Between the 1950s and 1960s, two cities were built that would define the history of architecture and urbanism. Born of the same concept but separated by more than 14,000 kilometers, Brasília in Brazil and Chandigarh in India, steeped in modernist principles, were planned and built from scratch.
Emerging in a context of profound political and social transformations, where several countries sought to reshape their capitals as symbols of progress, both cities assumed a strategic role. Through their adopted architectural language, they reaffirmed ideological and identity narratives linked to state power.
These were cities created in the abstract, following a utopian vision. They were to be avant-garde cities, free from the deficiencies afflicting mid-20th-century urban centers, exemplifying aesthetic principles that would reflect progressive political ideologies and embrace new technologies—most notably the automobile.
However, this promise of the future ultimately generated significant challenges. These difficulties, of course, reflect the social and economic struggles of their respective countries, but they are also "seasoned" by a modernist vision that is highly contested today.
First Strokes: Desire and Origin
The story of Brasília is a familiar one. Lucio Costa, imbued with Juscelino Kubitschek's developmentalist drive, raised a city in the country's barren interior, using a spatial layout long interpreted as an airplane flying toward progress. However, the architect himself justified the design—as brought to light by Paulo Tavares's research—as "a drawing born of the primary gesture of someone marking a place or taking possession of it: two axes intersecting at right angles, that is, the very sign of the cross." On April 21, 1960, Brasília was born from this stroke symbolizing conquest, reinforcing in a sense colonialism itself on various levels, including the choice of Eurocentric modernist precepts for its design.
Years earlier, in 1947, on the other side of the ocean, India brought its period as a British colony to an end. The conflicts triggered after independence partitioned the territory into two new states: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Under this new territorial configuration, the state of Punjab lost its former capital, Lahore. As a result, Le Corbusier was commissioned to design a new city to concentrate administrative power, following the withdrawal of the team initially tasked with the plan.
Like Brasília, Chandigarh was also built as a symbol of national emancipation, tied to a political discourse in which modern urbanism was interpreted as a symbol of the country's progress and development.
Both cities reflect the Athens Charter, a document resulting from the 4th CIAM in 1933, which advocated for four main urban functions: dwelling (ensuring healthy housing and adequate green areas); work (separating places of economic production from residences, with direct access); recreation (public spaces for leisure and rest); and circulation (an organized, efficient road system centered on the automobile).
These precepts already point to potential shortcomings faced today—almost a century later—by their citizens, particularly regarding the last and perhaps most structural aspect of urban planning: how people move and how far they must travel. This car-centric model contrasts sharply with the principles of contemporary urbanism, which are characterized by the spread of the 15-minute or even 5-minute city concepts.
Before exposing these wounds, however, it is important to examine how both capitals materialized these precepts. Their similarities and contrasts are relevant not only for constructing the historical narrative of modernism but also for understanding them as contemporary urban phenomena, shaped by their own dynamics that escape a strictly traditionalist perspective.
India Is Here: Similarities and Contrasts
In Latin America, Lúcio Costa believed that the modern city should emerge from a deliberate, rational, and legible order, contrasting with the organic and chaotic growth of traditional cities. His Pilot Plan for Brasília incorporated the principles disseminated by the Athens Charter and Corbusian urbanism: functional zoning, hierarchical circulation, the separation of pedestrians and automobiles, and the integration of architecture and landscape. The city was thus structured into four main components (monumental, residential, gregarious, and bucolic), which directly correspond to the zoned urban functions defined by Le Corbusier in Chandigarh: dwelling, working, circulating, and cultivating the body and spirit.
Associated with the same modernist ideals, the two cities reveal very similar interpretations, which nonetheless differ on certain points. Chandigarh was organized around a rigid orthogonal grid made up of sectors measuring approximately 1,200 by 800 meters, repeated almost indefinitely across the territory. Each sector functions as a relatively autonomous unit capable of housing residential zones, services, commerce, and public facilities under general occupancy rules. However, despite this heterogeneity of uses, which distinguishes it from Brasília, formal homogeneity remains an essential part of Le Corbusier's urban logic: the city presents itself as a rational and predictable system in which repetition establishes order.
Brasília, on the other hand, adopts a more plastic and hierarchical composition. The Pilot Plan is organized around the intersection of the Monumental Axis and the curved Highway Axis, adapted to the local topography. Unlike the almost mathematical regularity of Chandigarh, Brasília builds its urban identity through the differentiation of scales, functions, and forms. Residential superblocks, measuring roughly 240 by 240 meters, coexist with large monumental voids, sculptural buildings, and sweeping perspectives that draw the eye toward civic landmarks like the Three Powers Plaza. This plaza not only organizes the political space but also structures how the city itself is read, remaining ever-present in the landscape.
In Chandigarh, the seat of power also occupies a symbolic position, but there the Capitol Complex is situated at the northern edge of the city. It stands in direct dialogue with the Himalayan landscape, relatively isolated from the urban grid, almost as an autonomous composition within the territory.
This difference in composition becomes evident in the daily experience of the urban space. Chandigarh is characterized by a homogeneous landscape, where the urban promenade unfolds continuously and predictably, while the monumental buildings contain the spatial complexity championed by Le Corbusier. Brasília, in contrast, produces a more dynamic and scenographic experience. Its monumental axes, iconic buildings, and shifts in scale create a constant sequence of perspectives, allowing for a more diverse and articulated urban reading.
Even so, the two cities share fundamental elements of modern urbanism. Both incorporate extensive green areas, artificial lakes, and strict functional segregation of urban uses. In Chandigarh, a large green belt cuts through the city from north to south, while Brasília distributes its vegetation throughout residential areas and along Lake Paranoá. In both cases, nature ceases to be a peripheral element and becomes integral to the urban structure itself.
In terms of architecture, their specific characteristics are also worth highlighting. In Chandigarh, Le Corbusier developed a more austere and Brutalist language, marked by the heavy use of exposed concrete, rigid geometry, and modular repetition. The architecture responds to the climatic conditions of northern India by incorporating large brise-soleils, deep recesses, perforated screens, and deep cantilevers that control solar gain and encourage natural ventilation. The Secretariat and the Legislative Assembly showcase this heavy, tectonic monumentality, where the structure and shading devices become central elements of the composition.
In Brasília, on the other hand, Oscar Niemeyer explored reinforced concrete in a much more plastic and organic way, creating buildings of great visual lightness and a strong sculptural character. Curves, pilotis, and fluid surfaces that integrate architecture and landscape predominate. The Alvorada Palace exemplifies this approach, combining symbolic monumentality with transparency and structural lightness.
The 21st Century in a Modernist City: Life Overriding the Design
Today, Brasília and Chandigarh reveal the inevitable contradictions and adaptations of major modernist projects in the face of everyday life. Planned to function in a rational, orderly, and highly controlled manner, both had to be reinterpreted by their inhabitants over time. In Brasília, population growth far exceeded the limits envisioned by the Pilot Plan, leading to the expansion of satellite cities and a fragmentation between the monumental center and everyday life. Although the city preserves its monumentality and strong visual identity, many of its central public spaces remain defined by their excessive scale and the dominance of the automobile, hindering pedestrian activity and continuous urban vitality.
Chandigarh, on the other hand, despite also exceeding its projected population, demonstrates a more organic adaptation between planning and daily practices. A clear example of this is that, unlike Brasília, the Indian city developed an active urban center, Sector 17, which is entirely pedestrianized, allowing pedestrians to fully reclaim the city.
Yet, between the rigidity of the orthogonal grid and strict urban planning regulations, both cities have inevitably incorporated unforeseen uses and popular dynamics that bring their iconic designs closer to real urban life. In Chandigarh, voids and shaded areas created by modernist buildings have come to shelter street vendors, informal gatherings, and spontaneous appropriations of public space—just as occurs in various parts of Brasília. Lúcio Costa himself noticed this during one of his visits to the city, stating:
"I felt this movement, this intense life of the true Brasilienses (...). This is all very different from what I had imagined for this urban center (...). The ones who took it over were those real Brazilians who built the city and are legitimately there. In truth, the dream was smaller than reality." — Lúcio Costa
From Dream to Reality: The Flavor of the Everyday
Designing is always a form of dreaming—imagining scenes that do not yet exist, trying to unlock the future and fit it into drawn lines and plans. But life is much more than that. Everyday life invades these spaces and carves out its own paths, invariably those that were never planned.
Ultimately, both cities remain living testaments, not only to the modernist era but also to the human capacity to reframe idealized designs, showing that no orthogonal grid remains untouched by the complexity of real life.
Analyzing both cases, it becomes clear that despite such different contexts, the design contrasts between the two cities seem remarkably minor. Modernism as an International Style thus proves its faithful application even in distinct situations. Very similar rules, compositions, and materialities were applied in both countries. The greatest differentiation, therefore, seems to have been left to the everyday, visible in the tuk-tuks of the Indian city, the colorful saris of the women, and the green-and-yellow shirts that questionably invaded Brasília's National Congress. Modernism as a backdrop for life demonstrates that cities are not inert and tend to evade these structures of order as they evolve over time.
This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: 20th-Century Design in Flux. Each month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, please contact us.
This article was written by Camilla Ghisleni. The translation is powered by AI.
