US ICOMOS 8th International Symposium

Heritage Interpretation
THEME: Case Study: Parque del Este, Caracas, Venezuela
Diana Henríquez de Fernández - Landscape Architect - SVAP- ASLA
Maria Eugenia Bacci - Architect – M.A Tourism Planning - ICOMOS Venezuela

1- Description of Parque del Este and its main heritage values

Parque del Este is a 190-acre public park, located on the eastern side of Venezuela’s capital
city, Caracas. It is the most important urban park in Venezuela. Designed between the
fifties and sixties by the Brazilian artist and landscape designer Roberto Burle Marx and
Associates, it is recognized as the most important public work of Burle Marx outside
Brazil. Parque del Este unites extraordinary design and scenic qualities, with exceptional
environmental educational values.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Caracas still kept its colonial urban pattern, which did
not include green open areas, other than a few squares. The main square was and still is the
Plaza Bolivar, at the heart of the downtown area. The east side of the valley, where Caracas
is located, was still occupied by coffee and sugarcane plantations, which were progressively
integrated into the city.
In 1951 a development plan was designed to regulate the growth of Caracas and provide a
recreational open areas strategy for the city. In the mid-1950’s, the land where Parque del
Este was to be built was part of the Hacienda San José, a coffee and sugar plantation in the
valley of Caracas. This land was where dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez planned to locate, as
part of his political agenda, the 1960 Caracas International Exposition.
After the end of the Perez Jimenez dictatorship (1958), the new government decided to
change the exposition project into a public park. In 1959, the local city authorities prepared
an Integral Plan of a Park’s System for Caracas, which proposed ten urban parks with a
total of 400 Ha, complemented by a system of metropolitan parks to sum up to 1.200 Ha
(8.8 m2/inhabitant). Included in this plan was the site where the Parque del Este is located.
After several different design approaches, the Burle Marx and Associates group were
commissioned to develop the park and started the initial plan in 1958. The park was opened
to the public in 1962. It has been intensely used since then and has become one of the main
landmarks of the city. The process of design and execution of the park was a very rich
experience for the professional group in charge of the project. Its’ integral approach
changed the perception of Venezuelans about landscape, ecology and conservation,
developing a new environmental awareness within a high quality public space, accessible to
all socio-economic groups.
At present, there are 328, 43 Ha of equipped recreational areas in Caracas. Parque del Este
represents 23 % of the total space. Considering today’s population of the metropolitan area,
the percentage of open areas per inhabitant is only 1,2 m2/inhabitant, which is a very low
rate by international standards.
Heritage values
ƒ Parque del Este represents an outstanding modern garden design by the well-known
Brazilian artist and landscape designer Roberto Burle Marx, together with landscape
architects F. Tábora and J. Stoddart and a select group of professionals that worked
from 1956 to 1964.
ƒ The park was created due to a unique exchange of experiences by a multidisciplinary
team that worked during a specific time in the XX century in South America, in the
field of landscape design. This park became the first large scale and metropolitan urban
and infrastructure design done by the Burle Marx’s Atelier. It is a Type 1 Cultural
landscape, where an integration of innovative concepts, the use of vegetation in a very
creative way and the incorporation of local culture with an educational concept
generated a coherent and unique site. “Parque del Este broke with the centuries-old
imitation of European formal garden design of Europe and made a statement of cultural
independence”. 1
ƒ It is a very unique setting, with organic landforms and water features, curving paths and
splendid views, which connect the park with the Avila Mountain and to which the
whole city refers. The courtyards (Los Patios) to the north are semi-secluded spaces,
two of them with tiled concrete walls, each one with a different design to produce an
emotional response in the visitor. In the third patio, the concrete wall originally
proposed was substituted by a Water Curtain that separates the park from the city.
Photo No. 2 and 3
ƒ The walkways, designed as a sinuous ribbon, connect the different areas of the park. To
the west they determine the disposition of vegetation as structural elements of the
landscape; the vegetation is organized to be observed from the pathways. In the case of
the forested area, the pathways are sinuous and narrower with respect to the existing
vegetation.
ƒ The treatment of the topography is another important value because it gives different
experiences and scales, which create enclosures and, in some cases, serves as a visual
barrier from the outside. It also gives the sensation that the park has no limits, which is
complemented by the location of big rocks to accentuate this effect.
ƒ The use of bodies of water is a constant in Burle Marx designs. They are all artificial,
but many have an educational purpose and allow the exhibit of rich unknown aquatic
vegetation, which opens new opportunities for aesthetical experiences. Only the big
lake to the south allows recreational activity.
Photo No. 4
ƒ The park incorporates local and Latin American tropical flora to express the exuberant
richness of Venezuelan natural areas. The following design criteria are specific
landscape values:
1. The disposition of species, both trees and shrubs in groups, is always present in the
Parque del Este planting design, creating color patterns and textures to be blend with

1
Martignoni, J. Restoring a Latin Landmark. Landscape Architecture 2/2005. pp. 106.
 the overall aesthetic of the area. This pattern helps in the identification of the new
introduced species.
2. The park is a catalog of ornamental tropical flora. This criterion allowed
concentrating a large amount of botanic species both local and exotic, some of them
never used before in gardens. Most of these plants are located in small-scale gardens
with educational paths, as the Jardin Xerofitico, which “ illustrated a relationship
between local natural elements – stone, soil and plants – and climate, echoing Burle
Marx’s concepts and design ideas” 2 , that are also expressed in water gardens or Jardín
Hidrofitico. These gardens, each one devoted to the representation of a Venezuelan
ecosystem, are “unusual for a public landscape of this scope and size”. 3
3. The use of vegetation is done in a way that it creates a variety of spatial sensations
of the park. In the case of the grass fields, the trees are near the pathways to create areas
of shadow while walking and leaving the open area for recreation. In the area where the
forest was saved, the shadow shrubs are located. A series of expeditions to the different
ecological regions of Venezuela to collect native plants was done by the design team
together with horticulturists from Italy, Germany and Switzerland
ƒ Parque del Este and Parque do Flamingo in Rio de Janeiro are considered the most
significant works of Burle Marx (Berrizbeitia 2004). Moreover, Marc Treib identifies
the XX Century as a time for innovations and changes in landscape architecture in the
World Heritage Paper No. 5. He names Parque del Este and Parque Flamengo as
outstanding examples of parks done in that period.
Parque del Este is the only park selected as examples of Central and South America, in
M. Mosser and G. Teyssot’s book, “La Arquitectura de los jardines occidentals,” MIT
Press, USA.

2- General Approach of the Management Plan towards conservation and related

issues
The economic recession in the eighties and nineties produced significant erosion in the
nation’s income, which caused severe management and maintenance problems for the park.
Constant budget reductions, poorly equipped and reduced personnel, unskilled management
and a general lack of awareness of the values of the park have caused serious damage that,
up to this moment, are still reversible. The opening of a subway station at one of the two
main entrances allows a visiting rate several times higher than its carrying capacity.
In 1998 the National Heritage Institute (Instituto de Patrimonio Cultural - IPC) declared the
park a National Heritage. Between 1997 and 2003 the World Bank financed a recovery
program that mainly involved the renovation of structures. A preliminary project for
planting restoration was initiated, but the planting design phase not completed.

2
Martignoni, J. Restoring a Latin Landmark. Landscape Architecture 2/2005. pp. 111
3
Berrizbeitia, A. Roberto Burle Marx in Caracas. Parque del Este 1956-1961. University of Pennsylvania
Press. Philadelphia. 2005.
In 2002 the Park authorities formed a commission to assist in the elaboration of a
management plan. This commission included: designers Fernando Tábora and John
Stoddart, botanist Leandro Aristeguieta, institutional personnel from INPARQUES and
(IPC) Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural and the authors of this paper, M. E. Bacci, as
representative of IPC, and D. Henríquez, as president of the Venezuelan Society of
Landscape Architects related to the Park through the recovery intentions of 1998 and to the
landscape studies at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. INPARQUES commissioned
the plan to the authors of this paper.
The concept of heritage related to a park or landscape has been, until recently, unheard of
and is today still difficult to interpret for most members of the park personnel and general
public. Before the heritage declaration, and even after it, the majority of park officials
considered the management of the site only a matter of maintenance, expenditure and use
regulations, totally unaware of heritage conservation concepts and techniques.
This problem, that seems to be common in most third world countries, can become a
serious limitation to heritage conservation objectives. Therefore, the first task towards
conservation is the education of the public, park officials and workers in these matters.
At this moment in Venezuela, only politically prioritized issues receive the necessary funds
and attention. Heritage values of the Cultural Landscape are not considered a priority.
The Management Plan focused on the protection of the Park as heritage and cultural
landscape, integrating these aspects to the other issues that had been considered until that
moment as part of a management plan, such as maintenance and educational programs.
1- Introduction
Antecedents, Legal context, History
Cultural Landscape Heritage conservation principles
2- The Park today.
Urban context
Sociocultural conditions of context
Importance within the Urban Recreational System of Caracas
Environmental aspects
Structures, Facilities and Services – Inventory
Management: Institutional aspects - Financial Situation.
Patterns of Use
Compilation – Synthesis – Diagnosis - Main Problems
3 - General guidelines
Objectives and Scope
Vision and image
Plan Criteria and general Guidelines
 Heritage Values
Guidelines for the management of the heritage components
Sectorization of the Park
4- Management structure
Institutional framework
Personnel management structure
Finances-Resources-Entrance fares-Concessions
Participation of official, community or private organizations.
Use regulations
Recreational activities
Environmental education activities
5- Management Programs
GIS-Geographic Information System applied to the park.
Maintenance Programs related to planting, structures and equipment,
Program for the management of the animal collection
Program for equipment and restoration
Program of services to users
Programs for Environmental Education, Preservation of Heritage Values and
Community participation
6- Action Plan
Priority activities
Priority projects
Research for information on guidelines, regulations and techniques related to Cultural
Landscape preservation as executed in Europe and North America were the most important
first steps for both consultants, since this was the first experience in Venezuela for this
practice and no official guidelines on the subject were available at IPC.
Through ICOMOS and IFLA (International Federation of Landscape Architects),
consultants with experience in the area were approached. Through the IFLA US Delegate
Darwina Neal (FASLA and ICOMOS), contact was made with Regina Peruggi, from the
Central Park Conservancy. Through an interview with Diana Henríquez, Ms. Peruggi
offered ample information about the Central Park Management Plan and the operation of
the Conservancy. Cecelia Payne US/Canadian landscape architect with a rich experience in
Landscape Heritage Conservation and Restoration projects came to Caracas to advice in the
process of the elaboration of this Plan.
The Plan included the inventory and recording of all heritage values present in the park. It
integrated all available information about planting and vegetation, including the surveys
done in an earlier attempt to document the nation’s richest plant collection.
The Plan mapped the areas that, under international criteria, would be object of
“conservation”, discriminating them from those few where “restoration” would be possible
due to available documentation. It also detailed the areas where “rehabilitation” would be
necessary due to significant problems that demanded well-defined levels of change.
The Plan explains measures and actions involved in each method, and the priority of the
actions prescribed.
More than 90% of the park had been defined as “conservation” under international criteria.
Only in Los Patios the term “restoration” was admitted due to sufficient information.
The research for documentation on the original vegetation became an archeology of the
landscape because planting drawings and sufficient photos of the early vegetation are not
available; an attempt to find clues was made by examining stubs, empty spaces and
probable forms of the groups of species. This problem was not found in relation to the
buildings and other structures where sufficient drawings are available.
Therefore one of the most urgent steps towards conservation is the documentation recovery
and mapping of the memory of the plantings through this research done under the guidance
of the collaborators of Burle-Marx: Tábora, Stoddart and Aristeguieta, who are still active
professionally and willing to participate.
An example of this conservation process was done by Tábora and Aristeguieta in 2004,
when their team completed the renovation of the Xerofitic Garden using renovation
methods based on their memories and experiences, which could become as influential in
Latin America as the original design.
3- Existing situation
The existing situation has three different scenarios:
1. The park as part of the city of Caracas. The lack of an integral recreational strategy for
the city has left Parque del Este as the only recreational well equipped open space in a city
which is reaching towards 7 millions citizens in the metropolitan area, causing overuse of
the park and a series of problems that are beyond the park’s solving capability.
2. The institutional framework where the park is inscribed. The National Park Institute,
INPARQUES, has to deal at the same time with 43 National Parks such as Canaima with 3
mm Ha, 21 Natural Monuments, and 74 recreational parks nationwide. The money that is
collected by the entrance fee and concessionaires goes to a general fund and has to be
divided among all the sites thus cannot be invested in the park to balance the impact of
visitors.
3. The park’s management and operation, both as a recreational and a heritage site. The
main elements to be considered in the site are:
ƒ Maintenance
Despite the poor management over the years, the park has about 90% of his original
structures, with moderate deterioration. This successful performance of the main structural
elements is due to the quality of the initial design, the use of high quality materials and
construction techniques. It is important to point out the availability of the drawings and
plans for the structures, which facilitate the conservation process.
In the case of the planting the situation is totally different. Almost all the original shrubs are
lost, and only the big trees and palms are in place. Additionally, there is no documentation
of the vegetation plans, which is a serious difficulty when restoration is needed. Other
plants have proliferated beyond their boundaries, invading walkways and obliterating the
original design. Fruit trees are part of this problem.
Today Parque del Este can mourn the loss of the most important botanic collection of
shrubs and undestory plants in the country. Most trees and palms have survived, but are in
serious need of arborist intervention. This loss of the shrubs and understory is worsened by
the fact that the planting was done by Burle Marx and his associates Tábora, Stoddart and
Aristeguieta through decisions made on the site, without the guide of planting drawings.
Public services such as bathrooms are deteriorating and, in peak days capacity is exceeding
the demand, causing overstress in the whole service system.
Many water features are not working and lakes are fenced. Desire lines opened for
shortcuts, causing soil erosion.
ƒ Budget restrictions
The park has serious budget problems that affect maintenance and operation. The poor
budget for personnel overwhelms park authorities, despite the general good will to take care
of the park.
As stated before, the management system is dysfunctional, because its personnel is reduced,
understaffed, under qualified and under equipped. Moreover, recently the whole
maintenance structure of the park is being reorganized, which faced the new authorities
with an additional challenge, imposing more stress on the conservation and operational
performance of the site.
ƒ Overuse
Parque del Este is one of the most democratic public spaces in the city. The park is very
accessible and popular among Caraqueños, receiving an approximate of 200.000 to 270.000
visitors each month. This amount of visitors causes overuse in relation to its operational
and physical capacity. Most of the users arrive by metro or public transportation. Each
group uses the park in different ways, according to his owns needs and purposes, but it is
becoming more and more inclined towards active recreation, which means a change in the
initial design concept of the park, with emphasis in passive and contemplative recreation.
This new trend brings serious risks to its integrity.
ƒ Lack of security and control
The vandalism of structures and planting are becoming more frequent and the security is
inefficient due to lack of personnel.
ƒ Need of Institutional Coordination
The low level of coordination between the different institutions dealing with open
recreational areas affects the whole metropolitan recreational system. Besides this, the
coordination with the heritage institution is not working as fluidly as in the past few years.
Additionally, the legal framework of the Institution has difficulties in the solution of
problems such as budget flexibility and private sector and community donations.
Loss of heritage values
Despite the fact that the Management Plan included a Program on interpretation of the Park
as a heritage site, this has not yet happened, and the lack of understanding of the heritage
values is still a need in order to advance in the conservation of the site. It is very important
to make the Plan known to all actors involved and make it a part of the day-by-day
operational activities.
A series of basketball courts and other recreational amenities such as the full-scale copy of
the Columbus ship, the Santa Maria, and kiosks for children’s parties have been introduced
during the last decades. In many cases, the heritage values of these “newer” structures have
been questioned. The proposals of “good ideas” continue to be a pressure on the Park,
adding some new recreational feature or a new plant without the proper heritage study.

As a conclusion, the heritage values of the park are dangerously unrecognized or

undervalued, continuing to be considered as sophisticated concepts that might be ignored
even by its management staff. Concepts such as recreational or ecological values are much
more understood and valued by the public and personnel than the concept of heritage. The
integrity of the park is at risk.

4- Proposed Strategies for its protection, through the development of public

awareness and involvement in maintenance and conservation projects. Fund
recollection to specific projects
The Management Plan included a program on environmental education, interpretation of
cultural heritage values, cooperation and participation of social groups in the conservation
of the park. The execution of the recommendations on this program is still pending and
need the commitment of the different actors involved with the park.
Social groups, private organizations and individuals with strong hold on the park’s assets
are fostering a defense and restoration movement based on the preservation of its heritage
values and are interested in promoting community involvement and the education of the
general public and of the personal in charge of the park, most of them totally unaware of
the losses at stake.
Interpretation of park heritage values is an important part of the conservation strategy and
there is a need to coordinate actions with all the actors involved. In these process is
important to define:
1. The design concept and the design team vision for the whole park. The park’s history has
been documented extensively as a major task of the Management Plan. Fernando Tábora
has finished a text on his experiences as part of the Burle Marx team, which reunites an
extraordinary set of information on the period of design and construction of the park. John
Stoddart has made the original maps and drawing available for future researchers. There is
a need to publish this information in order to make it available to the general public and
park personnel, and to encourage new researchers to continue documenting the park and its
related subjects.
2. The operational concept or what the manager of the site thinks of the site. There is a need
to work closely with the park personnel and conciliate the operational problems of the site
as a public recreational area with its heritage values. Some activities are planned and may
be readily implemented, such as talks to park personnel and concessionaires of the park
about its heritage values and the implications of being a heritage site. There is need for
coordination of activities and new management decisions that could affect the site and the
consolidation of the Heritage Committee as a permanent advisor in day-by-day operations.
3. The visitor’s concept, what they demand, think about the park and what it offers as a
recreational site. Most of the users do not appreciate the park for its outstanding landscape
and aesthetic values. It is important to develop visitor surveys and participation strategy in
order to identify their specific characteristics, needs and expectations. A visitor’s center is
one of the actions identified in the Plan, as well as the elaboration of a park guide,
brochures and media material that illustrate on the park values and need for conservation.
Photo No. 5 and 6
4. The international concept, the role of the park as one of the most important modern
designed parks and its relationship with other similar areas in America. There is a need to
establish contact with other countries and institutions to share experiences and collaborate
in the conservation of Parque del Este. The inscription of the park in the World Heritage
Site Tentative List and the ongoing preparation of the Dossier to be presented to UNESCO
are some activities already included as part of the Management Plan, as a strategy to gain
local, regional and international attention on the site and its importance.
Bibliography
Bacci, M.; Henríquez, D. “Plan de Desarrollo, Administración y Manejo del Parque del
Este”. INPARQUES. Caracas. 2003.
Berrizbeitia, A. “Roberto Burle Marx in Caracas”. Parque del Este 1956-1961. University
of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia. 2005.
Martignoni, J. “Restoring a Latin Landmark. Landscape Architecture” 2/2005. pp.106.
Tábora, Fernando. “Dos Parques, un Equipo”. Manuscrit for publication. 2005.