that housed special
mechanical equipment (similar to the projects for the UN, Bogota
and Algiers).
At the turn of the 20 th century, versatility proved to be a
characteristic shared between the grand immeuble and the
commercial skyscrapers of North America; because of this
both could be considered models of experimentation and development.
***
By analyzing the project of a ville corbu, we are offered a
perspective that highlights topics and problems that are still
important today. The ville corbu was the basis of a project
procedure in which Le Corbusier’s professional experience
and autonomous principles became a way of understanding
and transforming Bogota.
Instead of a tabula rasa, Le Corbusier could see the
universal logic that governed urban planning and use it to
overcome the provisional and temporary situation of modern
architecture.
The ville corbu is not an a priori procedure; it was born
of Le Corbusier’s direct experience and expressed in such a
way that it could only be understood within the ville corbu.
The ville corbu challenged the city’s natural growth, its
inertia, because it presented a real fiction that contrasted with
the illusion of real space, laid bare in the aftermath of the assassination
of Gaitan on April 9 th , 1948. The ville Corbu created
a space to counteract such disorder, decomposition, and
confusion. And Le Corbusier believed that, in the following
fifty years, he could commit the city and its society to the
creation of a ville corbu in Bogota—a situation interpreted by
some as a sign that the ‘progressive’ government intended to
stay in power.
The ville corbu was an open and continuous urban model,
ready to respond to the city’s needs, in Le Corbusier’s words,
“without breach or interruption.” It was a place built with the
techniques of urbanism and architecture: “a powerful architecture,
of modest expense, in which the spirit will be expressed
in reinforced concrete, in proportion and perfect balance
with the landscape.” 39
Le Corbusier, the Civic Center from the
Saint-Dié reconstruction project from the
7 th and 8 th CIAM congresses. CIAM, The
Heart of the city, London, 1951. © FLC
Le Corbusier, project for the Administrative Center of Bogota
(CAB). Plans preparted for the 8 th CIAM Congress, England,
July, 1951 © FLC.
Bogota is a Corbu city | Fernando Arias Lemos
221

Le Corbusier, “Bogotá, Regulatory Plan, Wiener and Sert (L.C. consultant), LC. Project / Administrative
Center, forms of the new buildings downtown.” FLC R2-15-15. © FLC.
Fernando Arias graduated from the Department of Architecuture of Universidad
de los Andes in 1988 and received his doctorate in Architectural
Projects at the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Spain, in 2006. He is
an associate professor at the Universidad Nacional in Bogota, Colombia,
where he works with the undergraduate, master, and doctorate programs.
He belongs to the Project and Architecture Research Group (GIPA, Colciencias
code 0061523, A1 category). His doctoral thesis, Le Corbusier in
Bogota. The Project of a Grand Immeuble for the Civic Center 1949-1950,
directed by Rogelio Salmona, received a Cum Laude honors.
1 “Je connais votre ville comme si j’y étais né [...] Bogota c’est un peu une
ville corbu [...] corbu est un peu Bogotien”, letter to from Le Corbusier to
Zuleta Ángel, September 19 th , 1953 (FLC H3-4-513)
2 Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture, Crès, Paris, 1924. Spanish Translation
Cast. Apóstrofe, Barcelona, 1998, p. 48.
3 Letter from Le Corbusier to H. Ritter, June 10 th , 1949 (FLC H3-4-200).
4 Letter from Le Corbusier to Wiener and Sert, March 16 th , 1950 (FLC H3-4-
139).
5 Letter from Le Corbusier to Zuleta Ángel, March 23 rd , 1953, here undersighned
(FLC H3-4-511).
6 FLC, letter from Wiener to Le Corbusier, September of 1952.
222 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
7 J. Tyrwhitt, Josep Lluís Sert, Ernesto Rogers (Ed.), El Corazón de la cuidad:
por una vida más humana de la comunidad, Hoepli S. L., Barcelona,
1955, p. 52.
8 Declic was a noun representing the noise (click) that a switch makes when
turning on a machine. Le Corbusier, “D’un tableau à un gratte-ciel”, in Le
Modulor : essai sur une mesure harmonique à l’échelle humaine aplicable
universellement á l’architecture et à la mécanique, Ed. from l’Architecture
d’Aujourd’hui, ASCORAL Collection, Bologna, 1950, p. 216-218.
9 Le Corbusier, Quand les cathédrales étaient blanches: voyage aux pays
des timides, Plon, París, 1937. Spanish translation Poseidón, Buenos Aires,
1958, p. 220.
10 Idem. 221, 224.
11 Carnets, Vol. II, Carnet 20, Bogota, May, 1951, Fig. 443.
12 Although it appears in French in his cahier, the word deliverance is an Anglicism
that means “the act of delivering or the condition of being delivered,”
and also means “to be rescued or set free,” or “a publicly expressed
opinion.”
13 Text included in the book by Ivan Zacnic, The Final Testament of Père Corbu.
A Translation and Interpretation of Mise au point, Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1997.
14 Idem. p. 87.
15 Julio Verne, París en el siglo XX [1865], Planeta, Barcelona, 1955.
16 Le Corbusier, Quand les cathédrales étaient blanches, op. cit., p. 87.
17 Ib. p. 60, 100.
18 Ib.
19 Ib. p. 111.
20 Rem Koolhaas, Delirio de Nueva York. Un manifiesto retroactivo para Manhattan,
Spanish translation, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona 2004, p. 97.
21 Le Corbusier, Carnets II, D16’’, New York, September 1950. Fig. 232.
22 Carnets. Vol. II, Carnet 215, Bogota, August/Semptember, 1950. Fig. 52.
23 Le Corbusier, Elaboration du Plan Régulateur de Bogota. Etablissement
du Plan Directeur, pp. 34-35.
24 Letter from Le Corbusier to Zuleta Ángel, September 19 th , 1953 (FLC H3-
4-513).
25 Le Corbusier, Quand les cathédrales étaient blanches, op. cit., p. 114.
26 Le Corbusier, Elaboration du Plan Régulateur de Bogota, op. cit.
27 Le Corbusier, Vers une architecture, op. cit., pp. 36, 145.
28 Le Corbusier, Œuvre complète 1934-1938, published by Max Bill architect,
Dr. H. Girsberger, Zurich 1938.
29 Colin Rowe, Manierismo y arquitectura moderna y otros ensayos, Gustavo
Gili, Barcelona, 1978, pp. 19, 91.
30 Idem., p. 18.
31 Le Corbusier, Précisions sur un état présent de l’Architecture et
l’Urbanisme, Crès, París, 1930. Spanish translation, Poseidón, Barcelona,
1979, pp. 69-74.
32 Idem., p. 154.
33 Idem., p. 150.
34 Le Corbusier, Elaboration du Plan Régulateur de Bogota, op. cit., p. 32.
35 Le Corbusier, Quand les cathédrales étaient blanches, op. cit., p. 83-84.
36 Idem, p. 90.
37 Idem, p. 98.
38 Idem, p. 90.
39 Letter from Le Corbusier to Zuleta Ángel, September 19 th , 1953 (FLC H3-
4-513).

Bogota is a Corbu city | Fernando Arias Lemos
223

The Civic Center in the Pilot Plan for Bogota: Two Ideas for a Modern City in One Plan
Carlos Eduardo Hernández Rodríguez
What was later to become the most important manifesto of
modern urbanism was written in 1933, on board the ship
Patris II, traveling from Marseille to Athens. First published
in 1942, the Athens Charter was the summary of the fourth
CIAM 1 (International Congress of Modern Architecture) and
was attributed primarty to Le Corbusier. In the following years
it would become the ‘navigation map’ for the ‘functional city’
because it proposed solving cities’ problems by using the
principles of the modern movement:
The fourth International Congress of Modern Architecture
made the following postulate: the sun, vegetation and space
are the three building materials of urbanism. By following this
postulate one may judge both present structures and new
proposals from a truly human point of view. 2
The systematic “observations and demands” 3 that identified
the connections between a city and its region, inhabitants, distribution,
work, circulation, and patrimony form an integral part
of the modern plans of this period and are the starting point for
analyzing the present city and new proposals for metropolises.
Over the years, the appearance and evolution of the Civic
Center as part of modern plans would turn into one of the
central components of modern urbanism. This theme, first
put forth by Le Corbusier in the prewar Congresses, will later
evolve in response to the increasingly influential criticisms of
the post-war congresses that reshaped the postulations of
the modernist movement. During this second stage, a functional
society progress was to be based on the recognition of
the human being and of the need for a human-scale city. This,
in return, reignited the discussion around the preexisting values
of the city and highlighted some of the same concepts
224 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
that had been discarded by the modernist discourse, like the
street or the traditional plaza—concepts that would returned
in an attempt to counteract the initial modern propositions. It
is precisely in this juxtaposition of different ways of seeing a
city that we find the relevance of Bogota’s plan in comparison
to other modern Latin American plans.
Colombia, Le Corbusier and the appearance of ideas for
Bogota
In Latin America, most of the ideas associated with the modern
movement first arrived through academic channels,
especially those coming from Europe. Their thinking also
spread through modernist manifestos such as the Athens
Charter or Can Our Cities Survive? 4 , a book written by Josep
Lluis Sert, which also reflected on the fourth CIAM and is
considered to be the first of the modern works presented in
North America.
It was in this context that some of Latin America’s city
leaders received the proposed doctrine of modernity and
converted their cities into places of experimentation and
implementation of its ideals, urban laboratories that underwent
rapid change, growth, and transformation. In Colombia,
urbanism and the modern movement arrived in the middle of
the 1940s in the plans for different Colombian cities and in the
hands of its greatest supporters: Le Corbusier, Josep Lluis
Sert and Paul Lester Wiener. At that time the ideas of new
urbanism had already undergone thirty years of evolution and
were accompanied by a series of interventions in various cities
in Europe, the United States, and Latin America.
Bogota became one of the cities to accept these ideas
when Le Corbusier, after losing his position to oversee the
design and construction of the United Nations headquarters
in New York, accepted a proposal to direct its plan. With Le
Corbusier’s focus turned to Bogota, there was an opportunity
to explore the construction of a truly modern Latin American
capital.
Parallel conversations between Le Corbusier and Town
Planning Associates, run by Josep Lluís Sert and Paul Lester
Wiener (two architects who also supported the postulations of
the CIAM and who had been in Colombia since 1946, drawing
up plans for the cities of Tumaco, Cali, and Medellín) pointed
to a team more than capable of rising to the task. Wiener and
Sert came onboard and the Master Plan for Bogota (PPB) began
to unfold in three phases. The first phase of data collection
and analysis was undertaken by the newly created Office
of the Regulatory Plan (OPRB), managed by Administration
officials from Bogota; the second phase, called the Pilot Plan,
was directed by Le Corbusier and charged with developing
the fundamental ideas of the plan; and, finally, the third phase
or the Regulatory Plan, was assigned to Sert and Wiener, who
were to fully develop the ideas laid out in the Pilot Plan in order
to apply them to each specific area of the city.
The development of the plan entailed meetings, visits,
and correspondence between the offices of Le Corbusier, in
Paris (with Colombian architects such as Germán Samper,
Reinaldo Valencia, and Rogelio Salmona), Sert and Wiener in
their office in New York (working simultaneously on proposals
for Cali, Medellin and Barranquilla) and Carlos Arbeláez, director
of the Bogota office (where the archives of information
and analysis were organized in order to supply information

Le Corbusier, Civic Center project in the Pilot Plan (1950), showing the unités d’habitation and the political,
administrative and religious buildings that lay in the natural space that was intended to replace
the corridor-street. © C. Hernández
to the offices in Paris and New York). Through this work arrangement
these architects presented the Report on the Pilot
Plan, along with 37 analysis plans, and laid the foundations of
modern Bogota.
“On June 16 th , 1947 [Le Corbusier] stepped, for the first
time, on Bogotano soil, something he will do on five different
occasions.” 5 He holds two conferences in the Teatro Colon
entitled, “Urbanism, the Supreme Social Order,” and “World
and Regional Characters of Modern Architecture.” On Le Corbusier’s
first visit to Colombia he is received by the Mayor and
“a multitude of young Colombian architects shouting, ‘down
with academia’,” 6 as a way of criticizing traditional academic
formation and of supporting the modern ideas led by Le Corbusier.
In August and September of 1950, on his third visit to Bogota,
Le Corbusier officially submitted the Pilot Plan to city
authorities. Le Corbusier submitted the plan in the arrangement
originally agreed upon: an introduction, which lays out
the city’s problems and proposes solutions based on this
modern plan; chapters explaining a regional plan; a metropolitan
plan; an urban plan; a plan for a civic center; and the
final conclusions of the plan.
Like most of the plans of its time, the plan for Bogota was
designed to view the city in its larger context and to understand
its relationship with the region; it then takes into account
the new phenomena of industry, the automobile, the airplane,
and communication as passes to a metropolitan scale, where
the plan presents a functional strategy for managing popula-
Le Corbusier, Civic Center project in the Pilot Plan (1950). © C. Hernández
tion density, “arranging residential and work areas in a logical
way and giving special attention to mobility.” 7 The urban
plan, using the concepts of “sectors” and the “rule of the 7
V’s,” develops a hierarchical system of roadways beginning
with the main highways connecting to the surrounding region
and ending with the pedestrian thoroughfares that lead to the
newly named “sectors.”
Theoretically, the sectors divide Bogota into various parts,
individual communities based around a “nucleus” that contains
buildings for public use such as schools and churches,
which are framed within the savannah’s natural environment
of hills, rivers, wetlands and creeks. Working within this ‘green
system’ reclaims a sense of community and brings us closer,
on another scale, to the development of the Civic Center.
The Civic Center in the Pilot Plan for Bogota | Carlos Eduardo Hernández
225

Bogota’s Civic Center: A Space of Modern Architecture or
the Vindication of History?
Within the Pilot Plan for Bogota, the chapter on the Civic Center
is particularly important. Based on the ideas put forth in
the first CIAM and the Athens Charter, these first sketches
reveal in greater depth the proposal that Le Corbusier had
imagined for a more functional, modern Bogota and through
it beginning the most consolidated area of the city that had
been enriched by the application of modern ideas. Le Corbusier
intended to separate pedestrians and vehicules, and
replace the traditional city blocks of downtown Bogota with
housing in open areas that incorporated more natural landscapes,
air, and sun into the city. The plan proposed the abolition
of the antiquated street-corridor based on the previous
diagnostic that “constructions running along main roadways
and intersections are harmful to inhabitants: dust, and harmful
gases”. 8 The Civic Center was to be an object and a monument,
early evidence of a city that was not to be defined
solely by the traditional four functions but instead sought to
create urban conditions more suitable to humans by combining
architecture and art.
Le Corbusier spoke of this at the eighth CIAM, entitled
“The Heart of the City”, in Hoddesdon in 1951. He presented
his article out of the book that had been prepared by Sert,
Jaqueline Tyrwhitt and Ernesto N. Roger for the congress.
Le Corbusier had originally entitled the article “The Relationship
of the Plastic Arts at the Core”, which was renamed by
Sert “The Core as a Meeting Place of the Arts”. 9 In this article
he proposes reworking the two titles into one, “The Core as
a Place for the Expression of Life,” and reflects on the Core
and the idea of these new centers as places of spontaneous
theatre with creativity, inspiration, and life. In the article, Le
Corbusier recounts his travels to Brazil and the reconstruction
in France. And he refers to the human scale and the projects
such as the UN site in New York, the unités d’habitation in
Marseilles, and the “multiple cores in the city Chandigarh” 10 to
conclude: “The Core is a place for expressing human life.”
In Bogota, the Civic Center would become that place of
expression, a place where the most recent models of verti-
226 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
cal constructions overlook uncovered soil that allow nature
to penetrate the city. Floating on this green mantle were the
unités d’habitation that reaffirmed the need to replace the
street-corridor and plaza with the modern ideal (presented in
the pre-war CIAM) of a “functional city,” that was built around
natural light, life, work, recreation and circulation. The Plaza
de Bolivar was to be redefined by highlighting downtown’s
monumental architecture in bringing together the city’s three
most important powers relating to religion, government, municipality,
and citizens.
The spirit of the city is found in the Plaza de Bolívar, the
central element of the Civic Center, and in the presidential
palace and palace of ministries, as well as in the municipal
palace, the union palace, the cathedral, the parliament and
several historical building and streets.
Downtown Bogota reflected its historical scale and architectural
values. It comprised empty and full spaces, held
together by streets and plazas that were to be replaced by a
new paradigm where buildings were placed as monuments
within natural settings that offered natural light and space for
circulation.
The plan indicated that the mountains were a landscape
to be preserved and it proposed height limits for the buildings
in the piedmont to maintain their silhouette. It preserved
the Cathedral and its immediate surroundings and proposed
placing the fifteen-story ministry building and the municipal
building opposite the cathedral.
High-density housing units were placed within a vegetation-filled
space surrounding this civic plaza. These tall
buildings reflect the characteristic designs of Le Corbusier
from the 1940’s such as the unités d’habitation and the linear
buildings. 11
Using these more traditional cultural elements, the civic
center in the Pilot Plan for Bogota highlights the “fifth urban
function,” a topic that had not been resolved in the first several
CIAMs and that was only dealt with at the congress in
Bergamo in 1948 in response to the numerous critics that
pleaded to change the “functional city’s” focus.
The postwar CIAM and the change of the Regulatory Plan
At the same time this work was being undertaken in Bogota,
Dutch architects at the CIAM in Bergamo proposed the civic
center as a topic for a subsequent congress. Sert defended
the idea and presented it in “The Heart of the City” as a way
of going beyond the ideas for a civic center in search of a human
scale city, filled with expression and emotion.
In 1951, at the CIAM in Hoddesdon, Sert presented his
critique of orthodox functionalism and declared his intentions
to keep searching for a “more complete architecture”:
The need for the superfluous is as old as humanity itself. It is
time to openly accept this and end the deceptive attitudes
that seek a functional justification for elements that are obviously
superfluous when judged along the rigid architectural
parameters of the 20’s. This does not mean that buildings
should not be functional; they should be, just as we have
always insisted. 12
The creation of a new physical center from and for the individual
returns to the concepts of the street and plaza as examples
of where and how to consolidate the modern whole.
The need for these elements would become fundamental in
cities because it is there that the life and activity of the collective
develops.
The social function of the new centers or community nuclei
fundamentally consists of bringing people together and
facilitating direct contact and the exchange of ideas that
stimulate open discussion.
Today, in our cities, people get together in factories and in
busy streets—poor conditions for exchanging ideas. Properly
organized, the community’s meeting places provide an
environment where a new social life and a healthy civic spirit
develop. These common centers can host the most diverse
of human activities, both the spontaneous and the organized.
Individuals will be able to discover new human values among
citizens and will have the opportunity to maintain social contact
that is presently lacking. This social function will be the
inspiration for the planning of these new centers and for their
buildings. 13 “The heart of the city” reached its greatest height

in the figure of Josep Lluís Sert when he presented the civic
center as the city’s fifth function and its most important
element—a reflection that would change the proposed Regulatory
Plan for Bogota.
In this third stage of the plan, undertaken by Sert and Wiener,
the thinking about the Civic Center would take an unexpected
turn that can only be explained by the confluence
of the intense discussions about modern plans at the CIAM
and attempts by the defenders of the modernist movement to
placate their critics by presenting new plans.
In response to the discussions that took place in the CIAM
in Bergamo and in preparation for the CIAM in Hoddesdon,
the civic center for Bogota would become the chance for Sert
and Wiener to capture, in their Regulatory Plan, the changing
“international” approach to the building of modern cities. With
Le Corbusier far removed from Bogota and seemingly more
focused on his new city plan for Chandigard, India, Sert and
Wiener would propose a different orientation to space than
that put forth in his Pilot Plan.
Sert, now the protagonist of the Regulatory Plan and president
of the CIAM, fought for the emotional life of the community,
declaring that it was man, his emotions, and his needs
that should govern urbanism in Bogota, and no proposal
could disregard this fundamental fact. In the Regulatory Plan
a reencounter, a revision and a self-criticism begin. Given
this, the Athens Charter should also refocus its objectives
and its vision of man and his community.
In order to meet the modernist doctrine’s goals, Sert reincorporated
the plaza and street to create a definite but open
space for individuals that goes beyond function. This return
to the plaza and street was apparent in the first drafts of the
Regulatory Plan and passively contradicted the principles of
the Pilot Plan.
Sert introduced small squares along 6 th Avenue and a pedestrian
route between the Parque de Independencia and
the Plaza de Bolivar. He placed new value on the scale of
downtown’s streets and revitalized 7 th Avenue with a proposal
that better reflected the historical city and its events. He
sought to redefine the image of modern man by showing him
Le Corbusier, Civic Center project in the Pilot Plan (1950): 3D perspective of the Plaza de Bolívar in the Pilot Plan. © C. Hernández
Paul Lester Wiener and Josep Lluis Sert, Regulatory Plan for Bogotá (1953): proposal for the Civic Center. The differences between the doctrine of the Pilot Plan are
apparent in this city that returns to the use of street and plaza as part of its strategies to build a modern city. © C. Hernández
The Civic Center in the Pilot Plan for Bogota | Carlos Eduardo Hernández
227

in relation to others in the street, plaza, or park—historical
protagonists that were melded to new buildings designed to
coexist with the cafes, businesses, and the life of streets and
plazas, offering them a second chance to coexist with the
new and transform the vision of how man relates to the city.
Within the Civic Center in the Regulatory Plan for Bogota,
the return to the plazas and streets of downtown—full of life
and congestion—lays the fifth function, ‘the heart of the city.’
In this reinterpretation of history, man and his relationships
with others create the architectural possibility of streets overflowing
with life and intimate places as well as elements previously
demonized by the same individuals who would now
strive to reinsert them in their proposals. The plaza and the
notion of the space of different scales within it would fulfill the
need to build meeting places: the heart of the city offering a
second chance for modernity.
Carlos Eduardo Hernández: Architect and magister in Urban Studies of the
Universidad Nacional of Colombia. Research Price 2003 from the Observatorio
de Cultura Urbana. Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá. Autor of the book
Las ideas Modernas del Plan para Bogota en 1950. El trabajo de Le Corbusier
Wiener y Sert. Actualy doing studies of dotorate in the Universidad
Nacional de Colombia. Dean of the Program of Architectural studies of the
Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano y President of the Asociation of Schools
of Architecture ACFA, 2010-2011.
1 CIAM: The International Congress on Modern Architecture were iniciated
in 1928, at the invitation of Mme. Helene Mandrot, to the Chateau de la
Sarraz near Lake Geneva in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland.
2 Le Corbusier, Principios de urbanismo, La Carta de Atenas, Ariel, S.A. 1 st
edition, in Spanish, p. 42, 1971.
3 In the Athens Charter the analysis of present cities and their relationships
to housing, distribution, work, circulation and their own historical
patrimony are divided into three parts: general characteristics; the cities’
current state—criticisms and remedies (observations and demands), and
conclusions.
4 Josep Lluís Sert, (introduction by Sigfried Giedion, secretary of the CIAM),
Can our cities survive?, University of Harvard, 1942.
5 Pedro Bañen Lanata, “Cinco viajes y un plan para una ciudad latinoamericana”
Five Trips and a Plan for a Latin American City in: Le Corbusier y
Sudamérica
228 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
6 Josep Lluís Sert, op. cit., p. 75.
7 Ibid: 80.
8 Le Corbusier, op. cit.: 46.
9 Le Corbusier, “The Core as a Meeting Place of the Arts”, in The Heart of
the City: Towards the Humanisation of Urban Life CIAM VII, eds. J. Rywhitt,
Josep Lluís Sert, E. N. Rogers. (London: Lund Humphries, September
1952)41.
10 Ibid: 51
11 Colombian architects worked on the Unité d’habitation in Marseilles in Le
Corbusier’s office in Paris at the same time the plan for Bogota was being
drawn.
12 Joan Ockman, “Neuva York, nueva monumentalidad”, in Catálogo de la
Exposición de Barcelona, Sert, arquitecto en Nueva York, (1997) 33.
13 Josep Rovira, “Sol y Sombra” (Sun and Shadow), in Catálogo de la Exposición
de Barcelona. Sert Arquitecto en Nueva York (Museo de Arte
Moderno de Barcelona, 1997) 133.

Paul Lester Wiener and Josep Lluis Sert, Regulatory Plan for Bogotá (1953):
draft of the Civic Center. Note the emphasis placed on the emptiness of the
streets and plazas along 6 th Ave. © The Frances Loeb Library, Josep Lluis Sert
Collection, Harvard Design School.
Paul Lester Wiener and Josep Lluis Sert, Regulatory Plan for Bogotá (1953): drawing by Sert of Bogotá. Obvious importance is given to the emptiness
of the lineal parks, the plazoletas on 6 th Ave and the Plaza de Bolivar. © The Frances Loeb Library, Josep Lluis Sert Collection, Harvard Design School.
The Civic Center in the Pilot Plan for Bogota | Carlos Eduardo Hernández
229

Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM “Heart of the City” and the Bogota Plan: Precursor to Urban Design, 1947-1953
Eric Mumford
I think that after our studies of bringing open space into the
cities, we nonetheless feel the need for a civic space somewhere
in them, and the most characteristic civic space
will be precisely the core.
Josep Lluís Sert, 1951
Josep Lluís Sert’s involvement with the planning of Bogota
began in 1948, when his New York firm, Town Planning Associates,
was commissioned with Le Corbusier for a new Plan
Directeur for the city. At this time Sert (1902-1983) was an
exile from Barcelona, having been a strong supporter of the
Second Spanish Republic. In New York he became part of a
circle of avant-garde émigrés centered around the sculptor
Alexander Calder. At first went into partnership briefly with
another former associate of Le Corbusier, Ernest Weissmann,
but by 1942 Sert had joined with the well-established
German émigré architect and designer Paul Lester Wiener to
form Town Planning Associates. Between 1944 and 1959 this
firm planned extensively for cities in South America, beginning
with the Brazilian Motor City project near Rio de Janeiro,
later exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in
1947.
In 1942 Sert published Can Our Cities Survive? the first
explication in English of the urban planning concepts of CIAM
(International Congresses of Modern Architecture). By 1944
he had become convinced of the importance of pedestrian
vitality to urban life, and after his elevation to the Presidency of
CIAM in 1947, he, Sigfried Giedion, and Le Corbusier all began
to suggest that some kind of pedestrian civic center was
a necessary component of modern cities for both cultural and
political reasons. Exemplified both by Le Corbusier’s plan for
230 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
St-Dié, exhibited in New York in 1945, and Sert’s civic center
in the Brazilian Motor City project, this direction was given a
conceptual framework in Giedion’s 1944 essay “The Need for
a New Monumentality.”
Prior to the late 1940s, modern architects were divided
about whether to densify central cities with towers, as Le
Corbusier advocated, or to decentralize them along transportation
routes. Both factions were convinced that existing
cities and their architecture and transit systems were hopelessly
congested and obsolete and should probably be removed.
These attitudes began to become the mainstream
in American architecture by the late 1940s, as can be seen
in the master plans for St. Louis (1947), Boston (1950), the
District of Columbia (1950), and elsewhere. Eventually, however,
the modernist premises of such urbanism began to
be questioned, as architects’ ongoing concern for generating
pedestrian vitality and strengthening urban life became
a preoccupation of the field. In this process Sert’s work has
considerable significance, despite his own limited success in
advancing what he called “urban consciousness.”
Sert and CIAM ’s focus on the “heart of the city” at the
Eighth CIAM conference in 1951 was where this new direction
in postwar modern architecture was signaled to a global
audience. Among the projects used to illustrate it were Le
Corbusier’s new civic center for Bogota, along with Sert and
Wiener’s urban design work for Lima and Chimbote in Peru
and Tumaco, Medellin, and Cali in Colombia. As president of
CIAM, Sert began to emphasize the need to design in and for
the heart of the city for several reasons. Beyond the continuing
centrality of capital cities in the postwar era, which was
emphasized even in the Soviet Union, there was also critical
view that prewar CIAM had not paid enough attention to what
Lewis Mumford had called “civic center elements,” when he
told Sert he could not write the introduction to his Can Our
Cities Survive? Other sources for the concept were Le Corbusier’s
interest in pedestrian places for the “synthesis of the
arts”; and Sert’s new focus on traditional Latin American town
squares, which he begun to encounter in his work there. His
awareness of the approaches to urban “context” then being
developed by Italian CIAM member Ernesto Rogers, who he
collaborated with briefly on the plan of Lima in 1947, may also
have been significant. These somewhat divergent reasons to
advocate the core in CIAM also overlapped with the interests
of the British, Dutch, and Scandinavian groups in creating
centralized places for communal services and activities in
new towns and settlements.
The projects that Sert and Wiener designed in Brazil,
Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and Cuba between 1945 and
1959 all illustrate this new approach to urbanism. Although
few of these projects were carried out as designed, when
exhibited at postwar CIAM meetings and published they didactically
demonstrated the basic principles of an approach
to urbanism that Sert would begin to term “urban design” in
1953. This direction was clearly closely related to issues of
both social and physical reconstruction in Europe, but for a
long time afterward it was seen as not having much relevance
for North Americans. At CIAM 7, Neutra had told the delegates
that while war-damaged cities in Europe “may pose their own
profound problem where reconstruction is surrounded by famous
and venerable monuments of the past”, in the America
of 1949 this was “not an issue and would seem artificially
played up”. Neutra saw the task for CIAM instead as one of

Josep Lluís Sert, Motor City civic center, Brasil (1943). © Sert, medio siglo de Arquitectura, Fundación
Joan Miró.
extending the “habitable area of the planet into places never
before inhabited”, regions “which have almost as few historical
associations as the craters of the moon”. In such contexts,
“design... can be a sensitively suitable import, profoundly
capable of fusion with the natural scene and its changing
needs”.
After their Brazilian Motor City project and another shortlived
Brazilian commission –a 1946 study for a coastal housing
development about which little is known– Sert and Wiener
were commissioned to produce a master plan for the Peruvian
industrial port of Chimbote by the Corporacion Peruana del
Santa. This was a Peruvian government agency established
by a democratic reformist regime to encourage the industrial
development of northern Peru, inspired by the American
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Sert and Wiener’s wellknown
plan included both a pedestrian civic center and
neighborhood units that were based not on the Corbusian
Unité model, widely publicized at this time, but instead on a
dense “tapis urbain” (urban fabric) of new courtyard housing.
Their main Peruvian supporter, Fernando Belaúnde Terry,
Wiener y Sert, master plan for Chimbote (1947-1948). © Sert, medio siglo de Arquitectura, Fundación Joan Miró.
Wiener, Sert and Luis Dorich, pilot plan for Lima. © Sert, medio siglo de Arquitectura, Fundación Joan Miró.
Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM "Heart of the City" and the Bogota Plan | Eric Mumford
231

The heart of the city: towards the humanisation of urban life; edited by J.
Tyrwhitt, J.L. Sert, E.N. Rogers (1952). The image in the cover is from the pilot
plan for Cali, made by Sert. © Lund Humphries, London.
the founder of the Peruvian Instituto de Urbanismo and editor
of El Arquitecto Peruano, had been elected to the Peruvian
congress in 1945, and new planning laws based on CIAM
ideas began to be enacted. A national planning office, the
Oficina Nacional de Planeamiento (ONPU) was established,
and a national housing authority, the Corporacion Nacional
de la Vivienda (CNV) was created, along with a national program
to provide recreational facilities and a new property law
to facilitate urban redevelopment. These efforts had a major
impact on development in Lima and other Peruvian cities.
One outcome was the commissioning by ONPU of the Plan
232 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Piloto de Lima in 1947, designed by Sert and Wiener and
Peruvian CIAM member Luis Dórich, with advice from Ernesto
Rogers, then teaching as a visitor at Tucuman University in
Argentina. This plan called for the preservation of most of the
historic Spanish colonial center, the creation of a new civic
center adjacent to Exposition Park, new auto transportation
routes, and a system of urban greenways and neighborhood
cores.
It was around the same time that Sert was appointed
president at CIAM 6, held in 1947 in Bridgwater, near Bristol,
England, replacing Cornelis van Eesteren. His Chimbote and
Lima projects clearly demonstrated the new CIAM emphasis
on the civic center and pedestrian urban life in the context
of urban master planning based on the neighborhood unit.
These projects, along with those that Town Planning Associates
began to do after 1947 in Colombia (where Sert began
to organize a Colombian CIAM group in March 1948) were
intended as postwar CIAM models of comprehensive, architecturally
based urbanism. Colombian cities were growing
rapidly then after the introduction of international air service,
and new national legislation was passed in 1947 that required
planes reguladores (master plans) for new urban development.
The Sert and Wiener plans for the small Pacific Ocean
port of Tumaco (1947-48), for Medellin (1948–50), and eventually
Bogota (1949–53) as well as an abortive pilot plan for
Cali (1949–50), used as the cover image for CIAM 8: the Heart
of the City book, were intended as models for such plans.
Each began by defining the area of the regional “planning
unit” and included documentation on conditions of climate,
topography, and existing patterns of transportation and inhabitation.
Within this regional framework the basic “unit of
urbanization” was the unidad vecinal, or neighborhood unit.
These urbanization units were to be large superblocks with
open centers for pedestrian circulation, recreational facilities,
parking, and green space, and the new planning legislation
was written to produce such outcomes.
It was this approach that Sert offered as the official postwar
CIAM “doctrine of urbanism” at CIAM 8. It included elements
of earlier Dutch, Soviet, Corbusian, and American and
British Garden City planning, and combined Sert’s postwar
focus on the need for places for pedestrian civic gathering
and on the importance of historic urban centers as models
for urbanism with planning practices already widely in use by
the 1940s. The plan for Chimbote was shown for the first time
at CIAM 7 in Bergamo, Italy, in 1949, along with Sert’s plans
for Tumaco and Medellin, based on similar principles. These
projects, like others at this congress, were shown in Le Corbusier’s
new “CIAM grid” format. Sert opened the congress
by comparing the “human scale” of the upper town of the
historic medieval city of Bergamo with that of “great modern
cities, victims of the chaos resulting from their disorderly development
and lack of planning”. He also told Giedion that
he would speak there on the “synthesis of architecture, painting,
and sculpture”, using his Spanish Pavilion and its works
by Picasso, Miró, Calder, and others as an example of this
synthesis, which he and Le Corbusier saw as logically occurring
at the heart of the city. Sert stayed with Rogers in Milan
during CIAM 7, and it was at this same time that his firm BBPR
(Banfi, Belgiojoso, Peressutti e Rogers) was continuing their
ongoing attempts, begun under Mussolini before the war, to
use modernist design methods to infill the fabric of existing
historic Italian cities.
This attention to the heart of the city and to the vitality of
pedestrian streets was new in CIAM, however. Le Corbusier’s
Propos d’urbanisme, published in 1947, poetically evoked
a Paris briefly free of vehicular traffic at the end of the war,
but this interest in the pedestrian urban experience seems to
have been more Sert’s than Le Corbusier’s, as the monumental
core of Chandigarh, also first shown at CIAM 8 in 1951,
would soon demonstrate. It was Sert who emphasized that
the civic center element should be a key component of postwar
CIAM urbanism, which went along with a new attention to
the value of historic urban environments. He combined this
with the continuing prewar CIAM focus on issues of housing
organization, sitting, solar orientation, and both high-tech and
low-tech regional building traditions, all of which were evident
in some of the prewar plans of modern urbanists.
In 1947, Sert had published a short essay in the book Le
Corbusier: Architect, Painter, Writer, edited by Stamo Papadaki,
a former CIAM member from Greece. Sert recounted how Le

Sert, pilot plan for Cali. Wiener y Sert, «unidad vecinal», Plan Regulador, Bogotá.
Corbusier had realized that no good planning was possible
when real estate speculators took the lead in determining the
form of cities, and how he had “fought for the rehabilitation of
the role of the architect-planner as the coordinator of a team
of specialists”. At the same time, he mentioned that it was
the specific “plastic expression” of Le Corbusier’s plans that
caused them to be criticized. More diagrammatic plans, “devised
by economists or sociologists... in which the final form
of the city is not disclosed”, do not include architectural forms,
and this allows everyone “to imagine the new city built according
to his taste”. Such plans, Sert asserted, perhaps thinking
here of the official Greater London plans, have consequently
often met with “greater public acceptance”. Le Corbusier’s
projects, on the other hand, he argued, have often been taken
as “final proposals”, and critics have tended to emphasize
their defects. Sert insisted that “Le Corbusier himself is aware
of the need for developing further some his plans; and, in projects
like those in Algiers or Paris, one can see the progress
made in later versions”. Sert praised the way Le Corbusier
emphasized the architectural aspects of planning, normally
neglected by “economists and sociologists”, and added,
“An Ebenezer Howard or a Patrick Geddes does in no way
exclude or replace a Le Corbusier. He has brought forward
the basic elements of the modern city-planning concept”. For
Sert, a new focus on the pedestrian heart of the city was only
a short step from this architecturally oriented approach, even
though in certain ways it greatly modified some of Le Corbusier’s
well-known planning principles.
Sert remained in close contact with Le Corbusier during
this period, who began working on a plan for Bogota in 1947.
Wiener had written to Sert from Aspen, Colorado around the
same time, making reference to a possible project for New
York developer William Zeckendorf for the area adjoining the
U.N. Headquarters in New York. It was to be a joint venture
between Town Planning Associates and Le Corbusier’s ATBAT
(the group he had established to do the construction docu-
ments for the Unité d’Habitation in Marseille). Wiener wrote, “I
suppose Zeckendorf would state the problem and the program,
and Corbu would... evolve a scheme and send it to
us”. He also told Sert that Zeckendorf was negotiating to buy
and develop a huge tract of land in downtown Denver, adding,
“There is no doubt that a gradual friendly association
with this ‘go-getter’ can be of great value to us. If only one of
his schemes materializes it would represent a major realistic
work; if not, it is certainly interesting to project advanced
ideas, if properly paid”. Nothing seems to have come of
either of these central urban projects, however, and a year
later Sert wrote to Giedion that “everything is at a standstill
in the US, no building or planning activities of any kind, only
convention speeches being broadcast all the time. The situation
is not encouraging”.
Zeckendorf chose not to commission this team for his
Denver projects, and, acting on Philip Johnson’s advice,
he instead hired as his in-house architect a young Chinese-
Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM "Heart of the City" and the Bogota Plan | Eric Mumford
233

Le Corbusier, cabanon at Cap Martin. © FLC. Le Corbusier, 7V system. © FLC.
American architect and Harvard assistant to Gropius, Ieoh
Ming Pei. Assisted by some other Gropius-era GSD graduates,
including Henry M. Cobb and Ulrich Franzen, Pei would go on
to design major urban projects for Zeckendorf’s firm of Webb
& Knapp in Denver, Montreal, New York, Washington, D.C.,
and Philadelphia. Although Pei, a former student of Marcel
Breuer’s, was also part of Gropius’s American circle, like Sert
he was far more interested in dense, central urban projects
than Gropius seems to have been at this time. In his proposals
for the rebuilding of postwar Germany, requested by General
Lucius Clay of the Allied occupation forces in 1947, Gropius
continued to advocate the use of the neighborhood unit to
create small, decentralized, democratic communities based
on New England villages, a direction that found little support
in postwar Europe.
Without work forthcoming from Zeckendorf, Le Corbusier,
Sert, and Wiener instead accepted another major planning
commission in Colombia. Le Corbusier had been invited to
234 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Bogota to develop a master plan in 1947, and in 1948 Sert
and Wiener were commissioned to do the detailed urban
analysis of the city and work with Le Corbusier along with the
newly created Oficina del plan Regulador (OPRB), directed
by an architect, Herbert Ritter Echeverri. The four designers
then sketched the Bogota pilot plan just after CIAM 7 in August
1949 at Le Corbusier’s holiday cabanon at Cap Martin, on the
French Riviera. By proposing to limit the future growth of the
fast-growing city to thirty-five neighborhood sectors (a planning
unit larger than the unidad vicinal), each bounded by
a new highway system, the plan exemplified the Corbusian
focus on centralized high-density modern urbanism. Yet ultimately
there were two versions of the plan: Le Corbusier’s Plan
Directeur, or Plan Piloto, which characteristically called for the
demolition of the Spanish colonial historic center and its rebuilding
with widely spaced high-rises, and Town Planning
Associates linked Plan Regulador, which was legally enacted
as the basis for new urban development in Bogota in 1950.
Both plans were based on dividing the city into thirty-five sectors
bounded by major circulation routes and including extensive
internal pedestrian greenways. These were to be organized
according to Le Corbusier’s “7V” classification system,
first used here, which categorized traffic by speed and
type, ranging from V1 and V2 expressways to V7 pedestrian
greenways. Sert and Wiener’s Plan Regulador included Le
Corbusier’s monumental civic center proposal, which would
have demolished one block adjacent to the Plaza Bolivar and
added a second plaza and an administrative high-rise, but
it also called for protecting the historic center from further
development, which was in fact done. It also proposed a flexible
system of urban sectors bounded by new highways to
be built out with a range of housing types, not only high-rises.
Larger than neighborhood units, each of these urban sectors
was to house twenty-five thousand to seventy-five thousand
residents and would include a mix of single-family and multifamily
housing and local commercial and service areas.
In the downtown commercial center, between the Plaza
Bolivar and the Avenida Jiménez Quesada, in the area partly
destroyed in the April 1948 riots (known as the “el bogotazo”)
after the assassination of the Liberal Presidential candidate
Jorge Elicier Gaitan, Sert’s Plan Regulador proposed a pedestrian
commercial area composed of a series of courtyards
linked by pedestrian routes, with pedestrian bridges linking
over the heavily trafficked side streets. Neither his nor Le Corbusier’s
version of the plan was carried out, and after Le Corbusier
received the commission for Chandigarh during his
March 1950 visit, the focus of urban design activity for Sert
and Wiener shifted to the design of a neighborhood of small,
concrete shell-roofed row houses. Called the Quiroga sector,
these houses were laid out on a grid pattern in a poor sector
south of the center. The houses were not constructed as designed,
however, and Sert wrote to Wiener that he found the
built results a “disgrace to us and to the Oficina del Plano”.
Nonetheless, the planning legislation and administrative infrastructure
set up in Bogota by Sert and Wiener has intermittently
continued to shape urban development, as the city has
grown from an official population of 648,234 people in 1950
to its present population of nearly eight million.

Le Corbusier, Palace of the Soviets competition entry for Moscow in 1932. © FLC.
Image of destruction in Bogotá: 9 Abril 1948. © IDPC–MdB.
Le Corbusier, civic center for Bogotá. © FLC.
Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM "Heart of the City" and the Bogota Plan | Eric Mumford
235

Le Corbusier and Sert were aware that this new focus on
the heart of the city might appear regressive to some CIAM
members, particularly given the complicated Colombian political
situation, which soon developed into “La Violencia”, a
civil war between Liberal and Conservative factions which
lasted until 1953. In his comments that accompanied the
Bogota plan, Le Corbusier insisted that “revolutionary work
often appears to be highly traditionalist in character”, and
he asserted that the “philosophical basis of the project” was
that “revolutionary work consists primarily in giving order to
what carelessness, incompetence, selfishness, and demagogy
have disturbed, denatured, made grotesque and ineffective,
and hostile to the public interest”. At the same time,
the Bogota plan was the clearest example of the direction in
CIAM urbanism that Sert had first articulated at CIAM 5 and
then modified after 1943. Based on the four CIAM functions, it
called for specific master plans at the regional, metropolitan,
urban, and civic center scale, which were conceptualized as
key elements in a new legislative structure of land-use regulation.
Its stated planning goals were to reintroduce the conditions
of nature into people’s everyday lives; to design for the
activities of the twenty-four-hour cycle; to separate pedestrian
from auto traffic; to provide for diverse housing types “susceptible
to modification over time”; and to orient workplaces and
dwellings in relation to solar orientation.
Local real estate developers, however, resisted the plan’s
effort to limit the city’s geographical spread. The civil war and
the American-backed leftist military dictatorship of General
Rojas Pinilla that came to power in June 1953, just as the
final aspects of the plan were being completed by Sert and
Wiener, prevented the plan from being immediately implemented.
After a period of uncontrolled growth, which included
the construction of El Dorado airport and a suburban government
center for Bogota (initially planned by SOM), a new
master plan, based on some elements of the 1948-53 Sert
and Wiener plan, was adopted in 1959, during the era of the
“National Front”, where each party governed for four years
in alternation. Except for some sections of the Bogota urban
road system, however, little of their plan was implemented
as originally designed. Only small portions of the system of
236 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
downtown commercial pedestrian plazas were built, though
at the same time middle-class residential areas to the north
were constructed with greenways and pedestrian-oriented
modern buildings in a way surprisingly similar to some of
Sert’s later urban design work.
It was also while working on the Bogota master plan that
Sert began to advocate the heart of the city concept for the
next CIAM. In June 1949 he had suggested to Gropius that
the next congress should be held in Bogota, Lima, or Cuba.
Latin America was not what CIAM was primarily interested in
at this time, however. Instead, Le Corbusier and the many
British MARS group members all wanted the next congress
to be held in Britain, as British planning concepts were still
shaping the decolonizing postwar world. MARS members
such as William Holford, Gordon Stephenson, Arthur Ling,
Ernö Goldfinger, and others had taken a substantial role in
the County of London Plan (1943) and Greater London Plan
(1944), which replaced the more radical MARS plan of Arthur
Korn and Felix Samuely (1942) as the official MARS plans after
the war. These proposals, which called for a regional city
organized into neighborhood units along radial transportation
routes focused on a central downtown core, quickly became
the planning models for Beijing, Shanghai, and Tokyo (1956),
among many other places, with widely varying outcomes.
The London-based landscape architect and planner
Jaqueline Tyrwhitt and other members of the MARS group were
the organizers of CIAM 8, which was held at a conference center
in Hoddesdon, near London, in July 1951, under the rubric
“The Heart of the City”. It took place at the same time as the
Festival of Britain, a Labour government effort to create a kind
of pedestrian theme park of postwar modernist British culture,
inspired by the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930. Sert’s opening
address called for CIAM to begin to “talk in civic and urban
terms”. His goal was for CIAM to establish a “network of cores”
to recentralize large urban areas around pedestrian centers
to bring people together. These cores, he believed, would allow
for public gathering and discussion, promoting “talk on
all the things that are extremely important for our way of living
if we are to keep a civic life which we believe in”, A key aspect
would be the general application of the idea of reserving
central areas only for pedestrians, which he believed should
become a major focus for cultural and political life.
The MARS group’s official invitation to the congress,
probably written by Tyrwhitt, had linked the core concept
both to the CIAM four functions (dwelling, work, transportation,
and recreation) and to the metropolitan “5 scale-levels”
(village or primary housing group, small market center or
neighborhood, town or city sector, city or large town, and
metropolis of several million people). Sert thought that few
other general principles of urbanism could be stated, since
“countries are different” in climate, “standards of living,
means, customs and many other factors”. He closed his talk
with a quotation about the human centeredness of the civic
plaza from the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset’s
Revolt of the Masses, adding “after our studies of bringing
open space into the cities, we nonetheless feel the need for
a civic space somewhere in them”.
With a few exceptions, prewar modernists had not been interested
in designing such dense zones of pedestrian activity
and civic life. In his Palace of the Soviets competition entry
for Moscow in 1932, Le Corbusier had projected a kind of pedestrian
sorting mechanism using ramps between the parking
level and the auditorium, but this hardly qualified as the kind of
civic public space that Sert had begun to propose in his Latin
American projects after 1944. In a 1983 interview with Robert
Campbell, a former student and firm associate, Sert, speaking
of Mies van der Rohe, recalled that it was around this time that
“I began to see more and more bad modern, it was always
repeating the same pattern, and one was perfectly convinced
that it would be really dull and sad to see whole cities develop
on that very limited formula”. While he remained a lifelong admirer
of Le Corbusier, Sert began to modify Corbusian urbanism
to focus on the city as realm of politically and culturally
oriented pedestrian activity. He later recalled that while in Bogota,
where Le Corbusier was interested in incorporating “all
this tropical growth” into his plans, Sert instead drew his attention
to “nicely lit up storefronts and these girls walking in front”
places where there was some life in the city.
This new CIAM direction in favor of the pedestrian core
came as a surprise to many of the other members. Sert’s for-

Wiener and Sert, master plan for Medellin:
sketch done by Sert.
Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM "Heart of the City" and the Bogota Plan | Eric Mumford
237

mer colleague from GATCPAC in Barcelona, Antoni Bonet, presented
the Argentine group’s plan for Buenos Aires at CIAM
7 and received a cool reception from both Le Corbusier and
Sert, although the plan had first been developed with Le Corbusier
in 1938. Afterward Bonet wrote to his associates in the
Austral group, Jorge Ferrari-Hardoy and Juan Kurchan, “After
having seen how they have dealt with the Plan of Bogota I can
clearly see how wrong our office was about the way we set
out”. Bonet continued, “I have been to Venice. It is the greatest
lesson of urbanism. I think I have learned a lot from it. St.
Mark’s square is fantastic. We have come to good results with
the center of our barrio. I think we should carry on with the
research on this center, it is shaping up well. We should also
propose the construction of one of those centers in every barrio
designated by the plan”.
By CIAM 8, even Gropius had begun to support this new
CIAM direction, even though it had little evident impact on his
planning efforts in Chicago with Isaacs and TAC. At CIAM 8
Gropius also advocated cores that would “give back the right
of way to the pedestrian”, based on the squares in Mexican
villages and on the Piazza San Marco in Venice, the latter a
perennial urban design model for enclosed public space that
had frequently been invoked by Eliel Saarinen at Cranbrook
as well. In his lecture “The Human Scale”, also delivered
at CIAM 8, Gropius showed his recently completed Graduate
Center dormitory at Harvard, emphasizing how he had
continued the pedestrian sequence of courtyards found in
the older parts of the campus. Most of his projects with TAC,
including a campus plan for Hua Tung Christian University
in Shanghai, China, partly designed by Pei, were still quite
sprawling and suburban, though they also included campus
center elements. At GSD in the immediate postwar years there
was a continuing focus on suburban new town planning rather
than the heart of the city, as in Martin Wagner’s 1947–48 studio
and research study on Framingham, an outlying town along the
Massachusetts Turnpike west of Boston, the site of a General
Motors plant.
Students at the GSD, however, were also enthusiastically
responding to Sert’s new postwar focus, as in a 1951 Gropius
studio project for a new Civic Center for suburban Sudbury,
238 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Massachusetts. This was also clearly illustrated by the team
thesis of Robert Geddes, Martin Sevely, William Conklin, and
landscape architect Ian McHarg, which proposed rebuilding
downtown Providence by synthesizing architecture with landscape
architecture. Under Martin Wagner’s guidance the students
made detailed planning studies of the area. At the final
jury, Robert Geddes recalled that Wagner praised the team’s
work but added sardonically, “You forgot everyone is going to
move to Texas”. This collaborative thesis project, which exemplified
the Hudnut and Gropius ideal of a Graduate School
of Design, was presented at CIAM 8, and a small portion of it
then appeared in the subsequent publication.
Nevertheless, at this time not all modern architects and
planners were firmly settled on Sert’s new CIAM approach,
despite the growing European influence of projects like the
Rotterdam Lijnbaan (1948) by Dutch CIAM members Van den
Broek and Bakema, which was inexplicably not shown at
CIAM 8. Eero Saarinen, whom Sert had invited to CIAM 6 and
who had recommended Minoru Yamasaki for CIAM membership
in 1948, organized his General Motors Technical Center
in suburban Detroit (1945–56) around a campus like central
space, derived from the client’s original request for a Cranbrook-like
environment. The final sprawling and auto-oriented
project, however, was more influenced by Mies’s IIT campus.
It set a pattern for the postwar suburban corporate campus,
a direction that soon became the antithesis of Sert’s effort to
promote urban recentralization. At the same time, however,
the Saarinens themselves were also unsuccessfully seeking
to build a new civic center in downtown Detroit, using a general
approach quite similar to what Sert was then advocating.
After Eliel’s death in 1950, Eero would go on to propose heart
of the city–like campus plans for Brandeis University, MIT,
Yale, Drake University, and the University of Michigan, though
only parts of these plans were actually built as designed.
By the early 1950s, then, two related but differing modifications
of CIAM urbanism had emerged in addition to the
mainstream modernism of Le Corbusier and Mies. One, developed
by Louis Kahn and others in Philadelphia, attempted
to retain elements of the existing city by reorganizing them as
neighborhood units within a system of pedestrian greenways,
recreation spaces, and new transportation routes. The other,
developed by Sert and Wiener in their plans for Latin America
and most evident in their Medellín and Bogota plans, used
new construction to create pedestrian neighborhood units of
courtyards and row houses. Their approach was more autobased
than the Philadelphia model, but it also centered on
pedestrian cores at the various scale levels called for at CIAM
8. Both approaches used occasional high-density housing
types, sited as punctuating visual elements in the midst of
walk able neighborhood units or urban sectors. Both versions
of the urban vision differed from the more familiar widely
spaced high-rise models of earlier CIAM, and both were also
more urban and pedestrian-oriented than the decentralized,
low-rise settlement design that was still being taught by Gropius,
Martin Wagner, and George Holmes Perkins at the GSD.
In these developments, Sert’s planning for Bogota is an extremely
important illustration of his version of CIAM urbanism.
Although developed in conjunction with Le Corbusier’s Plan Piloto,
it departs significantly from his ideas at the same time, as
the differences between Le Corbusier’s Plan Piloto and Town
Planning Associates Plan Regulador clearly demonstrate. In
doing so, Sert began to define in visual terms what he meant
by what he began to call “urban design” after he took over the
Deanship of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, just as
Town Planning Associates Bogota planning work was being
completed. In a larger historical sense, the differences between
Le Corbusier and Sert and Wiener in Bogota, as well
as the initial reception of both plans, which were more or less
rejected by the Rojas Pinilla government, indicates an important
turning point in the history of architects’ efforts to shape
urban form.
The fast growing Colombian (and other Latin America)
cities of the 1940s were among the first harbingers of the
postwar global city, with their vast income inequalities and intense
demand for housing by large numbers of impoverished
in-migrants from the countryside. In their political instability
and the divergent goals among different sectors of their elites,
as well as their susceptibility to outside intervention by what
were then the main superpower adversaries, these cities provide
a kind of base line from which to measure subsequent

urban developments. Their postwar urban histories need to
be better known internationally. In the Colombian case, Sert’s
pedestrian-centered vision of a city of sectors still appears to
be more valid today than Le Corbusier’s high-rise futurism,
whose monumental implications for the “heart of the city” are
now clearly evident in built form at Chandigarh. It remains
unfortunate that this exemplary Bogota chapter in the history
of both urbanism and modern architecture is still largely forgotten
outside of Colombia, despite its complex, but by no
means entirely negative, later outcomes.
Eric Mumford: Professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Prf. Mumford
teaches in the departments of History and History of the Art. Expert in
history of the modern architecture, he has published several academic
books: The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960 (MIT Press, 2000) y
Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the formation of a discipline,
1937-69 (Yale University Press, 2009).
Wiener and Sert, master plan for Medellin.
Josep Lluís Sert, the CIAM "Heart of the City" and the Bogota Plan | Eric Mumford
239

The Influence of Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan on Urban Planning Studies in Colombia 1
José Salazar and Karina Manco
The POT/2000 and the image of Bogota conveyed by Le
Corbusier’s Pilot Plan.
The model adopted by the 2000 land use plan for Bogota
(POT) is built around three principal “systems”: environment,
roads and transport, and “central” urban activities (commerce,
services) that enhance a “core” of residential areas.
The image invoked by the model is a throwback, in proportion,
to that of the metropolitan scale 1 of the 1950 Pilot Plan for
Bogota. Le Corbusier presented an image in which land was
organised according to four functions: living, working, developing
body and mind, and getting around 2 , in such as way
that the two plans seem not only to have elements in common
in terms of their zoning models and image of the city, but
that some of those elements have clearly similar characteristics:
recreation areas beside the rivers that run down from
the hills; the organisation of work areas along a centre-west
axis creating a “linear industrial city” 3 ; a road network graded
into different categories of road (V1, V2, V3, etc.) and which
encloses parts of the city; and two large residential areas to
the north and south of the work axis, subdivided in zones (the
sectors in the Pilot Plan; the UPZs in the POT).
But the similarities don’t end there. The successive approximations
method applied to the city’s scales in the Pilot
Plan (regional, metropolitan, urban, and civic centre) is
reflected in the POT’s planning on different scales: the region
(barely mentioned because of the legal limitations of the
plan); the urban zoning model, the accommodation and the
UPZs, to be developed later according to the POT’s structural
definitions. In both schemes, living, working, and getting
around are functions that transcend the scales, meaning that
240 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
they must be developed and specified in terms of each level
of approximation’s own requirements.
As such, one of the fundamental contributions of the
Pilot Plan was specifically to have included the notion of a
model city, the concept of a desirable city, which the plan
itself converts into a instrument through which the model is
expressed. In this case, the model city that Le Corbusier envisaged
corresponds on the one hand to the idea laid out in
The Three Human Establishments 4 , and on the other to the
doctrine of transport and land use known better as the “7V
theory”, in the way that each element of the model finds its
expression in the plan.
Graphics: the Pilot Plan and the POT superimposed.
This first comparison would suggest that Rodrigo Cortés was
right when he said:
Le Corbusier entered Bogota into a plan that still didn’t exist,
a plan for a modern city, a radiant city. And he did it in such a
way that today it’s impossible to disassociate ourselves from
that image. Over the last 50 years, the city has continued to
live to urban rhythms and designs that Le Corbusier envisaged
5 .
This association would seem to be the source of the various
urban models laid out in the plans adopted by the city in the
second half of the 20th century.
This text puts forward an initial reflection on the durability
of a method of urban planning, and of a specific image of a
desirable future, put together as a decisive element in the
drawing up of urban plans for Bogota.
The image of the POT: its origin and its predecessors.
The POT/2000 attempts to rediscover a direction in urban
planning, which it suggests had been lost in the 1970s. As
such it anchors itself further back in the proposals of “The
Urban Structure of the Urban Development Study for Bogota”,
known as Phase II (1973/1974) in Le Corbusier’s 1951
Pilot Plan.
a. Accords 6 of 1990 and 7 of 1979: plans with no image
It was necessary to step back 30 years in compiling the
POT/2000, because the urban planning foreseen in the accords
7/79 and 6/90, adopted as “plans” for Bogota during
the last decades of the the 20th century, were limited to working
with urban norms to regulate private activity, with no reference
to a zoning model or a desirable image of the city as
a whole.
Photograph of Le Corbusier and Josep Lluís Sert as they presented the Pilot
Plan for Bogota in September, 1950 © FLC L1-4-15

Structure of the model Territorial Arrangement Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial de Bogotá) from 2000. Taken from Documento
técnico de soporte Plan de ordenamiento territorial de Bogotá, Administrative Department of District Planning (Departamento
Administrativo de Planeación Distrital), Bogotá City Council,€ DAPD 2000, p. 234
Accord 6/90 is perhaps the most incomplete example of
a concept of planning which focuses on controlling the relationships
between land owners and private developers on
the one hand, and local government (it would be excessive
to say the city) on the other. Such judicial regulation doesn’t
figure in the pilot study, but in the accord it takes primacy
over a weak conception of urban planning, and the planning
of the city is reduced to defining a set of procedures that
control the relationships between the landowners, developers
and commercial exploiters of the urban space and the
state, prioritised according to the levels of responsibility and
involvement of the latter in urban development, interspersed
with a few urban planning principles which fail to define a
layout plan or set out policies that guide urban development
or the role of local government 6 . In other words, there was no
plan, but rather a legal framework, which, though necessary
to put in place, was insufficient to guide the development and
growth of the city.
The accords neither identify or analyse the demands (for
housing, mobility, and infrastructure), nor do they envisage
public works to attend to them. They don’t set out or guide
any kind of public investment in the city, and as such they
don’t prescribe the essence of an urban model, nor the methods
to implement it. The planning of the city is reduced to
attending to the demands of the developers, the accords envisaging
the private sector leading the development of the
urban space and consigning the state to the role of regulator
and facilitator.
Le Corbusier, Master Plan for Bogotá (1950): Metropolitan plan BOG 4210, Metropolitan Zoning / Scale-1:25.000 ©
IDPC–MdB
Accord 6/90 has no official plans, nor images or graphics
to suport it. It is limited to identifying existing conditions in the
city, and though it gives priority to “public space”, it makes
no recommendations as to how to value it, reclaim it, or create
new components of it. In the end, the accord is an urban
code, a plan with no image.
Accord 7/79, which preceded accord 6/90, presents an
image of the city derived from the delimitation of a huge area
of multiple activity that covers all the neighbourhoods with existing
businesses and services; a way of “legalising” market
trends. Although it contains some intention to organise the urban
area (axes of multiple use, parks, and residential areas)
it doesn’t go so far as to put together an image of a desirable
city as a whole. Rather it “touches up” existing trends for the
The Influence of Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan on Urban Planning in Colombia | J. Salazar and K. Manco
241

Acuerdo 7 de 1979. Department of District
Planning.
Regional scope of the Structural Plan for Bogotá. Structural
Plan for Bogotá. Technical report on the study of urban
development in Bogotá, Phase II (1974). Published by the
Department of District Planning.
The Sub-centers: structural change with direct state intervention.
In: Structural Plan for Bogotá. Technical report on
the study of urban development in Bogotá, Phase II (1974).
Published by the Department of District Planning.
242 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Structural Plan for Bogotá. Technical report on the study of urban development in Bogotá, Phase II (1974).
Published by the Department of District Planning.
First Alternative of Development. Expanded Model. Taken from: Alternatives for Urban Development
in Bogotá DE – 1968 p. 219
location of activities in the city, in accordance with the analysis
that the accord is based on.
This type of planning (or rather regulation) can be understood
as a result of a process that had prioritised planning
by sector in the integral development plan (PID) adopted by
Bill 61 of 1978, the Organic Bill of Urban Development and its
regulations, which set out to reproduce the functions of planning
on a national level at the municipal level, replicating the
methodology and contents of the national development plan
in each of the cities. The plan was based on the idea of “integral”
planning, its formula for “development planning” looking
to replace “physical” planning, and it was unable to address
the urban problems that were considered, very partially, in
the debate on urban and economic development initiated in
Colombia by Lauchlin Currie in the 1950s.
The PID prioritised the investment sectors (industry, employment,
roads, housing, education, health etc.) over and
above the politics of land use, the latter being considered a
result of the activities of each sector. It can be seen as the
logical predecessor of the method of planning “public spending”
that is contained today in the municipal development
plan, regulated by Bill 152 of 1994, which also sets into law
the government’s proposals for an elected mayor.
In the sense that the planning offices didn’t have the capacity
to reproduce the plan, leaving the organisations of
each sector to identify and plan their projects, its function
was limited to defining norms to regulate private projects.
b. Phase II and alternatives for the urban development of
Bogota
Despite the fact that Act 159 of 1974 adopts Phase II 7 as a
norm for the city, the work behind it, carried out between 1972
and 1974, is defined as a study of development alternatives
(for land use and occupation) in which a “structural plan”
should follow a zoning plan. “Based on the aforementioned
recommendations, the DAPD [Administrative Department of
District Planning] should draw up a general development
plan for Bogota and present it to the mayor and the city council
for their approval, with the intention of using it as an instrument
of control over the urban development of Bogota” (sic) 8 .

This plan was never drawn up. The administration of Mayor
Férnandez de Soto (1973-1974) was limited to producing
a project for a zoning agreement, in the which some of the
structural proposals contained in Phase II, particularly shopping
centres, “became norms”. Act 159/74 also adopts a
road plan, which forms the basis for later road plans.
The plans laid out in Phase II can be seen as the continuation
of a process that began in 1966, when with a clear
vision of Colombia’s urban problems, Mayor Virgilio Barco 9
contracted the Centre for Development Studies (CID) at the
Universidad Nacional to produce a study known as Alternatives
for Urban Development in Bogota DE under the direction
of Lauchlin Currie.
The study presents two alternative models of the city: one
concentrated, the other extended, linking socio-economic
and physical aspects in each one. The selection of concentrated
urban development for Bogota would mean overcoming
problems with the provision of services and the movement
of transport users with clear and detailed policies of land use
zoning. Such policies would prioritise public transport, high
densities, and the decentralisation of activities, and would reduce
the number of journeys needed to get people to and
from work, a proposal that would reduce the importance of
the city centre as a place of work and drive the creation of
new urban centres (subcentres).
The selection of one of these alternatives was not simply
a technical problem. It also depended on a political decision
at the level of city and national government to put it into
practise. Currie had long recognised and extolled the need
to adopt a national policy for cities as part of the national
agenda. It meant building bridges between planning led by
the land use and zoning on the one hand, and economic and
institutional planning on the other, much like the work of the
National Planning Department (DNP).
But despite Currie’s insistence on involvement on a national
level in relevant matters (such as the role of the country’s
urban complex in the development and regulation of relationships
with nearby municipalities, amongst others) once
the study was over, the DNP, as the decision maker for the
national government in such matters, saw responsibility for
putting it into practise as lying with the city rather than national
authorities, the latter being concerned with matters of
national economic development, a criteria within which urban
development didn’t fall.
Act 159/74 marks the end of a planning option that had
been developed over previous years, in which urban development
was seen through the lens of rational planning
imported from the United States. Indeed, the two key mayors
of the 1960s (Barco and Gaitán Cortés) were educated
at US universities, where the concept of planning was very
different from that coming out of Europe and the Mediterranean,
which had dominated in the city since Le Corbusier’s
Pilot Plan.
c. Inclusive rational planning
It’s possible to reach a consensus in society in which the
state operates as a neutral arbiter between the different social
actors and planning is a politically neutral process carried
out to the benefit of the public. Unlike the previous masterplan
for Bogota, its goals were not tied to a clear vision
of the future of the city expressed in a coloured diagram.
This focus is paramount, and not exclusively physical, as it
included socio-economic variables for which it was also possible
to set goals 10 .
The work of Jorge Gaitán Cortés as mayor of Bogota
shows a greater focus on institutionalising the decision-making
processes in the field of urban planning—in this case,
physical; on defining the type of development for each urbanisation
and each part of the city—its densities and infrastructure;
on laying down norms and procedures—of processing
and approval; rather than on defining rigid policies 11 .
So the new style of planning was to focus more on processes
than on the physical shape and form of the city, which in European
planning carries enormous weight, and as such the
plan can be said to consist of the plan itself, which in turn determines
both public and private involvement. This approach
presupposes that planned development is made up of largely
public initiatives, with a strong state able to influence land
use and the construction of the city.
Unlike this approach, “inclusive rational” planning is a
process which focuses on negotiation or agreement between
the parties, which accepts private initiatives as a key component
in the construction of the city. Under this approach
the public sector is responsible for the “rational” construction
of the city’s major structural systems and leaves the private
sector ample room to act, regulated by the norms set out in
public policies on housing, transport, infrastructure, etc.
Lauchlin Currie. Photograph taken from: www.icesi.edu.co/interaccion/edicion28/index.htm. Jorge Gaitán Cortés. Bogotá Council 1961-1966.
Taken from: Julio Dávila, Planning and Politics Bogotá: The Life of Jorge Gaitán Cortés. Bogotá: Mayor of Bogotá – District Institute of Culture and
Tourism, 2000, p. 18. Virgilio Barco Vargas. Mayor of Bogotá 1966-1969. Photograph taken from: http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/b/
fotos/barco.jpg
The Influence of Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan on Urban Planning in Colombia | J. Salazar and K. Manco
243

In part these approaches emerged from the training programmes
of the Interamerican Centre of Housing and Planning
(CINVA), set up by the OEA as part of a series of programmes
of technical cooperation instigated by the United
States for Latin American countries 12 . The CINVA introduced
a new way of teaching and practising architecture and urbanism,
by way of team work, interdisciplinary vision, the use
of modern production techniques, and the positioning of the
architect as the coordinator of the processes.
Gaitán Cortés introduced this type of planning to the city:
Development planning is understood as a constant, integrated
process of synthesis and organisation aimed at raising living
standards ... the plan is an instrument that is moulded each
day. It is a flexible formula, but sufficiently concrete to give rise
to plans of action. It includes land use zoning to physically guarantee
a balanced expansion. The plan aims generally to guide
decisions in the social sphere towards the education and training
of the population, the provision of healthcare and the carrying
out of political and cultural duties. The physical plan for
Bogota is a broad solution whose implementation is governed
by the public funds it is allocated, by specialist organisations
at the district level, and by private decisions taken about the
growth and modernisation of the city. Although economic and
social aspects are analysed fundamentally as prime factors
in drawing up the physical plan, they also contain preliminary
facts and figures to make the most of trends towards growth in
those sectors. As such, the plan guides the social and economic
aspects of urban development. In this way, the possibility
of securing resources for physical development is established,
and a suitable space in which to instigate the envisaged cultural,
economic and social change is guaranteed 13 .
In this period it wasn’t possible to identify an image of the
“model” city, or reference to creating plans, public projects,
or regulating the activities of the private sector. There were
initiatives such as the well-known semicircular “road plan”,
which changed the urban space and the tendency towards a
linear city laid out along regional access routes, but this plan
cannot be considered to amount to an image of the city.
244 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
On the contrary, the instruments for defining the activities
envisaged in the plan were the zoning committee and
the planning committee, decision-making bodies for projects
that were just “indicated” in the plans. The committees were
suitable instruments, assuming they were made up of important
city figures or highly qualified experts, but in their
absence pressures were brought to bear and as a result they
conceived projects not entirely in keeping with the spirit of
the plan.
Furthermore, the administration of that decade also
shaped technical bases and procedures which allowed for
the design and construction of an important group of public
works in various fields other roads: housing estates, infrastructure,
parks, etc.
d. Two forms of planning that set out to be complementary
In 1953, the National Planning Council published “A Plan for
Bogota”, drawn up by Lauchlin Currie and Enrique Peñalosa
Camargo and intended as complementary to Weiner and
Sert’s Regulatory Plan.
In addition to proposing the creation of the:
“special district” as an administrative organisation fundamental
to the adequate development of Bogota, it was presented as
“a plan in its substance in harmony with the regulatory plan,
which deals with the future physical structure of the city, and
which in truth contains a number of recommendations for putting
the plan into action. Together the two plans provide for the
comprehensive planning of the future city ... Its prime objective
is to find a way of adequately, and at the lowest possible cost,
providing the services considered essential for urban living to
the current and future population of Bogota and the surrounding
municipalities. The provision of many of these services is
an essential condition for the city’s industrial and commercial
progress. 14
In this approach there is a constant search in the city of the
next 50 years to make two forms of urban planning compatible:
European-style planning, which focuses its attention on
the design and management of a model of the city captured
in a plan (image) which, according to urban planners, is responsive
to the demands of society present and future; and
“rational” planning, which is interested more in procedures
to deal with matters and problems of urban development,
shaping the institutional spaces needed to process and bring
it to fruition. The latter is an approach that can be seen as
sensible in the face of the difficulties encountered in turning
plans based on the creation of a “physical model” of the city
into reality, as the principal reference to its content and its
foundation of instruments for its construction in a given time
frame. The physical plan and the institutional, financial and
procedural instruments needed to manage it.
These two forms of planning the city have been around for
60 years, but in that time they have never become completely
compatible. The establishment of the PID attempted to do
away with one of them and produced, without intending to,
one of the least efficient periods of urban planning the country
has known by losing track of a way of doing things that
had been developed over the previous 30 years.
Again in the 1990s, Act 388/97 determined that land use
zoning should complement the socio-economic planning of the
municipality, aiming to create a new planning scheme made up
of two instruments that were in themselves, compatible:
• The POT was an instrument of physical planning from
which medium and long term goals for municipal policies
would be established, running over 12 years and effecting
the land and its usufruct.
• The development plan established the guidelines for
short term policies, that is to say for the term of one government,
putting into practise the commitments made
by each mayor in their manifesto, and running over four
years.
The result again is the existence of two forms of planning the
city. One is based on the development plan, with a sectoral
analysis and “integral” intentions, driven by the PID under Act
152/94. The other is derived from the introduction of “land use
zoning”, in harmony with experience built up of the physical
management of the land, and seeks to incorporate con-

District Plan from 1964 arranged under the Mayor Jorge Gaitán Cortés. Taken from: Alternatives for Urban Development
in Bogotá DE, p. 214
Town Planning Associates: Josep Lluís Sert and Paul Lester Wiener, Regulatory Plan for Bogotá, 1951-53: urban plan. © IDPC–MdB
Le Corbusier, proposal from 1951, for the Plaza de Bolívar, used in the CIAM VIII: The Heart of the
City © FLC R2-15-7-001
General view of Bogotá in 1950. © FLC L1-4-17-001
The Influence of Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan on Urban Planning in Colombia | J. Salazar and K. Manco
245

temporary instruments for the planning, management and
financing of urban development that had proven successful
internationally.
It is, then, a hybrid planning system, in which each component
is separately conceived, but which in the end makes
up a “system” of urban (or municipal) planning used by the
recent local governments.
The need for an image of the city
The aforementioned observations lead to a number of hypotheses
or reflections on the permanence of the plan for a
modern city which Le Corbusier established for Bogota.
In principle it has to be said that there are plenty of sectors
of the city today that would stoutly defend the model of
city produced as a result of 15 years of continuous effort to
overcome a profound crisis which affected its development
246 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Le Corbusier, Urban Plan, BOG 4211 (1950). The four
functions were superimposed on proposals’ urban scale
in order to emphasize the proposed model. Designed
by Karyna Manco.
at the end of the 1980s and to build a more productive and
sustainable city with better living standards for its inhabitants
who today are confident about what the future holds.
This model of the city cannot be seen as an image derived
from a plan; in fact the POT/2000 was drawn up when many
of the programmes and projects had been conceived and
some brought to fruition. The value of the public, the solidarity
of development, the efficiency and transparency of public
administration can be defined, amongst others, as the principles
of what might be called a “model of the city”. The construction
of a compact city, integrated with its surroundings,
which prioritises public over private transport, pedestrians
over the motor vehicle, and which values public space for its
inhabitants, in which public works (infrastructure, equipment)
are synonymous with quality and a model of activities in the
city are, amongst others, the physical qualities that the actions
of recent years have produced in terms of this model of
the city.
In this sense the reference made by the POT to the 1951
Pilot Plan, and to Phase II of the Urban Development Study
of 1973 as documents that propose the reorganisation of
land in accordance with a plan for the future city becomes
important. A plan-image of the future city which seems necessary
as a framework for achieving predetermined ends
(which in their turn give rise to the plan-image of the city),
the drawing up and putting into action of programmes and
projects both public and private, which make its realisation
possible over time.
In the case of Bogota, which is not necessarily an everyday
one, this plan-image of the city is a necessary complement
to the definition of instruments and procedures for its
implementation, whose importance within contemporary
urban planning cannot be diminished. It can be a difficult
image to distil, but no less effective for it in planning terms;
to reiterate, it is more a point of reference than a perfectly
achievable reality.
From this perspective it can be said to be true that it has
not been possible to completely disassociate planning for the
city from Le Corbusier’s image-plan for a radiant city.
José Salazar. Graduated as an architect from the Universidad de los Andes
(1976) and received his post-graduate degree in History of the Culture of
Knowledge and Education at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences
Sociales (EHESS) de Paris, France (1980). He is a professor of: MA degree
in Urbanism at the Universidad Nacional (1990 – present); Specialization
in Architecture and the City at the Universidad de los Andes (2008-present);
Specialization in Urban Projects; Universidad San Buenaventura,
Cali (2006-present). He won the National Architecture Prize (Premio Nacional
de Arquitectura) in the Urban Research category (1992 y 1996)
and received a Mention of Honor (2000). He is a consultant for studios,
plans and urban projects, including: research of popular housing in Bogota
(1982-84); design and regulation of Cuidad Salitre (1985); downtown
plan for Bogota; Historical Centers with the Ministry of Culture; he was the
director of the French program IMDUS (providing support to townships to
implement urban reform); Support Program for urban housing and management
for the establishment of a national political strategy for urban
areas, which helped establish the first version of Law 388 of 1997; the
Law of Territorial Development (1992/95); Planning of Bogota’s City Center
and arrangements for the POT in Bogota (1997/98); Technical Director of
the first Territorial Organizational Plan (POT) for Bogota (1999/2002); he

drafted the first outlines for a National Urban Policy (2004), the Plan for
Land Management (2007); the National Urban Standards (2008) and the
urban parts of the Macroprojects of National Social Interest for the Ministry
of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development. He has published
multiple essays on urbanism, planning and related topics in Colombia
in both Colombian and international books and reviews. He has been a
speaker at seminars, workshops, meetings and other national and international
events.
Karina Manco Rozo. Received a degree in Architecture (2000) and a Master
in Urbanism (2009) from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. She has
created, executed and led regional-urban planning projects focused on
sustainable economic development in the area of international cooperation.
In this context she has specialized in the application of the geographic
information systems as tools to implement and evaluate processes of
development with territorial impact. She has worked, to public acclaim, as
a consultant on urban projects and has assisted in drawing up Territorial
Organizational Plans (Planes de Ordenamiento Territorial) for many cities
in the country.
1 This article owes a great deal to observations contained in Karina Manco’s
masters thesis on urban planning “The Pilot Study and its Influence on the
Discourse of Planning for the City”, directed by José Salazar.
2 The metropolitan scale is expressed in the plan BOG 4210 of the masterplan
for Bogota, Le Corbusier, Paris, 30 June 1950.
3 Urban planning has four objectives, which are: “Firstly, to guarantee the
people healthy living conditions, that is to say places in which the space,
clean air and sun, these three aspects of nature, are amply assured; secondly,
to organise workplaces in such a way that instead of work being
an awful subjection, it recovers it character of a natural human activity;
thirdly, to anticipate the facilities necessary to make good use of free time,
and making them beneficial and abundant; and fourthly, to establish a link
between these diverse areas by way of a transport network that makes
interchanges possible while respecting the prerogatives of each one.” The
Athens charter, taken from http://legislaciones.iespana.es/CartAtenas.
htm, 20 August 2009.
4 One of the three components of the model of the “three human establishments”:
the unit of agricultural work, the linear industrial city and radialconcentric
city of interchanges.
5 The approach was published by Le Corbusier under the title The Three
Human Establishments in 1945. See the first edition in French: Bezard J,
Commelin, Coudoin J, Dayre, Hya, Dubreuil, Le Corbusier, Lyritz, Hanning,
Aujame, De Looze, Une civilisation du travail, Les trois étabissements hu-
mains, Denoël, the ICMA Urban Planning Collection, Ascoral Section 5a
and 5b, Boulogne 1945. The second edition was published in 1959, Spanish
translation; Los tres establecimientos humanos, Editorial Poseidon,
Buenos Aires 1981.
6 Rodrigo Cortés, “Le Corbusier in Bogota: Urban Planning for ‘modern times’”
in issue four of the magazine Textos, Masters in the History and
Theory of Architecture, Faculty of Arts, Universidad Nacional, Bogota,
2000, p. 108.
7 The “judicial part” of the agreement appears to take the situation into account
when it affirms in its statement of purpose that it is an instrument to
“regulate the behaviour, freedoms, rights and obligations of those affected,
as well as public duties and functions, administrative processes and
public law institutions”. That is to say that the accord is drawn up in such
a way that it provides “answers to judicial questions relating to urban planning
issues” and not “a legal answer to questions of a technical nature”, p.
XXIV.
8 The study was carried out in 1972 and 1973 by the British-US firm Llewelyn
Davies Weeks Forestier-Walker &Bor, in association with Kates Peat
Marwick & Co and Coopers & Lybrand, and together with the Colombian
company Consultécnicos and the DAPD. The final report is a translation
from the English original, printed in 1974.
9 p. 16; the underlining is ours
10 Integral planning for the city was institutionalised during the government of
Virgilio Barco (1966-1969). Although Barco’s undergraduate training was
as an engineer, he studied a masters in economics at Boston University
and a Phd, also in economics, at MIT; hence his tendency to focus on the
city’s economic issues and his affinity with the ideas of Lauchlin Currie.
11 This new vision of the city is possible “in so far as the Colombian economy
could be modelled mathematically (the economist-administrator), embodying
supposed ideological neutrality, essential to a system that sought
to avoid controversy. In the collective imagination, the young economist
emerged as the bearer of he modern ... and the politics remained indicative
of the traditional”. Taken from Planning and Politics in Bogota: the
life of Jorge Gaitán Cortés, by Julio Dávila, Bogota: Bogota City Hall – the
District Institute of Culture and Tourism, Bogota, 2000, p. 183.
12 Rodrigo Cortés, quoted by Julio Dávila, Planning and Politics in Bogota:
the life of Jorge Gaitán Cortés, by Julio Dávila, Bogota: Bogota City Hall –
the District Institute of Culture and Tourism, Bogota, 2000, p. 183.
13 Jorge Rivera Páez, The CINVA, a model for technical cooperation 1951-
1972. Undergraduate thesis in preparation for a masters in history, department
of history, faculty of humanities, Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Bogota, 2002, p.2.
14 Planning in Bogota, the Administrative Department of District Planning,
Bogota, 1964, p. 31.
15 A Plan for Bogota, National Planning Council, Municipal Press, Bogota,
1953.
The Influence of Le Corbusier’s Pilot Plan on Urban Planning in Colombia | J. Salazar and K. Manco
247

From the Rejection to the Rediscovery of the 1950 Pilot Plan: A View of Urban Planning and Order in Bogota and the
Savannah as Seen from a Current Perspective
Francisco Jácome Liévano
It seems implausible that almost all the issues raised by Le
Corbusier in his 1950 Pilot Plan for Bogota are still pertinent
and in large part unresolved 60 years later.
Thanks to the intellectual exercise that the discussion
about the Plan represented for Bogota society and, in particular,
for the architects of the period, since then—albeit
fragmentarily and recently but unconsciously— elements of
the Plan have been incorporated into urban planning practices
for the city and for the country with notable regularity,
although clearly one of its most significant aspects is the integrated
nature of its methodological approximation, which
applies different scales to the analyses and the approaches
that arise from them.
The application of the Pilot Plan by Colombian architects
and urban planners has become a great and old debt over
time, inexplicably acquired by having systematically rejected
the Plan at first as a result of a simplistic, incomplete interpretation,
or more likely in the absence of any kind of interpretation
at all. 1
The best part of a generation of Colombian architects who
are today responsible for urban planning issues were trained
in a way that did not give serious consideration to the modern
movement and all that it produced. 2 Yet, it is unprecedented
that in university circles the Pilot Plan was never made the main
focus of a formal course, or a reference point from which to
identify possible issues with medium and small-scale projects,
or even as a simple reminder to architects not to forget that a
fundamental part of our work and a large part of our professional
responsibility lies in defining the shape and form of the city.
In fact, how out of context and ill-timed was the interpretation
of Bogota and the savannah, as some texts suggest, in
248 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
terms of the proposals that Le Corbusier laid down in the Pilot
Plan? 3 Anyone who, like myself, looks at the Plan via a sober
and unbiased analysis of its texts and plans, inevitably discovers
a potent and obsessive focus on understanding, representing,
and approaching planning from the starting point of
the most significant aspects of the land (topography, bodies
of water, hills, wetlands, productive land, settlements, and
their connections and interactions); on guiding each decision
with the aim of guaranteeing the viability, the survival, and the
sustainability of the region and the capital, and of providing
its inhabitants with more decent homes; and on the services,
spaces, and infrastructure that “living” demands.
Have the plans and projects that have been implemented since,
including those of the last ten years, which were approved
with enthusiasm, been consistent in their approach, as
the Pilot Plan was? Have they followed a long term vision—
known as a “model of order”—by means of the development
of concrete and applicable proposals from the regional scale
to the local?
To be able to refer to a complete copy of the Pilot Plan
means a valuable opening to access a document which,
among other things, is testimony to a missed and unrepeatable
opportunity to organise the land of Bogota and the savannah
4 properly, at a time when it was relatively unoccupied 5
and appeared to have many development options that would
have allowed for the harmonious planning and execution of
urban planning processes on different scales.
Associated with the idea of cultivating body and mind, the
Plan envisaged a structure articulated to the natural surroundings,
in which the bodies of water, wetlands, and hills would
be protected as a whole by the municipalities that make up
the metropolitan area. From that perspective, a limit was set
on the extension of urban land and certain agricultural areas
where the attention to the rural landscape is evident.
Time was always considered a fundamental variable in
the Plan, and as such it hoped to rely on commitments at the
municipal and metropolitan levels. Its balanced implementation
would be backed up by developments in areas of low
occupancy and high suitability for building, with the aim of
favouring the liberation of the land and the protection of productive
activities and recreation.
In fact, decisions were taken to protect natural assets
(bodies of water, wetlands, and hills) and to integrate them
with the life of the population; to conserve rural land identified
as being most suitable for agricultural production and
so guaranteeing food security; to design a transport network
that would favour land use zoning and would not be simply
superimposed on spontaneous processes of urbanisation
and densification; to define the functional, official, and spatial
aspects of the system in accordance with the relationships
between residential areas (understood not only as the intensive
construction of housing units, given that Le Corbusier
refers to ways of living that take into account the need of simultaneously
providing infrastructure and services that would
allow for the development of spirit, intellect, and body) and
with the activities that require the population to mobilise (work
and study), taking topography and landscape fully into account
and understanding the need to define the location of an
international airport and its connections on a regional level as
the key point of contact for the savannah with the rest of the
country and with the world. 6

Occupation of the Savanna of Bogotá in 1952. Source: Formulation of a model of territorial occupation for the
municipalities of the Savanna. Unión Temporal Julio Gómez – Grupo de Estudios Urbanos Ltda. Gobernación de
Cundinamarca. 2008.
Occupation of the Savanna of Bogotá in 2008. Source: Formulation of a model of territorial occupation for the
municipalities of the Savanna. Unión Temporal Julio Gómez – Grupo de Estudios Urbanos Ltda. Gobernación de
Cundinamarca. 2008.
From the Rejection to the Rediscovery of the 1950 Pilot Plan | Francisco Jácome Liévano
249

In his regional plans, Le Corbusier casts light on two supporting
structures: a fully connected natural system, known
as a principal ecological structure; and mobility. These create
relationships between functionally and spatially distinct areas
whose activities are complementary. An interesting concept
here is the integration of the natural system to the regional
dynamic. The idea of placing the savannah and its natural resources
at the heart of regional zoning plans was resurrected
recently in the Occupation Model of the Savannah. There, the
international airport appears as a key element of regional zoning,
understood as a central issue and never as dependent
on the urban area of Bogota.
The cartography of the Pilot Plan represents a proposal
for an interconnected transport system for the municipalities
of the savannah, which recognises the strength of Bogota’s
radial road system (reinforced by the rail network) but which
anticipates inter-municipal connections between urban and
rural areas that are not dependent on the urban structure of
the city. The rural and urban elements are given equal weight,
so showing the need to preserve and classify the rural areas.
Unfortunately, the Pilot Plan was considered “an obsolete
instrument before it was finished”. 7 Who could deny that the
issues contained in the Plan are still the key issues of land
use zoning in today’s urban planning for the savannah of Bogota?
Who insisted on saying that the Pilot Plan was never
and still isn’t valid? It is regrettable that in the past no efforts
were made to at least explore alternatives to its proposals in
relation to the creation of extensive residential areas where
the concept of “living” would predominate, given that today
it has become a fundamental issue in land use zoning at the
national level, but with very few positive results.
Despite the achievement of recent years enshrined in Act
388 of 1997—the Territorial Development Act made part of
the manifesto in the Territorial Ordering Plan (POT) of 2000
and in its first revision in 2003—city and national governments
still concentrate most of their efforts today in adopting mitigating
measures that give them access to “cheap land” (both in
and outside the district area) for the promotion of large social
housing projects, even though their location and size could
seriously distort the aforementioned zoning model. 8
250 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
The absence of public policies established around the
mass production of housing, and their corresponding implementation
in land use zoning, does not allow for a discussion
as to whether form follows function. Rather, the issue is
addressed by means of an assumption under which the form
and function of extensive areas follow the logic determined
by land prices and the property market. 9
In addition, there has been an inconclusive debate
around the conundrum of mobility. Despite being incorporated
in the POT for Bogota as a crucial general system for the
land use zoning model, its application depends on contextual
government positions related to the implementation of one
or another form of transport, in which the airport—a defining
element for a region far from the sea that intends to be an
economic player on the global stage—has been as a local
issue unconnected to regional zoning. 10
Le Corbusier’s recognition of the topography near the
eastern hills and of the importance of water management associated
with the east-west road layouts constitutes today a
call for local knowledge and understanding and is probably
an important element in the suitable design of public space.
In the same way, the city centre and the part dedicated
to work are two elements of the Pilot Plan that are still highly
relevant today. 11 The city incorporated two strategic operations
into the zoning model: one for the centre (taken as an
area of around 1800 hectares) and the other for the industrial
axis consisting of large-scale projects developed west of the
centre (known as the Operation Ring of Innovation). 12 The aim
of these operations was not only to reclassify these areas, but
also to equip them for an important role at the international
level and to operate accordingly.
In 2004, as part of the process of drawing up the City
Centre Zonal Plan, which included a planning component
known as Operation City Centre, a zoning model was established
for the area that envisaged a centre on the regional
scale, the inclusion of new city forms, and the establishment
of many housing units (the aim being to double the
resident population) 13 and new structures, with a significant
increase in public space and the appropriate management
of mobility.
The process of creating the Model that guided the most
important decisions adopted in 2007, gave serious consideration
to the need to establish a new “centre of the Centre”,
the scale of which would be more in keeping with the planned
1,800 hectares, similar in its dimensions to those proposed in
the Pilot Plan, and with the intention of consolidating it as a
regional centre.
Faced with proposals such as the doubling of the resident
population to 500,000 (which would mean the construction of
at least 70,000 new homes); a substantial increase in existing
public space (which amounted to barely three square
metres per inhabitant, without taking into account the public
space needed for suitable levels of mobility or the presence
of a floating population); the rationalisation of mobility (to take
into account the reduced dimensions of local roads); the favouring
of access; and the maintenance of property values, it
was deemed necessary to envisage drastic measures in the
so-called “priority area for intervention”, bound by 1st Street
to the south, 26th Street to the north, 10th Avenue to the east
and Caracas Avenue to the west; that is to say, more than 100
hectares in which a fluid public space should prevail, created
in large part by the construction of tall buildings with low
occupancy, an appropriate alternative not far removed from
modernist proposals.
For its part, the Pilot Plan envisaged a city centre on the
regional scale (six kilometres long and covering around 1,200
hectares), taking the view that the existing Centre of the time
was not fitting for a future city of 1.5 million inhabitants or as
the nucleus of the metropolitan area.
The idea of creating a large centre was not divorced from
proportionality between it and the extensive areas where “living”
would predominate, and which therefore, as shown in
the detailed plans for some sectors, would accommodate
other small-scale complementary activities.
Under this proposal, Bogota’s areas of work would necessarily
be connected to its residential areas and to the metropolitan
area. The area dedicated to work coincides in part
with Operation Ring of Innovation, on which the POT bestows
the function of establishing new industry associated with the
advanced tertiary sector.

Draft of the Organizing Model for the Downtown Zoning Plan. Drawn up by Francisco Jácome and Javier Aja within the framework of the formulation, for the Administrative Department of District
Planning (today the SDP), in 2004.
From the Rejection to the Rediscovery of the 1950 Pilot Plan | Francisco Jácome Liévano
251

Social Housing Program (Programa de Vivienda de Interés Social), Bogota
Mayor’s Office, the Administrative Department of District Planning, Bogotá
2003.
252 Le Corbusier in Bogotá: Precisions around the Master Plan
Urban model from the Territorial Organization Plan (POT) of 2003.

The Pilot Plan contains many rich conceptual, methodological,
and official elements. They deserve to be explored with
the patience and humility called for in the understanding and
evolution of urban planning issues.
Urban planning can still recover the meaning it had for those
who did not concern themselves only with issues related to
the establishment of norms, but who care to find a deterministic
mechanism for the creation of a city. The responsibility
of contributing resolutely to define types of land occupation,
of urban shape and form, including the elements that make
up the road network, and of guaranteeing the well-being of a
city’s inhabitants, cannot be foisted unawares on professions
whose basis is far from the understanding of form and space.
The Pilot Plan could be a key element in rekindling passion
for the subject.
Francisco Jácome Liévano graduated as an architect from the Universidad
Nacional de Colombia and received a Máster en Técnicas Urbanísticas
aplicadas a las Áreas Metropolitanas from the Università Degli Studi di
Roma, “La Sapienza”.
1 The rejection of the Plan was backed up by rulings fundamentally related
to the supposed “reprehensible zoning”, to the destruction of the city’s assets
(just after the Bogotázo of 9 April 1948) and Le Corbusier’s supposed
ignorance of the natural physical medium and Bogota’s idiosyncrasy.
2 The theory and practice of the 1980s in Colombian universities took great
interest in movements such as neoclassicism and deconstructivism, at the
same time as academia heaped praise on those who took up positions
clearly contrary to the principles of the modern movement (with a particular
focus on the writings and projects of Aldo Rossi and Robert Venturi).
The academic atmosphere was certainly not welcoming for proponents of
the ICMA.
3 The general discouragement contained in reactions to the drawing-up of
the PilotPlan must be seen in the context of a scene in which large parts of
the city’s assets had been destroyed in the events of 9 April 1948.
4 Bogota’s urban land surface measured 2,700 hectares at the time the Pilot
Plan was drawn up (today it is 30,776 hectares) and city had a population
of 600,000. According to the 2005 DANE census, Bogota’s population was
6,763,325 plus a further 964,586 in the other municipalities that make up
the savannah of Bogota.
5 The most recent study on the occupation of the Savannah of Bogota was
carried out in 2007 by the Julio Gómez Joint Venture – Urban Studies
Group Ltd. for the government of Cundinamarca. It updated the cartography
to take into account the true occupancy of the land with the help of
SPOT satellite images. Both the findings and the model of occupation that
emerged from the study are currently being analysed and discussed by
the municipalities that make up the savannah of Bogota and the bodies
with jurisdiction over the area.
6 The cartography of the Pilot Plan envisages the airport as the most important
connection point in both national and global terms (to Paris in 48
hours, to New York in 16). It would impact the economy and scale of the
city, and this would be reflected in its functionality and its urban and architectural
scales. The role that the Plan bestows on the region in consequence
and its intercommunication are interesting (each municipality
would have its own Pilot Plan). The proposal of an urban limit defined by
physical elements emerged from the idea that the city would be dense,
with its spread controlled to protect the rural areas.
7 Doris Tarchópulos reviews this interpretation in the article “Traces of Le
Corbusier, Sert and Wiener’s Plan for Bogota”, Scripta Nova (Internet, 1
August 2006).
8 This same situation was repeated in other Colombian municipalities following
the signing of Decree 4260 of 2007, covering social macro-projects
of national importance, which could not be subordinated to municipal
zoning.
9 In discussions about the shortfall in social housing (VIS), which is currently
estimated to be of around 340,000 units in the savannah area (2005 DANE
census), the same concern recurs over the high price of land in areas
of expansion (including rural land) that make the undertaking of social
housing projects less attractive.
10 The importance of moving forward with this scale of zoning is only now
being taken on board by the administrations, given the need to reach
agreements on issues that cross municipal boundaries, such the supply
of water, the management of natural assets, waste disposal, and transport
infrastructure.
11 The regional is seen not only in the cartography of a large-scale area, but
also in the proposals themselves for buildings and complexes whose architecture
makes clear reference to reflections that exceed the strict area
of intervention.
12 According to the study carried out by Julio Gómez and Francisco Jácome
for the District Planning Department, in 2008 the gross area of operation
was 780 hectares, while the area available for transformation by projects is
something less than 180 hectares, because of the occupation processes
of the last 10 years.
13 The City Centre Zonal Plan took on board the figures of 250,000 residents
and a floating population of 1.5 million, which appeared in the technical
studies which backed up the Plan.
From the Rejection to the Rediscovery of the 1950 Pilot Plan | Francisco Jácome Liévano
253

LE CORBUSIER IN BOGOTA