The Municipal Council of Porto and the Construction of the City's Urban Space (1820-1865)
Presentation | Study | Search | Toponyms | Anthroponyms | Team members
This database stems from a project of the same name, developed under a collaboration agreement between the Municipality of Porto and CEPESE. The database provides a documentary corpus on contemporary urban planning in Porto, from the Liberal Revolution of 1820 to the end of the term of the Count of Lagoaça as the city's mayor in 1865.
This project is fundamentally a compilation of data concerning how the Municipal Council of Porto shaped the city in its various urban aspects. This includes not only urban planning in the strict sense but also issues of sanitation, beautification, and civilizational progress. The data were collected from the minutes of the Municipal Council meetings during the mentioned period, gathering actions, initiatives, questions, discussions, opinions and challenges faced by the Porto Municipality in configuring the city within its jurisdiction from 1820 to 1865.
It was not easy to determine which topics to include or exclude from this repository, as some only partially relate to urban planning, such as fire-fighting issues or several ordinances and regulations. Therefore, we followed the criterion of mentioning aspects that seemed most relevant or innovative concerning these boundary topics between urban planning and other areas of municipal management: new constructions for public purposes or substantial improvements to existing public buildings, including water supply structures; the opening of streets and squares, the creation of gardens, the planting of trees in public spaces, expropriations for public utility, demolitions, and all types of public space improvements and innovations; issuance of licenses for private construction; non-compliance with ordinances broadly related to urban planning, including those involving aesthetic, functional and public health issues; public celebrations that had direct implications on the temporary or permanent beautification of the city; management of street commerce; reorganization of municipal administration spaces involving the acquisition or transformation of buildings; implementation of security measures requiring construction or alterations in public buildings and spaces; financial issues related to urban planning, including budgets and loan requests by the Municipality.
Requests for information from the Municipal Council that were more generic or vague were not included, except for the first time they appear. Recommendations made by the Council to those responsible for compliance with urban planning ordinances were also not included when such recommendations were too vague or highly repetitive compared to previous years, losing their novelty. Following the same criterion, from the installation of certain services, such as education and recreation, we did not include references to their internal functioning, except for those related to significant works on the buildings.
The same approach was adopted regarding fires and public lighting: once a new system was implemented, only references to significant works and the most important issues regarding the system's functioning were included, excluding minor complaints or occasional decisions. We also chose not to mention requests made to the Council for the granting of land for graves in cemeteries or minor works when they were already in operation. Regarding hygiene and sanitation, we did not include references to issues unrelated to public spaces or municipal buildings. For example, mentions of the problem of stray dogs were omitted unless the creation of an animal cemetery was considered.
In summary, regarding specific urban works, even those not initiated by the municipality, we aimed to be exhaustive in compiling the data. It should be noted that the text of the excerpts maintains, as much as possible, the terminology of the period, with only spelling updates and minor adjustments or additions to certain words for better comprehension.