UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA COMILLAS
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS HUMANAS Y SOCIALES
Degree in International Relations
Final Degree Project
The Renewed Right to the City in
Latin America
Slum Upgrading and Placemaking
Author: Natalia Meléndez Fuentes
Coordinator: Dr. Heike Clara Pintor Pirzkall
2
Table of Contents
1. Purpose and Motivation 1
2. Introduction 1
3. State of Affairs 2
4. Objectives and Research Questions 8
5. Methodology 9
6. Theoretical Framework 11
6.1. On the Formal and the Informal 11
6.2. Renewing the Right to the City: 16
The Art of Placemaking in Latin America
7. Regional Background: Birth and life of the Latin American Slum 18
8. Analysis and Discussion 22
8.1. Regularization framework and coverage of basic needs: 23 Pró-Favela Program (Brazil)
8.2. Community participation and organization: 25
Villa El Salvador (Peru)
8.3. Access to credit, transparency and good governance: 28 PRODEL (Nicaragua)
8.4. Cost-recovery and budget control mechanisms: 30
Self-Management Program (Mexico)
8.5. Political will and social capital: 31
Rosario Habitat Program (Argentina)
8.6. Sustainability and monitoring: 33
Neighborhood Improvement Program (Bolivia)
8.7. Strong intermediary structure: 36
Popular Habitat Program (Costa Rica)
8.8. Integral and multidisciplinary approach: 37
PUI Nororiental Initiative (Colombia)
8.9. Bridging the gap between a development project & social progress: 40 PROUME (Guatemala)
8.10. Equity, esteem and inclusion: 41
Library Parks, Schools and Metrocable System (Colombia)
9. Conclusion and proposals 44
10. Bibliography 49
10.1. Primary Sources 49
3
11. Abbreviations and Acronyms 60
12. Glossary of terms 61
13. Annexes 64
13.1. Annex 1: Manfred Max-Neef’s Fundamental Human Needs 64
13.2. Annex 2: Population Data 68
13.3. Annex 3: By-Country Sheets: Recent National Slum and Housing 70 Policies in Latin American countries
13.4. Annex 4: Names of Slum Upgrading Programs Studied Prior to 85 Selecting the Representative Case Studies
13.5. Annex 5: Meléndez’s Pyramid of Slum Upgrading 88
13.6. Annex 6. Case Studies Sheets: Slum upgrading programs whose 89 elements constitute Melendez’s Pyramid for Slum Upgrading
13.7. Annex 7: Names of Informal Settlements All Over Latin America 141
1
1. Purpose and Motivation
The decision to embark on a research project on the present topic, was mainly motivated by two factors. First, having peers in the field of architecture introduced us to deep discussions, which inspired further reflection and learning upon the subject. These peers, to whom we are deeply grateful, have taught us how to look at global problems through socio-spatial lenses; an approach that enriches thought and is more integral at its core. The utmost importance of architecture and urbanism in developmental sciences was recognized by the illustration of the transcendence of these two fields in our daily lives, as they affect virtually all human dimensions, decisions, and actions. Through this final degree project, we modestly aim to present such relevance to our readers. Second, the past five years of university studies have nurtured many areas of knowledge within the field of International Relations. Brainwork led us to interrelate them and conceive a bigger picture on the present global state of affairs. Such acquired more-critical eye inspired a special concern for slums, given the increasingly alarming situation of informality in world cities. This negative picture hints a lack of sufficient research on finding more effective solutions to the slum question. Therefore, we have wished to harness this project as a stepping stone to conduct research on the topic. For we aspire to pursue a career in the field of Development Cooperation and deem cities and urban challenges as key issues in development agendas. 2. Introduction
The present project reviews the condition of urban informality in Latin America and recommends a methodology to better address the slum question. This document is organized into six sections. First, the ‘State of Affairs’ compiles information on the present scenario of slums: a general overview of their challenges and how they are addressed. Second, the section of ‘Objectives and Research Questions’ establishes the lines that led our research activity and what we intended to accomplish through it. Third, in the “Methodology” we define the tools used and the process followed to achieve our objectives and answer our questions. Fourth, regarding the ‘Theoretical Framework’, this section engages in a discussion on concepts and literature review on urban informality, complemented with our own body of theory on slum upgrading. Fifth, we present the specificities of Latin America in dealing with slums and slum upgrading in the ‘Regional Background’. Sixth, our ‘Discussion and Analysis’ illustrates the practical effectiveness of what was theoretically displayed. At this stage, we examine the main findings of our research and critical reflection. Special focus is put into the essential human needs that slum upgrading should satisfy and into expounding our recommended methodology to achieve that. To this latter purpose, we have selected the ten Latin American slum upgrading programs that we consider to best illustrate this satisfaction of needs. Finally, the ‘Conclusion’ culminates the study by presenting the general lessons of our research, which in itself constitutes a proposal for future practices on the field.
2
3. State of Affairs
There are a billion squatters in the world today, that is one in eight people. This figure is projected
to increase to 1.5 billion by 2030 if the demographic, urban planning, and economic distribution
dynamics do not change significantly (UN-Habitat, 2016: 2). Numbers continuously swelling, the slum
problem remains a critical factor for the persistence of poverty in the world, reducing the efficiency of
economic growth and stunting the human potential of many. Slums are a clear manifestation of many
global deficiencies (e.g., unequal distribution or malfunctioning housing sectors). Their prevalence is not of poverty’s exclusivity, but can also be found in developed urban landscapes. On the face of this alarming situation, tackling the slum problem has been an integral part of the global development agenda for almost forty years.
To begin with, a ‘slum household’ is a group of individuals living in an urban area, deprived of
one or more of the following: lack of access to improved water source, lack of access to improved
sanitation facilities, lack of sufficient living area, lack of housing durability and lack of security of
tenure (UN-Habitat, 2006: 1). This definition was included in Goal 71 of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), which are eight international development objectives adopted by all UN members in
the year 2000. The MDGs are a global compromise to reduce poverty and deprivation through
collaborative action. Such joint action is the result of three influential happenings: the WB’s World
Development Reports (1990-ongoing); the UNDP’s Human Development Reports (1990-ongoing);
and the resume of UN Summits and Conferences (1990-ongoing). These events brought poverty back
to the global agenda and devised strategies to eradicate it (Hulme, 2009: 9).
In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the MDGs, setting a renewed global
agenda of seventeen social and economic development objectives to advance further in the fight
against poverty. The challenge of slums was also reflected in the SDG Declaration, this time in Goals
11 and 162. The continuous presence of the slum question in the development agenda, indicates the
importance globally assigned to the eradication of urban poverty. Nonetheless, it is necessary to note
the inadequacies in the statistical base for measuring and monitoring progress on MDG and SDG
targets. The bar for progress is set low, which allows ‘improved’ services to be recorded as ‘adequate’
or ‘significant’. The reasoning behind this is mainly economic: as settlements meet the low criteria to
qualify as ‘adequate’ they stop requiring further urgent investment (Satterthwaite, 2016: 112;
Satterthwaite, 2013). This large understatement of deficiencies is deceiving in establishing how much
progress has been actually made and which is the real and current situation.
1 MDG 7: “To have achieved by 2020 a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers” (UN General Assembly, 2000).
2 SDG 11: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums”; SDG 16: “To promote peaceful and inclusive
3
The presence of slums mainly finds its causes in rapid urbanization, elitist city planning, massive rural-urban migration, lack of land affordability, weak governmental institutions, discriminatory legal frameworks, and highly protected financial systems (Ferguson & Navarrete, 2003: 202; Esteves, 2012: 159; Rakodi, 1993: 207-215). Although the weak welfare state in most countries vastly exacerbates and contributes to the problem, the market logic equally resonates in the formation and persistence of urban informality (TECHO, 2015: 135). The industrialization stage of the last two centuries led cities to absorb a myriad of workers with no planning for their inclusion. Unable to afford properly serviced areas, the majority of the working class established spontaneous settlements on the peripheries in a quest to address their ‘right to the city’ and to housing. The lack of services in these areas is mainly due to the authorities’ inability to keep pace with rapid urban growth (Irazábal, 2009: 34).
Their informal living, adjacent to economic opportunities, allows slum dwellers to make four contributions to national economies. These four aspects enable a kind of economic growth that makes formal cities richer and slum residents more vulnerable, their poverty perpetuated (Fernandes & Figueiredo, 2016: 185). First, they invest in housing and land improvement. Second, they are part of the job market, usually at very profitable rates for employers. In addition to these ‘formal’ jobs, they usually also work within the settlement. Third, there are many small businesses in slum areas, which is extremely important in monetary terms: it allows people within the settlement to buy and sell to and from each other at a great rate. And fourth, there is the social capital deriving from and invested in the creation of a community. This fourth aspect is not exclusively economic but acts as an economic engine: it makes investment in home and neighborhood upgrading possible, as well as the financing of the many small enterprises (Environment & Urbanization, 1989: 174-177). The profitability of these contributions for national economies explain the widespread neglect of slums, despite international commitments on the issue. In this vein, one should also consider the many political implications––and inconveniences––in considering ‘adequate housing’ as a right (Leckie, 1989: 93).
As if these political and economic implications were not enough of a hindrance, the future of dwellers is further compromised by the behavior of the capitalist market system, where the production of city space has become a business in itself. This feature rules out the possibility of overcoming the urban and environmental deficits inherited from previous eras, thus increasing the pressure on unsustainable urban dynamics (Withaker Ferreira, 2016: 69-72). Because access to cheap serviced land is a major problem all across the globe and due to informal settlements’ proximity to economic opportunities, slums are the best compromise between dweller’s needs and their inability to afford better serviced plots (Gilbert, 2014: 258).
What makes informal settlements an appalling urban phenomenon to be addressed forthwith are the strong levels of poverty, deprivation and socio-spatial exclusion to which their residents are
4
subjected (UN-Habitat, 2016: 4). Lack of basic infrastructure and services poses risks of injury, illness and premature death among settlers (Ferguson & Navarrete, 2003: 201). Squatter settlements can be an important focal point for serious waterborne diseases and high crime rates. These communities are also extremely vulnerable to natural disasters given their usual location in risk areas (WB, 2012: 15). Adding to the urgency, slums present dire consequences for the environment. For instance, the contamination and depletion of natural resources; the deforestation of nearby areas; or the severe erosion resulting from the steep slopes where they are often settled upon (Okeyinka, 2014: 7).
Consequently, the global aspiration to achieve sustainable development is unattainable until the slum question is solved. This link between sustainable development and adequate housing has been endorsed with the recognition, at the highest international level, of housing as a human right (Fernández-Maldonado, 2010: 1). After years of experience, the international community has recognized slum upgrading as the best strategy to address the slum question and thus fulfill the human right to housing. Slum upgrading is the practice of alleviating poverty in slum areas by providing basic services and infrastructure, as well as securing land tenure to its residents. On the basis of equity, this process includes incorporating the slums into the larger city by providing dwellers with the social, economic, legal, institutional and community services available to the rest of the citizenry (Materu & Sietchiping, 2001: 3). Significant progress and methodological improvements are still needed, but the creation of regional and international discussion networks opens up new prospects for the implementation of suitable national and local urban policies.
At the global level, UN-Habitat and its several programs are indubitably the central focus of debate in the field of slum upgrading. This UN Agency had its beginnings at the first Habitat Conference (Vancouver, 1976) but it was not until 2002 that the initiative became a formal UN body. Nowadays, headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, UN-Habitat is tasked with the coordination of human settlements and urbanization issues within the UN framework. This agency is a crucial actor in the field, for it produces international standards; influences the definition of state policies; and configures practices to be undertaken by development agencies or NGOs (Fernandes & Figueiredo, 2016: 179). In 1990, these efforts were further supported by the launching of the aforementioned Human Development Reports. Its proponents, economists Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq, introduced a new perspective on development: people are to be at the center of this process with the economic apparatus merely supporting the provision of quality of life and the restoration of individual rights (Dowbor, 2016: 34). There have been two further Habitat Conferences: the 1996 Habitat II (Istanbul, Turkey), and the 2016 Habitat III (Quito, Ecuador). The latter was especially relevant for its issuance of the New Urban Agenda (NUA), oriented towards more inclusive and sustainable cities. The NUA has been a success insofar as it serves as a platform for sharing orientations, perspectives and conflicts of interest
5
regarding cities. Another of its advances was its involvement of states and many other stakeholders in solving the slum question. The NUA is set to motivate peer reviews among countries, involvement of local actors, and inclusive decisions on sustainable development (Dellas, 2016). Yet, the wording is very much contradictory and imprecise, making countless readings and orientations possible (Fernandes & Figueiredo, 2016: 182). Another shortcoming is its lack of direct accountability of big corporations, which are hegemonic players in producing cities and territories (Ibid.: 185). All its faults notwithstanding, the NUA has set in motion the internationalization of a new urban paradigm through the revision of the urban geopolitical scenarios (Balbim, 2016: 17).
For the purpose of institutionalizing the upgrading of slums, the WB and UN-Habitat have collectively launched a partnership and two programs. In 1999, the two entities established the multi-donor partnership Cities Alliance to address urban poverty, foster slum upgrading strategies, and promote the participation of local stakeholders (WB, 2012: 12). In this latter sense, the partnership is especially unprecedented: it places local governments at the heart of the upgrading. Then, the ‘Cities Without Slums’ (CWS) Action Plan was set in motion in the same year, endorsed by 150 heads of state. The CWS Action Plan acknowledges that slum upgrading programs need to be complemented with strategies that address the root causes of poverty, thus preventing further slum formation. Later, the funding shortfall3 for slum upgrading, motivated the establishment of the Slum Upgrading Facility (SUF) program in 2004. The SUF packages the financial, technical and political elements of development projects with the purpose of mobilizing capital for slum upgrading; that is, it makes these slum upgrading projects more attractive for private institutions to finance4 (UN-Habitat, 2006b: 3-6). So far, the approaches and credit enhancement provided by the SUF have attracted major commercial banks to participate in slum upgrading, though still insufficient5 (UN-Habitat, 2011: 48).
Complementary to these initiatives, the different World Social Forums (WSF), have played a very influential role in improving living conditions in slums. Since 2001, these forums have congregated in the form of transversal participatory meetings that connect the local echelons up to the global level in different social areas. By this way, the first WSF (Porto Alegre, 2001) introduced the practice of ‘participatory budgeting’. Through this scheme local communities can participate in the allocation of municipal budgets, its success resulting in many other world cities6 adopting the practice. The second WSF (Porto Alegre, 2002) released the milestone World Charter for the Right to the City. The ultimate goal of this document is to create competent legal monitoring mechanisms and instruments that ensure
3 To this day, funding to address the slum question is rather directed to new housing schemes, as these create more jobs and give more benefits to constructing companies and
other influential stakeholders. As a result, resettlement strategies are more widespread than slum upgrading, but the most common approach towards slums is of neglect (Bolay, 2011: 11; Irazábal, 2009: 1-13). An additional aspect that explains why slum upgrading suffers from a funding shortfall is the profitability of informality, as explained in previous lines through its four contributions to the national economies.
4
See SUF 2009: 68-71 for detailed information on the workings of SUF.
5 UN-Habitat issued the last report on SUF activities in 2011 (UN-Habitat, 2011: 48-53). According to it, up to that date, the SUF had helped mobilize $440,000 from seven
different commercial banks in three countries (Ghana, Sri Lanka and Indonesia) with different socio-economic conditions. That amount benefiting 1,600 people since 2004.
6
the enforcement of recognized human, social, and citizenship rights. Acknowledging that human rights declarations are not sufficient, the Charter intends to foster an explicit legalization of international human rights instruments at the local level (Allegretti et al., 2016: 216-231).
In this line of work, the last decades have witnessed valuable slum upgrading initiatives by various international coalitions. Namely, the UN-Habitat sponsored its Participatory Slum Upgrading Program (PSUP), implemented by 35 ACP countries since 2008. This program furthers the adoption of a programmatic city-wide approach in order to integrate slums into formal planning systems, leading to significant key achievements7 (UN-Habitat, 2016: 20). Another important undertaking is the India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum, a trilateral initiative furthering South-South cooperation. This forum added human settlements to its portfolio in 2007, which enabled solid exchanges of know-how and joint research in the field of slum upgrading (Klink, 2016: 199-200). The most coordinated region for these purposes, however, is Latin America. Also in 2007, Ibero-American Heads of State decided to enshrine the ‘right to the city’ by ensuring access to land, adequate housing, and social services through governmental policies. Since then, the region has been pooling technical expertise and pioneered a people-oriented approach to slum improvement (Zárate, 2016: 294).
Nonetheless, the notion of regional and international planning for slum upgrading creates a dilemma: how to build an effective global/regional agenda on planning that recognizes the specificities of each local context, but, at the same time, enables countries to learn from each other, from academics, technical experts, NGOs, and local communities? Solutions to slum upgrading must be locally devised with the full engagement of the beneficiary communities. That explains why the most successful slum upgrading strategies are found at the local level (Magalhães, 2016: 112). International and regional schemes are necessary, for they set guidelines and provide most of the funding, but they are far from enough. Broad initiatives cannot be expected to have as efficient results as tailored approaches do: the broader the scope in planning, the less a program takes note of the particularities of the site. Losing touch with local idiosyncrasies nullifies communities’ voices and social capital. This is why many slum upgrading programs struggle to reap the benefits to be expected from so much expertise and investment brought together. Best practices cannot be replicated fully; they were categorized as ‘best’ because they looked at local specificities in detail and built according to what was already there.
In this context, states and municipalities host the most powerful approaches to slum upgrading. Echoing the 2002 WSF, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia introduced the ‘right to the city’ within their national legislations8. In the Brazilian case, eleven years of discussion, debates and political bargaining
7 To name a few, more than 800,000 slum dwellers being provided with land tenure in 9 countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DR. Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Niger and Senegal), 32 city-wide slum upgrading strategies are currently in the process of integrating slums into formal cities, and a gender focal point in all its endeavors to ensure gender responsiveness (UN-Habitat, 2016: 21).
8 Positively impacting slum upgrading strategies, the ‘right to the city’ was introduced in the aforementioned countries in the following forms: Brazil’s Law No.10.257/2001–
–aka. City Statute––, Ecuador’s Constitution (2008) and the Ecuadorian Law on Territorial Occupation and Land Management and Use (Saule Júnior, 2016: 316). Colombia pioneered in the legalization of the ‘right to the city’ and slum dweller’s rights prior to the WSF with its Law No. 388/1997 in 1997 (Fernandes, 2007: 204).).
7
led to the adoption of the landmark City Statute. This instrument establishes the necessary urban and legal instruments to advance the ‘right to the city’ and to upgrade the lives of informal settlers nationwide (Fernandes, 2007: 212-4). The Colombian ideas, also worth the mention, include the policy of ‘social urbanism’, which conceives a city model that integrates different topics (politics, social, culture, territory and urban planning) in the reorientation of municipal policies towards human welfare (Vilar & Cartes, 2016: 60). Other countries carrying out innovative practices include Egypt, Mexico, Morocco, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia and Turkey. These countries, where slum sprawl exist to an enormous scale, are addressing their urban issues by dint of pro-poor policies, substantial funding, and integrated approaches. For instance, Thailand is exemplary for its sharp reduction of slum growth rates by linking rural and urban socio-economic development. This avoids future poverty-provoked rural-urban migration (UN-Habitat, 2006: 44; Norford, 2016). In the case of Turkey, the Gecekondu9 Law
protects informal housing built overnight: if settlers are not caught during construction from dusk to dawn, they cannot be evicted without due process of law. Moreover, any Turkish slum area with more than 2,000 residents owns the right to be recognized as a legal sub-municipality, which makes settlers suddenly entitled to access politics, tax collection, or municipal services (Neuwirth, 2004: 8).
Notwithstanding all the initiatives, efforts, and advances to recognize the rights of slum dwellers; slums continue to be the main form of home provision worldwide, and slum formation has not been reduced to any appreciable extent (Magalhães, 2016: 104). Many states in the world, like India or China, still perform slum clearance as a regular policy (UN-Habitat, 2006: 162). This course of action ignores all the potential these areas have in generating income, employment and social capital. Slum upgrading has been proven as the best option for addressing slums (Calderón Arcilla, 2008: 27). This is supported by the direct correlation between the way cities treat their inhabitants and the prosperity of nations. Slum upgrading and conscious urbanization reduce overall poverty levels, provide new opportunities, higher incomes and increased quality of life (UN-Habitat, 2010: 82-89). Yet, even knowing this, numerous states do not include slum upgrading in their national political agendas, instead enforcing eradication or laissez-faire policies. Of the meager slum upgrading in place, the majority still fails to address social exclusion, vulnerability and the root causes of poverty (Magalhães, 2016: 112). As yet, higher priority is given to physical and apparently more urgent aspects of slums than to the structural elements perpetuating the problem. In addition, many slum improvement projects flounder due to insufficient funding, lack of long-term sustainability, cost overruns, inadequate maintenance, and hurdles in land tenure regularization (Bolay, 2011: 11). In many other instances programs fail to reach the lowest-income quintiles (Magalhães, 2016: 104).
9 In Turkish, “built overnight”.
8
It is our belief that the future of cities and the environment lies to a great extent, in successful slum upgrading. The democratization of (all the areas of) cities and of every-day spaces is essential for the existence of democracy and progress in other dimensions and levels (Dowbor 2016: 28). The world is timidly beginning to see integrated, multiscale, multi-sectoral, human-oriented strategies that do not only address slum areas but the greater city (Irazábal 2009: 117). Yet, a big challenge remains: how to conciliate economic activities and production manners with fair and democratic cities and settlements? From what the best slum upgrading experiences show, the answer seems to be found in the implementation of actions that relate urban equity to poverty eradication; articulate sustainability and inclusivity; and aim for ecological and resilient cities (Fernandes & Figueiredo 2016: 184).
4. Objectives and Research Questions
Based on what has been established in previous sections, the main aim of this final degree project is to critically comprehend the context of slum upgrading in Latin America, and evaluate the principles, methods, and outcomes that should be driving this process. Diverse conditions and circumstances affect cities and the slum areas within them. Thereby, attempting to create an internationally––or even regionally and nationally––transferable models appears futile. However, there are some indispensable elements for slum upgrading, which usually go largely ignored. This project thus aims to identify which are those imperative elements for producing truly successful slum upgrading programs. Bearing in mind this aim, our main research question is:
1- Based on the fundamental human needs10 all people have (Annex 1), which are the indispensable elements to be recommended for slum upgrading programs in Latin America?
For providing the answer to this question, a set of secondary research questions will be examined: 2- Which are those essential anthropological needs? And, how can these needs be properly and
jointly fulfilled in the context of the Latin American slum?
3- What kind of initiatives are best to end the stigmatization of urban poverty?
4- What are the most advantageous methods to foster sustainable development by means of slum upgrading? How can slum upgrading and social inclusion be sustainable (in all its strands) in a self-sufficient manner?
5- How can more social inclusion within cities be allied to the ways economic growth is operated? These questions are subsequently approached in four sections. The first two sections (‘Theoretical Framework’ and ‘Regional Background’) present the reader with the body of theory and information that will support the later analysis stages and answering of questions. We encourage to read the
10 By fundamental human needs, we have decided to follow Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef’s taxonomy of human needs for deeming it very complete and encompassing.
He identifies the following human needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, recreation, creation, identity and freedom, which can be satisfied through the existential categories of ‘being’, ‘having’, ‘doing’, and ‘interacting’. (See Annex 1 for more detailed information on the workings of this taxonomy).
9
‘Regional Background’) together with Annex 3 in order to gain a richer––and country-specific––idea of the Latin American context regarding housing and slums. As the scope of this project limits the number of pages in the body of work, we deemed it necessary to include considerable information in the annexes. The topic of choice is very complex and interdisciplinary, and we did not wish to withhold the reader from getting the most comprehensive picture we could provide. Thus, question 1 is answered throughout the project, while question 2 is conjointly assessed in Annex 1 and the third section (‘Discussion and Analysis’). For its part, question 3 is also solved throughout this third section. It is very important to combine the reading of the ten subsections of the ‘Discussion and Analysis’ with
Annex 611, which describes the cases studies in detail. In an attempt to answer the questions above,
these ten subsections address a specific set of characteristics (question 3) with the aim of providing input for solving all questions. However, subsection 8.6 specifically targets question 4, while subsections 8.3, 8.4, 8.9, and 8.10 give answer to question 5. Last, a fourth chapter (‘Conclusions and Proposals’) concludes the project by showing the general lessons of the research, an evaluation of the answers to the research questions, and, based on the results and insight acquired, a short analysis of the future of slum upgrading in Latin America.
5. Methodology
The main methodology used in this project was case study research and literature review, in which the unit of analysis was the area limited by slum upgrading in Latin America. To be able to achieve our objectives and answer the research questions, we examined in detail forty Latin American slum upgrading programs (Annex 4). These were implemented practices that were either completed or still ongoing. The forty case studies were selected based on the academic research by experts on slum upgrading and urban planning, and on literature review. We attempted to be as most geographically-inclusive as possible in the selection of the programs, so as to be representative of the whole Latin American region. However, seven countries12 out of twenty13 either lacked literature on the topic or the programs implemented were not sufficiently adequate to contribute insight to this study.
To complement case study reviews, data collection was attempted through triangulating methods: literature review on slum upgrading, interviews, and observation of quantitative and qualitative data. Most interview proposals––through e-mail––to experts remained unanswered probably due to different reasons beyond their control. However, it is important to mention that many academics on the field did share their valuable research upon request (e.g., Research Gate or Academia), when it was restricted to public access. As it may be inferred, this project consisted mostly in desk study whereby
11 Annex 6 presents crucial data on each of the programs (e.g., sustainability, strengths, weaknesses, or lessons learnt). The reason why the weaknesses are not pointed out in
the body of this project (and only on Annex 6) is because, for the most part, they were not generated by the elements which are under analysis. This project does not aim to analyze the projects in itself, but the relevant elements that constitute our Pyramid.
12 Belize, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Suriname are not represented in our case study review (forty projects). 13 This study limits its scope to sovereign Latin American countries, and therefore French Guiana was not included.
10
an extensive literature review took place. Such process took approximately six months. We are aware that field work and interviews with actors of slum upgrading projects would have contributed priceless information, however we were limited by geographic and time constrains. Nevertheless, further research on the topic will include these dimensions if possible.
The sections ‘State of Affairs’ (above) and ‘Regional Background’ were elaborated mainly through literature review and academic research. Quantitative data was used when necessary to provide a picture of the levels and impacts of past urban behaviors. For the ‘Theoretical Framework’ we used urbanism and slum upgrading theory. This presented an initial challenge given the technical vocabulary and complexity of the topics. Nonetheless, hours of reading and research gradually filled that gap. It should be emphasized that for these three sections, which required in-depth comprehension of mechanisms and underlying forces, international institutions’ information, mostly proved superficial and biased when provided in the form of annual or evaluation reports. This was not the case of their rapporteurs’ releases, whose authorship character enabled to conduct more solid analyses.
Completed with critical meditation and analysis, the review of literature and forty case studies inspired creative ideas to bring to the field of slum upgrading. For instance, how were we going to analyze which elements were most essential for Latin American slum upgrading without being acquainted with the housing and slum state of affairs in each of the region’s countries? To fill that gap, we compiled information on each country’s situation regarding slums and urbanization (Annex 2) and policies towards housing deficits and slums (Annex 3). The latter was especially useful since no source was found that provided solid individualized information on each national approach to the slum question. Most sources merely provided information for the whole of Latin America, incurring
in a dangerous generalization. This process took almost four months of extensive research: many
sources were not reliable, provided conflicting information and/or were outdated. On the other hand, governmental information on national policies was not sufficiently critical. After months of research and reading, we were able to compile legitimate and objective reports either by academics, urbanists or rapporteurs for each Latin American country’s slum question. With this relevant insight, we acquired a more thorough situational image of the problem.
Subsequently, the combination of this insight and the literature and case study review enabled the identification of the elements that were indispensable for slum upgrading practices. To better illustrate them, the Meléndez’s Pyramid on Slum Upgrading was conceived (Annex 5). Inspired in the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the Pyramid consists of ten blocs, each representing a group of indispensable elements. In order to back each of the blocs with supporting evidence, ten slum upgrading programs were singled out of the forty examined for their epitomizing of the elements previously recognized as indispensable. To provide the reader with information on each program, we also prepared case study
11
sheets addressing critical information on each of them (Annex 6). Having conducted all this background research, we developed the section ‘Discussion and Analysis’ through the lessons provided by the ten programs, thus, symbolically piling stone on stone of the Pyramid. Our ‘Conclusions and Proposals’ were based up on the findings of the research and the results of critical reflection on the future prospects for slum upgrading.
Finally, it is important to justify the change in the order of sections as proposed in the Final Degree Project Guide. We understood that for a higher cohesion of our project, we needed to arrange the section “Theoretical Framework” after sections “Objectives and Research Questions” and “Methodology” instead of before. Since we introduce theoretical aspects of our own, we wanted to consecutively connect these with the “Discussion and Analysis”, as to create a lineal sense of story. Through this way, we continue our project with its body of theory. On a final note, we would like to recommend our readers to first of all go through the Glossary (section 12) in order to guarantee a better comprehension of all concepts.
6. Theoretical Framework:
Here below, this project engages in a discussion on concepts and literature review about urban informality, slum upgrading, and future prospects. The first subsection (6.1) presents a general overview of the ills of present urbanity and advocates for the rethinking of informality in order to improve settler’s lives. The second subsection (6.2) describes in detail how this rethinking is to be applied to slum upgrading by complementing it with placemaking. This theoretical framework will guide the conceptual construction of the aforementioned pyramid.
6.1. On The Formal and The Informal
Urban reality is the culminating outcome of humanity. The urban accumulates human time without parallel; hence, spatial configurations and territories are open books to the past, present and future of their inhabitants. Current urban forms have a dual literature: formal and informal. Praised as the greatest achievement of humanity, the formal city amalgamates infrastructure, culture, history, networks and innovation. Far from perfect, this formal city is sold in a global market where the citizenry fades into the consumer ideal (Balbim, 2016: 148). In contrast, segregated by and product of the formal, there is the informal city. Informality emerges because of the inadequacies of the formal: its inability or unwillingness to fulfill the public interest (Vekstein, 2010: 229-230). In need for each other, the formal subjugates the informal to marginal spaces within and around it.
This formal-informal trap precludes a holistic social interaction city-wide: empathy and social capital cannot be generated given the stereotyping of both formality and informality (Álvarez Rivadulla, 2014: 11). The story told by the dual cities of today is one of physical and material development, but not of human development. Such narrative seems oxymoronic when, in the 1990s
12
and for the first time in history, urban population surpassed that of rural areas (Segre, 2010: 163). Nevertheless, cities have for long––but not always––grown in the formal-informal dichotomy, and in so doing, their development has never been complete. Present urban forms are living entities, the neglect and undervaluing of their informal parts forestalling full human progress.
The slum question is the ultimate example of urban informality. The preservation of slums as we know them, imposes an impasse on urban––ergo, human––development. The right to housing has only been recognized since 1948, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNGA, 1948). Since then, other international and national documents14 have aspired to protect the most vulnerable social echelons at the urban level (Leckie, 1989: 91). But the traditional city management model has not changed, despite these and other efforts to include the poorest (Bonduki, 2016: 81). This is so because, to a far greater extent than other social products (as education, health care or security), housing is a market product. Housing is composed by the interweaving of state activities, the market’s, and social needs, and as such it is the welfare sector with most market interests vested (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 21).
The immediate reaction vis-à-vis the informal is of neglect. The slum question has only recently become a problem for the authorities. For long, urban informality was an economic engine the formal city tolerated, one that was part of an economic growth that made informal settlers even more vulnerable (Fernandes & Figueiredo, 2016: 185). It became a problem in the 1800s, the era of urban beautification. Haussman turned Paris into the imperial city par excellance, and other cities the world over transformed to replicate Paris. Informal, irregular settlements had no place in such beautiful, artificial projects. Slums were cleared, ignoring that they were an outcome of the system and the forces driving that system remained unchanged (Arimah, 2010: 30).
Experience shows that slum clearance is not a solution to the proliferation of slums: after clearance, the informal re-emerges somewhere else. Slum eradication focuses on the symptoms, rather than on the causes of informal settling (Ibid.: 30), and it usually takes place as a result of powerful economic interests for developing profitable formal structures in the area. Another orientation of dealing with urban informality also inclined to obey economic effectiveness is resettlement. Past and present housing policies have entailed the massive production of low-cost housing units for the later relocation of informal settlers (Fernandes & Figueiredo, 2016: 185). This practice entails the dismembering of communities and their social capital, deeply relegating informal settlers to what is more convenient for other, more powerful, humans. However, the strategy of resettlement has further implications. Slum residents depend on employment in the vicinity of their dwellings, where they have also already established social networks with more affluent neighbors that help them cope with their
14 E.g., the 1976 Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 2005 World Charter for the
13
poverty (Morgan, 2007: 9). Moreover, except rare examples of successful resettlement programs–– like that of squatters from Brasilia to Samambaia––, the plots and houses provided in the new locations tend to be extremely insufficient, lacking adequate infrastructure and services, and distant from workplaces and city centers (Arimah, 2010: 3). Nonetheless, in some particular instances resettlement is imperative due to the risk locations of the squatting. For example, when slums are highly vulnerable to landslides or dangerous flooding, the families must be relocated. When that is the case, there is a need to implement adaptation programs and mitigation of psycho-social impacts (TECHO, 2015: 137). Urban informality did not become an object of analysis as a field of action until the dominant critiques of modernism in the 1960s and early 1970s, with the works of John Turner, Charles Abrams, William Manguin, and of different members of Team X (Segre, 2010: 167). These authors mainly attacked previous treatment of the urban, and advocated for doing away with eradication and resettlement practices when dealing with the slum question. Hence, the underlying idea is that, to overcome urban faults, urbanity and the informal need to be rethought. In order to rethink the informal, one must focus first on identifying its root causes. To that end, a UNU-WIDER extensive quantitative analysis carried out from data on a million informal settlers from all continents, pointed out that the incidence of slums was directly related to macroeconomic aspects and, therefore, decreased with income. Also, this analysis informed that informal settlements are highly dependent on migration flows (rural to urban, country to country), and on the legal and economic frameworks conditioning access to land and housing (Arimah, 2010: 5-9).
For her part, urban expert Janice Perlman studied poverty and slums in Rio de Janeiro. Four decades spent in favelas enabled her to provide empirical evidence of poverty being a result of discriminatory structures that denied the poor the means and capabilities to realize themselves (Perlman, 1976: 91-102). Urban researchers Moser and Satterthwaite reinforced this position (Moser & Satterthwaite, 1985: 7-12). In his very influential book, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen built on these concepts by articulating that poverty should be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as lowness of income (Sen, 1999: 87). Sen established that thorough development needs of five types of freedoms: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective securities (Ibid.: 10). Thereby, according to Sen’s conclusions, slum residents are confronted with all the five types of unfreedoms; their development fully hindered. Rethinking informality means to focus on the ends that slum dwellers have reason to pursue, and, correspondingly, on providing them with the capabilities/freedoms to attain their aspirations (Ibid.: 90).
Informality rethought, the slum question is taken seriously. As mentioned, these times have an urban character where cities accommodate the majority of the world’s population and where
14
informality is ever-increasing. To this day, there is an astounding lack of attention to science and research in architecture and urbanism among policymakers. By taking the slum question seriously, cleavages between theory and practice, policymakers and (all) stakeholders, north and south, are bridged. When all elements transforming urban informality act in unison and when they provide capabilities to the urban poor, “architecture returns to its ancestral social meaning of responding and expressing everyday needs through the vital rescuing of lost human dignity” (Segre, 2010: 175).
The leading figure in the theorization of the rethinking of informality was French sociologist, Henri Lefebvre. In his books, Le droit à la ville (1968), Espace et politique (1973), and Du Contrat de citoyenneté (1990), he elaborates on a seminal urban development and philosophical concept: the ‘right to the city’ (Fernandes, 2007: 205). Lefebvre, establishes that the city historically constructed is no longer lived nor understood practically, for there is another way unfulfilled in our cities. Contrary to present practices, such way requires for urban society to be an oeuvre and not a product. He calls for a new humanism––that of urban society––to be attained by means of a new life in the city. Until generalized segregation disappears, his ‘right to the city’ cannot be achieved, as this concept gathers the interests of all those who inhabit (Lefrebvre, 1996: 148-158). Thus, citizens can no longer be labeled by their family names or places of residence. Rather, they should be defined by their belonging to different social networks in family, profession and habitat (Fernandes, 2007: 205). To build the ‘right to the city’, Lefebvre provides a crucial formula for social citizenship: a new Rousseauian contract between state and citizens to reduce the gap between them and between different peoples within a city, placing the state as an enabler of links between communities; a provider of encompassing rights; and a setter of obligations towards a pluralistic society (Ibid.: 208). Then, the central idea to Lefebvre’s postulates is that the right to the city ensues “the capacity to change ourselves by changing the city” (Harvey, 1973: 315). All citizens––formal and informal––would thus be able to fully enjoy urban life: benefit from all its services and advantages (the right to habitation), and take direct part in city management (the right to participation) (Fernandes, 2007: 208). His works press for the urban to raise to its real nature, which is first and foremost human (Lefebvre, 1996: 208).
It is important to note the difference between the ‘right to the city’ and ‘rights in the city’. The Lefebvreian claim does not grant specific rights, but enables for common ownership of the city by its dwellers and visitors, conferring them all with equal opportunities to enjoy the city, as well as with responsibilities to sustain and improve the urban. This paradigm will be interpreted differently in the various polities and cultures of the world, but the fundamental philosophy will remain the same: all city inhabitants have the right to access each and every possibility of city life (Brown & Kristiansen, 2009: 36). Given the escalating urbanization of current societies, Lefebvre’s principles appear as urgent as ever to be fulfilled. To this day, the ‘right to the city’ converges all internationally agreed
15
urban human rights in the 2030 Agenda15, and inspired, back in 1978, the creation of UN-Habitat. Hence, the ‘right to the city’ provides a tangible, alternative structure for rethinking the cities and the informal. As it is not possible to separate the concern for the people from urbanism matters, democracy and development will only be achieved by reshaping the sciences of the urban (Brillembourg & Klumpner, 2010: 133).
Rethinking informality and satisfying the ‘right to the city’ aim for true democracy to be realized. If that is the case, further deliberation is required: what is then the role that both urbanism and architecture must play in/for society? The answer is found in a less-known book of acclaimed architect Frank Lloyd Wright, An Organic Architecture: The Architecture of Democracy. There, he establishes that architecture “ought in one sense or another to be like nature, responsive to nature or at one with nature” (Wright, 1939: 12) and that, “it must be true to time, place, development, environment and purpose (Ibid.: 17). In this sense, the sciences of urbanity––architecture and urbanism––need to be performative. When citizens are placed at the epicenter of city planning and management, these fields acquire the power to become agents of statements that stimulate a series of social practices. Always going along with nature, these sciences assist in delineating the contours of a community. And by reshaping their role in society, they can negotiate the inclusion of informality into the city and, therefore, improve the lives of those living in the informal (Brillembourg & Klumpner, 2010: 130).
Slum upgrading stands thus as the ultimate practice condensing the promotion of the ‘right to the city’, the democratic and developmental power of both architecture and urbanism, and Amartya Sen’s capacity-building approach. Since informality is a reality of contemporary cities, and eradication and resettlement strategies have proven detrimental, the smart way forward is slum upgrading. Complete development cannot avoid any parts of a whole. If massive numbers of––urban and rural––peoples are not given the opportunities to grow to their full potential, then a big share of the global human capital is impeded from contributing to human development (Sugiri, 2009: 26). In an urban context, therefore, slum upgrading should be the foremost policy to be implemented.
According to urban theory, slum improvement must solve the immediate physical needs of the poor and empower communities, without disregarding the worthy existing physical and social community assets. It also helps incrementally in the improvement of the greater city, because, as a living entity, when an area is changed, the whole city is directly impacted (Irazábal, 2009: 23). Moreover, slum upgrading makes highly visible, immediate, and large differences in the quality of life of urban informal settlers. For instance, unhygienic conditions leading to water-borne diseases are dealt with (Cities Alliance, 1999: 3). Satisfaction with one’s life is also incremented, as are safety and
15 The 2030 Agenda encompasses the principles previously endorsed by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Objectives for Sustainable Development (SDGs),
16
perceptions of security (Brakarz & Jaitman, 2013: 16). In addition to the foregoing, improvement of city infrastructure attracts more investment, which in turn boosts economic growth. What is more, slum upgrading contributes to a healthy development, as it supports a self-sufficient improvement, once basic needs are met. The more self-sufficient settlers of upgraded slums can satisfy their needs in a more complete and harmonious fashion: prosperity becomes more sustainable, community-building is fostered, and participation and creativity are enhanced (Max-Neef et al., 2010: 38).
Yet, slum upgrading experts, Jeff Ruster and Ivo Imparato, aptly point out that upgrading strategies should go beyond physical improvements to create more integrated emphatic societies: through a broad transformation of relationships within communities, between informal communities and the formal citizenry, and between communities and authorities. Hence, slum upgrading must meticulously heed the particular urban, social, political, cultural and economic contexts (Ruster & Imparato, 2003: 87). Since the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), many slum upgrading programs have been launched. Yet they failed to transcend physical improvements or, in importing international upgrading models, did not consider the particularities of the site (Irazábal, 2009: 108). International best practices on slum upgrading, which do follow Ruster & Imparato’s ideas, illustrate that rethinking informality and previous models are effective instruments for positive change. In a global context, Latin America is a good testimony of it. A fascinating case-study for slum upgrading, the region hosts most international best practices in the field. This new wave of more inclusive slum upgrading is still confined in the region because of the many economic interests vested in perpetuating urban informality, the lack of direct communication between governments and urban experts, and the preference for shorter interventions with more immediate results. Hence, in spite of the larger part of projects still falling short of addressing socio-spatial equity concerns (Ibid.: 24), relevant measures are being taken towards fulfilling Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ in Latin America. 6.2. Renewing the Right to the City: The Art of Placemaking in Latin America
This project, in developing its own body of theory, urges for a renewal of the Lefebvrian right. The concept should be reinvigorated to specifically and only target the slum question, due to the urgency thereof and, so far, the many inadequate responses to it. Social, economic and physical problems in slum areas and within their larger city-context should be grasped and integrated into city planning. The ‘renewed right to the city’, becomes an imperative: it cannot be attained if part of the population are not conferred equitable opportunities, and it ought to be attained. State and citizenry alike, should stop lenient tendencies towards the presence of unsanitary slum areas; and cease stigmatization, stereotyping, and undervaluation of the informal. Such ‘renewed right to the city’, strives for much more far-reaching slum upgrading practices than those in place; it entails “a forthright call for justice in all aspects of city life” (Marcuse et al., 2009, as cited in Irazábal, 2009: 24). Hence,
17
the renewed concept urges slum upgrading to turn into a truly comprehensive transformation, by bringing all the brilliance of Lefebvre’s postulates to the forefront of slum upgrading.
According to the French sociologist, city development has over the years cleaved into two antagonistic forms of space: abstract and social. The former, ‘abstract space’, is a tool of domination which destroys the conditions that generated it (Lefebvre, 1974: 49). The latter, ‘social space’, is inherently connected to the people who produce it (Ibid.: 68). Echoing Lefebvre’s social space, architects Lynda H. Schneekloth and Robert G. Shibley, defined the concept of ‘placemaking’ as, “the way in which all of us as human beings transform the places in which we find ourselves into places in which we live” (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995: 1). When applied to the context of squatter settlements, the concept of ‘placemaking’ unveils a whole new dimension for slum upgrading; one that gives access to the emotional and the psychological of these sites.
Other than the cleavage between abstract and social spaces, city development has also resulted in the dehumanization of informal settlements. The placemaking approach allows to materialize the life of these settlements in the collective imagination of outsiders. When the Lefebvrian right and placemaking are fully applied to slum upgrading, settlements stop being bypassed/no-go, stigmatized city areas to become places of meaning. As slums acquire human meaning, they are begun to be understood as spatial consequences of complex social processes. In turn, this sensitizes the approach to slum upgrading: now it does not only upgrade, it also acknowledges and enhances the good there found. Borrowing from the human geography aphorism, “as people construct places, places construct people” (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001: 7), slum upgrading should be conceived and planned “to form a new possibility by means of interaction between the symbolic, the imaginary and the real” (Jáuregui, 2010: 223). In this manner, slum upgrading turns into an enabler for virtuous reciprocity: spaces are improved and enhanced to better residents’ lives, and, likewise, fostered coexistence upgrades spaces by adding valuable meanings. As a result, slum upgrading transcends the urban to address all anthropological needs; it becomes a practice that incorporates a set of indispensable elements to satisfy the basic needs that all humans require (Annex 1).
As previously pointed out, the Latin American countries have been setting new and relevant benchmarks in the slum upgrading field (Irazábal, 2009: 117). By applying the theoretical concepts previously analyzed and by carefully examining best practices of slum upgrading in the region, we have identified a series of necessary elements that must be taken into account in slum upgrading practices. This set of elements has been represented as a pyramid of upgrading needs––Meléndez’s Pyramid16––(Annex 5), inspired by the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. As shown, by covering Max-Neef’s fundamental human needs, slum upgrading eventually leads to placemaking. These
18
indispensable elements17 allow for the ‘right to the city’ to be renewed and for placemaking to be satisfied. For putting theory into practice, ten case-studies of slum upgrading in Latin America will be further on analyzed to explain the weight of each element and how it can be best achieved.
7. Regional Background: Birth and life of the Latin American Slum
The Latin American region is the world’s most urbanized, with almost 80% of its population living in cities and high levels of informality and slums (Magalhães, 2016: 2) (See Annex 2 for data on population figures). This mainly results from the rapid urbanization of the region during the 20th century, outcome of the increased manufacturing industries that greatly diminished economic reliance on agriculture. The industrialization era heightened rural-urban migration flows, and weak authorities were unable to provide sufficient land, housing services and infrastructure to new residents. Invasion of the periphery was convenient to both invaders and industrial interests: it provided dwelling close to economic opportunities to the former, and adjacent cheap labor to the latter. Hence, forced by market forces and necessity, the newcomers built their self-help homes on the fringes of the Latin American cities (Irazábal, 2009: 7-8).
However, the phenomenon of informality in the region dates back to colonial times. Spaniards and Portuguese were the early propellers of urbanization in Latin America. Building on the formal-informal dichotomy, the 440 cities they founded had no space nor desire for indigenous populations, who were pushed to the perimeters of cities. Black slaves who managed to escape from their owners also settled on the periphery. Land invasion has ever since been a response to unfair distribution of resources in the region (Hernández & Kellet, 2010: 3-4). Later on, European migration (1800s-1900s) aggravated the urbanization problem. Big waves of European population moving into Latin American cities––mostly to Argentina and Brazil––led to rapid construction with no strategic planning involved. When cities are not properly designed, its poorest inhabitants are those who bear the brunt. Almost always, when time is pressing, a less effective use of resources is made, quickly earmarking funds for projects that simply translate into broader economic benefits. Establishing their own localized communities and specializing in a particular economic activity, Europeans soon became key socio-political figures, the kind that could afford to pay for qualitative urbanization. As this situation became more visible, the segregation of this region’s urbanity heightened (Sánchez Alonso, 2007: 213-421).
The slum problem in the region has been dealt with in various ways. In the first half of the 20th century, urbanization was understood in evolutionary terms. In order to drive progress, cities needed to be healthy, and thus slums were cleared. Then, this criterion was updated with the functionalist
17
The indispensable elements of the Meléndez’s Pyramid will be individually addressed in Section 8. They are the following: regularization framework and coverage of basic needs; community participation and organization; access to credit, transparency and good governance; recovery cost mechanisms and budget control; political will and social capital; sustainability and monitoring; strong intermediary structure; integral and multi-disciplinary approach; bridging of the gap between a development project and social progress; and equity, esteem and inclusion.
19
CIAM18model. These measures proved valid for democracies and dictatorships alike, and advanced strict functional segregation and planning of cities to solve urban problems (Almandoz, 2006: 95). By the second half of the century, however, the model had given rise to grave social problems in terms of housing and employment. In the context of the Cold War and later the Cuban crisis, the region transferred North American urban ideas, and approached squatter settlements as possible hotbeds of insurgency threatening national security (Klaufus, 2015: 1-4). Believing in the trickle-down effect of diversified urban economies, Latin American countries, supported by US agencies, launched national programs to tackle slums. Further eradication of informal settlements and construction of large housing projects followed suit, ignoring the housing deficits of the poorest (Fernández-Maldonado, 2010: 2). At this time, slums had spread to become symptomatic for larger social problems affecting society as a whole, and though cleared, they sprouted again in nearby locations. Social problems were blamed on migrants and squatters; anti-urban gated communities deepened segregation and internal colonialism; and the roots of the slum problem were neglected. Cities––and slums––continued to grow in a hyper-urbanizing fashion (Klaufus, 2015: 1-4).
The regional trauma caused by the model of import substitution industrialization (ISI), the 1973 oil and debt crisis, and internal guerrilla wars precipitated the 1980s neoliberalism guided by the IMF and the WB. In urban terms, neoliberalism translated as postmodern trends (i.e., rehabilitate, revitalize, restore, beautify), which focused on the value of historic centers and heritage preservation, causing gentrification and further displacement of the poor to the periphery. Socially discriminatory urbanism led to increasing socio-spatial polarization of Latin American cities. In addition, neoliberal city policies were parallel to the institutionalization of urban fear and violence. This initiated a downward spiral of insecurity and protective measures, which stigmatized informal settlements and poor areas as no-go sites (Ibid.: 5-7). In lockstep, however, pressure from social movements and John Turner’s ‘self-help’ approach gradually started to take hold of urbanism: slum clearance was to be avoided, and low income groups to be assisted in housing development. The WB played an important role in supporting this strategy (Fernández-Maldonado, 2010: 2).
However, this entity’s role was rather market-oriented and neglectful of the root causes of slums. Among the reforms imposed on the region by the Washington-based institutions, the 1990s witnessed the implementation of measures to improve housing markets, namely the regularization of property titles and the development of housing finance systems. At this time, national housing agencies emerged. They worked in consonance with private banks for mortgage lending and with private construction firms or developers for housing schemes construction––usually of a very inadequate quality, very badly serviced, and incurring in high maintenance costs (Ibid.: 2). The limited success of
20
this type of assistance and the alarming rates of urbanization and informal settlements blatantly required an alternative. As part of poverty alleviation strategies, international development agencies19 entered the scene and broadly upgraded infrastructure and basic services in slums across the region.
By 2000, there was an internationally favorable climate in the development cooperation field, the 2000 Millennium Development Goals signed. Such enabling environment also reached urban development, and thus slum upgrading programs became lightly more multi-dimensional and comprehensive. Slum upgrading had finally came to the forefront of housing policy recommendations, and municipalities started to take the lead in implementation. Yet the focus of these initiatives remained on alleviating quantity rather than quality (Magalhães 2016: 108). In the last 17 years, Latin American housing policies (which tend not to include slum upgrading practices), all things considered, have not addressed the underlying socio-political elements behind urban informality20 (Annex 3). This is reflected in the fact that, as of 2014, 23.5% of the region’s population lived in slums (UN Data 2014). In view of this, the region is now slowly incorporating a more integrated and comprehensive approach to slum upgrading, with some landmark examples from previous times (Ibid.: 104).
Numerous people in Latin America have carried out extensive practical and theoretical work in the topic of slum upgrading, which has been scantly recognized at the international level. In recent years, their valuable work has made possible major alterations in Latin American slum upgrading (Hernández & Kellet, 2010: 13). Still small-scale notwithstanding, these changes are very relevant. The most significant of these has been the shift from upgrading as process that was technical, expert and official data driven, and detached from slum dwellers’ opinions to one that is more concerned with combining housing solutions, social development, and the creation of inclusive cities (Calderón Arcilla, 2008: 65). A big contribution to ameliorating slum upgrading has been decentralization. By means of it, local governments have acquired planning, fiscal and administrative leverage. Being closer to the informal settlement in question, and now better equipped, municipalities have turned into key players in the upgrading field. Latin America has thus emerged as a leader in the creation of a socially responsible slum upgrading, with Brazil and Colombia leading the way (Magalhães, 2016: 107).
Nonetheless, a plethora of challenges and questions still remain, and older planning styles persist in most cities. Nearly all countries in the region have not carried out a comprehensive reform plan to ameliorate their national housing systems integrally (Calderón Arcilla, 2008: 64-65). This ensues a trap of toxic oblivion: states believe to be taking measures to get better, but, instead, their efforts are running into the sand inasmuch as they remain superficial and sectoral. Because of this, know-how extrapolated to urban development is socially shallow as well. For instance, there is a shortage of
19 Mainly, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Inter-American Development Bank, the United States Agency for International Aid (USAID), and the World Bank
(Magalhães, 2016: 108).
