Juscelino took office as President on January 31, 1956. Only a few days later, he called San Tiago Dantas and the leaders of the political parties represented in Congress to a meeting to discuss the necessary steps for the immediate start of Brasília’s construction. At this meeting, they worked out the draft of a bill and formally handed it over to the legislative powers through the so-called Anápolis Message of April 18, 1956. Among other things, the draft proposed the creation of Novacap (Companhia Urbanizadora da Nova Capital ? the Company for Urbanization of the New Capital) and the authorization of the executive branch to perform any necessary act to fulfill the constitutional mandate and transfer Brazil’s capital to the central region of the country. Despite all the efforts, the approval process of the bill did not run as fast as expected, considering the urgency to begin the work. It took exactly five months from the date the message was sent to congress until its approval by the President on September 19, 1956. However, during this time, much was achieved. On February 4, Juscelino received Marshal José Pessoa who had been confirmed as member of the “Commission for Construction Planning and the Transfer of the Capital.” However, José Pessoa decided to retire from this position at the end of May. His secretary, Ernesto Silva, succeeded him. During his brief term as President of the commission, which lasted merely three months, Ernesto Silva was able to take care of two important issues: He concluded the demarcation of the area for the future Federal District, and he worked out the official “Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan”. For the former task of the two, Ernesto Silva had the support of the state government of Goiás, which bore all demarcation expenses. For the second task, he worked together with Israel Pinheiro and received valuable support from Oscar Niemeyer, Raúl Pena Firme, and Roberto Lacombe. Just a few hours after congress had passed law 2.874 on September 19, the “Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan” was sent to the national press and published on September 20 in the Diário Oficial (the newsletter for official publications of the government), and on September 30 in all leading newspapers of the country. On September 19, three days after the bill had been approved by congress, meetings were held at the offices of the “Commission for Construction Planning and the Transfer of the Capital” (from 10.00a.m. until 2.00p.m.), in which Novacap—the Company for Urbanization of the New Brazilian Capital—was established. On September 24, President Juscelino closed down the “Commission for Construction Planning and the Transfer of the Capital.” In another decree, he established Novacap and its statutes. On September 25, Juscelino appointed the first three directors of the company. In his function as appointed President of Novacap, Israel Pinheiro first saw to it that a meeting for early October was called, in which aspects of the “Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan” could be discussed. The call for proposals was not very clear to the engineers, architects, and city planners. The meeting took place at the headquarters of PSD (the Social Democratic Party) in Rio de Janeiro since these rooms could accommodate large groups. Israel Pinheiro chaired the meeting, which all directors and council members attended. In addition, associates of the Brazilian Institute of Architecture and of the Institute of Architects of São Paulo were present, as well as the recently appointed directors of Novacap, Bernardo Sayão and Ernesto Silva, and Oscar Niemeyer, who had been invited by Juscelino to plan the public buildings and to supervise the architectural design of the new capital. The greatest concerns discussed at the meeting regarded the participation of foreign professionals in the contest. The Call for Proposals was explicit about this. In its first article, the document stated two conditions for participation: It permitted the participation of private persons or firms with a Brazilian address, and exerted that they be properly registered as engineers, architects, or city planners in Brazil. The fifth article added a further condition: A participant had to be a member of the “Federal Council of Engineering and Architecture.” This way, the Call for Proposals seemed to exclude foreign professionals from the contest. Israel assured everyone that the government had indeed decided to favor Brazilian professionals possibly much by making them the only ones who could participate in fact. Israel related also that, when he had discussed the issue with the President as they worked out the proposal, the President had stated: “I prefer the silver of our home.” So, the Call for Proposals intentionally eliminated the possibility that foreign professionals could participate. One among many reasons for this policy was that Juscelino wanted the new capital to exhibit essentially Brazilian characteristics. Israel’s objective at this meeting was to calm down everyone and to confirm that their expectations were in line with those of Novacap’s directors. So, the aim of the “Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan" would be clear, it meant a “National Call for Proposals.” Juscelino had been contemplating an international “Call for Proposals”. However, he mainly saw the downsides of an international call and chose to firmly support a national call. The commission that wrote the proposal shared this view, too. As he often declared later, Juscelino never got to regret this choice. The plenary was crowded and many architects expressed their opinion about the “Call for Proposals”. In general, they agreed with the established restrictions and norms for the the submission projects. On the other hand, they requested a guarantee that the winning project would be realized. They also expressed the opinion that future public buildings should not be excluded from competition in the Call for Proposals. To the contrary, the winner of the contest should also be allowed to plan these buildings. Moreover, they pointed out that the deadline for project submission was too close. Their strongest objection concerned the conditions of project submission as stated in article four of the “Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan.” This article did not require that applicants handed in all the “elements of proof for the underlying reasoning” of their projects, allowing each candidate the freedom to present them or not. They argued that this article could cause difficulties in judging proposals. As they suggested, the wording of the fourth article “the candidates may present elements of proof…” should be changed to “the candidates must present…” In response, Israel pointed out that the key component of this contest was laid down in article three. The participants should present a “Pilot Plan” with the basic sketch of the new city and attach an explanatory report to it. Nothing else but this report needed to be attached to the project under the present version of the fourth article. However, further information or documents could be attached to the project in order to clarify its realization, if selected. If, on the other hand, the indicated eight items in this article were made mandatory, young architects who were not associated with firms or specialized groups, and who lacked large technical or financial resources for their project plan, would be de facto excluded from the contest. The government wanted to receive as many submissions as possible. Enabling a young professional to work alone on a project would not present an obstacle for the larger teams to win. The jury, composed of architects including famous foreign ones, would know how to discern a complete project from a simple suggestion. But it seemed compelling to the government to study all possible ideas from both famous and less well-known candidates. Surprisingly, time would show that the government had had good reasons not to create any obstacles to anyone who could contribute a good suggestion. Israel had not so strong a case when he suggested that mere completeness would make an elaborate project better than a good idea. As we got to know, the winning project had not been submitted by a young professional but by a master. Yet, it was not much more than a simple sketch, accompanied by a master’s report. Its author, Lúcio Costa, explained the motivation this way: "First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the Directors of the Urbanization Company and the Jury of this Contest for the brevity of my presentation and the conciseness of my suggestion for constructing the new Capital. Initially, I had no intention to participate in the “Call for Proposals”, and I actually still may not be doing so–I am simply bringing a possible solution to your attention, but it was already there. I do not attend this meeting as a technician; I don’t even have an office. I am just presenting a simple sketch of an idea that I developed as a mere advisor. I chose to do so for a very naïve reason: If only an idea can be of help, these summary notes may somehow contribute. They are the result of long reflections about the circumstance. However, if this sketch cannot contribute to anything, it would not be worth pursuing it further either, and I will not have lost my time nor anyone else will have.” The debates became more intensive when the participants cast doubts on the government’s commitment to carry out the winning project in the Pilot Plan Contest. The “Call for Proposals” stated that the selected projects would become property of Novacap, which could then use them at its convenience. The architect Maurício Roberto pointed out such clauses tended to put the winning projects at a disadvantage. Israel argued against this insinuation stating that, as the President of Novacap, he would make sure that no irregularities could occur at any stage of the contest. The winner would be publicly announced, and this would be sufficient to make him immortal. However, the viability of the project, its development and its implementation would depend on an agreement between the winner and the company. As a consequence, this issue should not be considered a part of the contest itself. Israel expressed the view that no difficulties should arise, since it was in the winner’s best interest to realize the project so that the winner’s ideas would certainly not tend make the project infeasible. Public buildings, other than the governmental palace, the ministries, and parliament – the design of which could be given to the winner, should, in Israel’s opinion, not be included in the contest. Neither should the construction of other public buildings be included in the “Pilot Plan.” Authorities, such as the central bank “Banco do Brasil” and others should rather be in charge of planning their own buildings suitable to their individual needs. However, if they did not want to be in charge of the design themselves, they could transfer the task to Novacap, which would, in turn, be open to the possibility that the contest winner would also plan and build these facilities. Unfortunately, the close deadline of only 120 days for project submission could not be extended. The President was committed to beginning the construction of the new capital as soon as possible. This deadline was not negotiable, and architects, engineers and city planners had to understand the interest of the government in not postponing the deadline for submissions. However, they agreed to extend the deadline for enrollment to the contest, which had been only fifteen days. So, Novacap communicated on October 16, 1965, in a letter to the President of IAB (the Institute of Brazilian Architects), Ary Garcia Roza, that the deadline for enrollment had been extended to March 11, 1957, the last possible date for submission of the projects. The press widely publicized this letter so that all interested parties could find out about the new deadline. Enrollment started immediately after this meeting. More than sixty candidates, individually working professionals and teams, enrolled. However, only 26 presented their project within the stipulated deadline. To save time, all projects, drawings and sketches were presented as panels and on tables at the Exposition Room of the Ministry of Culture and Education. So, all members of the jury could compare the competing proposals easily the day after the deadline had passed, March 12, 1957. Israel acted as President of the jury, which had the following members: Sir William Holford, professor for city planning at London University; André Sive, professor for urban planning in Paris; Stamo Papadaki, architect and professor at New York University; Paulo Antunes Ribeiro, representative architect of the Institute of Brazilian Architects; the engineer Luiz Hildebrando Horta Barbosa, representative of the Engineers’ Club and the architect Oscar Niemeyer Filho, at the time director of the Urban Planning and Architecture Department at Novacap. Sir William Holford proposed a pre-selection of the ten best-presented projects. So, these ten projects could be analyzed more carefully. Dr. Paulo Antunes Ribeiro argued against this suggestion. In his opinion, all projects deserved a detailed analysis. Professor André Sive observed that, having received and arranged the present projects, he knew that some of them did deserve more than a simple analysis. To avoid a conflict, Israel Pinheiro submitted Sir William Holford’s idea to the Commission for approval. His motion stated that a pre-selection would only be performed if all members of the Commission agreed on the group of pre-selected projects. In other words, the ten projects would have to be chosen without any dissenting votes. As it turned out, the ten best projects were easily chosen by unanimity. The following days were very intensive. Each member of the jury analyzed the ten projects individually, discussing his impressions with the colleagues and reflecting on own judgments. On March 16 already, the jury arrived at a decision. That evening, the commission held a meeting. Oscar Niemeyer informed the commission about the activities of the jury. When Niemeyer had concluded his report, Israel informed the commission members that the three foreign architects had come to a joint understanding regarding the presented projects. They had elaborated a ranking that deemed them just and drafted a report to be read out, analyzed and discussed. After the report had been presented, Dr. Paulo Antunes Ribeiro suggested that none of the proposed classification criteria should be applied to the projects but that all projects should be considered winners, including an eleventh project that had been excluded from the ten pre-selected ones. “The winners should form a team that becomes the grand commission in charge of developing the construction plan of Brasília.” This proposal was submitted to the commission for a vote. Everybody was opposed. Dr. Horta Barbosa pointed out that the pre-selected proposals were not comparable since they were not at the same level. Sir William stated that he did not understand this motion; after all, the Pilot Plan Contest had been about choosing one plan for the capital of an important country, and the world would be watching, commenting, and criticizing the winning plan, but should not have to contemplate the fusion of ten or eleven plans. As one of the responsible technicians for the plan, and given the weight of his name, he felt that he should express his opinion about the individual projects clearly, vote against this motion and in favor of a classification. Papadaki shared the same view, and added that some of the projects stood in mutual conflict. Niemeyer also voted for the classification. The report was examined more closely, discussed, and finally approved. This report became the report of the commission itself. As Dr. Paulo Antunes Ribeiro did not agree with the criteria of the judgment, he left the commission. He had represented the Institute of Brazilian Architects (IAB). The President of this institute, Ary Garcia Roza, had given Dr. Antunes Ribeiro his full support for this position. Even before the results of the contest became public, the press printed an interview with Dr. Antunes Ribeiro, in which he accused the commission of making hasty decisions, which was unacceptable for a contest of this magnitude. The position of the IAB and the declarations of his representative were very useful to the opponents of Brasília. The solution was to add the individual vote of Dr. Antunes Ribeiro to the jury decision as a dissenting vote, so that everyone could duly express his opinion. In this vote, Dr. Antunes Ribeiro presented the reasons for his disagreement and made two main arguments: “The record time” in which the judgment had been made, and his understanding that the objective of the contest could only be, “given the arbitrary information available,” to “form a team of true value and high technical skills that would exhibit the ability to develop a project for the new capital.” Worried about misrepresentations of the jury’s judgement that could be evoked by Dr. Antunes Ribeiro dissenting vote, Israel considered it appropriate to pose several written questions about the criteria adopted in the decision of the commission to Sir William Holford?one of the most revered urban planners in the world. These questions were sent to Sir Holford on March 18, 1957, two days after the publication of the contest results. Sir Holford answered these questions on the very same day. One of the first questions addressed the issue of how it could be possible to analyze all projects in such a contest in only a few days, and how much experience Holford had with tasks like this. Holford replied that he had understood the contest as a “competition of ideas” and not as “one of details”. Hence, the "Call for Proposals for a Pilot Plan" required only the “sketch of a project (the “pilot plan”) and an illustrative memorandum of supporting ideas.” The jury would then choose the best and most creative idea as basis for the construction of the capital.” He added, “a creative idea could not be the simple addition of many small projects in a local map.” Sir William referred to a principle that was often neglected in situations like this: “All great plans are fundamentally simple. They can be easily grasped not only by architects, but by anyone. Since they are stylized, their realization seems immediate. Anyone who sees it will say: Sure! Why didn’t I think about that? Take Saint Peter Square in Rome, for instance, or Michelangelo’s Project for the Capitol, or even the city plan realized under Pope Xisto V; or the center of Washington DC; or Wren’s project for London (1666) or Corbusier’s Plan for Saint Dié. All these designs can be understood immediately either at the project stage or after their realization. And the more people study them, the more get to like them.” Sir William stressed a key concept of the contest: “An idea that cannot be transmitted is not worthwhile.” On the other hand “an idea able to evoke a chain of subsequent ideas is the worthiest thing in civilization. The jury was in charge of finding exactly this bright idea in the Pilot Plan Contest. To identify it, we spent five long days working. Possibly, one could perform this task in less time, if the jurors did not have to read the report of each single plan. Some of the plans were presented exclusively in Portuguese, requiring a translation. Others were presented both in Portuguese and English. In general, the projects were easy to understand and the level of the presentations was very good.” Regarding his experience with such tasks, Sir William explained: “I have had personal experience in analyzing such projects for more than 20 years now, since I was appointed Professor for Urban Planning in 1935. Besides that, I am an advisor to and assistant at the Habitation and Planning Ministry and at the British Office for the Colonies. I also work as a consultant for the cities of London, Cambridge, and Corby. I planned and led development projects at the Liverpool and Exeter Universities. Upon a request from the Australian government, I designed a plan for the development of the Regional Resources of Australia and Tasmania. I was a member of the Municipal Council of Pretoria (South Africa) and of the South African Government Commission for the planning of the capital of that country. For over 12 years, I have been a member of the Royal Commission in charge of approving all projects of public interest in England and Wales, and nationally important projects. I believe to be able to say that I have ample experience in judging urban plans and projects.” Holford did not state in his reply, but could well have mentioned, that his project for the reconstruction of the neighborhood of Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London had been widely acclaimed by professionals and European artists. Holford could have stated, in addition, that he was the head of four architecture offices for urban planning in London. During his time in Brazil, he was simultaneously involved in the planning of the new Capital of the Federation that was being formed by the African states of South Rhodesia, North Rhodesia and Niasaland. Leaving behind his natural reservation and his prudent British soberness, the famous architect for urban planning expressed his impression with the plan of the Brazilian architect as follows: “This is the best idea for a unified capital I have ever seen and one of the most interesting and significant contributions in this century to the theory of modern urbanism. In fact, the idea was presented as a sketch but it shows everything that is necessary to know. Its report did not contain a single superfluous word. This project is a creative work of finest art. It can be developed step by step, while the infrastructure and social scope are expanded. It represents the nucleus that will trigger a chain reaction in Brasilia’s construction. It is simple, practical, and easy to understand. Two thirds of the population will live in blocks or urban units surrounded by tree belts. There is a general urban discipline and organization in the disposition of the city. The blocks can be constructed separately, and even if some blocks remain empty in the first years of the city, the city will not look deserted. Each sector of the city has its own place in the city and leads to the next one in a very creative way. In a nutshell, this project proves the vast experience of its designer and an architectural conception that reaches out to the future”. At the occasion, Dr. Israel also asked why not award a prize to all submitted projects or at least to the ten best ones so that their authors could contribute to the construction of the capital through suggestions to Novacap. Sir William Holford explained that there was no meaning in performing a contest and awarding prizes to all competitors afterwards despite their differing technical knowledge and skills. Naturally, one supposes that the function of a jury is to select the best idea. In fact, a jury has a mission: “To neglect the duty of the commission would result in confusion because one cannot expect that the participants in the contest would be able to agree when forced to work together, except in matters that are commonly accepted.” The explanations of William Holford seemed perfect and conclusive. Lúcio Costa’s pilot plan, once taken from the paper to the construction site, would not only prove this judgment right in practice but would also confirm the genius of its concept. Some years later, Niemeyer wrote about his experience in Brasília and made the following statements about the contest: “Some bitterness still remains in me from the first period of the Pilot Plan for Brasília. I gave my entire support to the solution, I even refused the invitation of Juscelino Kubitscheck to advance the initial project and only accepted to design the government buildings. Although the contest had been carried out in all honesty, some people disliked the result due to the eminent importance of the work, which aroused passions in many people. I still remember some incidents; moments that made me lose my confidence in many things. For the first time, I felt how wild the fight for professional success can be, how it can dominate people, inducing them not to value friendships and to disrespect compromises merely out of unlimited professional ambition. But I felt also that they were lacking a more realistic understanding of life, which would show them the fragility of things, making them simple, human and not so greedy. I am not a person who just sees the negative side in man; there is also a favorable and positive side in everything, and this insight allowed me to understand these people without resentment.” (Magazine "Brasília", n° 43, Jul. 1960).