Don’t Euphemize “Slums”

by Tony Chavira

The Boston Globe has a great article today that discusses options when dealing with squatter cities/shantytowns/"informal settlements"/full-blown slums.  They take a particularly interesting approach by stating that cities should really think about adjusting their views of slums and organic, citizen-led development by planning to accomodate for hyper-dense development (and not just steamrolling then building skyscrapers over them).  Some parts go as far as to advocate that we mimic slum development in our city planning.  Here are some solid gold quotes:

The appreciation can come from unlikely quarters: In a recent speech, Prince Charles of England, who founded an organization called the Foundation for the Built Environment, praised Dharavi (which he visited in 2003) for its "underlying, intuitive 'grammar of design' " and "the timeless quality and resilience of vernacular settlements." He predicted that "in a few years' time such communities will be perceived as best equipped to face the challenges that confront us because they have built-in resilience and genuinely durable ways of living."

Thanks, Charlie.  Plan on moving the palace to Dharavi any time soon?

While the idea of emulating slums may seem absurd, a number of planners and environmentalists say that we would do well to incorporate their promising elements. One architect, Teddy Cruz, has taken the shantytowns of Tijuana as inspiration for his own designs; he is currently working on a development in Hudson, N.Y., that draws on their organically formed density.

Sounds like an easy way for a relatively unknown architect to get a lot of free press.  I'm not hating though, you gotta get through this economy somehow.  Even if you have to live in Tijuana for a while.

There is debate about whether the informality itself is a plus or a minus. Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist, has argued that slum dwellers should be given title deeds for their plots, in order to liberate the "dead capital" they are sitting on - to enable them to get loans from banks. But many analysts are skeptical of this proposal. One problem is that individual property rights could disrupt the stable system of communal control that has evolved in many slums. Another possibility is that residents might quickly sell their new deeds for cash, and thus lose the rights to their longtime homes.

Guaranteed, if the people living in these communities had the option to sell their plots, you'd see a lot of immediate foreclosures - yes, even in slums.  Then you've affectively taken away someone's very last option, as well as their access to the thriving community.  And lastly...

On a more basic level, these places can teach us about where, for better or worse, urban life appears to be headed. "Squatters are the world's dominant builders," says Brand. "If you want to understand what's going on in cities, look at squatters."

I'd absolutely agree with this quote, except that strong, lasting city dynamics also depend on the interplay between social and income diversity, which slums traditionally have not been known to have.  Let's move a few Wall Street billionaires into the slums and we'll start seeing the democratic changes we all really hope to see.

Comments

Comments closed.