Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
Cities irrevocably are the manifestations of human aspirations and a reflection of the socioeconomic and political agenda of the time. The design of cities has been going on as long as civilised life and to a certain extent, a measure of it. i The concentration of earliest human settlements has been owed to the presence of agricultural land and floodplains. These settlements grew naturally over long periods of time and have been often termed ‘organic’ in nature. However, man has imposed his sense of order in cities he has planned over the years. Straight roads, specific land uses maintaining a separation, intricate hierarchies in the functionality of spaces and monumentality in the temples and palace complexes to exhibit the power vested in them. An obvious centrality along a powerful focus often dominated the built environment in the earliest cities. While the Romans and Greeks left behind a legacy of the planned cities, they demonstrated an excellence in interpreting geometry through science. ii Geometry meant an order of some kind. Organizing spaces led to organization of the society into hierarchy, exhibiting the idea of power relations and discipline. One of the key aspects to understanding cities is to realize the expression of power in them. Traditional cities had the state or the religious buildings marked as the most powerful. These were symbolic in nature, sometimes implying more than one meaning. They became the symbol of Power or an authoritarian society. Henri Lefebvre writes about the political ideology that thus is understood: Social space appears as a product of singular character... [and] shows itself to be politically instrumental in that it facilitates the control of society. It is equivalent, practically speaking to a set of institutional and ideological superstructures, that are not present for what they are ( and in this case social space becomes complete with symbolisms and systems of meaning – sometimes and overload of meaning), alternatively it assumes an outward appearance of neutrality, of insignificance, of semiological destitution, and of emptiness. iii The built form thus becomes representative of the political legitimacy iv. The city starts showing its political interests, the politicization of its public realm. It can be seen as propaganda for identity formation. Urban design and urban planning hereby become tools for institutionalizing culture, the politics of the state and the abstraction of power, into the built form of the cities. Over the years, cities have thus grown to accommodate the authority and its changing forms. These cities have been termed as the Capital Cities. Rapoport has defined capital cities as a strong and enduring administrative and economic central, positioned at the apex of settlement hierarchies; a high investment in symbols of national identity, status and power, with a concomitant allocation of significant resources to the production of such symbols. v This leads the capital cities to exhibit a different kind of cultural dynamicity which falls beyond the predefined types. Often due to such kind of symbolism, capitals are designed as cosmic centres, so as to become an essential part of the authority. Peter Hall has established seven typologies of capital cities. Based on the various kinds of functions the cities perform, this classification also tends to respect their overlapping roles. The classification is as follows: vi 1. Global Capitals – Which are important in the global economy (London, Tokyo) 2. Political Capitals – Created to contain the seat of power (Washington, Ottawa) 3. Former Capitals – Previously holding the seat of government (Rio de Janeiro, Philadelphia) 4. Ex- imperial Capitals – Former imperial cities, that have retained the identity of national capital (Madrid, Vienna)
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
5. Provincial Capitals – Cities that have once been the de-facto capital, but now lost the role (Montreal, Melbourne) 6. Multi-function Capitals – Containing all or most of the national level functions (Paris, Moscow) 7. Super Capitals – Functioning as centres of International Organizations, may or may not be the national capital (Brussels, New York) Geographers have also expressed Capital cities as the ones which evolved into becoming capitals, and the ones that were designed to be capitals. The making of a capital city, whether gradual or abrupt is always guided by the underlying physical, social, economic and political motives. And some of them are also instances of evolved growth, and designed. vii What becomes interesting to study is the symbolic associations that these capital cities lay. Since the time of religion occupying the supreme position in the society, power has been represented differently. The churches with their high spires lining the skyline, the ziggurats designed to be raised to reach the divinity; all presented an allegory of power. The earliest citadel and designed capital cities too showed the magnified presence of government in some way or the other. A modern capital city is more than just a seat of government; it has become a means to show the functioning of the administration. An entire capital city can be dominated by the purposes of national administration, purposes that include the management of ceremony as well as the performances of more mundane tasks. viii Capital Cities do not only represent the national identity; they are also expected to reflect the political regime type and power arrangements, that in the modern age fall into the fundamental categories of democracies and dictatorships, with variants within each type, such as the one between presidential and parliamentary, or direct and representative democracies, and the one between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. ix There is, therefore a transformative nature in the typology of the government that leads to the growth and development of the capital cities in the present times. However the representation of the political ideologies into the urban design of the city and it built forms gathers various view points. A seminal research done by Wolfgang Sonne leads to an inconclusive relationship between regime type and urban form. This debate can be traced back to Aristotle, as he said: In the planning of strongholds there is no one policy which is equally good for all constitutions. A citadel (or acropolis) is suitable to oligarchies and monarchies; a level plain suits the character of a democracy; neither suits an aristocracy, for which a number of strong places is preferable. x A city’s built form vs. spatial relationships lead us to understanding the government’s apparent dominance or compliance. The question however arises about the differences in design for democratic and liberal political ideologies to illiberal regime. A democratic society would have the people treated as citizens and not subjects, ruling out monumentality, or any kind of proposition that will generate awe in the common man. The establishment of democracy however dates back to post war times in most of the countries, when the voting rights were also given out first. Only in countries where the ideological premise is well established can one see the effectiveness of it in the design of new capital cities. New capital city design and construction however have often been referred to as the ruling elite’s attempts to consolidate national unity and cultivate national identity in the face of multiple contending urban rival centres. xi The discussion thus leads studying some of the famous capital cities around the world. It also puts forward what other ideals do countries prioritise apart from their political tenets. We must
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
keep in mind that capital cities perform different kinds of functions and were formed under different circumstances. The place of the capital also gives us hints of the country’s overall development patterns, which in turn might be subjected to many other global events, like the two World Wars, the Great Depression, etc. Examples of Washington D.C., New Delhi, and Brasilia put forward a brief discourse of power and identity forming entire cities. Washington D.C. Washington D.C. was the first post colonial capital city. It stands as an embodiment of modern capital city planning, demonstrating the relationships between physical and political networks. United States was the first of the independent countries to setup their capital new, rather than choose an existing urban centre. Initially Congress had put together a twin capital arrangement, choosing a northern site, along the Delaware River, New Jersey, and another in Virginia, along Potomac River. Washington as a location was more viable, considering the river side and hills in a very central position throughout the country. It was envisioned to become a binding, between the north and south, the coastlines and inland, a grand urban design gesture. In 1790, L’Enfant was commissioned to design the capital of United States. What resulted was truly a grand city plan that has taken two centuries to fill out the framework of streets. More than a million people were to inhabit the Capital City, which would be the world’s largest metropolis. The conception of the plan started with fixing certain important nodes and viewpoints, the various topographical features and then deducing “Grand Edifices” and “Grand Squares”. Grid – iron pattern was used along the cardinal directions, and the piercing diagonal roads, that would connect the distant objects and built forms. The Congress house was placed atop a hill to give it predominance, with the President’s residence along the river in the west. The Executive and Legislature were put independent of each other, a praiseworthy gesture to exhibit the Government’s ideals. However the Judiciary was not given much importance and placed in one of the raised portion along the connections between Presidents’s Residence and the Congress House. Over the years the institutional importance of the Judiciary grew, which leads us to understand the changes in symbolism of monumentalism since L’Enfant. The birth of Washington as a capital city is a perfect example of how symbolism is used to define a newly united collection of states. The centrality of Washington was the ideal representation of the Federal Government that United States stands for. The fact that it is a central entity among others, forming a platform under the impetus of federal programmes allows Washington to play its role to the fullest as a major city within a regional urban area and to negotiate public policies of regional interest with the neighbouring municipalities and counties, like any other central city in the country. xii But the Capital City was subjected to erratic development, taking a long time for the city to flourish and people to inhabit. For a long time, the city was nothing but empty wide roads that began and ended nowhere, public buildings waiting for people to be there. With the growing country and a slow development of Washington, it was regarded quite an eccentric one. It can be said that the administrative part of the city was given the obvious and utmost importance, in terms of built form strategies. By placing the Capitol Complex as a focal point of the entire urban composition, the designers of Washington established a precedent for all future capitals of the modern day society. The democratic call of “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people” does not really show up in the city plan. There is an attempt to showcase the country’s commitment to knowledge and human achievement by the Smithsonian Museums along the mall. But that and the Capitol Complex are
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
more given to respond to the architectural grandeur that is created, which generates a flourishing tourism industry. A conception of a “Monumental Core” can be seen, where in the Government Facilities together with the Museums, create an circle of tourism, commercial and media attention. In 1997, this paved the way for an “Extending the Legacy” plan, which would focus on the previously impoverished eastern portion of Washington, along the edges of River Anacostia. The plan also laid out advisory guidelines for using all the four quadrants of city in equal dimensions. The use of Grid Iron pattern to determine the built form of the rest of the city demonstrates a high sense of order, which has been used by men since time immemorial. The diagonal insertions allow some relief into the highly disciplined layout. The imagery of the monumentality thus created is commendable, with the Congress building defining a strong axis, leading up to the Lincoln memorial eventually. The city of Washington as a capital strongly defines the idea of being a seat of power. The architectural character of the Capitol along with the orderly layout of the city exhibits the control of the Government. Here is a capital city that was designed to become the symbol of power, but it ends up drawing all the attention to the Capitol it consists of. The question of how well does Washington suffice to the openness of a democratic capital still remains. There is a struggle between the isolation and heterogeneity that is very well established through the design of Washington D.C. New Delhi Often termed as the Imperial Capital, New Delhi was renewed as a capital city. It had always been the capital for several empires and dynasties which ruled in the Indian subcontinent. The making of Lutyens’ Delhi (as the core of the present day capital city is often known as) was but a gesture to revive the city’s already existing rich historical significance as the symbol of power. It was although a reminder of British supremacy in the Indian subcontinent and an architectural affirmation of the superiority of the Western Civilization. xiii The new capital was distinct from the preceding Mughal capital of Shahjanabad, in terms of urban morphology and symbolism of authority. Thus came into existence ‘Old Delhi’. As is known, New Delhi to be developed as a capital city saw shift in the location of seat of Government. The British government was shifting its base from Calcutta, which was a port city, and eased international trade. However Calcutta was also a place for communal unrest, due to the presence of Dhaka in close proximity. The presence of hill station Shimla close to Delhi, proved to be a respite, for the British during the summer months. The centrality of position, along with the idea of providing the Muslim population, especially in the time of Bengal unrest, seemed to be a legitimate decision. The sheer capacity to move the seat of British India by royal decree would be taken as evidence of the empire’s continued vitality. xiv Within the Delhi area, the north and south of the historical Shahjanabad were the main contenders for the development of the capital. The northern site already hosted beautiful bungalows and had the privilege of being the site of the Imperial Durbars in the past. However the deciding committee wanted the southern site, as it would make way for future expansion. The southern site allowed more flexibility in terms of design, as already the British Raj wanted to “quietly dominate them all” xv (the previous empires and dynasties which had Delhi as their capital). New Delhi was envisioned to be a capital with great connectivity, to the major elements across the city and the surrounding elements around Delhi. There would be alignment of grand vistas.
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
The Government buildings were to be more than just the heart of the new city; they would become the foundation of the British Empire in India. Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker were the designers for the prominent buildings in the Capital. They took Athenian Acropolis and the Roman Capitol as inspirations. While Lutyens wanted a risen Viceroy’s house, much alike the Persepolis, the Secretariat buildings by Herbert Baker were imagined to be of great heights like the Acropolis. There was to be King’s path and the Queen’s path, the intersection of which would mark the presence of the Oriental Institute, National Museum, National Library and the Imperial Record House. Turning west thus would lead to the path along the Secretariat buildings, a sweeping vista ending into the steps of the Viceroy’s residence. Lutyens drew heavily on Washington’s vision by L’Enfant. He relied on his design of the Viceroy’s House becoming the focal point of the entire Capitol region, a culmination of all power, an ultimate. However a major mistake in the grading of the slope along the Secretariat Buildings, led to the disappearance of the Viceroy House from the view, as moved along the vista. The elaborate landscaping in Lutyens’ Delhi, grand vistas with neo classical structures to accentuate the visual arena, spoke of an unmatched grandeur, one that would completely convey the idea of a powerful Government. However the design of the capital was to be compliant with Indian sentiments, at least in the minimum. This was taken care of by introducing Indian motifs in the built form. Thus the built form for the capital remained both in lieu of British supremacy as well as Indian approval. Alongside the central axis, the various quarters were housed for officials and clerks and Indian princes, whereby a strong sense of hierarchical arrangement can be seen thus. In his analysis of colonial urban development, Anthony King demonstrates how a system of land allocation based on the criteria of race, occupational rank and socio-economic status put forth in the plan for Imperial Delhi gave “manifest physical and spatial expression” to these underlying forms of social distinction, which until then had been more tacitly understood. xvi Five types of areas were formed – for gazetted officers, European clerks, Indian clerks and Indian Princes and a fifth nonofficial space. These spaces were deliberately created to be separate based on rank biases. What is more astonishing is the contrast that the new capital has with the old city of Shahjanabad. The majestic built form used with vistas and breathtaking avenues, multi-acre estates to serve residences for 640 families, established the British hegemony so perfectly, that it completely surpassed the idea of a possible independent India. However, much to the disappointment of the British Government, New Delhi came to serve as the capital for Independent India. The new Government was completely unlike the British monarchy, and boasted of democracy. Independence thus brought up a whole new symbolism of power for the Indian Government. It was now supposed to be “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. The design by Lutyens and Baker were used to house the new government too. The Viceroy’s Residence became the President’s residence, while the Secretariat buildings served as the Legislative blocks for the new Democracy. While the greenery remained, many new institutions pertaining to the new government had to be accommodated. The establishment of a new power regime meant change in the names of the Imperial names, removal of certain Imperial icons across the capital, portraying the freedom from a two hundred year rule. With new meaning, came a lot of issues which obviously had not been foreseen, while the new capital was designed. One of the primary issues being that of refugees from the surrounding country of Pakistan. The population went on a sudden boost, and New Delhi being the capital city saw most of it. New Delhi had to contain a populace which grew almost tenfold, post
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
independence. The irony being in the fact that the newly designed colossal capitol was detached from the rest of the city fabric, which struggled to house the increasing population. There were problems of land acquisition which led to uncontrolled growth in many areas, along with a failing urban renewal programmed for the old city. The growing city capital also demanded a centrally located business core, which was found in Connaught Place. Connaught Place allowed a lot of intense commercial enterprises to come up in around its sparse surroundings. The local municipal body also made available a lot of land at higher floor area ratios. However being the capital city, New Delhi has been welcoming people ever since, becoming the reason for job opportunities, for most. Thus to house the present day demographical situation, New Delhi has adapted to the concept of Poly nuclear growth. Surrounding cities of Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad, etc. are letting in people. In such a prolific situation, connectivity still remains a key to proper working of the metropolis that Delhi has become today. There have been talks about urban renewal of the bungalow zone of Lutyens’ Delhi, considering those lands occupied double the space used in Old Delhi to house 250,000 people. New Delhi is a classic example of how a completely new political system embraced the old built form. This example demonstrates, how a capital can be revived, to become a modern day capital city under colonialism. New Delhi then faces the change in the political scenario of the country, post independence, and adapts to become the capital city of the world’s largest democracy. Over the years, the architectural associations and imagery have changed, as New Delhi has grown as a capital city. What remains is the elite Capitol area of the city, which is a constant reminder of the legacy of Delhi being the administrative centre for many empires. The historicity attached with Delhi made it easier to become the capital, and like Washington, the designers focussed only on one part, portraying the romanticism of a Capital city. Brasilia Brasilia unlike Washington was not triggered by independence. The idea of a new capital city started since the Portugal had their colonies in Brazil. The country needed a political integration, which was clearly absent in a nation where most of the population lived along the coastline. Texts which write about the need for a new administrative centre posit the idea of a city, possibly along a river, in the interior regions of the country that would also help build security. However for a really long time, this inland capital remained no more than a dream. It was only in the 1950s that the idea was given the form of reality, after resolving multiple controversies about the site of the new capital. Oscar Niemeyer was assigned in charge of the architectural designs of the Capitol. The design of the city was drawn on the basis of a competition, declaring Lucio Costa as the designer. The overall design of Brasilia, like the most other previously designed capital cities, focuses on the Capitol Complex, and its representation as the seat of power. The administrative buildings consisting of the Three Powers Plaza, and the three wings of the government – The Legislative, The Executive and The Judiciary, put forward Niemeyer’s proficiency as a Formalist architect with structural innovation. The built structure in the form of a bowl and dome stands out much, unlike the conventional architecture of Washington or New Delhi. The Capitol complex completely portrays modernist themes of an automobile friendly design. To a pedestrian, the glass platform leads to the Secretariat buildings, whereby there is another descend to the Three Towers Plaza. Here is a Capitol Complex which unlike Washington or New Delhi, does not end in an astonishing building, but with a view of the landscape beyond.
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
For the design of the rest of the city, Lucio Costa drew up a ‘Pilot Plan’, much of which was based on the ideals of the Athens Charter. It was conceptualised from the roadways, which consisted of parallel and slightly curved expressways in a north-south direction. xvii Brasilia is the perfect embodiment of a modernist capital city, wherein, one can find a separation of the pedestrian and the vehicles, with huge expressways breaking the lands and creating barriers. There are sectors pertaining to different city functions, with a massive heterogeneity in the residential sector. Unlike New Delhi, the residential sectors in Brasilia incorporated people from all classes to stay together, irrespective of their social biases. Brasilia is a capital city that successfully spread the modernist principles of city design. Costa diverted the idea of respecting the history of the country, and responded with a Monumental Axis, that emphasized the presence of a Government. The construction of the new capital invited people to pioneer in the formation of national identity, people who were to leave once the capital was inaugurated. Such an ordinance led to resentment and reverse sentiments in the people. Brasilia started being termed as a “city for bureaucrats”. xviii As a solution to this, the idea of social heterogeneity was put up for the residential sectors. The plan failed due to the distant workplaces for both the lower class people and the Capitol being far from even the higher class people. A complete miserable city design led to mass rebellions, to counter which, the Government came up with satellite cities. Ultimately most of the population of Brasilia was found to be staying outside the boundaries of the Plano Piloto, in the satellite cities, illegal developments of squatter settlements. The qualitative representation of power through the modernistic ideals makes aware of the presence of Congress in an absolute manner. Evenson observed that: Brasilia tends to reflect a somewhat dated glorification of the machine; yet because Brazil is an unmechanized, relatively unindustrialized country, the facade of modern technology retains an appeal it may have lost elsewhere. The automobile in Brazil is not a commonplace possession; the romance of the machine is still a thrilling thing, and to have built an entire city to the scale of the motorcar is a source of great pride. xix The design of Brasilia puts forward a capital city that is more of a design by the architects and designers of the time, who put forward the best of the design principles into synthesis. As would be obvious from the modern ideologies used, the design hardly reflects any character that would be for the people. The Federal Government seems to be forgotten and replaced by romanticising the colonial past of the country into the design. To add to the inconvenience, was the baseless idea of forgetting the social stratification and proposing heterogeneity in the residential sectors that only led to further unrest. Whatever the egalitarian tenets of its architects and planners, the economic and political realities of this iconically modern capital serve only to recapitulate an ancient theme: distancing the masses from the seat of the courtly power. xx Capital Cities are reflections of a nation’s larger stance towards urbanism, and convey what the nation means. These cities reflect an integration of the cultural diversity that can be found in the entire country. They attract tourism, due to their magnificence; they also act as economic magnets providing employment to a large populace. Modern day capitals have surpassed the intimacy of a human scale, and respond to a society based on automobiles, with boulevards and avenues reaching up to the final precinct.
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
In lieu of the above discussed examples of Capital Cities, the first city was the first of the modern day capital cities. The second capital is an example of revival, while the third capital city is an exhibition of the architects’ ideals, than of the nation. How do these countries express themselves through the Capital Cities? Washington and Brasilia are capitals of Federal states. Their location provides the necessary centrality. However what both of them lack is the representation of the democracy. There are grand gestures, in terms of the elaborate planning, the defined road network and the opulent capitol complexes, which would become major tourist attractions. But in the city design there wasn’t much thought about the people who would be staying in the respective cities. New Delhi had always been a capital city for the Indian subcontinent. So when the British rule shifted its capital and paved the way for a new urban fabric, it was adding another layer of monumentality to the city’s history. While post independence, the political ideals and associations changed, the built form still remains to be a reminder of the imperial past of Delhi. Both New Delhi and Brasilia were products of the modern principles, making automobile a primary requirement to move around in these cities. These eminent country capitals also make way to examine other capital cities that came out during the second half of the 1900s. Cities like Islamabad, Chandigarh were born; they were designed as symbols of independence to Pakistan and India respectively. Islamabad was planned by Doxiadis Associates of Athens, as a result of military takeover. The new capital was conceptualised to cool down political unrest and strong influence of the elite business class. However complexities increased, in regard to Pakistan emerging as an Islamic nation, the purity of Islam, and its promotion. Islamic concept of geometry and architectural styles would be used to form a new identity for Pakistan. Doxiadis’ Islamabad was based on an idea of dynamic growing city, with a fixed Capitol Complex. The Capitol Complex was placed at end of a long axis, which would assume the role of a ceremonial route. Most of the functions were focussed towards Rawalpindi, Islamabad for long, remained just the seat of power. Chandigarh had its location amidst natural setting, with great connectivity and vicinity to the border of Pakistan. It was to serve as the capital for the bilingual states of Haryana and Punjab. Nehru as the Prime Minister of Independent India was sure of a modernist approach, as he felt it would be a “strategic catalyst of growth and change”. The resultant design consisted of a 220 acre precinct, “an acropolis of monuments’ separated from the nearest housing by a canal and a boulevard, and reached by way of a wide approach road, that allowed the Capitol Complex to radiate it dominance for miles. xxi The symbolic associations of freedom are similar in both the above capital cities, with a greater focus on the magnificence of the administrative buildings. The democracy was represented by a grid pattern for the common man’s living, which emphasized order and discipline. These capital cities, even though their birth ranges from the 18th Century to the 20th century, have exhibited how the Government has been the supreme and how democracy was overruled by designs that took years to be inhabited. The varying notions of a capital, as can be seen in the early plans of Washington D.C. to the capital cities of present times, posit challenges to urban designers and planners, to interpret and understand the disposition of power and its manifestation in cities. There is a strong dichotomy of symbolism that arises – a world of democracy which calls for an openness, along a strong sense of security that makes the Government seem to be an isolated, far from democratic entity.
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815
Capital Cities: Changing notions and Designs
How much have the capital cities complied with the ideas of representation of the country, identity formation, symbolic of the political regime, remains a difficult question. Capital Cities should be made adaptable to growth and change, as their defining motives keep on changing over periods of time. i
Cuthbert, Alexander R. The Form of Cities: Political Economy and Urban Design. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print. ii Batty, Michael, and Paul Longley. Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function. London: Academic, 1994. Print. iii Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell, 1991. Print. iv Minkenberg, Michael. Power and Architecture: The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. v Taylor, John H., Jean G. Lengellé, and Caroline Andrew. Capital Cities: International Perspectives = Les Capitales: Perspectives Internationales. Ottawa: Carleton UP, 1993. Print. vi Gordon, David L. A. Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. vii Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. viii Ibid. ix Minkenberg, Michael. Power and Architecture: The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. x Aristotle 1950: book VII, chap. XI, 1330 b 19–20 xi Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. xii Wynsberghe, Caroline Van. Brussels and Washington: Two Federal Capitals with two similar metropolitan experiences, Brussels Studies, Number 66th, 2013, e-journal xiii Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. xiv Ibid. xv Irving, Robert Grant. Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker, and Imperial Delhi. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981. Print. xvi Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. xvii Gordon, David L. A. Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. xviii Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. xix Evenson, Norma. Two Brazilian Capitals; Architecture and Urbanism in Rio De Janeiro and Brasília. New Haven: Yale UP, 1973. Print. xx Vale, Lawrence J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print. xxi Fry, Edwin Maxwell. Text Entitled 'Le Corbusier at Chandigarh', by Edwin Maxwell Fry, 1973. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
History and Theory of Urban Design
Arunima Sen
PA100815