DENSIFICATION OF A LOW-RISE CITY

Santiago de is densifying fast and providing better access to the city services and opportunities for the low- and middle-income citizens. But, at the same time, there are many side- effects that this densification process is generating: residual spaces left between towers, decreased value of surrounding low-rise dwellings, collapsing urban infrastructure, increased security concerns inside dense high-rise buildings, and quickly densified residential neighborhoods that skipped directly from a lack of local retail to having mega shopping centers as their main public space. Leaving all in the hands of private real estate developers, with a very loose land use law and without requiring much urban infrastructure improvement, has led to ugly and unsustainable development of the city. A big issue that incentivizes this poor quality development is that de Chile does not have a popular elected government for the city as a whole. As Santiago is the capital of the country and hosts 40% of the Chilean population, the cause probably remains in the enormous political power that a Mayor of Santiago might have and the tension that might occur between the Mayor of Santiago and the President of Chile. This issue is the main factor for Santiago’s lack of an overarching comprehensive urban plan to manage densification. Urban development in Santiago is regulated mainly by each Municipality separately. Santiago is a city that gathers 32 Municipalities; each one of these neighborhoods has different political authorities (with different interests). The quality of public spaces in Santiago is strongly characterized by the monetary resources of its neighbors.. The “Plan Regulador” is the zoning plan that every Municipality has for its own territory. This Plan acts together with the “Ordenanza Municipal”, the code that explains the allowance for every zoning area inside the Plan. The Plan Regulador and the Ordenanza Municipal are above the “Ordenanza General de Urbanismo y Construccion”, the general code that rules construction and urban development in the whole country. Every Municipality designs and modifies its “Plan Regulador”, driven by political interests and the monetary resources that the local government might achieve when real estate interests are focused within its boundaries. Usually, local governments of low-income districts don’t want to rigidify their urban regulations because they earn revenues when development occurs inside their territories. In the last essay, I presented the diminishing effects of densification in Santiago. But as Edward Glasser states, “If the future is going to be greener, then it must be more urban. Dense cities offer a means of living that involve less driving and smaller homes to heat and cool”1. Dense cities are good in many aspects, specially in Santiago’s case, in which densification is driven by middle-income housing development, better connected to public transportation systems and to the

1 Glasser, Edward. The Triumph of the City. How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (N.Y.: Penguin Press, 2011). city center. In this paper I am going to present a successful example of densification in Santiago regulated by a well-designed “Plan Regulador” and driven by the real estate development market. After that, and wondering what to do with the space in-between buildings, I am going to present ‘Nueva ’ a height rise building development in Santiago were the in-between was absolutely intended for public use. Thinking in what would happen if Santiago converts all its residual spaces into Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) I am going to analyze two critiques to 1961 NYC Zoning regulation well known for its density bonus, tool oriented to produce POPS as a public good by market driven real estate development. Also, I am going to review the vision of Vishaan Chakrabarti, Columbia GSAPP professor that embraces the idea of hyperdense cities. At the end I am going to analyze: what kind of city should Santiago aim to be? And how these ideas, considering their failures and successes, may be applicable to middle-income neighborhoods in Santiago de Chile that are currently in the development spotlight.

German Bannen and ‘La ciudad de Providencia’

Providencia is one of the wealthiest municipalities in Santiago, and a centrally located neighborhood. In 1977 it was reached by the Metro Line 1, and a few years previous to the arrival of the metro, the neighborhood started a process of development and densification that makes Providencia today one of the denser neighborhoods in Santiago. Providencia’s mix between density and high quality of life is due to the labor of its resident and planner, Mr. German Bannen.

Germán Bannen conceives the instrument of territorial planning as an urban and architectural work itself, capable of gradually transforming the space of the city through the progressive fulfillment of its ordinance. It promotes, project by project, the fabric of a new form of relationship between public space and private space, as a single open and continuous green space, which develops between the private property and the street. (...) It encourages the public use of privately owned spaces, blurring the border between both domains, and through the creation of new passages and squares that allow the "estar yendo", the possibility of stopping in the path of everyday journeys.2 -Rocío Hidalgo & Magdalena Vicuña.

The architect and winner of the National prize of Urbanism, German Bannen, has his main oeuvre in “La ciudad de Providencia”3 (The city of Providencia). German Bannen began working in the Department of Urbanism of Providencia in 1963, where he became Urban Consultant in 1965, a

2 HIDALGO, Rocío and VICUÑA, Magdalena. “Premio nacional de Urbanismo”. Santiago, Chile. 2014. Ministerio Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Gobierno de Chile. Pp. 70-88. 3 “The city of Providencia”. Is a concept that has been assigned to the results of German Bannen Plan for its development. A neighborhood that has a strong identity and, like a holistic city, is able to provide for every need to its neighbors. position that he holds until today. In this capacity, he was able to develop his two master works: The New Avenue Providencia which began in 1975, a parallel extension of the main axis of the neighborhood that has became a neuralgic point of Santiago and the Plan Regulador of Providencia, which also began in 1975, plan that has given the pedestrian and green qualities that characterizes the neighborhood. There are three main ideas for the development of Providencia that German Bannen was able to incorporate in the “Ordenanza Local” as land use laws, before the densification boom arrived to the neighborhood: The first one generated a network of pedestrian connections within the blocks, some of them in the shape of commercial galleries acting as privately owned public spaces, others in the shape of little plazas or public paths between the buildings. The last ones are spaces that were donated to the municipality by developers in exchange for higher building allowance. (Image 1) The second one worked to make Providencia a “green” neighborhood. This was a challenge given the fact that Providencia was an already fully urbanized neighborhood. It was achieved by incentivizing tree planting in the streets, the incorporation of open front gardens and planters in the low level of newly-developed buildings. At the same time, German Bannen promoted developing an interconnected system of parks within the neighborhood, in which the Mapocho riverside park plays a significant role. The third one developed new metro stations to serve the neighborhood. Metro stations were conceived by Bannen as key public gathering spaces. He encouraged the development of underground commercial galleries around them, connecting these galleries to the pedestrian path network at the street level. (Image 2) Today, Providencia is consolidated as a green and high quality of living neighborhood, and yet is also one of the denser and busier districts among Santiago. Favored by its location and public transportation, Providencia is a mix between a residential, commercial and office district. After 40 years of Bannen’s “Plan Regulador” and of the arrival of the metro, it is a neighborhood that keeps attracting new neighbors especially among young people that value its connectivity, mix of uses and green environment that ‘La ciudad de Providencia’ provides.

Nueva Las Condes

Nueva Las Condes is a new business center that was developed in the 2000s after the Municipality of Las Condes sold the terrain to a real state development company. The terrain is located near the axis Providencia-Apoquindo, is next to a 22 hectares park (Parque Araucano) and it was reached by the extension of Metro Line 1 in 2009. These factors raised the sector's surplus value and aroused interest in real estate developers. Due to private interests and after a master plan developed by the private consultant office URBE for the Municipality. The 170 hectares area that used to be a military low-rise social housing, were developed with a 28% of office towers, 55% of high rise housing buildings (for high income dwellers) and 17% of green area. The master plan proposed the new buildings to be stand-alone towers. The business area was intended to be an area with full open public space at the street level. This open space included green areas provided by the buildings and a network of privately owned public spaces as plazas and commerce connected by pedestrian paths in-between the buildings. It initially included a stronger landscape connection with the immediate park, Parque Araucano, but the master plan was not completely implemented. Today Nueva Las Condes has become a business center in which some of the most powerful private companies in Latin America raise their corporative towers with a nice view to the park. But the question is: how many of the master plan’s effort to transfer private development capital to the public good has actually succeeded? Or rather, are these recently developed privately owned private spaces successful? Even tough it has many critiques, today the in-between building areas fulfill their function. Due to the arrival of the “Manquehue” Metro line 1 station, pedestrians have populated the sector, which used to be a car-dominated area. During office hours, the in-between building areas serve as pedestrian connections between the Metro, the office building and the park. These plazas and street level commerce receive officers at lunchtime and after work. Also, it has a private managed cultural center, CA660 that brings activity to the area beyond the office hours. But even though the master plan is fulfilling its function, these public spaces do not attract other users beyond office workers. Visitors of the cultural center usually arrive and leave by car without using the exterior public spaces. During weekends and nights, the sector is absolutely empty. This is a sign that it is not generating good quality public space. And it is a sign that just the intention of generating public space between buildings does not guarantee them to be a contribution to the city. There is a lack of attraction for people of all ages, for instance kid’s playgrounds or shaded reading areas. The “green areas” inside the sector are not meant to be used for sitting in the grass or tree shading, they are “protected from the public”. The sector mainly lacks flexibility, spontaneity and natural mix of uses that characterizes a good public space. This probably is a consequence of leaving its development and urban design labor completely to the corporate building developers, for whom the essential interest probably lies in to keep their surrounding area under surveillance and in control. (Images 3, 4 and 5)

Zoning regulation and shape results: New York 1961 zoning resolution

“As we learned more about zoning and mapping we came to realize that, very often, the design of a new building is virtually specified by the regulations, and few new structures are unaffected by some sort of government control. We are left with the question: if a city can get the buildings it asks for, why can’t it get the buildings it needs and wants?”4 Jonathan Barnett. Urban Design as Public Policy 1974

In Santiago de Chile, even though each municipality creates its own Plan Regulador, general zoning regulation has a few key factors in common in the whole city. For every lot there is a “Coeficiente de ocupación de suelo” (Coefficient of land occupation), and a “Coeficiente de constructibilidad” (Coefficient of constructability). Intending to provide light and air between buildings, the first one regulates the maximum percentage of the terrain that a building can use in the ground level. The second one regulates the percentage of the terrain’s area that can be built distributed in the upper floors. In areas that are currently under development, these zoning regulations are leading to the massive growing of stand-alone towers, typology that was originally conceived by Le Corbusier as a “Tower in the Park”, but in Santiago this towers are currently situated as “Tower in the Block” where the residual space are privately owned and enclosed by fences. New York City Zoning Resolution is a compelling example of how zoning regulations can shape the city and also, under certain requirements and trade-offs, can generate public good driven by real estate development. The NYC 1916 zoning resolution was a legal innovation for controlling the developing of the city generated by real estate, and to guarantee public good in terms of the light and air at the street level and for neighboring buildings. By doing that, and maybe unintendedly, it also shaped the city as a result. Here I am going to review two critiques to the results of this zoning resolution, intending to find out how this kind of incentive zoning could be useful or not to Santiago de Chile’s further development. In the 1916 the height district zones determined the relationship between street and the building, setting a maximum height for the wall to the street, after that it allowed the building to keep rising in height in exchange of a series of set-backs measured by a virtual diagonal line starting from the middle of the street whose angle was also determined by the zoning resolution. It was possible to get free height only when there was a 25 percent of lot coverage. As Jerold Kayden states, “The combination of height rules from the zoning resolution and real estate economics, tenant requirements, and construction constraints, resulted in a dominant building typology, the ‘wedding cake’ or ‘ziggurat’, in which the building rose vertically from the street line with roughly 90 percent lot coverage until it reached its maximum permitted height, determined by the street width and applicable height multiple, then set back, rose another amount, set back again, rose some more, and so forth.”5

4 Barnett, Jonathan. Urban Design as Public Policy. Architectural Record. New York. 1974. P. 43 5 Kayden, Jerold. Privately Owned Public Spaces. New York (N.Y.). Dept. of City Planning, The Municipal Art Society of New York. John Wiley & Sons, Nov 6, 2000. P.9. Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building at 375 Park Ave was an important exception to the 1916 zoning resolution. It used the 25 percent of land coverage and generated a public plaza in front of it. It became an example for following the 1961 zoning resolution. In Kayden’s words “(It) eloquently illustrated, albeit in a denser, tighter building lot context, the ‘tower in the park’ urban design typology. Open space was now literally out in the open, front and center. ”6 Intending to provide a greater amount of design freedom with more flexible and interchangeable rules, 1961 zoning resolution established the “floor area ratio” (FAR), determining the maximum amount of area meant to be built in a lot with a land coverage from 40 to 55 percent depending of the zoning lot. This new resolution controlled the maximum volume to be built by lot characteristics, promoting the development of modern stand-alone towers, avoiding the old restriction that generated wedding-cake shape buildings. A big innovation of 1961 zoning resolution, in order to incentivize the development of public spaces through private developers’ hands, was the “Density Bonus”, with this regulation the city offered extra floor area for a building if the developer would agree to provide usable public space as plazas, atriums and arcades. A plaza defining it as “an open area accessible to the public at all times … a continuous open area along a front lot line, not less than 10 feet deep, with an area of not less than 750 square feet ”7 In the year 2000, Jerold Kayden, Professor of Urban Planning and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, made an inventory of every Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) in New York City, produced after the 1961 zoning resolution. Among his findings, he realized that “41 percent of the 503 public spaces are of marginal value, most of them produced under the minimal legal standards”8, that “[t]o this day, most of the plazas of the 1960s and early 1970s are unusable, unaesthetic, and/or ill-situated”9. Kayden attributes this failure in providing not just open space but usable public space, to the “loose definition of plaza” that the original 1961 zoning resolution proposed, that was followed to “the letter of the law” by real estate developers. In his critique of 1960s and early 1970s plazas he also pointed out, “[f]rom an urban design point of view, too many ‘as-of-right’ plazas are a-contextual, randomly situated without due regard for adjacent sidewalks and streets, buildings and other spaces”. In 1975 the city made a revision of the previous resolution and legislated a zoning amendment imposing higher design standards, mandatory functional amenities and requiring a new review procedure in order to approve the design for obtaining the “Density Bonus”. Among the modifications, the amendment made a distinction between “urban plaza” and a simple “sidewalk widening”, it asked for one linear foot of seating every 30 square feet of urban plaza, and mandated that these plazas should have southern exposure where possible. It also regulated the maximum

6 Kayden, Jerold. Op.Cit. P.10. 7 Kayden, Jerold. (Quoting Voorhees report’s definition of plaza.) Op.Cit. P.11. 8 Kayden, Jerold. Op.Cit. P1 9 Kayden, Jerold. Op.Cit. P 52 amount of urban plazas that could occupy one block, in order to “prevent undesirable interruptions of the street wall”10. To the eyes of Jerold Kayden, modifications introduced in 1975 and 1977 were a solution that improved the quality of public space provided by private developers “The more demanding zoning design standards adopted by the City in the mid-1970s… have resulted in substantially higher initial quality of public space, and a concomitant increase in public use and satisfaction.” But he still recognizes some failures in the model of POPS, related to the maintenance and administration, “operational practices such as denial of public access, annexation for private uses, and removal of required amenities by some owners have effectively privatized public spaces.”11 In 1974, Jonathan Barnett, one of the founders of the Urban Design Group, published his book Urban Design as Public Policy, presenting a critique and alternatives to the “modernist” concepts of the city promoted by Le Corbusier and his contemporaries, discussed in the C.I.A.M.s congress. In the book, Barnett present a critique to the 1961 zoning resolution that goes beyond the particular qualities of each plaza. Barnett criticized the proliferation of un-coordinated open spaces that were not necessarily useful, in diminishing of the continuity of the city. “While plazas have introduced valuable open space into the city, their proliferation has accentuated some of the defects of the underlying zoning, notably the tendency of the regulations to separate each new building from its surroundings… Unfortunately, these implied architectural standards are based upon the ‘revolutionary’ concepts of architecture expounded by Le Corbusier and others during the Nineteen- Twenties. Their vision of the city of the future as a series of towers set in parkland does not seem to be adaptable to zoning, and implementation on a lot-by-lot basis”.12 Barnett criticizes the essential concept beyond 1961 zoning resolution that is the believe that through providing a zoning incentive to each particular land owner for it to develop plazas, the market will automatically generate public good for the whole city. To develop a plaza is not necessarily a contribution to the city, and to develop many plazas or open spaces without a relationship between them could certainly be detrimental to the city. “Eventually New York would indeed become a city of towers and open space, but a city whose elements were inevitably random and accidental. No matter how well the individual buildings were designed, the city itself would have no design at all… After all, plazas, while they make a pleasant addition to the city-scape, have limited usefulness when they are not a part of a coordinated open space plan”13. Barnett is asking for a coordinated plan for the city that articulates new open spaces in order to make them a contribution to the city rather than a random collection of trimmings to the city’s fabric.

Height mix densification

10 Kayden, Jerold. Op.Cit. P 17 11 Kayden, Jerold. Op.Cit. P 301 12 Barnett, Jonathan. Urban Design as Public Policy. Architectural Record. New York. 1974. P. 41 13 Barnett, Jonathan. Op. Cit.. P. 41

“My advocacy for hyperdense, vertical cities should by no means be misconstructed as a prescription for everyone to live in an unyielding forest of skyscrapers… Variety in building heights is critical for city dwellers to experience both sunlight and delight.”14 -Vishaan Chakrabarti

One of the problems of Santiago de Chile’s current densification process is the enormous height difference between existing low-rise houses and newly-developed high-rise apartment buildings in the same block. This issue arises in low and middle-income residential districts in the southern parts of Santiago, such as La Florida. In which, the interstices in the lots are usually low- income houses, belonging to families that either did not want to sell or were not asked to, in the last case, the capital value of their properties has decreased. The Columbia GSAPP’s professor Vishaan Chakrabarti, embraces hyperdensity development. In his book A Country of Cities, he states “dense cities are the most efficient economic engines, are the most environmentally sustainable, and are the most likely to encourage joyful and healthy lifestyles”.15 At the same time, he is aware of the challenges that carry the development of hyper dense cities. Among these challenges he considers “the ability to build skyscrapers when justified by transit, and the capacity of the surrounding blocks to accept bigger buildings”. 16 He believes in market-driven development and he proposes an alternative to the radical change from low to high rise buildings, focusing on the expected “morphology” of the city. He proposes a densification with height mix. In his images, he shows high, medium and low building forming blocks. He proposes a concept that he calls “cap and trade zoning” “which would allow the free flow of air rights within an urban district… This would result in hyper density for sure but would also create a ‘high-low’ city of diverse building heights, uses, and ages”. Even though it is interesting to propose and encourage medium heights in between high towers, the idea of leaving it in the hands of the free market, as the Transfer of Development Rights (or Air rights) that New York City has allowed since the 1961 zoning regulation, does not ensure the desired morphology and block continuity showed in Chakravarti’s illustrations. The Air Right transactions have led to the current development of towers such as 432 Park Avenue, which combines FAR allowance from nine lots acquired by demolishing neighboring buildings. This kind development is being ultimately the Tower in the Park concept applied to a single block or furthermore, the Tower in City, going back to the race for height that originated the 1916 zoning resolution.

14 Chakrabarti, Vishaan. A Country of Cities. A Manifesto for an Urban America (New York: Metropolis Books, 2013). P146-147 15 Chakrabarti, Vishaan. Op Cit P127 16 Chakrabarti, Vishaan. Op. Cit. P127

Further proposals for Santiago’s densification process

The current model of housing development in Santiago de Chile is absolutely market driven, real estate developers build wherever they find profitable. Meanwhile the central government subsidizes the demand for new housing units without asking many requirements to the developers. Developers build whatever can be built, and the shape of the city is being defined by its zoning, that is very loose particularly in low-income municipalities. Going back to Barnett’s question: “if a city can get the buildings it asks for, why can’t it get the buildings it needs and wants?”. As it is said by Jonathan Barnett “Zoning incentives on a building-by-building basis can not supply the planned set of relationships required in the complex central districts of a city.”17 For the further development of Santiago it is needed a comprehensive plan involving agreement and collaboration of all municipalities. But what kind of buildings does Santiago need? Or what kind of City does Santiago want to be? In his book Collage City, Collin Rowe presents a “debate between solid and void, public stability and private unpredictability, public figure and private ground” 18 by doing a solid-void exercise, comparing the Nolli Plan of Le Corbusier’s project for Saint-Dié and the city of Parma in Italy (Images 6 and 7). “Thus the one is almost all white, the other is almost all Black; the one is an accumulation of voids in largely unmanipulated solid; and in both cases, the fundamental ground promotes an entirely different category of figure –in the one object, in the other space.”19 And by noticing the virtues of the traditional or “continuous” city he describes “the solid and continuous matrix of texture giving energy to its reciprocal condition, the specific space; the ensuing square and street acting as some kind of public relief valve and providing some condition of legible structure; and, just as important, the very great versatility of the supporting texture or ground.” 20 Current regulation and market driven development of Santiago de Chile are leading to an accumulation of object-buildings. Meanwhile there is no design of the city; there is a collection of singularly designed objects that form it, a city by accumulation that, following Collin Rowe’s ideas, end up being detrimental for the city’s public life “…if the object building, the soap bubble of sincere internal expression, when taken as a universal proposition, represents nothing short of a demolition of public life and decorum, if it reduces the public realm, the traditional world of visible civics to an amorphic remainder”21. If we look to Image 1 again, we see that Providencia’s pattern looks more like Parma’s, a controlled texture of voids between the solids. And if we look the demand for residential and office spaces in Providencia, its daily activity, cultural production and citizen

17 Barnett, Jonathan. Urban Design as Public Policy. Architectural Record. New York. 1974. P. 41 18 Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Collage City. Crisis of the object: Predicament of texture. MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1978. P.62. 19 Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Opcit. P 63. 20 Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Opcit. P 63. 21 Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Opcit. P 63. movements and organizations that are generated in it, we can conclude Providencia is a good urban model for Santiago. But, how do we translate Providencia’s Plan Regulador to a comprehensive Santiago de Chile’s plan? If we understand the city as Collin Rowe does, in which the morphological characteristics of a predominantly solid pattern enhances the values of citizenship the public realm. And if we understand the city as a delicate fabric of void spaces, Santiago de Chile must use tools as density bonus, incentive zoning and air rights transfer, in order to demand the development of this network from the market. But, as we know, real estate business is currently in charge of shaping the city, without caring for its overall design. For that reason, the use of these tools must be leaded by a careful study and fine design of the city’s voids, as German Bannen’s work did in Providencia. I believe that a central planning authority for the City of Santiago, who aims for collaborative work between Municipalities, is essential in order to plan and decide the future.

To summarize I propose four tasks for the future development of Santiago:

1. To perform a study of the conditions of the basic urban services as sewer, water pressure, traffic and services of the areas under development in the city. With this information, it could be estimated how many new housing units and what building height could a determinate block stand. Otherwise, there should be requirements for the developer to provide urban infrastructure.

2. Future Metro stations to be located in key intersections of the city should be developed and designed as the essential urban pieces that provides commerce, public plazas and they must come with a plan for new developments and densification around them, as Pedro de Valdivia and Los Leones stations did so in Providencia neighborhood. Current important Metro stations in neighborhoods under development as La Florida should be transformed into public spaces that improve connection between underground and ground level, inside and outside, public and private spaces. An example of this is the project “Sub centro Las Condes” at Escuela Militar Metro station. Renovated as an underground commercial center with sunken plazas at its four entrances. (Image 8).

3. To provide plazas, green areas and to guarantee pedestrian connections between blocks that are being densified. The key is that this plazas and connections must be planned before asking for them. The open public spaces must measured, so that there is not to much openness to transform it in an hostile place as Nueva Las Condes project, that needs to be under surveillance the whole day because there are no “eyes on the street”. This new public spaces must be encouraged to provide services and commerce at the street level.

4. Inspired in Rowe and Koetter proposition for Le Corbusier’s inspired city plans: “rather than hoping and waiting for the withering away of the object… it might be judicious, in most cases, to allow and encourage the object to become digested in a prevalent texture or matrix.”22 And in Chakrabati’s height mix ideal. I propose to incentivize the development of medium height buildings into new areas that are currently being developed and especially in the residual space between existing towers. Let’s encourage the texture digests the object.

22 Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Op. Cit. P.83

Image 1: Detail of the Plan of Pedestrian Paths in Providencia. Source: HIDALGO and VICUÑA. “Premio nacional de Urbanismo”. Santiago, Chile. 2014.

Image 2: Los Leones Metro station entrance. Connected with Las Palmas gallery surface and underground. Source: HIDALGO and VICUÑA. “Premio nacional de Urbanismo”. Santiago, Chile. 2014.

Image 3: 3D aerial view of Nueva Las Condes sector. Source: Google maps.

Image 4 and 5: Nueva Las Condes’ desolated privately owned public spaces. Source: Google street view.

Image 6 and 7: Le Corbusier’s project for Saint-Dié (Above). / Parma, Italia (Below). Source: Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Collage City. Crisis of the object: Predicament of texture. 1978

Image 8: Sub-centro Las Condes: Escuela Militar Metro station. Renovated as an underground commercial center with sunken open plazas at its four entrances. Source: Google street view.

Bibliography

- Glaeser, Edward. The Triumph of the City. How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (N.Y.: Penguin Press, 2011).

- Chakrabarti, Vishaan. A Country of Cities. A Manifesto for an Urban America (New York: Metropolis Books, 2013).

- Le Corbusier, The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning (translation of Urbanisme [Paris, 1924]; New York: Dover, 1987).

- HIDALGO, Rocío and VICUÑA, Magdalena. “Premio nacional de Urbanismo”. Ministerio Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Gobierno de Chile. Santiago, Chile. 2014.

- Barnett, Jonathan. Urban Design as Public Policy. Architectural Record. New York. 1974.

- Kayden, Jerold. Privately Owned Public Spaces. New York (N.Y.). Dept. of City Planning, The Municipal Art Society of New York. John Wiley & Sons, Nov 6, 2000

- Rowe, Colin, Koetter Fred. Collage City. Crisis of the object: Predicament of texture. MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1978.