Tesis DocToral La U de la FADU. Del Instituto de Urbanismo al...
This year (2018) it was 7 decades since the creation of the Higher Course in Urbanism of the Faculty of Architecture of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of Buenos Aires. Seventy years of the life of a graduate degree, taught almost continuously, raises various questions. Given that it is...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Tesis doctoral acceptedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=aaqtesis&cl=CL1&d=HWA_6543 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/aaqtesis/index/assoc/HWA_6543.dir/6543.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This year (2018) it was 7 decades since the creation of the Higher Course in Urbanism of the Faculty of Architecture of Architecture and Urbanism of the University of Buenos Aires. Seventy years of the life of a graduate degree, taught almost continuously, raises various questions. Given that it is impossible that it has remained immovable in a field of knowledge and of doing that underwent arduous debates and transformations during that course, what stages can we distinguish in this long trajectory? We should also ask ourselves if, despite them, there has been a specificity of its own that has allowed it to survive. The work that is presented, tries to answer these questions and rescue from oblivion the creation and history of the postgraduate teaching of Urbanism at the UBA. The task had its complexities, since it is considered as a hypothesis that the teaching of Urbanism is strongly related to another series of processes: the political moments, the current paradigms, the actors who play a leading role, the urban proposals that are being formulated and the urban interventions that have concrete execution, among others. Given the hypothesis adopted, it was also necessary to consider the most salient features of these other issues, and not only in the 7 decades of the postgraduate's existence, but also during the previous period in which the discipline was constituted, in order to understand the genesis of the teaching of Urbanism. The work developed from primary and secondary information revealed the presence of two very different periods. Until the democratic restoration of 1983, it was a postgraduate course tied to the postulates of an urbanism that, in the best of cases, we can frame as a "scientific" made up with a multidisciplinary nuance, developing a training in which the spatial dimension dominated so much the interpretation of reality as the prescriptions for its utopian optimization, open exclusively to a student body who had to come from architecture (or be an engineer who had redeemed himself by studying Urbanism at the same Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism), dictated by a teaching staff where it was essential to be an architect (or an engineer graduated as Urban and Rural Planning) or, if it was not, present close ideological ties with the almost stable trunk of the teaching body. Almost 20 years of ideological backwardness had to be recovered by incorporating strategic criteria, multidisciplinary visions, community participation as a source of demands and specific knowledge; the revaluation of actions on local spaces as well as the consideration of regional contextualisation; the incorporation of the environmental issue, the transforming capacity of urban projects, provided that they were inserted in a development strategy. The reason for undertaking this task lay in the conviction that it can be useful, not to relate the past as an evolutionary-cumulative history, but to understand the conflicts, debates and mediations that express the way in which institutions and Actors position themselves and redefine disciplinary inheritances, and how these transformations are linked to the different historical cycles of the country. |
|---|