urban studies

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjou20

Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability

ISSN: 1754-9175 (Print) 1754-9183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Brasília and Putrajaya: using urban morphology to represent identity and power in national capitals

Joseli Macedo & Levu V. Tran

To cite this article: Joseli Macedo & Levu V. Tran (2013) Brasília and Putrajaya: using urban morphology to represent identity and power in national capitals, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6:2, 139-159, DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2013.820209

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820209

Published online: 01 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 258

View related articles

Brasília and Putrajaya: using urban morphology to represent identity and power in national capitals

Joseli Macedoa* and Levu V. Tranb

aDepartment of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States; bTran Architects, Orlando, United States

Brasília, the national capital of Brazil, and Putrajaya, the new administrative capital of Malaysia, were created generations apart and on different continents. Brasília was cre- ated as an icon of Modernist architecture, while Putrajaya represents the emergence of new symbolic relationships between government and economic prowess. Like most new towns built in the twentieth century, they were made possible by government backing. This paper explores the ideological basis for the production of urban space in the development of seats of national governments. The analysis of Brasília and Putrajaya confirms that governments use urban design in national capitals to represent power.

Keywords: urban morphology; national capitals; new town design; city image; Brasília; Putrajaya

Introduction

The urbanism engendered by national capitals is different from that of other cities, because capital cities are “spaces that represent center points of political power” (Shatkin 2005, 577). Brasília and Putrajaya were built to become the national capitals of their respective countries, and both epitomize the relationship between the spatial and the polit- ical. This relationship is created by urban design focused on placemaking, and urban morphology is used to represent identity and power. Brasília was built to be the seat of Brazil’s federal government; Putrajaya, in addition to being a federal district, is part of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) being developed south of Kuala Lumpur. Both cit- ies are intentional places, made to fulfill specific functions and become iconic places not only within their respective nations but also to the world. Much has been written about these two unique cities, particularly Brasília; however, a comparative analysis of the crea- tion and implementation of these two national capitals suggests that despite their cultural, temporal, and spatial differences, urban design semiotics has been used by each national government to produce an urban space that represents its political power.

While Brasília has been extensively studied from architectural (Kohlsdorf 1996; Braga 1999; El-Dahdah 2005), historical (Evenson 1973; Vitor 1980; Madaleno 1996; Ficher 2005; Batista et al. 2006), sociological (Holanda 2002; Kohlsdorf, Kohlsdorf, and Holan- da 2008; Vale 2008), and anthropological perspectives (Epstein 1973; Holston 1989), most studies of Asia’s new and rapidly expanding cities have focused on their economic role (Ho 1997; Yusuf and Wu 2002; Shatkin 2005). Urban development was the impetus to create these national capitals, both in countries of the global South. Although their

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Urbanism, 2013 Vol. 6, No. 2, 139–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820209

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

development occurred within different contexts and at different times in history, urban design played the same role. An analysis of urban morphology shows how it transcended physical characteristics to represent national identity, reiterate political power, and create cities that personified ideal – and to a certain extent utopian – societies. Thus, because Putrajaya has yet to be completed, it could still learn lessons from the making of Brasília, particularly in terms of urban sustainability. Brasília is an automobile-dependent city, built when sustainability was not even part of the design lexicon. While Putrajaya is not con- sidered a paragon of sustainability, its creators do acknowledge the value of sustainable development (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999, 2004). In addition, other emerging nations considering building new towns as national capitals can learn from the different paths followed by both cities and how each addressed issues not foreseen by their respective plans or by new global trends.

This paper examines how these two capital cities are used as symbols of national identity, whether their development processes were influenced by decisions related to their design, and to what extent their design intended to create unique places while repre- senting the power of their respective national governments. The methodology comprises a review of the literature on the topics of urban design, capital cities, national identity, modern architecture, sustainability, and international development, in addition to the his- tory of development of Brasília and Putrajaya. Urban planning and development theories guide the analysis of the social, economic, and spatial contexts in which these cities were planned, designed, and developed. A comparative analysis explores the semiotic function of urban design and the ideological basis for the production of the urban spaces of these two national capitals and answers questions related to their unique urban design and development. In addition, lessons learned from the development of the two cities are sug- gested, particularly what they can learn from one another. Ultimately, this paper seeks to determine the ways in which urban morphology affects development factors and how these same factors in turn influence the form of urban areas. This research is relevant to urban designers and planners interested in placemaking and the ways urban design has been used to represent the ideology of governments and to create spatial hierarchies that do not always conform to the ideal (utopian?) structures of society.

Capital cities: function and evolution

The role of capital cities as representations of power arises historically from their practi- cal function as centers for organization and control of territory. In Europe, the emergence of capital cities as centers of organization and control of thousands of self-contained settlements was the catalyst for the creation of modern states (Pounds 1989, cited in Rapoport 1993). Campbell (2000, cited in Shatkin 2005, 577) states that capital cities are “symbolic theaters for national ideology, a reflection of the larger national stance towards urbanism, a catalyst for national economic development, and at least historically, a bridge between local culture and the ‘imagined community’ of the nation-state.” Capital cities may represent different forms of primacy and power; they can be centers of commerce, religion, or culture, as well as seats of government. For every function there is a corre- sponding symbolism of the capital city as the location of its strongest expression; thus, capital cities become centers not only of power but of meaning. Capital cities are a prime medium for expressing politically desired meanings (Rapoport 1993).

The monumentality of capital cities reinforces the dichotomy of symbolic power. The grandeur afforded by ample public spaces and the magnificent buildings scattered around them reminds commoners of their insignificance and their subjugation to state power. At

140 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

the same time, it reminds government officials and staff, who consider themselves part of these grand structures, that they hold the power (Edelman 1995; Vale 2008). Edelman explains this dichotomy: “Such spaces legitimate the power of elites and of officials in exactly the same way that they highlight the vulnerability of non-elites.… These mean- ings of public spaces … operate powerfully but subconsciously” (1995, 76–77). Thus, the design of civic space can simultaneously symbolize the power of national leaderships and the alienation of citizens. The dialectical reality of the urban spaces found in capital cities “evoke[s] domination and inequality in everyday life” (77).

Hierarchies can be expressed within urban space through the definition of areas and delimitation of zones that include or exclude certain social groups. The very placement of government buildings within civic space is a representation of political power; political control can be expressed spatially, reinforcing “patterns of dominance and submission” (Vale 2008, 10). In other words, capital cities are usually designed “according to the pri- orities of those who hold power” (46). The design and the plan of capital cities are both created by and serve as the foundation of the political power that chose their form and function in the first place. As such, Brasília’s utopia is represented by a Modernist design, a city conceptualized by self-professed communist architects who wanted to cre- ate a place for an egalitarian society; instead, it became the home of a government presid- ing over one of the countries with the least equitable distribution of wealth in the world (UNDP 2005). Putrajaya’s utopian representation of power lies in the dichotomy of fed- eral administrative buildings represented by symbols of the dominant religious group.

The history, the physical form, and the manner in which urban design serves the government to represent its power in both Brasília and Putrajaya are discussed next. Brasília is discussed in light of the Modernist movement and the extent to which it influ- enced the city’s design. Putrajaya is discussed as one of the integral parts of an autocratic regional plan to place Malaysia within the global technology-based economy, a plan based on a “God–Man–Nature” doctrine infused with Islamic design principles. The analysis of representations of identity and power in these two national capitals reveals that, their apparent differences notwithstanding, urbanism and placemaking were used in both cities in the service of political power.

Brasília

Brasília’s “pilot plan” is classified as Classic Modernist (Kohlsdorf, Kohlsdorf, and Holanda 2008). Evenson (1973, 118) states, “Brasília provided the first opportunity for a comprehensive application of the principles of the Modern Movement to the design of a major city.” Brasília embodies the city model proposed in the manifesto of the Congrés international d’architecture moderne (CIAM) and is considered by many the epitome of Modernism. According to Holston (1984, 1), “the CIAM model remains the most coher- ent and comprehensive theory of the modern city,” and Brasília “is the most complete example ever constructed of the architectural and planning tenets put forward in CIAM manifestos” (3). Brasília’s importance as “a symbol of independence and modernity … not only a planned city but a work of art” (Lang 1994, 60) afforded it the distinction of World Heritage Site designation in 1987 – the first twentieth-century city to achieve such recognition. It is considered “a landmark in the history of town planning” (UNESCO 2008).

Brasília’s monumental urban form and exquisite architecture create an indelible image in the minds of residents and visitors alike. Although those of Brasília’s buildings designed by Oscar Niemeyer are more celebrated, Lúcio Costa was the creator of the

Journal of Urbanism 141

original design known as the pilot plan (Figure 1). Costa proposed and applied the Mod- ernist city prototype, with administration and commercial activities in the center, residen- tial blocks (called superquadras) and their community facilities along the two “wings” of Brasília’s “airplane” design, and leisure areas surrounding the city. The “monumental axis,” extending from the Congress complex on the east side to the bus and train station on the west side, is 8.8 km long, while the “roadway axis” spans 12.4 km in a north– south orientation. Institutional buildings flank the monumental axis, with their façades between 310 and 460 meters apart (Figure 2); residential areas flank the roadway axis, with building façades about 210 meters apart (Kohlsdorf, Kohlsdorf, and Holanda 2008).

The city is for the most part automobile-dependent, but residents have access to sev- eral basic services and retail within the superquadras (El-Dahdah 2005). These large blocks, with buildings regularly placed and widely spaced, embody Le Corbusier’s “city in a garden” idea. Although these neighborhood units are internally walkable, to go

Figure 1. Brasília’s Pilot Plan (Plano Piloto de Brasília). Revista Módulo no. 12, vol. 2, fevereiro 1959, p. 13.

142 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

between them or anywhere else in the city one must drive, as public transportation is scarce. This morphology is contrary to current ideas in sustainable planning: while the walkable neighborhoods where residents have access to daily needs, goods, and services are very desirable, the superquadras, disconnected within the larger urban fabric, are an unsustainable urban form.

The uniformity provided by the superquadras, which at first suggests a perfectly organized urban space, affords an imageability that can be disorienting (Kohlsdorf 1996). In addition, the repeated pattern of superblocks makes it difficult for people to know where they are, as these areas are very similar to one another and there are very few points of reference along the residential axis. The identification of landmarks is challenging, creating difficulties for individual orientation and recogni- tion anywhere outside of the monumental axis. The zoning Costa created is a per- fect example of the city model proposed by Le Corbusier, who was a strong influence on both Niemeyer and Costa. Modernist architecture was used as a proxy for development and “became for the government the symbol of Brazil’s emergence as a modern nation” (Holston 1984, 7). Brasília’s Modernist architecture gave the city its unique aesthetic identity.

The reasons for creating Brasília were numerous. Unlike most postcolonial capitals, Brasília was intended to spur development in the hinterland of the country. A planned, new capital represented a solution to old problems and the beginning of new political and economic perspectives. The modernity that Brasília represented was part of the intended new national identity, and using architecture and urban design to promote this national identity was nothing new (Vale 2008). There was, however, a disconnect between the symbolism of Modern design and the economic reality of Brazil. Modernism was the utopian representation of social equity, but a new capital was not enough to over- come the persistent inequalities of colonial times. In addition, the development of an uninhabited area in the interior of the country was part of a broader policy of spatial deconcentration (Evenson 1973; Gilbert and Gugler 1987; Kohlsdorf 2002). Brasília was intended to be a metaphor for the Brazilian motto, “Order and Progress,” and to portray Brazil as a place of hope and great opportunities.

The proposal to build a new capital for Brazil actually dated back to colonial times. The original proposal was in the Constitution of 1891 (Evenson 1973; Kubitschek 1975; Meade 2003; Batista et al. 2006), but it was only in 1955 that the idea of a new capital became a reality, through the efforts and vision of then President Juscelino Kubitschek.

Figure 2. View of Monumental Axis flanked by Ministry buildings, photo by Joseli Macedo, 2005.

Journal of Urbanism 143

Transferring the country’s capital from Rio de Janeiro to a new area offered an opportu- nity to eliminate political problems, such as corruption, but mostly it represented a boost to economic development (Ficher 2005). President Kubitschek considered the construc- tion of Brasília not only the realization of a dream, but also the fulfillment of his cam- paign slogan, “50 years in 5” (Kubitschek 1975, 15). Between 1956, when the exact location for the city was determined, and its dedication ceremony on 21 April 1960, Pres- ident Kubitschek achieved what many saw as an unrealistic dream: to build a brand-new city in the middle of nowhere.

Brasília met several of the federal government’s goals. First, it did indeed astonish the world with its sudden appearance, modern urban design, and exceptional buildings. It embodied an image of Brazil as a modern and growing industrial country that was signif- icant enough for the world to see: “Brazil was now on the world map for the daring, if controversial, urban planning and architecture developed in Brasília” (Skidmore and Smith 2001, 164). Brasília’s dedication gathered crowds, out of curiosity or skepticism, from all regions of Brazil and from overseas (Vitor 1980). Its recognition as an example of originality and willpower and its symbolism as a representation of the Modernist movement gave it the national and international prominence desired by those who decided to make its 1891 constitutional provision a reality.

The construction of the new capital motivated changes in the economy, provoked a massive migration of laborers to central Brazil, and altered the political environment in the country. Brasília’s creation had symbolic and political consequences. The trans- fer of the capital remained symbolic during the first four years of its implementation, in part because federal employees were not willing to leave Rio de Janeiro and move to Brasília, despite attractive financial incentives offered by the government. In addi- tion, several authorities, including Kubitschek’s successor, President Jânio Quadros, strongly opposed the transfer. It was only between 1964 and 1970, a period that coin- cides with the first years of the military dictatorship (installed 31 March 1964), that the federal government actually moved to the new capital in the hinterlands (Vitor 1980). The 1964 military coup was not related to the construction of the new capital, but once the authoritarian regime was in power, civil servants and military personnel were obliged to relocate to Brasília.

The attempt to restore the primacy of capital functions in a capital city was in great part the motivation behind Brazil’s creation of Brasília. The new capital was created to represent a new country, but despite this effort to create a city in a new image, in time Brasília started resembling other Brazilian cities. Green open spaces on the outskirts of town, meant to be places where a classless society would gather and mingle, were subdi- vided for the wealthy to build luxury homes, while blue-collar workers and lower-income families were relegated to satellite cities, living in substandard housing and commuting long distances for access to jobs (Madaleno 1996; Scott 1998; Meade 2003). The chaotic nature of the development surrounding the pilot plan compromised its “purity” (Evenson 1973, 152). Today, Brasília is still an icon of Modernism; it also represents the power of the federal government; but it has failed in its attempt to solve old urban problems. Exclusion in Brasília is as pervasive as in any other Brazilian city, and the utopia of social and spatial equity has yet to be realized.

Putrajaya

National pride plays a central role in the development of Putrajaya. The “Made by Malaysians” seal symbolizes independence, capacity, and prowess. The idea of building

144 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

Putrajaya dates back to the 1980s, but construction began only in 1995 (Colombijn 2005). Putrajaya is part of the massive project that created the Multimedia Super Corri- dor, a 25-year plan for an area 15 km wide by 50 km long, south of the current capital, Kuala Lumpur. The Fifth Malaysia Plan (1991–1995) launched the MSC and outlined the structure of a government initiative known as Wawasan 2020 (Vision 2020). The main goal of Vision 2020 was to remove Malaysia from the list of third-world countries and place it among the developed economies of the world by the year 2020 (Bunnell 2004; Perbadanan Putrajaya 2004; Colombijn 2005; King 2008; Moser 2010). This technology- based plan, anchored by two “intelligent cities,” Putrajaya and Cyberjaya, was intended to build a strong foundation for the information technology industry, strategically placing Malaysia in a prominent place on the world stage (Bunnell 2004; Colombijn 2005).

The site for the development of the new capital was a vast piece of land, formerly an oil-palm plantation, 25 km south of Kuala Lumpur and halfway between the city center and the new airport. Four plantation estates with a total of about 2400 residents occupied the site prior to development (Bunnell 2002, 2004). Construction of this megaproject started in 1995 and continued despite the economic recession in Asia between 1998 and 2000. The project was shrouded in a veil of secrecy during the early development phase, until 2002 when it was opened to the public for the first time. The last of the three con- struction phases is currently under way; completion is projected for 2015 (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999). The population of the fully developed city is expected to be 320,000, which implies a demand for about 64,000 housing units (PPJ 2008). Bunnell (2002) argues that there is a lack of affordable housing in Putrajaya, particularly housing that would be accessible to the former residents of the area; he estimates that the units consid- ered “affordable” (about 10,000) are priced well beyond what former residents can afford. The settlements emerging in the MSC region target middle- and high-income households employed by high-tech industries; nonetheless, “there are also segmented pockets of poverty, deprivation, and socio-spatially marginal groups such as squatters and illegal immigrants” (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002, 368).

The decision to move the federal government’s administration from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya was formalized in June 1993, and the final plan, developed under the prime minister’s close supervision, was formally accepted in February 1995 (Bunnell 2002; King 2007, 2008). The first government departments moved their operations to Putrajaya in 1999, when the new Federal Government Administrative Center was open to the pub- lic and the prime minister declared the new administrative capital a federal territory (PPJ 2008). Today, Malaysia, a country of 27 million people, has in effect two national capi- tals: the area in the state of Selangor, where Kuala Lumpur is located, remains under fed- eral control; only the executive and judiciary branches of government have relocated to Putrajaya.

The first megaproject in the region that attempted to increase global recognition for the country was the Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC), which included, among several other buildings, the Petronas Twin Towers, the highest buildings in the world at the time of completion. The second megaproject was the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002; Bunnell 2004; Colombijn 2005; Moser 2010). The MSC implementation strategy was to build the KLIA 50 km south of KLCC; upgrade and build the transportation systems to link the city to the airport; and subsequently build Putrajaya, Cyberjaya, and an industrial park between the two cities. The MSC is subdivided into several planning areas (Figure 3): KLIA, Airport City, Putra- jaya, Cyberjaya, Cyber Village, Tele-Suburb, and high-tech parks for research and devel- opment. KLIA was completed in 1998, and Airport City supports it as a service center.

Journal of Urbanism 145

Cyberjaya, occupying 7000 acres, housed about 400 companies by the end of 2006 (MSC 2008). Tele-Suburb is a pilot project for residential information technology.

Putrajaya, now owned by the Malaysian government, occupies 11,320 acres, with about half reserved for government buildings, more than a third devoted to green space, and a quarter residential (Yuen, Ahmad, and Ho 2006). The amount of area set aside for green open space is an example of the value placed on sustainable development by the city’s creators (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999, 2004). While Putrajaya is being built to be the new administrative capital of Malaysia, Cyberjaya will serve as the Malaysian infor- mation technology headquarters. In other words, Cyberjaya is Malaysia’s Silicon Valley, an abutting twin city to Putrajaya but with completely different functions (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002; King 2007).

A man-made, two-branched lake resulting from the drainage of the former palm-forest wetland is the main feature of the city and creates a two-kilometer island that contains part of the main linear axis (Figure 4). Putrajaya Lake and Putrajaya Wetlands mimic the process of water purification afforded by natural wetlands and were designed to control water pollution and to replicate an “environmentally friendly ecosystem” (Yuen, Ahmad, and Ho 2006, 235). The city is structured along a major boulevard that serves as a stage for major celebrations and parades (Figure 5). The squares (called dataran) along the 4.2 km boulevard serve as nodes that connect with other areas of the city. The dataran are also gateways, standing symbolically along the ceremonial axis framed by govern- ment buildings. There are five precincts along the main axis, named according to their major function: government, commercial, civic and cultural, mixed development, and sports and recreational. The northernmost and southernmost precincts are off the two- kilometer island created by the branching of the lake. Surrounding the core, there are 15 other precincts of various sizes, 12 of which are residential neighborhoods and 3 that comprise parks and other public amenities. Each residential precinct is designed to include community centers, schools, hospitals, shopping centers, mosques, and parks (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999; Moser 2010).

Figure 3. Multimedia Super Corridor, illustration by Levu V. Tran, 2008.

146 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

Figure 4. Putrajaya’s Master Plan (Perbadanan Putrajaya, 2004).

Journal of Urbanism 147

Putrajaya is connected to KLCC and KLIA by rail. In 12 years (1990–2002), more than 260 km of rail (light rail, monorail and electrified double-track) was built in the Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area; however, there is not sufficient integration among the different systems, and use has decreased despite their extension and reach (Bunnell, Bar- ter, and Morshidi 2002). In the area, connected to but not running through the city, there are also two expressways meant to serve the entire MSC. Putrajaya’s five precincts, located along the central boulevard, are connected to one another and to the surrounding areas across the lake by several vehicular and pedestrian bridges called jambatan (Figure 6); one is a suspension monorail bridge. In addition, there are gondola-like ves- sels (perahu) and other passenger boats to complement the transportation system.

New towns are not a novelty for Malaysians, who have long been influenced by the British tradition of new town planning. The Kuala Lumpur region known as Klang Valley

Figure 5. View of Putrajaya’s main boulevard, photo by Levu V. Tran, 2006.

148 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

alone has over 40 new towns, most of them developed by rubber and oil-palm plantation corporations (Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002). Putrajaya is a planned city, “a dream of the space of a new form of nation” (King 2007, 117); but, as with most new capitals, the representation of a new national identity is always inspired by previous forms and designs (Vale 2008). Malaysia’s multicultural reality is not reflected in Putrajaya’s plan and architecture, which strongly evince the country’s colonial heritage and its ties to Islam, the national religion as designated by the constitution. Putrajaya’s master plan embodies the philosophy “God–Man–Nature” and applies Islamic design principles, with its axis oriented toward Mecca. Metaphorically, the resulting urban pattern is “symbolic to and symbiotic with nature” (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999). Sixty percent of the country’s population is Muslim. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups have a strong presence in urban areas, but Putrajaya’s design does not reveal their influence (Holland 2001; Colombijn 2005; Moser 2010). These ties between religion and government may be problematic; even when there is a national religion, the iconography of buildings may not be enough to consolidate the national identity (Rasdi 2005; Vale 2008). In addition, the project of a new capital is always associated with the regime that implemented it, both politically and iconographically. Perhaps, more than creating a national identity, the goal

Figure 6. Putrajaya’s five main precincts connected to surrounding areas by bridges called Jambatan, schematic illustration by Levu V. Tran, 2008.

Journal of Urbanism 149

was to create an “identity in the eyes of an international audience” (Vale 2008, 60) and not necessarily one that reflected the ethnic diversity found in the country.

Putrajaya has been developed rather quickly and we will have to wait a few more years to see whether it fulfills the intentions of its master plan and how successful it will be, not only as a capital city but also as a regional and global hub. Although the city’s name has become “synonymous with the ideal architecture of statehood” (Rasdi 2005, 74), Putrajaya has yet to be accepted as the sole national capital. The intended semiotics and the iconography used to represent the current ruling class afforded by the architecture and the urban design of Putrajaya will certainly change as the city consolidates its devel- opment. As Vale (2008, 61) says of capital cities, they “gain meanings that their sponsors could not possibly have anticipated.” Several authors have recognized that Mahathir Mohamad, who served as prime minister for 22 years, has been largely responsible for the making of the city (Holland 2001; Bunnell 2002; Bunnell, Barter, and Morshidi 2002; King 2007, 2008; Moser 2010). Putrajaya might not have been possible were it not for Mahathir Mohamad’s unopposed and authoritarian tenure as prime minister from 1981 to 2003 (Colombijn 2005). His role in the planning and implementation of Malay- sia’s megaprojects is a clear indication of his political power and his influence in the cre- ation of this global city. His successor (2003–2009), Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was not as supportive of the enterprise, but “Malaysia’s political hegemonists” (King 2008, 221) did not share in his rejection of Putrajaya; thus it is likely the city will continue to thrive. It remains to be seen whether Mahathir Mohamad’s intention to represent power through the urban morphology of Putrajaya will materialize as the city continues coping with changes imposed by successive administrations as well as those occasioned by unintended development.

Two national capitals

National capitals represent power in several ways. They are “designed to manifest spe- cific fundamental political values” while at the same time being “understood as an expression of these values” (Sonne 2003, 312). They celebrate government and constitute places that serve as foci of power not only for their residents but for entire societies, and, as such, they symbolically belong to the nations they represent (Evenson 1973). When the construction of Brasília began, Malaysia was not even an independent country. Having achieved independence from Britain in 1957, it is a young nation with an ancient culture. In a short time, Malaysia has become one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia, and Putrajaya has benefitted from this unprecedented economic growth. Even though the creations of these two cities were a couple of generations apart, there are several similarities and differences between Brasília and Putrajaya that are worth exploring.

Although Brasília was built in less than five years, it took a coup d’état to populate it. Putrajaya, on the other hand, like many new towns in Asia, is an answer to the unprecedented urban growth occurring in the region. While Brasília was built to attract population to an unpopulated area, Putrajaya’s creation is part of an effort by the Malaysian government to mitigate the enormous population growth in Kuala Lumpur, only 25 km to the north. In addition to attempting a more controlled approach to advanc- ing the nation’s economy by separating the administrative and economic functions of the capital city, the Malaysian government is taking a regional approach to planning. As such, Putrajaya is the heart of the MSC and, together with Cyberjaya (the technological capital), part of an encompassing regional plan for economic development on a global

150 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

scale. Brasília was part of a national plan to bring development to the hinterland of a continent-sized country whose population was concentrated on its Atlantic seaboard. Politically, Brasília was also a response to the need to reduce the social conflicts found in the overpopulated coastal cities (Kohlsdorf 2002). However, Brasília was not part of a regional plan; the satellite cities surrounding it were (and to a certain extent still are) physically disconnected from the pilot plan and not integrated with it through transporta- tion or any other networks.

Brasília’s pilot plan was effectively implemented, but its architects did not foresee the informal settlements and satellite cities that would emerge around it. To a certain extent, the development of these settlements was a consequence of the spatially limited nature of the capital’s design. Putrajaya is still under implementation; completion is set for 2015, and although its development has been somewhat hindered by citizen opposition and financial crisis, the government has proceeded with the project. Brasília’s design is grounded on egalitarian Modernist principles, but the formal arrangement and intimidat- ing scale of government buildings calls attention to the three powers of government - executive, legislative, and judiciary - and their accompanying bureaucracy. Intentionally or not, the resulting urban space imparts power. Putrajaya’s architectural and urban quali- ties, though very different from Brasília’s, not only convey governmental power but also validate and enhance the national religion. Wide boulevards dwarf and intimidate, just as in Brasília, and the scale of the buildings subconsciously reminds citizens who holds the power (Edelman 1995). Putrajaya’s design is less geometric and orthogonal, but it is still structured, and the strategically positioned exemplars of Islamic-inspired architecture impress and impose.

The creation of both Brasília and Putrajaya was intrinsically related to national iden- tity. In the case of Brasília, it was important for the federal government to portray Brazil as a modern and promising country worldwide. Creating a new capital completely detached from all major cities, most of them laden with colonial pasts, and building it in a Modernist architectural style, a recognized international style, was the perfect answer. Putrajaya is part of a more ambitious enterprise. Malaysia, too, sought worldwide recog- nition; but, more than anything, the developing nation needed to become a player in the global economy to meet development goals and fulfill national ambitions. Thus, Putrajaya, an essential part of a regional, technology-based plan, also became the federal administrative capital of Malaysia. This new city gave Malaysia an opportunity for a new national identity detached from its former global gateway, the congested Kuala Lumpur.

National identity, global recognition and international design

Brazil and Malaysia had several reasons to build their new national capitals, but the most important may have been a need to project the cities (and their respective countries) onto the global scene, to be recognized by more and less developed nations alike. Shatkin (2005, 581) argues that national governments use capital cities “as a means to attract capital, and to instill in their citizens a confidence in the power of global integration to transform their societies.” If not environmentally or economically sustainable, Brasília had great potential for social equity; however, it did not transform Brazilian society and in time became like many other stratified cities developed from a colonial tradition. Whether Putrajaya will be able to achieve the goal of transforming Malaysian society we do not yet know. King (2007, 136) argues that Putrajaya is both colonized and colonizing and that “its hope lies in yet further colonizations.” Urban problems, particularly those of a social nature, reveal shortcomings and failures of governments (Shatkin 2005).

Journal of Urbanism 151

Brasília’s objective was related to nationalization; a development of national scale would certainly ensure a representative place for this city in the world theater. Putrajaya’s main objective is related to Malaysia’s plans to become a global center; this globalization process is occurring in several other city-regions in Southeast Asia (Shatkin 2007).

The genesis of these two cities involved a choice among many. A design competition took place to choose the appropriate development scheme for Brasília; several architects, some working in teams, submitted seven proposals, and Lúcio Costa’s (Costa 1957) was chosen from among them (Evenson 1973; Braga 1999; Kohlsdorf, Kohlsdorf, and Holanda 2008). Putrajaya carried out a competition of sorts: six local consulting firms were invited to develop five schemes together with the Planning and Public Works Departments, and the prime minister selected the final proposal (Perbadanan Putrajaya 1999; Moser 2010). Even though they were built generations apart, the City Beautiful movement inspired the design of both cities, and both have elements of Ebenezer How- ard’s utopian Garden City model and Le Corbusier’s “city in a garden.” Present in both designs are the plazas, planned vistas, formal architecture, and grand streets and boule- vards of Daniel Burnham’s Chicago. Both cities have formal, structured elements that exemplify the classical principles of symmetry, order, and regularity of the City Beautiful movement, e.g. Brasília’s monumental and road axes and Putrajaya’s central boulevard; and both have the informal, organic elements typical of the Garden City model, e.g. Brasília’s green belt and Putrajaya’s precincts, with design reminiscent of Letchworth and Welwyn.

In addition to City Beautiful and Garden City elements, both Brasília and Putrajaya have added layers of Modernism. In fact, even though satellite cities – a salient feature of Howard’s utopian model – were planned beyond Brasília’s green belt, the Garden City label was never attached to it; instead, it is regarded as Le Corbusier’s “city in a garden,” epitomizing modernity. Furthermore, although modern designers accepted some of the principles established by the Garden City movement, they “remained convinced that the high-density metropolis was the natural habitat of modern man” (Evenson 1973, 118–119). Putrajaya, on the other hand, despite its technology-based plan, so aspired to be a Garden City that its preliminary scheme was titled “The Garden City Concept.” This plan was presented in early February 1994 and selected from among several proposals by Prime Minister Mahathir and his cabinet for adoption as the conceptual master plan for Putrajaya (Ho 2006; Moser 2010). As with most cities that based their design on Howard’s utopian model, Putrajaya’s design was adapted to conform to the site’s topography and other constraints that dictated the final form of the city.

At the time of its creation, Brasília’s ambitions were not as lofty as Putrajaya’s. While Brasília had the dual purpose of urbanizing the interior and showing the world that Brazil could be a modern country, Putrajaya’s mission is to place Malaysia in the competitive global scene – a small Islamic country competing not only with Asian nations but also with the larger capitalist powers in America and Europe. As King (2007, 133) puts it, “the imaging of Putrajaya fits a grander agenda.” Just as Brasília represented an international architectural style not reminiscent of anything else in Brazil, Putrajaya is not a representation of the Malay architectural tradition: Putrajaya’s style “is not that of the kampungs, masjids and istanas of the Malay tradition” (King 2007, 135).

The need to create national identity and to achieve global recognition drove the creation of Brasília and Putrajaya, but the levels of development spurred by the construc- tion of these two cities could not be predicted as clearly as their morphology. Brasília and Putrajaya had different missions within the larger context of their nations; thus the consequences of their development were bound to differ as well.

152 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

Development strategies and consequences

Brasília was developed by NOVACAP, a company created especially to implement the new national capital (Kubitschek 1975; Holston 1989). NOVACAP was responsible for implementing the project, but the federal government of Brazil was the city’s “owner.” Putrajaya is a hybrid enterprise; it was developed by Perbadanan Putrajaya (Putrajaya Corporation) and, while controlled by the prime minister, it is owned by Putrajaya Holdings (King 2007). Both Brasília and Putrajaya came to be much more quickly than cities whose growth is gradual and responsive to development demands. Although it took longer to effectively transfer the national capital to Brasília, the city itself was built in four years. Putrajaya was conceived as part of a 25-year national plan, but was also developed in a relatively short time, despite the late-1990s Asian economic crisis. One important difference between these two cities is that Brasília was a very expensive endea- vor for the Brazilian federal budget; it took several generations to pay back the loans taken out to build the new capital. Putrajaya’s construction has been financed by national oil revenues. No international resources have been used. The city represents a consider- able amount of the country’s GDP (King 2007, 2008).

One of the consequences of large-scale development and fast growth is socio-spatial inequality. Today, the pilot plan of Brasília is surrounded by low- and middle-income communities whose residents were excluded from the city’s projected growth, and by informal settlements formed by families who cannot afford to live in those communities, much less in the core (Holanda 2002). The development of Putrajaya also caused the displacement and exclusion of lower socio-economic groups (Bunnell 2002). The relocation of thousands of families was justified with reference to the need to build new and extensive infrastructure as well as to develop highly technological features for the city. Unless the former oil-plantation workers learn the skills necessary to become part of

Figure 7. Brasília’s Cathedral, photo by Joseli Macedo, 2005.

Journal of Urbanism 153

a high-tech community, there will be no place for them in Putrajaya – just as there was no place in Brasília for the migrant workers who built it.

Semiotics in architecture and urbanism

Brasília is a truly secular city – despite the existence of a cathedral (Figure 7) along the monumental axis – while Putrajaya has assumed an Islamic character through the archi- tectural style of most of its buildings (Figure 8). While Brasília was meant to be and remains an icon of Modern architecture, Putrajaya has transferred a religious form to both institutional and commercial buildings, with shopping centers and hotels that resemble mosques (Rasdi 2005; King 2007). In addition, some buildings in Putrajaya are reminis- cent of colonial British architecture, which could be considered a strong link to colonial- ism, not a symbol of independence and newness as represented in the architecture of Brasília. This phenomenon supports Vale’s contention that the design of government buildings can be used to “reinforce existing patterns of dominance and submission” (Vale 2008, 10) and that architecture has been used in the postcolonial world not only to house newly established democracies but also to advance the status of new regimes.

The urban morphology of each city represents the power of its federal government. The main axis in Brasília celebrates legislative power, with the Congress complex presid- ing over one end of the axis and ministry buildings flanking it (Figure 9). In Putrajaya, the executive branch of government is celebrated, with the prime minister’s office located at the head of the axis (Figure 10). Another parallel that can be drawn between the two cities is related to the executive power that spurred their creation and implementation. The driving force behind Brasília was President Juscelino Kubitschek, who presided over the planning and construction of the new capital but was no longer in power when the

Figure 8. Putrajaya’s Palace of Justice, photo by Levu V. Tran, 2008.

154 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

capital effectively moved to the new city. Mahathir Mohamad not only spearheaded the development of Putrajaya but also designed and micro-managed every detail.

Brasília and Putrajaya have both become icons in their respective countries. The former is today a mature (though still young) city that has begun to experience urban problems common to cities that had a very different beginning. The latter is too young (and new) for us to determine what kinds of problems it might have as its urban area consolidates and population grows. Will Brasília address its social and spatial equity problems in an innovative and unprecedented way to parallel its creation? Will Putrajaya become the de facto capital of Malaysia while mitigating the population growth problems of Kuala Lumpur?

Figure 9. View of Brasília’s Congress complex, photo by Joseli Macedo, 2005.

Figure 10. Putrajaya’s Prime Minister’s complex, photo by Levu V. Tran, 2008.

Journal of Urbanism 155

Two representations of power

This paper has examined the contrasting development processes of two capital cities and how their respective national governments have used their design as representations of power. The comparison between Brasília and Putrajaya confirmed that national capitals, even if created and developed in different eras and within different contexts, still require administrative determination in the form of government involvement. It also revealed that new towns created to be national capitals represent several intentions and meanings. As Rapoport (1993, 35) asserts: “Although meaning is central for the understanding of all environments, it is even more so for capitals. Whatever the culture-specific meanings, capitals and their central enclaves exhibit the highest levels of meaning.” Beyond differ- ences and similarities between these two cities, a larger lesson for nations intending to build national capitals can be drawn from this research.

Brasília was the creation of idealistic designers who stood by their ideal of inventing a communal city, a city whose Modernist design represented the social ideology of the time. It is considered to represent “the first time that the abstraction and the social agenda of modernism were applied to the national capital of a major country” (Vale 2008, 121). Lúcio Costa proposed a socialist-inspired design, intending to build a city with egalitarian spaces, public spaces that would allow people from different social and economic strata to interact (Scott 1998; Holanda 2002; Meade 2003), and where all social classes would live and work together in a shared urban area. He conceived of a more socially equal urban environment, but did not anticipate the cultural consequences of moving distinct groups of people from traditional colonial urban patterns to the supreme utopian city.

The impoverished satellite cities that formed around the pilot plan are the most striking representation of the local consequences of the Brazilian modernistic endeavor. Would there be more social and spatial equity if the conceptual fathers of Brasília had planned the entire federal district, making provisions for all possible groups that would populate the central plateau of Brazil? Could the inhabitants of satellite cities have been economically, socially, and politically integrated into the life of the pilot plan, while being spatially segregated from it to preserve the original design? These can only be con- jectures in the case of Brasília; however, other new towns may benefit from its lessons.

What can Putrajaya learn from Brasília? The fact that the entire Kuala Lumpur metro- politan area is being planned and that Putrajaya is but a component of the Multimedia Super Corridor within this area suggests that the context within which the city is being built has been taken into account. Nonetheless, the fact that there is no housing afford- able to low- and middle-income families and no jobs for former residents of the area indicates that some groups are being excluded from Putrajaya’s promising future. Will the desire for social status and political power take precedence over the high-tech utopian ideal that spurred the development of this global Asian city?

Putrajaya’s development has been characterized by monumentality, dictatorial power, and state-based capitalism (Bunnell 2002). The city has been characterized as a “deliber- ate act” (Rasdi 2005, 78), which afforded it a forced, manufactured identity. Though designated a federal district and the administrative capital of Malaysia, Putrajaya differs from Brasília in that it is not the “true” national capital, because the parliament and the king, in addition to all embassies and the United Nations office, are still in Kuala Lumpur. If Putrajaya is to be regarded as the national capital, not only by Malaysians but also by the international community, all branches of government will need to locate there. But if Putrajaya becomes the one and only national capital of Malaysia, the land where Kuala Lumpur is located will have to be returned to the state of Selangor, unless the

156 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

terms of the 1974 agreement that established it as a federal district are changed (King 2008). If the Malaysian government and bureaucracy remain split between the two cities, Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur may become the first example of a metropolitan national capital, with the “true” capital being the metropolitan area as whole, not a single city within it.

Will the lack of transparency surrounding the MSC enterprise compromise social accountability? Most literature on Asian capitals has focused on “the politics of urban form” and “on the role of government in exerting direct political and social control over urban development in an effort to shape the nation-building process” (Shatkin 2005, 600). Conversely, the focus of studies about Brasília has been the semiotic function of urban design (Kohlsdorf 1996; Holanda 2002). The ideological basis for the creation of Brasília was unquestionably socialist; however, the resulting urban space turned out to be exclusionary. Whether the “multimedia utopia elaborated in representations of Putrajaya and high-tech MSC discourse” (Bunnell 2002) is going to allow social and spatial equity for all Malaysians remains to be seen.

It is undeniable that the urban morphology of Brasília and Putrajaya has both influenced and been affected by development factors. It is also evident that both national governments exploited the semiotics of urban design in the production of urban space (Edelman 1995; Sonne 2003; Vale 2008). However, the opportunity to build a new national capital is a rare event, and neither Brasília nor Putrajaya could have happened without government involvement. In fact, the analysis of these two cities suggests that not only government involvement but a strong hand is necessary to implement national capitals. In the case of Brasília, a visionary democratic government effected the city’s construction, but its occupation required the authoritarian rule of a military dictatorship. Putrajaya is itself the product of an authoritarian ruler, whose vision might not have been realized without his power of decision and control of national finances.

One lesson Putrajaya seems to have learned, not only from Brasília but also from other capital cities, is that regional plans yield better results than isolated designs. As part of the MSC, Putrajaya has the potential to surmount the problem of being a civil-service town, isolated from other economic centers, dependent on subsidies and not able to rely on alternative sources of revenue. Like Brasília, though, Putrajaya will still have to over- come the stigma of being a drain on precious resources that perhaps could have been used more wisely elsewhere. The economic basis for the creation of the MSC seems to be a more viable way to fund the construction of a new capital than the loans and gov- ernment funds that were used to build Brasília. The hybrid character of the funding for Putrajaya represents the emergence of new symbolic relationships between government and economic prowess, while showing that public–private partnerships can engender economic feasibility but still allow government control.

The comparison of Brasília with Putrajaya suggests that even capital cities built by national governments need to have an economic basis to endure and prosper. Government may still be the defining force and use urban morphology to represent dominance and control, but if a capital city has additional functions and an alternative economic base it has a better chance of succeeding as a city. The use of urban design to create and enhance symbols of power has been part of virtually every development process of the capital cities that have been especially created to be seats of government. The analysis of these two capital cities, although they were planned and built generations apart, demonstrates that the production of urban spaces is generally grounded on an ideological basis and that urban design has a strong semiotic function. In addition to embodying national pride, these capital cities offer evidence that emerging economies can also build

Journal of Urbanism 157

modern, “first world” cities, bringing them much-craved international recognition. Further research should analyze how urban design has been used to represent power in the devel- opment of other new towns, not necessarily national capitals, be it the power of govern- ments, corporations, or (ideally) the people who will live in them.

Notes on Contributors Joseli Macedo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida. She is an architect and urbanist whose research focuses on urban design and international development planning. Her most recent articles on these topics appear in the Journal of Planning History, the Bulletin of Latin American Research, Cities, and Housing Studies. She has also published book chapters and contributed to UN’s Global Report on Human Settlements.

Levu V. Tran graduated from the University of Florida with Master’s Degrees in both Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning. He has been a practicing architect and urbanist for over 20 years and has worked in the US and several other countries. He is currently working for a US-based multi-disciplinary design firm and most of his projects are in Asia and Southeast Asia.

References Batista, G. N., S. Ficher, F. Leitão, and D. Alves de Franca. 2006. “Brasília: A Capital in the

Hinterland.” In Planning Twentieth-Century Capital Cities, edited by D. L. A. Gordon, 164– 181. New York: Routledge.

Braga, M. L. A., 1999. “O Concurso de Brasília.” Unpublished thesis, FAU-USP. Bunnell, T. 2002. “Multimedia Utopia? A Geographical Critique of High-Tech Development in

Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor.” Antipode 34 (2): 265–295. Bunnell, T. 2004. Malaysia, Modernity, and the Multimedia Supercorridor: A Critical Geography

of Intelligent Landscapes. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Bunnell, T., P. A. Barter, and S. Morshidi. 2002. “Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area.” Cities 19

(5): 357–370. Colombijn, F. 2005. “Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: High Hopes versus a Low Profile.” In Direc-

tors of Urban Change in Asia, edited by P. J. M. Nas, 83–109. New York: Routledge. Costa, L. 1957. “Relatório do Plano Piloto de Brasília.” Módulo 3 (8): 29–48. Edelman, M. 1995. From Art to Politics: How Artistic Creations Shape Political Conceptions.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. El-Dahdah, F. 2005. Lúcio Costa, Brasília’s Superquadra. Munich: Prestel. Epstein, D. G. 1973. Brasília, Plan and Reality: A Study of Planned and Spontaneous Urban

Development. Berkeley: University of California Press. Evenson, N. 1973. Two Brazilian Capitals: Architecture and Urbanism in Rio de Janeiro and

Brasília. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ficher, S. 2005. “Brasília e Seu Plano Piloto.” In Urbanismo no Brasil 1895–1965, edited by

M. C. S. Leme, 230–239. Edufba: Salvador. Gilbert, A., and J. Gugler. 1987. Cities, Poverty, and Development: Urbanization in the Third

World. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Ho, K. C. 1997. “The Global Economy and Urban Society in Pacific Asia.” International Sociol-

ogy 12 (3): 275–293. Ho, C. S., 2006. “Putrajaya – Administrative Center of Malaysia – Planning Concept and Imple-

mentation.” In Sustainable Urban Development and Governance Conference at SungKyunK- wan University, Seoul, Korea, November 16, 2006.

Holanda, F. R. B. 2002. O espaço de exceção. Brasília: Editora da Universidade de Brasília. Holland, L. 2001. “Birth of a City.” Far Eastern Economic Review 164 (18): 61–62. Holston, J. 1984. On Modernism and Modernization: The Modernist City in Development, the

Case of Brasília. Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Working Paper 23. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.

Holston, J. 1989. The Modernist City: An Anthropological Critique of Brasilia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

158 J. Macedo and L.V. Tran

King, R. 2007. “Re-Writing the City: Putrajaya as Representation.” Journal of Urban Design 12 (1): 117–138.

King, R. 2008. Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya: Negotiating Urban Space in Malaysia. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Kohlsdorf, M. E. 1996. Orientation and Identification in Great Brasilia, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements. Working Paper Series, 91, 49–82. Berkeley: International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments.

Kohlsdorf, M. E. 2002. Interação Social, Identidade Cultural e Espaço Urbano no Brasil: As Metamorfoses do Sec. XX, In: Internationales Kolloquium Perspektiven des Urbanen Raums at Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, November 29, 2002.

Kohlsdorf, M. E., G. Kohlsdorf, and F. Holanda. 2008. “Brasília, Permanence and Transforma- tions.” In Contemporary Urbanism in Brazil: Beyond Brasília, edited by V. del Rio and W. Sie- mbieda, 42–64. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Kubitschek, J. 1975. Por que Construí Brasília. Rio de Janeiro: Bloch. Lang, J. 1994. Urban Design: The American Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Madaleno, I. M. 1996. “Brasilia: The Frontier Capital.” Cities 13 (4): 273–280. Meade, T. A. 2003. A Brief History of Brazil. New York: Facts On File. Moser, S. 2010. “Putrajaya: Malaysia’s New Federal Administrative Capital.” Cities 27 (4):

285–297. MSC 2008. MSC (Multimedia Super Corridor) Malaysia website. Accessed March 22. http://www.

mscmalaysia.my/topic/Company+Directory. PPJ 2008. Perbadanan Putrajaya website. Accessed March 22. http://www.ppj.gov.my/portal/page?

_pageid=233,131163&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. Perbadanan Putrajaya. 1999. Putrajaya Wetlands. Putrajaya: Perbadanan Putrajaya. Perbadanan Putrajaya. 2004. Putrajaya Masterplan – Federal Government Administrative Centre

of Putrajaya. Putrajaya: Perbadanan Putrajaya. Rapoport, A. 1993. “On the Nature of Capitals and Their Physical Expression.” In Capital Cities:

International Perspectives = Les Capitales: Perspectives Internationales, edited by J. Taylor, J. G. Lengellé, and C. Andrew, 31–67. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Rasdi, M. T. M. 2005. Malaysian Architecture: Crisis within. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan. Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition

Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Shatkin, G. 2005. “Colonial Capital, Modernist Capital, Global Capital: The Changing Political

Symbolism of Urban Space in Metro Manila, the Philippines.” Pacific Affairs 78 (4): 577–600. Shatkin, G. 2007. “Global Cities of the South: Emerging Perspectives on Growth and Inequality.”

Cities 24 (1): 1–15. Skidmore, T. E., and P. H. Smith. 2001. Modern Latin America. New York: Oxford University

Press. Sonne, W. 2003. Representing the State: Capital City Planning in the Early Twentieth Century.

Munich: Prestel. UNDP. 2005. Human Development Report 2005: International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid,

Trade and Security in an Unequal World. New York: United Nations Development Pro- gramme.

UNESCO, 2008. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. World Heritage/Brasília, Brazil, n. 445, brief description. Accessed March 24. http://whc.unesco.org/ en/list/445.

Vale, L. J. 2008. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Vitor, E. D. 1980. História de Brasília: 1ª edição, Comemorativa do 20° Aniversário da mudança

da Capital Federal. Brasília: Thesaurus. Yuen, B., S. Ahmad, and C. S. Ho. 2006. “Malaysia.” In Urbanization and Sustainability in Asia:

Case Studies of Good Practice, edited by B. Roberts and T. Kanaley, 223–243. Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Yusuf, S., and W. Wu. 2002. “Pathways to a World City: Shanghai Rising in an Era of Globalisation.” Urban Studies 39 (7): 1213–1240.

Journal of Urbanism 159