A methodology to identify the heritage attributes and values of a modernist landscape: Roberto Burle Marx’s Copacabana beach promenade in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)

A methodology to identify the heritage attributes and values of a modernist landscape: Roberto Burle Marx's Copacabana beach promenade in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Julia Rey-Pérez Departamento de Historia, Teoría y Composición Arquitectónicas. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain * email of corresponding author: [email protected] A methodology to identify the heritage attributes and values of a modernist landscape: Roberto Burle Marx's Copacabana beach promenade in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) As new heritage categories have emerged, the process of identifying heritage value has become more complex, necessitating new tools to enable professionals to identify all attributes and values that determine the uniqueness of an asset before embarking upon its management and conservation. Burle Marx’s Copacabana promenade in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is representative of a modernist landscape design, and therefore, a cultural heritage asset. This article proposes a mixed methodology for identifying the heritage attributes and values of this modernist landscape through document analysis, site observations and surveys. This information is essential for the long-term conservation of the Copacabana promenade. Historical, aesthetic, technological and environmental values are represented in attributes that include the design itself, the calceteira technique and the selected tree species. The values and attributes of these assets inform the conservation strategies that are designed to end their abandonment and deterioration. Keywords: values, attributes, modern landscape, protection, methodology Introduction In the last thirty years, changes to the definition of heritage have led to a framework that is much more comprehensive and which now considers diverse heritage values (De la Torre & Mason, 2002; Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016; Mason, 2008; Rey-Pérez & González Martínez, 2018). As a result, assets that were previously dismissed, now have a place in the field of cultural heritage thanks to a new holistic vision that includes economic, technical, environmental, social, geographical, aesthetic, urban, symbolic, functional and natural aspects (De la Torre, 2002; Veldpaus, 2015; Veldpaus & Pereira Roders, 2014). Since the end of the twentieth century, there has been a growing interest in emerging forms of heritage linked to various types of architecture from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (including vernacular, rural, technical, industrial, housing and facilities architecture, together with their environments) (Council of Europe, 1985; 1991). However, it was not until 2001 that a group of organisations that included the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s World Heritage Centre, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Committee for Documentation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement (DOCOMOMO) initiated a joint programme for the identification, documentation and promotion of nineteenth and twentieth century architectural heritage (Bandarin, 2003). This programme values assets that constitute urban environments, ensembles and patterns; infrastructures; engineering works; and landscapes as much as traditional heritage assets. It also recognises that a number of issues differentiate the newer categories from the traditional ones, necessitating an indepth approach when examining assets from these emerging heritage categories (Van Oers, 2003, p. 10). These differentiating factors include the importance of conserving knowledge on the author and the project idea, a recognition of the technological revolution that enabled the materialisation of these ‘modern heritage assets’, a consideration of the project as a ‘historical document’, the closeness in time, and the absence—in most cases—of superposed time and historical strata (Holtorf & Fairclough, 2013). Today, the interest in issues related to the modernist period is reflected in the increase in the number of properties from this period inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO-Modern Heritage Programme, 2017). Thus, the importance and relevance of this topic is evident. The focus on monuments often overshadows the more modest modern heritage assets, such as those linked to landscapes or innovative citizen-focused designs of cities or public spaces which represent important concepts in the modernist period. Examples of landscape architecture are poorly documented as many of these modern heritage assets have been significantly altered or destroyed (Treib, 2003). The reality is that while historical heritage is protected, the temporal proximity and lack of documentation of modernist period assets hinders their protection and adequate management which consequently leads to their abandonment and neglect (Conti, 2017). Ultimately, on examining all the artistic, historical, cultural, aesthetic, technological, social, methodological, and conceptual aspects of the Modern Movement, it is apparent that works from this period constitute a type of heritage that requires immediate protection (ICOMOS, 2011; Macdonald & Ostergren, 2011). The works of Brazilian landscape architect Roberto Burle Marx are representative examples of assets that can be included in these emerging heritage categories. His designs were implemented in public spaces in Rio de Janeiro and are considered to be typical of modernist urban landscapes. At present, few publications refer to his work in depth; the planting has dramatically transformed due to the passage of time; and most of his interventions are in a serious state of deterioration (Mazza Dourado, 2009). This article focuses on the Copacabana promenade which, together with the rest of Marx’s projects, played a fundamental role in the transformation of the coast of the city of Rio de Janeiro, its landscape, and the construction of the park city (Boifava, 2020; Rey-Pérez & Tabacow, 2013; Sá Carneiro, 2019). However, in Brazil, there are no specific regulations or guidelines for safeguarding modern heritage. Such assets are treated like any others and their absence in the list of protected assets is notable (Mendonça, 2014; Abrantes, 2018). The only attempt made to remedy this was the Acautelamento da Arquitectura Moderna (Safeguarding Modern Architecture), an initiative launched in 2008 by the National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (IPHAN) together with regional government departments. Its aim was to develop the Inventário Nacional da Arquitetura, Urbanismo e Paisagismo Moderno (National Inventory of Modern Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape Architecture). However, it did little more than generate a theoretical corpus in the academic field and reinforce the initiatives of DOCOMOMO Brazil (Andrade et al., 2009). The challenge today is to identify the values and attributes that define the uniqueness of the sites so that they can be properly managed. This article proposes a mixed methodology that uses document analysis, site observations, and surveys to examine the asset in all its dimensions. It also enables the identification of heritage values and attributes that are not limited to the physical aspects of the object and make visible the complexity of modern landscape interventions. First, this article uses a literature review to define the different types of attributes and values. Next, Burle Marx’s work in Rio de Janeiro is described, with a focus on the Copacabana promenade. This article then goes on to propose a methodology for identifying the values and attributes of the asset. The first phase of the methodology gathers and analyses knowledge through different studies that document the processes involved in the intervention’s origins and development—from its conceptual development through to its materialisation in the public space. Fieldwork is also carried out to contrast and expand this information. The second phase of the methodology identifies the asset’s cultural attributes and values. This approach provides useful information for local government should it decide to create a management plan and integrate these findings with the aim of preserving the authenticity of the asset and bringing its state of abandonment and deterioration to an end. The gathering of knowledge to identify heritage values In order to value and intervene in heritage today, our understanding of heritage values and attributes has to extend beyond physical objects to contemplate the processes that exist behind the assets. This commitment to identify the heritage values of assets before intervening in their conservation was first established in article 11 of the Venice Charter of 1964 (ICOMOS, 1964) which states that the purpose of the restoration of a monument is not to make it conform to a single style, but to value all the layers of information that have been deposited throughout history, as if the monument were a historical, archaeological and aesthetic document. This position does not defend the restoration of all strata, but calls for a critical conservation process that is supported by necessary studies to acquire exhaustive knowledge on the monument (Fernández-Baca Casares, 2003, p. 178-179). This knowledge-based premise, elaborated in the Venice Charter (1964), was ratified in 2000 by ICOMOS in its document, ‘Principles for conservation and restoration of built heritage’ and in the Charter of Krakow (Naeyer et al., 2000). In article 3, reference is made to restoration projects, highlighting the need for ‘a cognitive process that integrates the gathering of information and in-depth knowledge of the building and/or site’ (2000, p. 2). The success of an intervention lies in balancing the combination of preexisting values with contemporary needs, where its inherent values must be the starting point in any intervention that affects a cultural asset (Fernández-Baca Casares, 2011, p. 57). Ultimately, identifying the values of a property is critical to its correct management, as reinforced in the Burra Charter: ‘Policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance’ (ICOMOS Australia, 1999, art. 6(2). Every asset is linked to a specific time, and therefore, a value-based heritage asset requires an in-depth, broad and holistic study which is also inclusive, contemplating the values identified by different stakeholders. The values are produced from interactions between the asset and its context. They are formed at the nexus between ideas and things. Therefore, values can only be understood with reference to social, historical, and even spatial contexts—through the lens of who is defining the value. They are socially constructed in a specific time and space and as they are contingent on society, they change along with it (Caraballo Perichi, 2011; Pastor Pérez et al., 2021). These values are formed from a series of elements or cultural manifestations—tangible or intangible—that UNESCO calls attributes (2005, art. 85). Both tangible and intangible attributes are considered heritage because of the cultural values we—as a community, experts, residents or tourists—assign to them. Attributes are the measurable aspects of value (Nocca, 2017), making them easier to comprehend (Court et al., 2022). Veldpaus and Pereira (2014) highlight the distinction between assigning what is valued (attribute) and why it is valued (value). As stated by Mason, working with a classification of values makes the job easier. Various researchers and organisations have proposed different classifications of values to facilitate their identification. In 1979, ICOMOS issued the Burra Charter, which in addition to those values already defined in the 1972 Convention (aesthetic, historical, scientific) (UNESCO, 1972), recognised a new type of values (social values) (Mason, 2002, p. 8-9). These social values refer to ‘the social cohesion, community identity, or other feelings of affiliation that social groups (whether very small and local, or national in scale) derive from the specific heritage and environment characteristics of their “home” territory’ (2002, p. 12). At the turn of the century, the Getty Conservation Institute drew a distinction between socio-cultural and economic values, generating significant controversy as the method used to measure the economic value of heritage is not usually used in conjunction with other heritage values to establish the significance of a place (2002, p. 10). Finally, in her 2007 thesis, Pereira proposed that the four values recognised in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention—historic, aesthetic/artistic, scientific and social—should be complemented with values related to the pillars of sustainable development (ecological and economic values), along with the additional values of time (as per Riegl) and political value (Pereira Roders, 2007). With these approaches, it is possible to end the regency of the traditional historic and aesthetic values and emphasise the existence of many other values. This is also thanks to the variety of stakeholders that participate in these assessments (De la Torre & Mason, 2002). Due to the broad conceptual approach needed to define the values and attributes of these new heritage categories, this research will be based on the eight values proposed by Pereira. This set of values has been chosen due to the fact that it integrates both the traditional approach and current issues such as sustainability and political processes. This effort to understand heritage values from such a broad perspective allows examples of industrial landscapes or modern urban landscape interventions to be incorporated into the heritage field, as in the case of Burle Marx's designs in Rio de Janeiro (Contardi & Rego, 2020). To do this, this research employs a mixed methodology to reveal the importance of modern assets and their conceptual, political or urban features. Roberto Burle Marx's urban interventions in Rio de Janeiro. The case of the Copacabana promenade In Rio de Janeiro, as in other Latin American cities, the saturation of the historic city by the trade and services sectors meant that a new space was required to relocate cultural and recreational functions that could no longer be developed in the historic city (Baratelli, 1990, p. 90). The waterfront embankments in Rio de Janeiro were not originally conceived with the idea of creating open spaces for city dwellers to enjoy, but rather in response to the need to expand the road system due to the increasing number of vehicles (1990, p. 433). During this period of urban growth, Burle Marx was commissioned to intervene in the spaces that were being created alongside the fast highways that were connecting the ‘new’ city of Rio. Until the early twentieth century, landscape designs in Rio de Janeiro were influenced by the precedents set by Haussmann and Alphand in Paris, Olmstead in the United States and Glaziou in Brazil. In less than two decades, Burle Marx challenged these traditional concepts that dominated the city, breaking with the patterns of the time and established interventions that were characterised by their unprecedented artistic and technical features (Leenhardt, 2006, 2018). His work was also characterised by an important social component (Fernades de Mello & Freitas, 2010, 219; Hepner & Macedo, 2016). The following spaces are examples of classic Burle Marx designs: the gardens of the Ministry of Education and Health (starting in 1938), the Senador Salgado Filho square (1938), the Museum of Modern Art (1956-1958), the Flamengo Park (1961), the Bay of Botafogo (1954), and the Copacabana promenade (completed in 1970) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Burle Marx’s design on Rio de Janeiro’s waterfront, from the Downtown area to Avenida Atlântica. Author’s drawing on a google map image (Google, s.f.). Copacabana promenade design is a compendium of all his work, an eclectic testimony of his forty-year professional career. With this design, he created an original modernist work of art with its own compositional laws (Cavalcanti & El-Dadah, 2009). The Copacabana promenade is like a painting rolled out onto the public space, albeit with a few differentiating features. In addition to the pavement design, care is also taken to add trees, seating areas and access to buildings. Rather than the two-dimensional compositions of paintings, this is a three-dimensional work of art. And while artists usually draw with pencil or ink, here Burle Marx composes a painting that is 4.5 km long and simultaneously constructs accompanying spaces (H. Ono, personal communication, October, 2008). One interesting discovery was that during the design process, Burle Marx requested a survey of the accesses to the buildings and garages in order to link the designs of the promenade with the existing architecture. He then outlined a general and continuous abstract design along the entire waterfront strip, to which detail was added block by block, colouring certain sections red and adding other abstract patterns to other sections (J. Tabacow, personal communication, March 2012). 4) A summary of the process Access was gained to technical documentation that demonstrated how the work of art was transformed from its design to the technical planimetry. The process began with Burle Marx drawing on a 2x2m grid in ink. Later, a member of the team redrew the design, and, finally, the graphic designer elaborated the definitive plan upon which the landscaper incorporated the benches, street lights, and areas where the red stone would be positioned. Other modifications were made with regard to street openings that are perpendicular to the promenade in response to the mayor’s request at the start of the process that the promenade design would not be interrupted by the streets. For this reason, the pavement was continuous (Rey-Pérez, 2011, p. 97-99). (Figure 3 and 4 here). Figure 3. Sketch of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade paving between Santa Clara Street and Constante Ramos Street, 1970. Nanquin on vegetable paper (152x30 cm). (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). Figure 4. Sketch of the same fragment of promenade paving as in Figure 3 with the design finalised for the execution phase (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). 5) The construction of the public space The main features are the tree species and the Portuguese stone. The 750 tree species that were initially planted were conceived as an artistic work of art due to their sculptural, visual and aesthetic characteristics in addition to the spatial quality they contributed to the place. It was essential to use vegetation that was resistant to the constant marine winds on the Copacabana promenade. Moreover, the Portuguese stone mosaic implied the incorporation of a traditional material and technique into a contemporary design. This material recalled the urban designs developed by the Portuguese in the early twentieth century. The Copacabana promenade is a testimony of the pictorial evolution experienced by the horizontal landscape of the city ever since its origins (Teixeira, 2007). The Portuguese stone provides qualities that include flexibility, resistance, and efficiency— in short, sustainability. It guarantees permanency for the landscape design and the visual concept behind it (Monterroso et al., 2010). Figure 5. Plan for the paving design between Rainha Elizabeth Street and Julio de Castilhos Street. Copacabana promenade executive project (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). The technical documentation gives us insights into how the promenade was constructed. It includes a plan of the design on a 2x2m grid with the radii of the circumferences marked out, facilitating the work of the pavers. On site, the centre of the arches and the radii are positioned, which, when joined by straight lines, begin to form the paving design. However, as the waves of the seafront promenade follow a repetitive geometric design, moulds were used. Due to the haste of the execution, they were drawn out at night and directly executed onto the Avenida Atlântica the next morning (J. Tabacow, personal communication, March 2012). (Figure 5 here) Phase I.2. Fieldwork. This section discusses the results of the studies carried out during the second part of Phase I: 1) Study of the historical, social and economic aspects of the site The aim of this study was to understand the role of the Copacabana promenade in the urban context. In addition to reviewing historical and urban documentation, all cultural and social activities that took place in the year prior to the fieldwork were reviewed and analysed with the observation method. The information reveals that the Copacabana strip has been affected by several different human interventions, starting with the deserted beach that was first discovered, passing through its consolidation as a popular destination for the bourgeois class, and arriving at the established status that it enjoys today as a symbolic site for Brazil. The last urban development project to affect the area was the 1970 Avenida Atlântica embankment project which expanded the edge of the city, opening up space for Burle Marx’s designs (IPP, 2007; Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, 2002). At present, the Copacabana basin is recognised for its exuberant natural landscape and is the place where all the social, cultural and commercial events of Rio de Janeiro take place, functioning as the epicentre of the city. 2) A spatial analysis The spatial analysis compares the spatial composition in Burle Marx’s landscape strategy with the resulting promenade to ensure that the author’s ideas were reflected in the finished space. Analysis of the elevations, sections and planting (visual and experiential) reveals how the design acquires prominence in the areas where there is no vegetation and how, to the contrary, the lines fade around the tree wells in the places where the tree grouping is significant. Likewise, the lines of the design lead to the access points for residential properties, wrap around seating areas, and alternate with the vegetation to provide the pedestrian with strategic visual points. This harmonious way of connecting the elements enriches the pedestrian’s experience and achieves a journey full of multiple sensations, perspectives, and changes of scale that endow the Copacabana promenade with an important spatial quality (Rey-Pérez, 2011, p. 125-130) (Figure 6, 7 and 8 here). Figure 6. View of the area between the promenade and the sea (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0). Figure 7. Spatial analysis of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade paving between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and José Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. Figure 8. Elevations and sections of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing based on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and José Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. 3) Study on human interaction with the asset The study on how individuals inhabit, experience and perceive the place requires detailed observation. For this reason, an ethnographic method was used, consisting of an initial phase of participant observation, followed by interviews. For three months, at alternating times throughout the day, people—including tourists and workers—were observed using the space. This in-situ study confirms that Burle Marx achieved his purpose of recovering the space as a shared public space where individuals interact and relate and multiple activities can be observed along the path. Over a period of one week, 150 surveys were carried out with local residents and workers on the Avenida Atlântica, asking them what they thought about the patterns on the promenade. 116 people had noticed that there were patterns on the pavement and praised the design. They valued the distraction during the walk and referred to the curved or linear shapes they identified, the alternation of colours and the different groups of trees. Of these 116, 15 own a flat overlooking Avenida Atlântica and recognise the extended abstract design, and 9 of these citizens were aware of its international recognition. The remaining 34 were completely unaware of this and remained indifferent to the design of the promenade. The surveys verified that residents value the artistic aspect of the intervention and perceive that the Copacabana promenade is a differentiated public space with unique artistic and natural features (Figure 9 here). Figure 9. Games on the walkway, demarcated by the wave pattern (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0). 4) The state of conservation When walking down Avenida Atlântica, it is easy to identify activities that risk damaging the asset. There are material issues (missing pieces of the Portuguese stone mosaic, modifications to the design, and missing trees) that do not affect the essence of the design and could be solved with an adequate maintenance programme. These detected issues are a consequence of intense human use and this is a sign of success. However, other activities have been detected that affect the very essence of the asset, and are considered to be harmful. These actions are carried out by restaurants and hotels that illegally modify and occupy the sections of pavement in front of their businesses. The result is that they occupy the full width of the pavement with their terraces, vehicles or access roundabouts and this not only deteriorates and diminishes the space that Burle Marx created for citizens to enjoy, but also completely modifies the pavement design and eliminates tree species (Rey-Pérez, 2011). This affects how the public space is used, alters how it is perceived, distorts the legibility of the project, and puts its state of conservation at risk. If the hospitality sector is not properly contained, its presence is likely to dominate over the cultural value of the artwork (Figure 10 and 11 here). Figure 10. Analysis of the occupation and loss of public space in a fragment of the Copacabana promenade between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and Jos é Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. Figure 11. Aerial view of the Avenida Atl_antica (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0). Phase II: Identification of heritage attributes and values The objective of Phase II is to identify the heritage attributes detected in Phase I and the heritage values they represent. This study borrows the categories proposed by Pereira: historical, aesthetic/artistic, scientific, social, ecological, economic, age and political. In Phase I.1., ‘Documentation of the creative processes involved in the landscaping project’, specifically the section on ‘The background and place’, Copacabana itself can be understood as a tangible attribute. In addition to its remarkable natural landscape, it is a historical testimony to the way a place can be shaped by human action throughout its history. This landscape can be assigned historical, ecological and age values. In addition, the decision to allocate an expansive space to its citizens attributes a political value to the landscape design. Our study on ‘the concept’ revealed that the project idea is an intangible attribute because of its scientific and social value and human use is another intangible attribute given its social value. Our study of ‘the unique pattern feature in the Burle Marx design’ and the ‘summary of the process’ defined the pattern as a tangible attribute with scientific and aesthetic heritage value. The methodology used in the construction process is also discovered to be an intangible attribute because of its scientific value. Our study on ‘the construction of the public space’ defined the trees as tangible attributes given the aesthetic and ecological heritage value of these natural elements. The Portuguese stone is a tangible attribute given the historical, economic and even aesthetic heritage value of this building material. The traditional ‘calceteira’ construction technique is an intangible attribute as this custom and tradition attributes aesthetic, historical, social and economic heritage value. In Phase I.2. ‘Fieldwork’, and more specifically in the section on the ‘Historical, social and economic study of the site’, the associated way of life is deemed to be an intangible attribute that defines the character of the neighbouring community and the activities they carry out. Thus, social, historical, age and economic heritage values are identified. And finally, through our studies, ‘A spatial analysis’ and ‘Study of the human use’, the rich expansive space is classified as a tangible attribute because of its social and scientific value. Even the pattern can be deemed a tangible attribute given its aesthetic value. Of all the attributes identified, it is the initial idea which defines the authenticity of the intervention. The author’s conception of Avenida Atlântica as a place destined for the use and enjoyment of humans is a modern response to the consequences of modern life in large metropolises and the associated population increase. The need for more public spaces (Mo et al., 2021) is one of the key features of twentieth century landscape planning as is ‘[...] the pre-eminence of planning and the dedication to a social programme’ (Cantacuzino in Van Oers, 2003, p. 12). Burle Marx’s concept overturns the idea promoted by the Modern Movement that landscapes only serve for the purpose of contemplation. Instead, he reinforces human use and puts the citizen at the centre of the landscape concept. Hence, one of Marx’s favourite phrases was: “O Jardim é obra Berg, S. K. (2018). Conditional values of urban heritage: context and scale. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-01-2016-0008 Boifava, B. (2020). Roberto Burle Marx’s Cidade Parque. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 15(3), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2020.1886518 Burle Marx, R. (2004). Conceitos de composição em paisagismo. Comferencia proferida em 1954 [Concepts of composition in landscaping. Lecture given in 1954]. In J. Tabacow (Ed.), Roberto Burle Marx, Arte y paisagem (pp. 23–33). Studio Nobel Ltda. Caraballo Perichi, C. (2011). Patrimonio Cultural. Un enfoque diverso y comprometido [Cultural Heritage. A diverse and committed approach]. UNESCO. https://oibc.oei.es/uploads/attachments/90/Patrimonio_Cultural__un_enfoque_dive rso_y_comprometido.pdf Cavalcanti, L. (2006). Moderno e brasilero [Modern and Brazilian]. Jorge Zahar Editor. Cavalcanti, L., & El-Dadah, F. (2009). Roberto Burle Marx: a permanencia do instàvel, 100 anos [Roberto Burle Marx: the permanence of the unstable, 100 years]. Rocco. Contardi, A. B., & Rego, R. L. (2020). The conformation of the modernist square. Arquiteturarevista, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.4013/arq.2020.162.09 Conti, A. (2017). Modern Heritage and the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Papers - Modern Heritage, 85, 8–17. https://es.calameo.com/read/003329972c86b83d8a2b9 Council of Europe. (1985). Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. Granada, 3.X.1985. https://rm.coe.int/168007a087 Council of Europe. (1991). Recommendation no. r (91) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of the twentieth-century architectural heritage. https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlob Get&InstranetImage=572353&SecMode=1&DocId=597874&Usage=2 Court, S., Jo, E., Mackay, R., Murai, M., & Therivel, R. (2022). Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context (L. Frank & E. Jo, Eds.). UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN. https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidancetoolkit-impact-assessments/ De la Torre, M. (Ed.). (2002). Assessing the values of cultural heritage: Research report. The Getty Conservation Institute. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/a ssessing.pdf De la Torre, M., & Mason, R. (2002). Introduction. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of Cultural Heritage. Research report (pp. 3–4). The Getty Conservation Institute. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/a ssessing.pdf Fernades de Mello, F., & Freitas, J. (2010). A obra de Roberto Burle Marx para a cidade do Rio de Janeiro – um patrimônio cultural carioca [The work of Roberto Burle Marx for the city of Rio de Janeiro - a Rio de Janeiro cultural heritage]. In R. Segre, M. Azevedo, R. Costa, & I. Andradre (Eds.), Arquitetura+arte+cidade: um debate internacional (pp. 212–223). Viana & Mosley. Fernández-Baca Casares, R. (2003). Carta de Venecia. Carta Internacional sobre la Conservación y la restauración de monumentos y de conjuntos histórico-artísticos [Venice Charter. International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites]. In Cuadernos. Repertorio de Textos Internacionales del Patrimonio Cultural (pp. 174–182). Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura. http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=416652 Fernández-Baca Casares, R. (2011). 50 años de Bienes Culturales Patrimonio y Desarrollo desde la perspectiva del IAPH [50 years of Cultural Heritage and Development from the IAPH perspective]. Actas VIII Congreso Internacional Arpa 2010 – Economía Del Patrimonio Cultural, 46–58. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3939018 Floriano, C. (1999). Burle Marx: el jardín como arte público [Burle Marx: the garden as public art] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universidad politécnica de Madrid. Fredheim, L. H., & Khalaf, M. (2016). The significance of values: heritage value typologies re-examined. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(6), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1171247 Google. (s.f.). [Google Maps of the Rio de Janeiro’s waterfront, from the Downtown area to Avenida Atlântica]. https://www.google.com/maps/@-22.9268685,- 43.2023508,7878m/data=!3m1!1e3 Hepner, A., & Macedo, S. S. (2016). Landscaping Brazil: The legacy of Roberto Burle Marx. Architectural Design, 86(3), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2054 Holtorf, C., & Fairclough, G. (2013). The New Heritage and the Re-Shapings of the Past. In A. González-Ruibal (Ed.), Reclaiming Archaelogy: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity (pp. 197–209). Routledge. ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites. http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf ICOMOS. (2011). Approaches for the conservation of Twentieth-Century architectural heritage, Madrid Document 2011. http://www.icomosisc20c.org/pdf/madriddocumentforpublication2012with2011copyright.pdf ICOMOS Australia. (1999). The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance. http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/2145/ INEPAC - Instituto Estadual do Patrimonio Cultural. (1991). Tombamento do conjunto urbano paisagístico localizado na orla do Copacabana no Rio de Janeiro [Protection of the urban landscape ensemble located on the Copacabana beachfront in Rio de Janeiro] (Report No. E-18/000.030/91). IPP - Instituto Pereira Passos. (2007). Copacabana. Un paseo en el tiempo (1893-2007) [Copacabana. A walk through time (1893-2007)]. Prefeitura do Rio. Leenhardt, J. (2006). Nos jardins do Burle Marx [In the gardens of Burle Marx]. Perspectiva. Leenhardt, J. (2018). Playing with artifice: Roberto Burle Marx’s gardens. In R. G. Ingram (Ed.), Reformation without end: (pp. 69–93). Manchester University Press. Macdonald, S., & Ostergren, G. (2011). Developing an Historic Thematic Framework to Assess the Significance of Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage: An Initiative of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Twentieth-Century Heritage. An Expert Meeting Hosted by the Getty Conservation I. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/d evelop_historic.pdf Mason, R. (2008). Be interested and beware: joining economic valuation and heritage conservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(4), 303–318. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13527250802155810 Mason, R. (2002). Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In M. De la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage - Research Report (pp. 5–30). The Getty Conservation Institute. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/a ssessing.pdf Mazza Dourado, G. (2009). Modernidade Verde. Jardines de Burle Marx [Green Modernity. Burle Marx Gardens]. Senac. Mendonça Bispo, A. N. (2014). Dos processos de valoração do patrimônio moderno às práticas de conservação em Brasília: o caso do restauro do Palácio do Planalto [From valuation processes of modern heritage to conservation practices in Brasília: the case of the restoration of the Planalto Palace]. Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional. http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Dissertação Alba Nélida de Mendonça Bispo.pdf Minister of Culture. (2014). Site Management Plan - Rio de Janeiro: carioca landscapes between the mountain and the sea. https://whc.unesco.org/document/136037 Mo, F., Selman, P., & Woudstra, J. (2021). The origins of the modern park system of the International Settlement in Shanghai (1899-1929). Landscape Research, 46(3), 435– 449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1867975 Monterroso, J., Fernandes, C., Caldeira, F. M., Barbosa, A., Proença, P., & Fernades, J. M. (2010). Tapetes de pedra [Stone carpets]. Desing e Editora. Naeyer, A. De, Arroyo, S., & Blanco, J. (2000). Krakow charter 2000: Principles for conservation and restoration of built heritage. http://ipce.mcu.es/pdfs/2000_Carta_Cracovia.pdf Nocca, F. (2017). The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability, 9(1882), 1– 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882 Nymoen Rørtveit, H., & Setten, G. (2015). Modernity, Heritage and Landscape: The Housing Estate as Heritage. Landscape Research, 40(8), 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.989966 Pastor Pérez, A., Barreiro Martínez, D., Parga-Dans, E., & Alonso González, P. (2021). Democratising Heritage Values: A Methodological Review | Enhanced Reader. Sustainability, 13(22), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212492 Pereira Roders, A. (2007). RE-ARCHITECTURE: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage. [Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology] Eindhoven University of Technology Theses and Dissertations Archive. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR751759 Prefeitura da Cidade do Río de Janeiro. (2002). Memoria da destruição. Río, uma historia que se perdeu (1889-1965) [Memory of destruction. Rio, a history that was lost (1889-1965)]. Secretaria da Cultura, Arquivo da Cidade. Rey-Pérez, J. (2011). La intervención de Burle Marx en el Paseo de Copacabana: un patrimonio contemporáneo [Burle Marx's intervention on the Copacabana Promenade: a contemporary heritage]. Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía. Rey-Pérez, J., & González Martínez, P. (2018). Lights and shadows over the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape: ‘managing change’ in Ballarat and Cuenca through a radical approach focused on values and authenticity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362572 Rey-Pérez, J., & Tabacow, J. (2013). An analysis of the evolution of Roberto Burle Marx’s urban inverventions in Rio de Janeiro. Arquiteturarevista, 9(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.4013/arq.2013.91.03 Sá Carneiro, A. R. (2019). Roberto Burle Marx (1909–94): Defining modernism in Latin American landscape architecture. Studies in the History of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14601176.2018.1529273 Teixeira, I. (2007). O Rio que eu piso [The Rio I Walk On]. Memória Brasil. Treib, M. (2003). Open spaces and landscapes: Some thoughts on their definition and preservation. In Ron Van Oers & S. Haraguchi (Eds.), World Heritage Papers no5 - Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage (pp. 133–138). UNESCO. https://whc.unesco.org/en/modernheritage/ UNESCO-Modern Heritage Programme. (2017). New World Heritage Sites 2017. World Heritage Papers - Modern Heritage, 85, 50–60. https://es.calameo.com/read/003329972c86b83d8a2b9 UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext UNESCO. (2005). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf UNESCO - World Heritage Committee. (2012). Decision : 36 COM 8B.42 Cultural Properties - Rio de Janeiro, Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea (Brazil). https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4813 Van Oers, R. (2003). Introduction to the Programme on Modern Heritage. In R. Van Oers & S. Haraguchi (Eds.), World Heritage Papers no5 - Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage (pp. 8–14). UNESCO – World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_ Veldpaus, L. (2015). Historic Urban Landscapes. Framing the integration of urban and heritage planning in multilevel governance [Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology] Eindhoven University of Technology Theses and Dissertations Archive. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/3914913/798291.pdf Veldpaus, L., & Pereira Roders, A. (2014). Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta. Change over Time, 4(2), 244–263. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/557037/summary Figure captions Figure 1. Burle Marx’s design on Rio de Janeiro’s waterfront, from the Downtown area to Avenida Atlântica. Author’s drawing on a google map image (Google, s.f.) Figure 2. Space, design and people in Avenida Atlántica (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0) Figure 3. Sketch of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade paving between Santa Clara Street and Constante Ramos Street, 1970 (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). Figure 4. Sketch of the same fragment of promenade paving as in figure 3 with the design finalised for the execution phase (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). Figure 5. Plan for the paving design between Rainha Elizabeth Street and Júlio de Castilhos Street. Copacabana promenade executive project (Acervo Instituto Burle Marx). Figure 6. View of the area between the promenade and the sea (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0). Figure 7. Spatial analysis of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade paving between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and José Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. Figure 8. Elevations and sections of a fragment of the Copacabana promenade between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing based on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and José Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. Figure 9. Games on the walkway, demarcated by the wave pattern (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0). Figure 10. Analysis of the occupation and loss of public space in a fragment of the Copacabana promenade between Miguel Lemos Street and Bolívar Street. Author’s drawing on a planimetry designed by Burle Marx, Haruyoshi Ono and José Tabacow and provided by Acervo Instituto Burle Marx. Figure 11. Aerial view of the Avenida Atlántica (Photograph by author, 2018. CC BY 4.0).