3. THE OLD CARACAS

CARACAS: A CROSSHATCHED CITY

14

THE OLD CARACAS

3. THE OLD CARACAS

A modernist utopia or a dictator’s doll house?

Caracas has seen many periods of transformation. This history of Venezuela is extremely pertinent to the identity of the country. It is “the melting pot of all the continents, cultures, African, European, Indigenous” (Brillembourg, A, AA, 2012), the heterogeneity of the country allows diversity in environment, allowing hybrids to form.

Historically originating with the indigenous tribes, Spanish conquistadors colonised the land, despite resistance from the native populations, causing tensions over territories. Alongside this it brought infusions of cultures, formation of identities, and ideologies and attitudes towards municipal issues such as education and government. A classic story of colonialism, “the image of the nation was envisioned by the lettered classes” (Franco, J and Graham, R, 2003), many of which were “well educated in European thought and letters”(Franco, J and Graham, R, 2003) which posed difficulties when attempting to ‘integrate’ the population into a modern nation-state due the heterogeneity of the population.

Simón Bolívar (b.1783), a famous name within Latin America, and Venezuela itself, is often seen as the face of independence within Latin America. Bolívar was the successor of Francisco de Miranda. Miranda, Supreme Chief of Venezuela and President of the First Republic of Venezuela, lasted in office for one month, and his strategic plan for the independence of the Spanish American colonies failed. Bolívar then took on the role as President of the Second and Third republics of Venezuela.

He managed to maintain the role longer than Miranda and led Spanish America to independence, taking advantage of the frought tensions within Spain to aide the revolutionary spirit that was stirring within Latin America and push for independence from Spain (Franco, J and Graham, R, 2003). Bolívar sought the help of surrounding forces of Haiti and the Llaneros (plainsmen) ultimately leading him to victory against the royalists at the Battle of Carabobo, 1821, forging independence for Venezuela and paving the way for the rest of Latin America.

Fig. B4 - One Bolivar, Ebay, Sleimanhobby,Source: https://www.numismatica.info.ve/en/coins/mv1bs-ca01.html

Fig. A4 - 23 de Enero Housing Project, Caracas, Venezuela, Source: http://guiaccs.com/obras/comunidad-23-de-enero/

15

CARACAS: A CROSSHATCHED CITY

Fig. C4 - Plan drawing of 23 de Enero Housing Project, Carlos Raúl Villanueva, 1955, Source: http://guiaccs.com/en/obras/23-de-enero-community/

16

THE OLD CARACAS

Bolivar established himself a military dictatorship in attempts to “maintain internal stability” (Franco, J and Graham, R, 2003), which proved unsuccessful as unrest arose within Venezuela especially, and lead to him signing over his presidency to the “unrelenting opposition of New Granadan liberals” (Franco, J and Graham, R, 2003). Attempting to go into foreign exile, Simón Bolívar died on the coast at Santa Maria on the 17th of December 1830.

The consequences of this led to a period of military acquisition and control over the country, and was mostly ruled by the forces following a series of coup d’etats in the early 20th century. The first, in 1945, saw a series of political experiments that transformed the face of Venezuelan politics. Between 1945 and 1948, the political party Acción Democrática (Democratic Action) overthrew the 46th President of Venezuela, Isaias Medina Angarita and the first elections with universal suffrage in Venezuela were held.

A three-year governing period passed known as El Trienio Adeco, which put Romulo Betancourt in office, but was removed by a second coup d’etat in 1948. During this time, an agreement was made under the name of The Punto Fijo pact, written as a guarantee that signing parties would prevent single-party hedgemony, respect the results of the upcoming election, work

together to fight dictatorship, and perhaps most notably agree to share all oil wealth. The pact was signed between three of the four main political parties; Acción Democrática, COPEI, and Union Republicana Democrática, with the exclusion of The Communist Party of Venezuela. (Corrales, J, 2001)

This second coup d’etat eventually placed unelected military official Marcos Pérez Jiménez into presidency through an election with a fraudulent result, despite the Punto Fijo pact. Jimenez’s presidency was a secondary shift in the timeline of the country, and under his dictation and the nationalisation of the oil and gas industry, Venezuela’s economy and infrastructure flourished. (McGuirk, J, 2014) Money was poured into the utopiation of Caracas, all in the efforts to make it the forefront of Latin America. The 1940s saw the population of Caracas double, and there was insufficient formal house for citizens to occupy which in turn led to the growth of the barrios.

Jimenez wanted to create a tropical utopia and saw the barrios as an inconvenience. In response, the 2 de Diciembre housing project was brought into fruition. Commissioned to design the project was architect Carlos Raul Villanueva, a Corbusian graduate of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and one of Venezuela’s most prominent architects. The task was to house 60,000 people who were to be forcibly removed from their homes in the barrios and rehomed within the social housing project.

17

CARACAS: A CROSSHATCHED CITY

Fig. D4 - Overview of 23 de Enero Housing Project, Source: http://guiaccs.com/obras/comunidad-23-de-enero/

Having recently completed the modernist design for the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Villanueva “had the chance to build his tour de force” (McGuirk, J, 2014). The estate design consisted of thirty-eight superbloques, skirted by dozens of medium sized blocks that provided over 9,000 units dotted sparsely across a terraced hillside to the west of Caracas. “The very picture of modernist utopia, this was paternalistic politics as spectacle.” (McGuirk, J, 2014)

After just under six years in power, Marcos Pérez Jiménez was overthrown on the 23rd of January 1957, and thus his housing scheme was renamed 23 de Enero – 23rd of January.

Through all the confusion with the change in power, before the project was finished, an estimated 4,000 families squatted in the structures, and the building was never properly maintained or administered. As the superbloques began to fill, the people sought alternative methods of creating a home, and began erecting their own ranchitos in the land surrounding the towers. Over time, the high-rises became beacons amongst the shanty sea.

As it currently stands, the blocks have now become infiltrated by the informality of los ranchitos and somehow have infused the formal modernist architecture to blend in with the metal roofed shacks. It is ironic that something that was designed in order to prevent the barrios became a barrio in itself, and

18

CARACAS: A CROSSHATCHED CITY

almost promoting the creation of further shacks. Another irony perhaps is that this social housing was built under a military dictatorship and not democratically elected leadership, which seems to be counter-intuitive to the policies upheld by the parties.

Jimenez was and still is a divisive character. On the one hand, Caracas thrived and improved under his leadership, yet also, as a dictator, he incited fear in his people to support him without any other option. Jimenez saw housebuilding as buying loyalty, which is a tactic that has been used throughout Venezuelan history, with Chavez and Maduro also adopting the same mindset, though none as effective as Jimenez’s was.

Through conducting research into Caracas’ past, there seem to be many repetitions throughout the history of the city; an attempt at democracy, overturned through dictatorship that does further the success of the country yet at the expense of its people. Intentions of the rulers come from a want to leave a legacy. An objective look at the result of Jimenez’s dictatorship would not lead someone to the conclusion that his diktat was harmful, yet on deeper observation, the architectures he commissioned reveal a more sinister and authoritarian motive to creation. History suggests that architectural projects can only succeed as intended when the goals of the political dictatorships coincide with the strong will of the Latin American people.

19