Between the 1950s and 1960s, two cities were built that would leave a lasting mark on the history of architecture and urbanism. Born from a shared vision yet separated by more than 14,000 kilometers, Brasília in Brazil and Chandigarh in India were both planned and constructed from scratch, deeply shaped by modernist principles.
Emerging during a period of profound political and social transformation, when many nations sought to redefine their capitals as symbols of progress, both cities assumed a strategic role. Through their architectural language, they reinforced ideological and national narratives closely tied to state power.
These were cities conceived in the abstract, guided by a utopian vision. They were intended to be avant-garde urban centers, free from the deficiencies that plagued mid-twentieth-century cities, embodying aesthetic principles aligned with progressive political ideals and embracing new technologies—most notably the automobile.
Yet this promise of the future also generated significant challenges. While these difficulties undoubtedly reflect the social and economic realities of their respective countries, they were also shaped by a modernist vision that is increasingly being reassessed today.
First Sketches: Desire and Origin
The story of Brasília is well known. Guided by the developmental ambitions of President Juscelino Kubitschek, Lúcio Costa designed a city in the country's sparsely populated interior. For many years, its spatial configuration was interpreted as an airplane heading toward progress. Costa himself, however—as later highlighted by the research of Paulo Tavares—explained that it originated from "the primary gesture of someone marking a place or taking possession of it: two axes crossing at a right angle, that is, the sign of the cross itself." Brasília emerged on April 21, 1960, from this gesture of conquest, one that arguably reinforced colonial narratives on multiple levels, including through its adoption of the Eurocentric principles of modernism.
Years earlier, in 1947, India had gained independence from British rule. The conflicts that followed partition divided the territory into two new states: India, with a Hindu majority, and Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. As a result, the state of Punjab lost its historic capital, Lahore. In response, Le Corbusier was commissioned to design a new city that would serve as the administrative center, following the withdrawal of the team originally responsible for the master plan.
Like Brasília, Chandigarh was conceived as a symbol of national emancipation and was closely linked to a political discourse in which modern urbanism represented both progress and nation-building.
Both cities were also shaped by the principles of the Athens Charter, the document produced during the fourth CIAM congress in 1933. The charter advocated four primary urban functions: dwelling (healthy housing and adequate green areas), working (economic production separated from residential areas but easily accessible), recreation (public spaces for leisure and rest), and circulation (an efficient, organized road system centered on the automobile).
These principles already hint at some of the shortcomings experienced by residents today—nearly a century later—particularly regarding circulation, perhaps the most fundamental aspect of urban planning. The automobile-centered model contrasts sharply with contemporary urbanist ideas such as the 15-minute or even 5-minute city.
Before examining these challenges, however, it is important to revisit how both capitals materialized these principles. Their similarities and differences are relevant not only to the historical narrative of modernism but also to understanding them as contemporary urban phenomena shaped by dynamics that extend beyond a purely traditional reading.
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, standing in opposition to the organic and chaotic growth of traditional cities. His Pilot Plan for Brasília incorporated principles derived from the Athens Charter and Corbusian urbanism: functional zoning, hierarchical circulation, separation between pedestrians and automobiles, and integration between architecture and landscape. The city was organized around four major components—monumental, residential, communal, and bucolic—which correspond closely to the urban functions that Le Corbusier established in Chandigarh: dwelling, working, circulating, and cultivating body and spirit.
Rooted in the same modernist ideals, the two cities reveal remarkably similar interpretations, though they diverge in key respects. Chandigarh was organized according to a rigid orthogonal grid composed 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 accommodating housing, services, commerce, and public facilities within a common framework of planning rules. Despite this diversity of uses—which distinguishes it from Brasília—formal uniformity remains central to Le Corbusier's urban vision. The city presents itself as a rational and predictable system in which repetition establishes order.
Brasília, by contrast, adopts a more plastic and hierarchical composition. The Pilot Plan is structured around the intersection of the Monumental Axis and the curved Residential Axis, adapted to the site's topography. Unlike Chandigarh's near-mathematical regularity, Brasília constructs its urban identity through differentiation of scale, function, and form. Residential superblocks measuring roughly 240 by 240 meters coexist with vast monumental voids, sculptural buildings, and expansive perspectives that direct the gaze toward civic landmarks such as the Three Powers Plaza. More than organizing political space, this ensemble structures the very perception of the city and remains constantly present within the landscape.
In Chandigarh, the center of power also occupies a symbolic position. However, the Capitol Complex is located at the northern edge of the city, directly engaging with the Himalayan landscape while remaining relatively detached from the urban fabric, almost as an autonomous composition inserted into the territory.
This difference in composition becomes evident in the everyday experience of urban space. Chandigarh is characterized by a relatively homogeneous landscape, where the urban promenade unfolds in a continuous and predictable manner, while spatial complexity is concentrated within its monumental buildings. Brasília, in contrast, offers a more dynamic and theatrical experience. Its monumental axes, iconic buildings, and shifts in scale create a constant sequence of perspectives, allowing for a more varied and articulated urban reading.
Even so, both cities share fundamental characteristics of modern urbanism. Each incorporates extensive green areas, artificial lakes, and a strong separation of urban functions. In Chandigarh, a large green corridor cuts through the city from north to south, while Brasília distributes vegetation throughout its residential sectors and around Lake Paranoá. In both cases, nature ceases to be a peripheral element and becomes part of the urban structure itself.
Architecturally, their differences are equally significant. In Chandigarh, Le Corbusier developed a more austere and brutalist language, marked by exposed concrete, rigid geometry, and modular repetition. The architecture responds to the climatic conditions of northern India through large brise-soleils, deep recesses, perforated screens, and dramatic overhangs that control solar exposure and promote natural ventilation. Buildings such as the Secretariat and the Legislative Assembly exemplify this heavy, tectonic monumentality, in which structure and shading devices become central elements of the composition.
In Brasília, Oscar Niemeyer explored reinforced concrete in a far more plastic and organic manner, creating buildings of remarkable visual lightness and sculptural presence. Curves, pilotis, and fluid surfaces predominate, integrating architecture and landscape. The Palácio da Alvorada exemplifies this approach, combining symbolic monumentality with transparency and structural elegance.
The Twenty-First Century in a Modernist City: Life Overtaking Design
Today, Brasília and Chandigarh reveal the contradictions and inevitable adaptations of grand modernist projects confronted by everyday life. Planned to function in a rational, orderly, and highly controlled manner, both cities have been reinterpreted by their inhabitants over time. In Brasília, population growth exceeded the limits envisioned by the Pilot Plan, leading to the expansion of satellite cities and increasing fragmentation between the monumental center and everyday urban life. While the city retains its strong visual identity and monumental character, many of its central public spaces remain marked by excessive scale and automobile dominance, limiting pedestrian occupation and continuous urban vitality.
Chandigarh, although it also surpassed its projected population, has demonstrated a more organic adaptation between planning and daily practices. One notable example is Sector 17, which evolved into an active urban center where cars are excluded and pedestrians genuinely occupy public space.
Yet despite the rigidity of their grids and planning regulations, both cities have inevitably absorbed unforeseen uses and popular dynamics that bring their iconic designs closer to lived urban reality. In Chandigarh, voids and shaded areas created by modernist buildings have become spaces for street vendors, informal gatherings, and spontaneous appropriations of public space—much as they have in many parts of Brasília. Lúcio Costa himself recognized this during one of his visits to the city:
I felt this movement, this intense life of the true people of Brasília (...). All of this is very different from what I had imagined for this urban center (...). Those who took possession of it were the real Brazilians who built the city and who belong there legitimately. In truth, the dream was smaller than reality. — Lúcio Costa
From Dream to Reality: The Everyday Ingredient
To design is always to dream. It is to imagine scenes that do not yet exist, to anticipate the future and fit it within lines and plans. But life is far more than that. Everyday reality invades spaces and creates its own paths—often precisely those that were never anticipated.
In this sense, both cities remain living testimonies not only to the era of modernism but also to humanity's capacity to reinterpret idealized projects, demonstrating that no orthogonal grid can remain untouched by the complexity of real life.
When comparing the two cases, it becomes clear that despite their vastly different contexts, the design contrasts between them are relatively subtle. Modernism, as an international style, proved remarkably adaptable across different circumstances. Similar rules, compositions, and material strategies were applied in both countries. The greatest distinctions seem to have emerged not from planning itself but from everyday life: in the tuk-tuks of the Indian city, in the vibrant colors of women's saris, or in the green-and-yellow shirts that have periodically occupied Brasília's National Congress. Modernism thus becomes a backdrop for life, reminding us that cities are never inert and inevitably slip beyond structures of order as they evolve over time.
This article is part of the ArchDaily Topic: 20th Century Design in Flux: A Global Reinterpretation of Architectural History. Every 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, contact us.
