The question in the title of this article stems from the premise that if cities—in modern terms—are spatial entities possessing an originating and demarcating point of development, then they must also possess an equivalent point (or line) of finitude. One could easily resolve this question by turning to cartography. From an administrative and organizational perspective, maps allow us, to some extent, to define the boundaries of any urban agglomeration. However, the boundaries set by scalar representation fail to dismiss this reflection, as our perception of the city is far more complex. As Ferrão (2003) suggests, in a formulation that encompasses the socio-political dimension of the issue alongside geography and architecture: the city is an “object of increasingly invisible contours.”
In several Brazilian state capitals, such as São Paulo and Recife, kilometer zero (marco zero) physically symbolizes the starting point for street numbering and highway mileage originating in these municipalities. Serving the dual function of guiding the organization of the built environment and acting as an iconic element of “imageability”—to use Kevin Lynch's term—this kilometer zero can be understood as the official birthplace of a city's pathways, provided the city has one. In both of these cases, the sense of centrality is reinforced by the significant architectural heritage surrounding these landmarks, anchoring their prominence in the urban landscape.
However, relying on institutional landmarks as the sole origin of urban flows risks reinforcing a narrative of historical dominance of the center over the periphery, creating a rigid start-to-end dichotomy. This hegemony was challenged in the introductory text of the 2004 EXPOMUS exhibition panels:
