HabitatReport2007

Habitat Norway

Habitat Report 2007Reporting the conference on the World Habitat Day in Oslo September 29th and October 1st 2007

Edited by Anders Ese

Limited distribution byHabitat Norwayc/o Polyteknisk ForeningRosenkrantzgate 70159 Oslo Habitat Norway is a Norwegian non governmental organisation with the overall aim to promote the interest and awareness of settlement issues around the world. The organisation is a member of Habitat International Coalition.

Please visit www.habitat-norge.org

We thank the following who made this conference possible; NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation KRD Ministry of Local Government and Regional DevelopmentThe Norwegian State’s Housing BankROM art + architecture

Front page: Villa 21-24, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Contents

Introduction p 05

A Safe City is a Just City p 06Anna Tibaijuka, UN-HABITAT

Is a Safe City a Just City? p 11Prof. Sven Erik Svendsen, NTNU

Saftey as a Pretext for Injustice in the Case of Jerusalem p 17Øystein Grønning, migrant a+u

Cities - Hopes and Challenges p 25Erik Berg, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Urban Futures p 31Prof. Emeritus Nabeel Hamdi, Oxford Brookes University

Villas Miserias - Securing a Safe and Salubrious Community p 37Eli Grønn, migant a+u

Villas Miserias - Workshop Results p 54Anders Ese, Co-Chairman, Habitat Norway

Concluding remarks p 68Dr. Ingun B Amundsen, Co-Chairman, Habitat Norway

List of participants p 70

On the contributors p 74

About Habitat Norway p 76

A Safe City is a Just City

Introduction

The United Nations has designated the first Monday in October every year as World Habitat Day to reflect on the state of human settlements and the basic right to adequate shelter for all. It is also intended to remind the world of its collective responsibility for the future of the human habitat.

The theme of this year’s World Habitat Day on Monday 1 October 2007 is A safe city is a just city. The United Nations chose this year’s theme in order to raise awareness and encourage reflection on the mounting threats to urban safety and social justice, particularly urban crime and violence, forced eviction and insecurity of tenure, as well as natural and human-made disasters.

One of the most significant causes of fear and insecurity in many cities today is crime and violence. Between 1990 and 2000, incidents of violent crime per 100,000 persons increased from 6 to 8.8. Recent studies show that over the past five years, 60 per cent of all urban residents in the world have been victims of crime, with 70 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean. Clearly, crime, whether violent or not, is a growing and serious threat to urban safety all over the world.

As the world becomes increasingly urban, it is essential that policy makers understand the power of the city as a catalyst for national development. Cities have to be able to provide inclusive living conditions for all their

residents. Rich or poor, everyone has a right to the city, to a decent living environment, to clean water, sanitation, transport, electricity and other services. How we manage this is arguably one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

Another significant threat to urban safety today is forced eviction and insecurity of tenure. Incidents of forced eviction are regularly reported from all parts of the world. They are often linked to bulldozing of squatter settlements and slums in developing countries, as well as to processes of gentrification, beautification and urban redevelopment in both developed and developing country cities. Forced evictions have been highly publicized in recent years, partly because freedom from forced eviction has become recognized as a fundamental human right within international human rights law.

Disasters, natural and human-made, are yet another current threat to urban safety. Recent evidence suggests that natural and human-made disasters are increasing in frequency the world over, and that this trend is partly linked to climate change. From 1975 to 2005, the number of disasters in the world increased from 100 to 400 per year. Hurricane Katrina, the Asian Tsunami and the Pakistan Earthquake are some of the recent disasters that exposed our woeful lack of preparedness.

Combined, these three threats to urban safety currently pose a huge challenge to both national and city governments.

5

The Executive Director’s Message On the Occasion of World Habitat Day

The subject that brings us here today is something that touches us all. Crime and fear of crime is growing unacceptably fast at a time half of humanity is now living in towns and cities. There is no doubt too, that today most crime and violence occurs in cities. And this is the reason, as I said in my special statement for World Habitat Day 2007, we decided to choose the theme, A safe city is a just city, to mark the occasion.

As we witness the fastest growth of urban populations yet known, we are now at the dawn of a new urban era. With half of humanity already living it towns and cities, it is projected that by 2030, that figure will rise to two-thirds. Another feature of our new urban age is that the global number of slum dwellers is now set this year to top the 1 billion mark.

Promoting urban safety at this turning point in history is not primarily about policing and relying on the penal system for crime prevention; it is about the design and planning of public space for women and men, and its impact on social urban development. While conventional methods have focused more on the laws, community policing, or security personnel to guard communities, less attention has been focused on the other missing link of public safety – urban design and governance of cities. Poorly lit or dark streets and poor

public transport are typical examples of the underlying factors conducive to crime. While crime remains a key conventional dimension of urban safety, today safety is about increasing choices so that everyone can move freely without threat, harassment, sexual assault, rape, or intimidation.

I do not have to tell you that crime is bad for business and bad for development. In an unacceptably high number of cities around the world, soaring crime levels, and even perceptions of high crime, threaten to outweigh other advantages they may offer. For slum residents, who usually do not enjoy the benefits of any form of security, violence and crime loom ever ready to shatter their lives. As violent men capture the streets, the choices for women are considerably diminished. They simply do not want to take a chance using a public toilet, collecting water, or walking through a criminal male danger zone on the way home, to school or the shops.

Persistent crime and fear of crime undermines public trust in the authorities. And thus in many cities, local neighborhoods turn to alternative protection – private companies, vigilante groups, and gated zones. Worse still, they turn away from young people, and tarnish them with the blame for these problems, instead of engaging them. Urban danger comes from many complex factors. These include lack of opportunity, widening inequity,

6

territorial segregation, economic polarisation, poor urban planning, and social exclusion. Likewise, drugs, guns, organized crime, and poor crime prevention. And so, unfortunately, it is all too obvious that recent international terror attacks increasingly target cities.

In many countries, safety, security and justice are outside the purview of local authorities and are highly centralized. Enhancing the role of local government as well as local communities and in particular the youth of these communities, is recognized as an important first step to improvements in many aspects of safety, security and justice. At the third session of UN-HABITAT’s World Urban Forum in Vancouver in June last year, one of our keynote speakers, Ms. Katherine Sierra, Vice-President and Network Head, Infrastructure, at the World Bank, recalled that 30 years ago, safety and security would not have even been mentioned as a building block for an urban strategy. In remarks that constitute a most apt explanation of the theme of World Habitat Day this year, she said, and I quote:

“A key policy challenge is how to balance safety and security within a political or social system and a regulatory environment that is conducive to economic growth. Safety, law enforcement, and the justice system are thus key public goods. The legislative and justice systems, along with enforcement entities, become key institutions.”

The situation I have just outlined is largely the reason why UN-HABITAT, as the agency for the built environment, launched its Safer Cities Programme in 1996 to create a culture of prevention anchored in helping local authorities, the criminal justice system, the private sector, urban planners, and civil society partners address urban safety. As UN-HABITAT and governments that oversee the agency’s work programme hone a new strategic plan for 2008-2013, there is general agreement on four points:Firstly, that governance at the local level must continue looking at crime prevention. Local crime prevention strategies must be incorporated in urban development planning, and this must have full political backing.Secondly, that bridging the gap between urban interventions and crime prevention can be achieved by incorporating prevention policies into slum upgrading and housing policies.Thirdly, that public spaces in cities have to be better managed. Derelict public urban spaces are a dramatic indicator of the failure of planning and governance.Fourthly, that civil society, especially youth and women, must be fully engaged in any crime prevention strategy.

Experience shows that local policies, targeted to key problems and root causes, can be very effective against violence and lawlessness.

7

Given the many differences in culture, geography, wealth, political systems and size of cities, there will always be problems. But in the modern world we do have solutions. And I wish to conclude these remarks by informing you that the situation is not altogether gloomy.

I sense a strong emerging view in this new urban era that the political will is now growing, at both the national and local level in many countries, to make our cities safe and just places for all.

Anna TibaijukaUnder-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive DirectorUN-HABITAT

Key Speakers

Is a Safe City a Just City?

According to the UN-Habitat in Nairobi, who is - so to speak - in charge of the Habitat Day, the objective is to reflect on the state of human settlements and on the basic right to adequate shelter for all. This year’s choice of theme - A safe city is a just city - is topical and is selected in order to raise awareness and to encourage reflection and discussion on the increasing threats to urban safety and social justice, particularly from urban crime and violence, forced eviction and insecurity of tenure, as well as natural and man-made disasters.

If I right away should try to answer the question heading this presentation - if the safe city is a just city? – it will obviously be: IT DEPENDS ON, or it is in other words circumstantial.In many ways one could say that as a slogan the heading is problematic – and that it probably needs more than a brief talk to be properly dealt with.

Let me give you an example to show what I mean:Some years back I lived for a while in an Asian capital; it was a fairly safe city – and I can say this because on workdays I mainly moved about on foot – as a pedestrian from where I stayed to the place of work in the morning and back again in the evening. In order to get better acquainted with the city I tried to select different routes every day - early mornings and sunsets are in addition very pleasant times for walking in that part of the world.

However - every time the president got prominent visitors or arranged one of these huge regional conferences, the police or army cleared the pavements for unwanted elements normally on early morning ahead of the arrangements. They just gathered these people – pavement sleepers, hawkers, beggars or simply somebody who was early out of bed just to buy a newspaper – in camps somewhere in the city outskirts. They were not arrested but allowed to leave as soon as they could prove their identity; with a certain level of bureaucracy it took normally the same time to get out of the camp as to arrange a regional conference. So in that way it worked nicely.But did the capital become a safer city during these days? Probably yes – especially if you anticipate that some terrorists would hide among the hawkers and pavements sleepers.But did it become a more just city? Probably not.

This example shows that there is for the authorities in charge of safety – for visitors and inhabitants – a problematic issue to face: how do you secure the urban population without renouncing their rights?

-

Normally we consider that democratic national and local frameworks provide safer urban environments, but we know that on one hand cities in totalitarian states are often very safe, and on the other if we try to compare two big cities: Johannesburg and Mumbai we would probably find that the first one is a very

11

unsafe city – almost both day and night – and certainly for visitors, while Mumbai seems like a pleasant and friendly place to be in – at least that’s my impression. They are both large entities in democratic states with – in many ways - well functioning local municipalities.So it must be something else that makes the difference; architects may claim that it has something to do with the physical environment and with planning and design, while political scientists would like to explain such differences with structural organization, anthropologist with cultural background and so on. Most likely it is a complex combination of many factors.

-

One of the most significant causes of fear and insecurity in many cities today is the combination of crime and violence. In the 10 years between 1990 and 2000, incidents of violent crime in cities increased by 1/3 according to the UN-Habitat. Recent studies show that over the past five years, 60 per cent of all urban residents in the world have been victims of crime, with 70 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean. Clearly, crime, whether violent or not, is a growing and is a serious threat to urban safety all over the world.

I remember when the book Defensible space by Oscar Newman was published some 35 years ago it was regarded as interesting but a bit exotic; in the sense that the topic it raised: safety in the city and related urban design

responses were something that should worry people in other places – and not us.

At that time – to be a little nostalgic - you could walk in to most buildings in the city – corporate or public; now this is almost impossible without an appointment or a code. At that time you could visit the parliament only by mentioning any MPs name to the receptionist; you hardly left any electronic traces and you could move about anonymously – which used to be one definition of city life.

Now we have cameras watching us wherever we go, private security people have to a large degree replaced the police and are in many places following your movements closely and it is almost impossible to get into anywhere without an appointment – apart from shops and restaurants.

-

The situation for the citizens has changed dramatically when it comes to free movement. May be the city has become more safe, but it has certainly not become more pleasant - or more just. Most people tend to say that is the price we have to pay, and very few alternative propositions are unfortunately put on the table – also by professionals like us. And – and this is important - it is no reasons why it should not change even more dramatically in years to come, and that would mean – if we do not come up with alternatives. We could be mowing into nightmare-like urban conditions as described by George Orwell

Karl Otto Ellefsen

12

Erik Solheim

– also in our towns and cities, that so far is regarded as relatively safe.

By the way, I take it that you have heard about the urban researcher at the Humbolt university in Berlin that recently was arrested and taken to the police station for questioning, because he in a published study had used the world “gentrification” – he was accused according to the anti-terror laws and was told when he was released to be careful with his vocabulary in the future.

May be we have to change the old slogan about: “stadtluft macht frei” to “if you want to be free stay away from the city”?

-

The list of factors influencing the development of cities set up by UN-Habitat includes in addition to urban safety and social justice and urban crime and violence:- forced eviction - insecurity of tenure, and- natural and man-made disasters

The last items might seem a little bit distant currently – a little bit like how we looked at Newmans book; if however our concern is: in what direction are we moving? – they might be relevant even in our situation.

Also with a bearing on professional activities – which on this occasion means to planners, architects and urban designers, we should discuss what could be a professional

contribution to a safer and a more just city?So far I can only see that it has been planning of gated communities and design of fashionable fences keeping certain part of the population out of certain parts of the city.

Globally a significant threat to urban safety today is forced eviction and insecurity of tenure. Incidents of forced eviction are still regularly reported from all parts of the world. I must remind you that one of the recommendations from the first global urban encounter – Habitat I - in Vancouver in 1976 was that governments should stop forced evictions. 30 years later they still take place and often linked to bulldozing of squatter settlements and slums in developing countries, often in order to carry out processes of gentrification, beautification and urban redevelopment.

-

Disasters are also included as one threat to urban safety. Recent evidence suggests that natural and human-made disasters are increasing in frequency globally, and that this trend is partly linked to climatic change. From 1975 to 2005, the number of disasters in the world increased from 100 to 400 per year. Hurricane Katrina, the Asian Tsunami and the Pakistan Earthquake are some of the recent disasters that exposed our lack of preparedness.

Such disasters are normally characterised as natural or human made. To day it is a question

13

if they are in one way or another all human made – at least the effect - has increased by human interventions – or lack of them.

-

The most crucial challenge now seems to me to be how the ongoing discussion on climate and environment also could include the urban dimension. Certainly in this country this discussion is now mainly dominated by the green lobby. By introducing the city in the discussion we could play an important role, because to convince both the public and the government that in the future many more of the traditional groups in focus for Norwegian development cooperation - like the poor, like women and children will live in the city is crucial. The city is not only important because most people are living there but also because it has considerable environmental impact on the national and global environment.

Risk reduction is in this connection an important professional challenge – it may come as an surprise and disappointment to those of you who have attended the triennale – which this arrangement is a part of. It is probably in the reduction of risk that architects and designers can contribute in a meaningful way to disaster preparedness.

-

As the world becomes more urban, it is important that policy makers understand the power of the cities potential for national

development. Cities have to be able to provide inclusive living conditions for all their residents. Rich or poor, everyone has a right to the city, to a decent living environment, to clean water, sanitation, transport, electricity and other services. How we manage this is arguably one of the greatest challenges currently facing humanity.

May be this conference could play a small role in moving our policy-makers attention a little bit towards the urban sector.

Sven Erik SvendsenProfessor in HousingNTNU

14

Sven Erik Svendsen

Øystein Grønning

Saftey as a Pretext for Injustice in the Case of JerusalemCan the Urban Fabric help bridge a Conflict?

The theme for the UN World Habitat Day 2007 was “A Safe City is a Just City”. One question immediately arises: Safe for whom? Just for whom? Everyone wants safety and security for themselves. The question is; how far are people, groups, authorities willing to extend “themselves”? Particularly when the concept of “we” is exclusive and “they” are on the unwanted side, safe and secure becomes questionable issues.

In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, “safety” is a core element. “Security” is the word often used in the rhetoric around the military occupation. The reason given for ever-more severe actions against Palestinian population and territory is the need for Israeli security. Palestinian unrest, natural for any people under occupation, is treated as unjustifiable and random, not as part of a conflict with an opponent that has rights.

Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state, and seen by all Palestinians as the core of their nation concept. Israel also considers Jerusalem its capital, but the city is not recognized by the world as such. The world sees the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem as a violation of International Law. The UN has repeatedly condemned the annexation, including the construction of Israeli colonies on occupied lands. The world has its embassies in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.

Security as a PretextSecurity in the case of Jerusalem and Palestine, thus, must be seen in the context of Israel’s illegal occupation, annexation and colonization. Safe and just are anything but neutral words. Security can be perceived as a pretext for goals other than safety and justice. If one looks at “security” as an element, one can see

- security as a strategic element- security as a rhetoric element, and- security as a partial element.

1. Strategically, the Israeli goals are to gain exclusive spatial control over the territory of Jerusalem, and the pursuit is to achieve an exclusive ethnic-religious demographic composition. Tactically, this means a take-over of land and property, and the encroachment of what is more and more becoming Palestinian enclaves in a sea of Zionist settlement. Political observers see these tactics as blatant examples of ethnic cleansing. However, the Palestinians seem to prevail, they are not easily pushed off their lands.

The Israeli colony structure around Jerusalem reveals the strategic plan for encroachment and isolation of Palestinian East Jerusalem from the rest of the Palestinian nation. The separation wall supports this structure and underlines the strategy, by cutting the West Bank in two and further subdividing it into separate and smaller enclaves.

17

Map 1 18

Map 2 19

Illustration 1: Palestinians demonstrating against the Wall (www.stopthewall.org)

3. Partial safety is the order of the day. Security is not offered to the occupied, in clear violation of Geneva Convention, which explicitly states that the occupying forces are obliged to tend to the security of civilians under occupation. The absence of civilian rule in East Jerusalem has lead to an absence of civil order resulting in lawlessness, insecurity, drugs pushing, gang rule, etc.

The strategy, again, seems to be to make life so miserable that a Christian-Muslim

Maps 1 and 2: the Wall in Jerusalem (copyright 2005 PALDIS Jerusalem) and the Colony Structure around Jerusalem (copyright 2004 Negotiation Support Unit, NAD PLO). Palestinian areas in yellow, Israeli colonies and colony areas in blue.

The maps illustrate the goal: territorial control of Jerusalem, isolation of East Jerusalem from the West Bank. The maps do not allow Palestinian territorial contiguity. The territorial strategies of Israel are contradictory to any notion of a Palestinian sovereign state.

This is the image of Apartheid, with the one important exception that in Israel, the unwanted people (Christian and Muslim Palestinians) are excluded from entry into the territory of the Masters. Dr. Menachem Klein, a prominent Israeli political scientist at the Bar-Ilan University, in 2003 named these policies “Spartheid”.1

2. Rhetorically, resistance is systematically portrayed as terrorism, whether directed against civilian or non-civilian targets. According to International Law, resistance to occupation is legal, albeit the means are not always so. By labeling all resistance terrorism, Israel and international Zionism aims at disqualifying Palestinian rights by and large. Israel thus portrays itself and the Jewish Israeli population as victims in need of safety.

Security then becomes a pretext for the isolation and exclusion of the entire Palestinian population, and a tool for the effectuation of

1. Lebanon newspaper Daily Star, October 25, 2003: “Israel’s Jerusalem policy: Sparta and apartheid”

land-grabs, home destruction, land destruction etc. The Separation Wall, judged illegal by the Haag Courts, in this rhetoric becomes a tool of safety and justice.

20

exodus will be the result. But although young professionals, particularly Christians, are leaving Jerusalem in growing numbers, no massive eviction seems within reach, and Israeli strategies remain unsuccessful. This might explain why Israeli politicians during the last half-year or so have started talking about Jerusalem actually being a divided city, and about leaving parts of Palestinian Jerusalem to the Palestinians to govern.

The Provision of Security: Violence as a Way of Life

Israeli Security rests on violence: spatial, structural and physical violence.

Illustration 2: Security fence, West Bank: division of Palestinian agricultural land, destruction of landscapes (stopthewall.org)

Spatial violence is a well-known Palestinian fact of life. Examples are plentiful: annexation of land and property, the colony structure, the “security” wall, the construction of separate roads for the Israeli colonists crisscrossing the West Bank, etc. This violence means ruin to so many, visual images of one’s misery as a people, and a daily reminder that the West doesn’t care, and allies are in no position to react.

Illustration 3: Home demolition, Jerusalem (stopthewall.org)

Structural violence is connected to the application of law and order: denial of tax exemptions for Palestinian business and property owners when f. inst. tourism fails, partiality in supplying loans, denial of building permits and destruction of homes “illegally” built, and other instances of apartheid policies.

21

Law and order is also imposed as harassment: ID’s checked on the street, bullying at check-points, denial of access to hospitals for births, operations and first aid, denial of access to Christian and Muslim Holy Sites, etc.

Illustration 4: East Jerusalem: ID control of Palestinian youth who wants to use his right to vote in the 1996 Palestinian parliamentary election, outside entrance to election hall. Background shows international observers. Photo by author.

Physical Violence is the blunt, common exertion of brute power: arrests, beatings and torture, general public armament of the master population, de facto executions in raids, random killings of civilians during military attacks on targeted persons, groups and sites, etc.

Is there a Way to Circumvent the Stalemate?

The situation does not invite optimism. For more than 40 years the occupation, annexation and colonization of Palestinian territory has been going on with the world as passive bystanders. Israel seems uninfluenced by UN resolutions, and finds encouragement in the lack of ability to enforce International Law in their case.

This is a stalemate situation on several levels. The international community will not intervene. In reality, it has turned its back on the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Christian and Muslim population will not leave Palestine. Geopolitically, this stalemate leads to growing regional unrest and mistrust of the West. If not resolved, the conflict must be expected to lead to more instability, more conflict on a local, regional and geo-political level, and more anti-Semitism.2

In the Palestinian stalemate, Jerusalem Palestinians are split between rage, resignation and Realpolitik. There is no leadership since the death of Feisal Husseini and the Israeli destruction of Orient House.3 Business is bad and getting worse. Homes are overcrowded.

2. Former US President Jimmy Carter at the Geneva Accord ceremony in Geneva, Dec. 1st 2003: “There is no doubt that lack of real effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a primary source of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and a major incentive for terrorist activity.”

3. Husseini was recognized as the de facto leader of the East Jerusalem community, acting as a kind of local author-ity in the Orient House with staff, archives etc.

22

Municipal services, a duty of the Israeli authorities to whom the East Jerusalem population pays taxes, are a disgrace.

In this stalemate of great frustration, the questions are how to circumvent the stalemate, circumvent an unlawful occupation, annexation and colonization when the international community in reality does not care, because it takes no action? What means do we have?

The following is an attempt at circumvention. It is based on providing security for all by

creating a ring around central Jerusalem with no weapons on the inside, and with a perimeter controlled by professional guards with no stake in the conflict. The system is well known and has been employed at summer and winter Olympics for a while now. It is not even particularly difficult to establish. All it takes, is for Israel to respect their own demand for security, and agree to an international security presence in Jerusalem.

This is no place to describe the system in detail. That is done elsewhere. In the context of this article, we merely outline a solution

23

Øystein Grønning,M. Arch. MNAL, Urbanist. Partner, Migrant AS architecture+urbanism

and point to plausible scenarios for the near future. This is done in describing three steps of measures and results by redefining security, starting reconstruction, and bridging gaps. The political issue of whose state and whose territory is left for later. If the core conflict issues are kept at the front with no international will to intervene against Israel’s unlawful politics, the stalemate will remain, and the conflict will escalate until we are looking at a war with international proportions.

Short Term measures: Redefine securityTake Israeli rhetoric at face value, take weapons out of the equation, on both sides, provide real security for both sides. Define a perimeter and abolish weapons on the inside, quarter by quarter, house by house, room by room. Defend the perimeter by checking all entries for weapons.

The result is an end of military rule , an easing of tensions, the return of (tourism) business, return of contacts between the two sides, etc. The Wall will, as time goes by, prove obsolete because security is given with less harsh means.

Medium Term measures: ReconstructionAllow development, enable Palestinian society, provide security for investment.The result is the return of economic security to the separate societies of East and West Jerusalem, where one does not dominate the other.

Long Term measures: Bridge the gapsCreate common grounds. The obvious ones are trade and transportation. Likely ones

are municipal services. The tough will be to get the two peoples to reach out across the divisions created by decades of harsh occupation and resistance. They are cultural and recreational meeting grounds, common projects, venues for both and all, the active involvement of the international community at non-governmental levels, non-partisan action groups, etc etc.

When violence is taken out of the equation and the bomb defused, explore the urban fabric! It can be used for resistance, but also holds wonderful promises of normality.

Illustration 5: aerial view of the Old City of Jerusalem. Photo by author.

24

Erik Berg

Cities - Hopes and Challenges The Norwegian Government’s Role in Urban Development

Dear Colleagues,Let me first start by giving Habitat Norway credit for the work done in preparing this conference. Our “development politicians” in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sincerely regret that they, despite last year’s participation, are unable to attend the Habitat day 2007 due to prior commitments. None the less, our politicians see the work being done in the field of urban development as essential.

This growing recognition of urban challenges in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is apparent in several ways. This fall a Parliamentary Whitepaper on Norwegian Policy for the prevention of humanitarian catastrophes will be launched. It deliberates the link between growing levels of conflict and an increase in natural disasters. The paper’s conclusion is clear: we have to alter the way in which we organize Norwegian as well as international aid if we are to meet the challenges we are facing efficiently. Three of these challenges are:

Changing climate: 2007 may be the warmest year on a global level since systematic measurements of temperatures started 150 years ago. According to the IPCC, environmental- and climate changes can potentially lead to an increase of 150 million refugees worldwide by 2050.Changing habitat patterns: In the course of

2007 over half the world’s population will be city dwellers. Migration, urbanization, and growing slums in risk areas increase the probability of humanitarian disasters. Changing disasters: We are witnessing a tendency of complex crisis situations unfolding in countries where governments have little control or lack administrative capacities. Such combinations give rise to vicious circles and go some way to explain the increase in the number of vulnerable states.

The recognition of the link between poverty and urbanization in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will also become evident in the policy document compiled by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, the Norwegian Agency for International Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that has been further developed through both internal and external hearings. The process towards this policy paper has been fruitful in itself on account of two participatory seminars. These have resulted in an informal, urban network with close to 40 members. The document itself is being finalized by the Foreign Ministry and will be distributed in the near future (The document “Byer – Håp og utfordringer. Om byutvikling og internasjonalt samarbeid” is now available from the Foreign Ministry also in English translation– ed.). It is a response to demands concerning a clear and goal oriented

27

approach to urban issues as a part of a new development approach recently called for by media (Aftenposten 28.06.07) and civil society.

With this document Norway becomes one of the first countries in the world that launches an urban development policy. The policy notably encourages multilateral efforts as a part of a cross-sectoral comprehensive perspective: the urban challenges we are facing would gradually become part of all Norwegian development work. Comparatively, Norway’s advantage is our broad academic base with institutions working with development issues in the South for the last 50 years. Another advantage is the democratic, process oriented approach that we have adopted and developed in terms of urban planning. Our contribution to development in the South will be modest on a global scale, but as an active representative in international fora we can play our part as an important catalyst for large scale involvement from multilateral finance institutions and other donor countries.

The urban sector has throughout the era of international development aid been grossly underfunded – and still is. In the period between 1970 and 2000 it has been estimated that only 4% of all transfers have been towards the urban sector (IIED). Norway has over the last few years increased its economic support to the sector, notably to UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance. UN-Habitat alone has received a 5-fold increase in their funding from

the Norwegian government since 2003. Today our government plays a vital role in defining how the UN’s smallest program can be able to meet one of the greatest challenges facing the world.

The theme for this year’s Habitat day is urban safety and security. There are three major treats to the safety and security of cities: urban crime and violence, insecurity- both tenure and forced evictions - and natural and human-made disasters. Over the past 5 years – according to UN statistics - 60% of all urban residents in developing countries have been victims of crime. Turning to security of tenure and forced evictions the same statistics estimate that at least 2 million people are forcibly evicted every year. The most insecure urban residents are the world’s 1 billion poor people living in slums. With regard to disasters, which are increasing globally, data shows that between 1974 and 2003, 6367 natural disasters occurred globally causing the death of 2 million people and affecting 5.1 billion people. A total of 182 million people were made homeless, while economic damage amounted to US 1.38 trillion. The aggregate impact of small scale hazards on urban dwellers can also be considerable. For example traffic accidents kill over 1.2 million people annually worldwide. There has been a 50 per cent rise in extreme weather incidents associated with climate change from the 1950s to the 1990s and major cities located in coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise.

28

An important socio-economic determinant of vulnerability to the three threats to urban safety and security - addressed in the new Norwegian policy document - is poverty. The urban poor are more exposed to crime, forced evictions and natural hazards than the rich. They are more vulnerable to disasters than the rich because they are often located on sites prone to floods, landslides and pollution. The urban poor also has limited access to assets, thus reducing their ability to respond to hazards or manage risks for instance through insurance. Because the poor are politically powerless, it is unlikely that they will receive the necessary social services following disasters.

To conclude, I hope that this conference will focus on the need for policy responses that place people, poverty reduction and community participation at the centre.

Thank you for your attention!

Erik BergSenior AdvisorMinistry of Foreign Affairs

29

Nabeel Hamdi

Urban FuturesVulnerability and violence - what agenda for urban planning

Nabeel Hamdi,Professor Emeritus Oxford Brookes University, UK

Abstract

“Cities in the developing world will account for 95% of urban expansion in the next two decades, and by 2030 four billion people will live in cities – 1.4 billion in slums.”

Those 1.4 billion, one way or another will be poor or otherwise vulnerable and it is in recognition of this that reducing vulnerability is a key to tackling issues of poverty and at the centre of ensuring safe and fair cities.

This presentation will outline an agenda for action designed to integrate issues of vulnerability, exclusion and violence into decisions on urban planning. The causes of vulnerability will be outlined as will the complicity of planning in condoning/promoting exclusion. The presentation will argue that social and economic vulnerability and exclusion, and the search for identity in cities often find expression in violence. Violence undermines the assets of the poor and will often polarise social groups with profound impact on urban form. (withdrawl from public space, gated communities, symbolic appropriation of space, etc).

The presentation will go on to give definition to the transformative process of community in cities (and with it the insecurity that derives from uncertain or multiple loyalties, values, identities). It will argue the weakness of place based community undermines a commitment

to place which makes engagement to community tricky – because you don’t know where you belong or which values you share.

The cultivation of community and new forms of partnership in urban planning in ways that are pluralist and networked is a key to reducing vulnerability as is the cultivation of choice, when it comes to place and identity.

The following pages are notes from Mr. Hamdi’s presentation for the conference.

31

32

33

Villa 31, Buenos Aires

Securing a Safe andSalubrious CommunityAn introduction to a workshop

Villa 21-24A Presentation of a Villas Miserias

25% of Latin American urban households are living below the locally defined poverty lines.29% of cities in the developing world have areas considered as inaccessible or dangerous to the police. In Latin America and the Caribbean, this figure is 48 %.

UN-HABITAT’s State of the World’s Cities

Argentina and Buenos AiresOfficial language: SpanishCapital: Buenos AiresType of rule: Democratic republicPresident: Cristina KirchnerArea: 2 766 890 km2Population: 37 812 817Density: 13,67/km2

South America is a continent of social differences. For a long time Argentina had a relatively large middle class population compared to other South American countries,but this changed after the economic crisis of 2001. A large part of the country’s industry was bankrupted and work vanished. The number of poor increased, and the class divide deepened.

In 2000 there were 12,6 million people living in Buenos Aires, and it was by that point the worlds 10th largest city. By 2015, UN Habitat predicts that the population will have risen to 14, 1 million.

Buenos Aires is divided into more than 50

burrows called Barrios. Several of these Barrios contain informal settlements called Villas Miserias. These informal settlements can be found all across the Capital Federal, but most are concentrated within the southern parts of the city. Villa 21-24 is situated in the Barrio Barracas, demarked in black.

37

Barrio Barracas and Villa 21 - 24Barrio BarracasArea: 7,6 km2Population: 77 474 (2001)Villa 21 - 24Area: 0,6 km2Population: about 30 000

The name Barracas derives from the word ”barraca” meaning barracs or shed. In the20th Century immigrants – especially Italians, populated Barracas. It was a thriving community consisting mostly of working class families. After 1950 many of Barracas factories were closed down.

Villa 21-24, which is nestled on the border between Barracas and Nueva Pompeya has about 30 000 inhabitants, making it the home of almost half of the population of Barracas. The population is a blend of Argentineans, Bolivians and Paraguayans. The area lacks technical infrastructure such as paved roads, water and gas supply. Electricity is provided to most homesteads through informal links.

Villa 21-24 is run by a Mutual (Flor de Ceibo). The Mutual is in many ways an elected organization representing the community when communicating with the authorities. The Villa contains a number of chapels, and the presence of the church is strong. There are altogether 9 comedores serving free food, in addition to several voluntary organizations (compromising around 250 volunteer workers) engaged in the challenges facing the Villa.

Villa 21-24 can be reached by a 15-minute drive from the city centre of Buenos Aires.

A Brief History of ArgentinaArgentina was a Spanish Colony between 1516 and 1816. The country’s independence was, however, not a peaceful one, and up until the Second World War Argentina was marred by internal struggle. Swaying between liberal andconservative political parties, as well as between politicians and the military, order was restored with the inauguration of Juan Peron in 1946. He was president up until 1955, and returned to power in 73, only to die the following year. His third wife, Isabel Perón, resumed office but was overthrown by the military junta in 1976. After the Falkland War of 82 the military junta was considerably weakened, resulting in a democratic victory during the elections of 1983. The economic collapse of 2001 marked the end of president Menem’s rule.

Source: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina

Facing page: Aerial of Villa 21 - 24. The area is around 400 meters wide and 1500meters long. It is cut off by railway lines to the North, the river Riachuelo to theSouth, an industrial area to the East and a residential area to the West.

38

A Brief History of Villa 21-24Villa 21-24 is situated between a residential area to the west and an industrial areato the east. On its northern boundaries lies a railway station, while to the south theriver Riachuelo, one of the world’s most polluted rivers, flows past. The Villacompromises 65 hectares of land. It stretches 1,5 km from north to south, and 0,43km west to east.

Around 1880 the area was allocated as an industrial area for the railroads. It wasknown as “la Playa Brian” at the time of construction by the British.The area was located in close proximity to the city centre as well as havingconnections to several railway lines. Railway carts and tracks were manufactured andrepaired there. Production receded in the 1960s, resulting in the occupation andsettlement of the area.

Villa 21-24 is today an informal settlement located on government land. Thepopulation growth has been steadily increasing, marked by two separate periods ofrapid growth. (Jorge Fossati, IdV). Starting out as an area of temporary settlement,there is now a whole generation of permanent residents who have lived their wholelives in the Villa.

Arial photograph from 1940 frombefore the area was occupied.(http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar)

Arial photograph from 1965. The areahas been settled on the eastern parts.(http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar)

Arial photograph from 1978, duringthe rule of the military junta. In thisperiod the area was divided into plotsthat were numbered. Previously thearea was divided into three sectionscalled Tierra Amarilla (north of Iriarte),Sagrado Corazón (between Iriarte andOsvaldo Cruz) and Tres Rosas (southof Osvaldo Cruz). After the divisioninto plots the area was called Villa 21-24. The image shows a rapid increasein the population since the 1960s.

Satellite photograph from 2005(Google Earth). Only in the two yearsthat have passed since this image wastaken, the population in the area hasincreased. The area circled in north ofIriarte is today completely filled upwith housing. Some houses haveappeared in the open field east of therailway line, but these will most likelybe removed as the owner of the plothas removed any previous attempts tosettle the area by use of the police.The same is true for the open plot inthe northwestern corner of Villa 21-24.

ComparisonsWhat will the future bring for Villa 21-24? Instituto de Vivienda are employingdevelopment strategies for such areas. Barri A

A Brief History of Villa 21-24Villa 21-24 is situated between a residential area to the west and an industrial area to the east. On its northern boundaries lies a railway station, while to the south the river Riachuelo, one of the world’s most polluted rivers, flows past. The Villa compromises 65 hectares of land. It stretches 1,5 km from north to south, and 0,43 km west to east.

Around 1880 the area was allocated as an industrial area for the railroads. It was known as “la Playa Brian” at the time of construction by the British. The area was located in close proximity to the city centre as well as having connections to several railway lines. Railway carts and tracks were manufactured and repaired there. Production receded in the 1960s, resulting in the occupation and settlement of the area.

Villa 21-24 is today an informal settlement located on government land. The population growth has been steadily increasing, marked by two separate periods of rapid growth. (Jorge Fossati, IdV). Starting out as an area of temporary settlement, there is now a whole generation of permanent residents who have lived their whole lives in the Villa.

Arial photograph from 1940 From before the area was occupied.(http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar)

40

Arial photograph from 1965The area has been settled on the eastern parts. (http://mapa.buenosaires.gov.ar)

Arial photograph from 1978During the rule of the military junta. In this period the area was divided into plots that were numbered. Previously the area was divided into three sections called Tierra Amarilla (north of Iriarte), Sagrado Corazón (between Iriarte and Osvaldo Cruz) and Tres Rosas (south of Osvaldo Cruz). After the division into plots the area was called Villa 21-24. The image shows a rapid increase in the population since the 1960s.

41

Satellite photograph from 2005(Google Earth) Only in the two years that have passed since this image was taken, the population in the area has increased. The area circled in north of Iriarte is today completely filled up with housing. Some houses have appeared in the open field east of the railway line, but these will most likely be removed as the owner of the plot has removed any previous attempts to settle the area by use of the police. The same is true for the open plot in the northwestern corner of Villa 21-24.

Soldati, Barrio Gral M.N Salvio, Villa Zabaleta, Villa 11 - 14 and Villa Oyitas in Matanza outside the Capital Federal are examples on how these strategies work.

Villa 21-24 is today categorized as a Villa, which means it is an informal part of the city the Instituto de Vivienda (IdV) have not planned for or are not able to control. Normally such areas are temporarily transformed into NHTs – Nucleo HabitacionalTransitiorio. Zabaleta, an area bordering to Villa 21-24 is one such example. NHT is a temporary developmental step towards creating a Barrio – the final phase in IdVsdevelopment strategy.

The Villas are perceived as a problem by the authorities and parts of the population in the formal city. People in the Villas are stigmatized, and are seen as criminals, drug addicts or just lazy or inept to work. Physically the Villa is recognizable by its lack of infrastructure and its unsafe and inadequate structures built from recycled and/or cheap building materials. This results in a great variation in color, materials, sizes and technical solutions. Plot sizes also vary considerably. In contrast to the Villa, the NHT is planned and regulated by the authorities. The NHT is considered a temporary phase between Villa and Barrio. People residing here suffer some of the same bigotry residents in the Villas are exposed to. But the NTH has a far better infrastructure, although not satisfactory when compared to the formal solutions. Plots in the NTH are uniform and regular, as are street

42

widths, housing, and materials. Nonetheless, the physical structures of the NHTs are unstable and have all the qualities of a quick fix.

Barrio Soldati (see photo below) is a typical social housing project, planned and built by the authorities. Also here, some people find themselves stigmatized. These barrios have adequate infrastructure as well as similar housing units and building materials. There is little or no variation, and the structures are often set up rapidly at minimum cost. The development strategies employed by the IdV can seem inadequate. The strategies do not consider the potential the Villas harbor, but instead focus on the problems. The

strategies bereave the Villa of its identity and undermine the already existing networks and structures developed by and for the residents themselves. Still, there are severe problems connected to a Villa, and these have to be taken seriously.

43

Observations“Behind the blue church, with an entrance from Padre Pepe’s plot, they are in the process of building an orphanage. The work has halted half way through, due to lack of funds. Architect Sr. Sespede tells me that he has worked in the area for 10 years, but that he cannot work with orphans. “They are often forced into prostitution”, he tells me: ’my own children are the same age.’”

“Sr Sespede tells me he doesn’t want to work with urbanism, but rather he focuses on single projects. The reason for this, he continues, is that urbanism involves large scale change and dealings with the authorities. This leads either to nothing happening, or that corruption or other problems get in the way of the project.”

“When we were teaching we were collected two blocks outside the Villa, either by students, or by people working for the organization. We were escorted back after the day was done. The reason for this was fear of criminal acts.”

“Several of the pupils were originally from Paraguay. Lucia often told me that it is the Paraguayans that create the most trouble in the Villa. I found it strange that she had such prejudice even though she worked in the area three times a week. I encountered the same attitude several times throughout the Villa.”

45

Mosquera does not believe social housing projects to be the solution for the Villas. He points out that infrastructure and interaction between the city and its surrounds is vital. Housing units according to family size is also an important factor. He says that the buildings should consider identity, and that building projects need to respect the inhabitants to a larger degree than they do today.

Jorge Fossati says there are two population groups in the Villas. Argentineans make up 30 – 40%. In most cases, he believes, these are second-generation immigrants. Children of immigrants born in Argentina are automatically granted Argentinean citizenship. Being children or young adults, the Argentinean part of the Villa population therefore has a low age average.

The other population group is immigrants. Compromising 60-70%, they come from Bolivia, Peru, and Paraguay. The reason for the immigration, Fossati explains, is mainly due to the fact that Argentina has a free health and education system, and that money is easier to come by here than most other places.

Residents within the Villa who lives closer to the main streets, has pluming. No one in the Villa is connected to the gas mains. They have external gas tanks for cooking and heating water. The houses are also illegally connected to the power grid.

Interview at the Institutio de ViviendaWalter Mosquera and Jorge Fossati work at the IdV focusing on informal settlements in Buenos Aires. He says that the Mutuale in Villa 21-24, Flor de Ceibo, is especially strong and that the authorities are not able to enter without the consent of the Mutuale. Institutio de Vivienda have not had access to Villa 21-24 since 2000.

The residents of Villa Zabaleta, which is located on the other side of Calle Zabaleta, do not wish to be a part of Villa 21-24 or their Mutuale. This area is a Nucleo Habitacional Transitorio, and is as such different both formally and historically. According to Mosquera and the IdV statistics from 2001, there are 3 050 housing units in Villa 21-24 consisting of 3 500 families and a total of 13 500 people. Today IdV stipulate the population to be around 18 000. The Catholic Church, however, estimate that there are 32 000 people residing in Villa 21-24.

Walter does not know how old the Villa is, but says that there have been two periods of notable growth. The first period was in 1984, just after the democratic reform in the country. For the most part the people settling in the Villa at the time were Argentineans from the countryside. The second growth period started in 2001, marked by the end of President Menem’s rule and extreme unemployment. Since then the population has grown steadily, partly due to people moving in, but also due to internal growth.

46

of the fact. The best part about living in Villa 21-24 he says is: “the street, this part of town, the people around here, the way they are,” and continues: “life here has more flavor. Every minute something happens.”

He believes the future in Villa 21-24 will be hard. Mostly because of the possibility that they will have to live in way they do not want to. They will raze the area, he believes, creating 7 by 8 meter plots of equal size. Two meters of garden in front and two in the back.

Today Julio and his family have twice this amount. “The government might own the land,” he states: “but I own the house.” He is entitled to selling his house even though he does not own the land. If the authorities clear the area, Julio will be in a very vulnerable position. “The worst is being forced to do something you don’t want to take part in,” he says, looking out at the self-built community around him.

We visited Julio’s son’s house in Villa Zabaleta, an area regulated by the authorities. Julio’s daughter in law was at home and their young daughter was asleep. The family had been forced to move to the social housing project she says. She didn’t want to, but they were forced. Julio thinks their new home won’t last the year. It will prove too expensive to maintain, and they will have to sell and relocate.

Julio still wants the government to get more involved. He sees the solution in Villa 21-24 as twofold. First, the availability and access

Interview with JulioJulio has lived in Villa 21-25 for 25 years and is a self-made film director. He lives with his wife Maria Esther, and together they have 12 children. Julio is a former Cartonero – a garbage collector. A lot of people from the Villas work in this profession. Their main task is to manage the household waste from formalresidences and sell it to recycling stations. Julio later started a performance group in Villa 21-24. They had no experience, but made up for it in passion, he says. He has now made several films from the community using local actors and actresses. He has won several awards for his work, and also traveled to Morocco to receive one such award. Today Julio works as a drama teacher at a local school in addition to making his films. He says that if things are going to change in the Villa, the change has to come from inside: “Culture cannot be implemented from outside,” he muses: “it needs to be created there and then, if it is to have any impact.”

Julio´s house is a two-storey building. They have a large bathroom with a flushing toilet, a dining room combined with a kitchen, a garage and four bedrooms. In addition they have a small roof top garden. The kitchen is painted in yellow and blue, the colors of Boca Juniors, one of the two largest soccer teams in Buenos Aires. The walls are hung with plenty of family photos.

Julio has lived in Villa 21-24 for 25 years and has all his roots there. Before that he lived in other Villas. He says that this is his home. He does not want to move or change houses. He has built everything himself and is proud

49

ones with real power in Villa 21-24 are, according to Julio, Padre Pepe and Guillermo Bizae.

Guillermo Bizae is the de facto president of Villa 21-24. He is the head of the Mutuale. All the Villas in Buenos Aires have such a Mutuale, and every decision in relation to planning, building and communicating with the authorities passes through the Mutuale.

Padre Pepe is the leader of the catholic Church in Villa 21 – 24, Señora de Caacupe, another powerful actor. Neither the Mutuale nor the Church involves themselves in the drug problems in the area. Drug related problems are prolific, the most common drug being Paco, a waste product from cocaine production.

“The worst thing about living in the Villa is the insecurity,” says Julio. He worries for his daughters, but says that as long as he is a well-known and respected man, they keep out of harm’s way. Still, Julio keeps a shotgun in a closet in the kitchen, a couple of meters from the front door.

to loans to buy materials has to be secured. Second, an upgrading of the infrastructure is needed. Better streets, more police, hospitals etc. He mentions there is a hospital eight blocks away, but that it is impossible to get a bed.

He and his wife are of Argentinean descend, and thus part of the minority in the area. There are quite a number of Paraguayans and Bolivians staying in Villa 21-24. Still, Juan almost only has Argentinean friends and contacts. He says getting to know the Paraguayans is hard. He also believes that most second-generation immigrants consider themselves Argentineans, and don’t want to return to their home countries. Julio is proud to be an Argentinean and is a Peronist ( a supporter of the political movement after Juan Peron.)

Taking a walk outside, we come across the railway line and a passing train. The buildings closest to the track are only 1 meter away from the carts as they rush by. Julio tells me there have been two accidents recently, both involving children. “But people here take good care of their kids and animals,” he continues. Two police officers were busy closing the road manually when the train came through. It does so 2-3 times every day.

We walked on through narrow alleys. Julio says he and his family never venture to the southern parts of the Villa, or down to the river. The police are there, but their presence is not of the positive kind, he explains. The

Eli Grønn

Architectmigrant a+u

50

Eli Grønn

Architectmigrant a+u

Workshop results

About the workshop

Last year’s Habitat Day in Oslo saw a lot of young participants joining the confer-ence at the Oslo School of Architecture. This influx of new blood into our field is highly encouraging, and is important to maintain. To spur student interest for this year’s Habitat Day event as well, a work-shop with Nabeel Hamdi, one of Europe’s leading action planners, was organised.

In the field of urban poverty, there are com-plex issues to be dealt with – issues that may seem daunting to those that are inexperi-enced, and may prove to be a hindrance in respect to recruitment. The workshop was organised to familiarise students and others with some of the central issues in the field, with especial attention to community based action planning methods. Given the theme of this year’s Habitat Day, “A Safe City is a Just City”, the choice of a community based work-shop case is both interesting and apt.

Although the workshop was created for the benefit of the participants, a case was chosen that would allow for realistic simulation of “real life” events - although few of the participants were familiar with the site from before. This, however, can be said to be a common problem facing those working in the field.

22 people – students from The University in Oslo, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Bergen School of Architecture, The Norwegian University of Science and Technol-ogy, as well as a few from other walks of life

– had taken the trip to ROM art + architecture, Saturday the 29th of September, and set to the tasks with fervor.

The workshop was run by professors Nabeel Hamdi and Ed Robbins, who shared from their joint wealth of experience. The case chosen was largely based on a diploma work at NTNU by Eli Grønn, on one of the Villas Miserias in Buenos Aires, Argentina: a “miserable place” where poverty, insecurity and crime are all major problems.

The workshop was planned in three stages, but given the allotted time, it was shortened to fit into one day. Neither the processes nor the results, therefore, are finished in any respect – but are rather a glimpse into the plethora of problematic issues regarding urban poverty. As one of the participants mused at the end of the day – he just felt more frustrated after negotiating the tasks of the workshop than he did before. This, alas, can be taken as proof that the workshop did indeed simulate all too well “real life” events.

54

SCHOOL

CHAPEL

CATHOLIC CHURCH

KINDERGARTEN

COMEDOR

HEALTH CLINIC

EL MUTUAL

CHILDREN/YOUTH CENTRE

Villa 21-24 Diagrams

Housing Functions

56

LOW INTENSITY

HIGH INTENSITY

Green structures Internal paths

57

Few public functions Intensity of public functions

58

New township, Cape Flats

Open spaces Transportation

59

Part 1Discussions

Local community group

Garbage collectors

Immigrants from the countryside

After an introduction to the workshop case, this first part of the workshop was initiated by a separation of the participants into three groups. These were community based groups that represent some of the challenges present-ed in the case. Group 1 was to be a local com-munity group, group 2 represented garbage collectors, while the third group was made up of immigrants from the countryside. The main task in this part of the workshop was to let the participants identify with each of the groups they represented, and clarify the following:

- Who are we?- What do we need?- What are our dreams?

These questions were discussed and answers written down in the groups respectively. After these deliberations, the participants gath-ered for role play, where the three commu-nity groups presented themselves for each other, and pointed out their needs, wishes and demands. In this way a series of issues and questions were presented and clarified.

60

61

Part 2Occupying the site

In this second part of the workshop the groups were asked to “stake their claims” on site. A large map of the area, in 1:500 was laid out on the floor, and the participants developed “their” parts of the site according to the re-spective community group’s identities.

Some design work ensued, and the two- and three dimensional shapes that appeared on the map gave each of the community groups more presence, and a visual basis for discus-sions. Viewing the map from above, it was

becoming apparent that conflicts of interest might crop up between the respective commu-nity groups.

The collective discussions that took place on basis of the visual material on the map gave room for a few arguments concerning key dif-ferences between the groups, and enabled the workshop to proceed in a constructive direc-tion in terms of identifying, looking into, and hopefully solving some of these problems.

62

Part 3Suggest, disagree, and agree

The groups were asked to suggest proposals that would benefit their group and the community as a whole on three different levels; general suggestions, infrastructure, and plots. Suggestions the groups could not agree upon are marked in grey. The remaining suggestions were proposals every-one felt they could work with. The purpose of such an activity is to allow community groups to focus on topics they can agree upon, rather than those they disagree about.

General Suggestionsl Organize plots so that families and relatives can live next to each otherl Ensure accessibilityl Possibility for holding animalsl Keep the open plot a recreational areal In addition to housing, land should be available for agriculturel All to have access to an open plot of landl Big road – big plots, small road – small plotsl Keep existing densityl Create a community area on part of the open plotl Divide into three different plot sizes

Infrastructurel Roads wide enough for fire trucksl Lighting for streets and public spacesl New railway stationl Walkways between subplotsl Keep road edges unbuilt for commercial activityl Access to water suppliesl Open for shops and manufacturing along streets

Plotsl Spaces for productionl Common spaces within housing squares with direct access from streetl Places to sit and relaxl Common barbeque/cooking areas in shared open spacesl A network of smaller shared spaces catering for different activities l Shared spaces located along main roads and connecting streetsl Spaces for keeping animalsl Community centrel 6-10 houses create a neighborhoodl Make public space by widening road and walkways

66

65

Part 4Design guidelines and

implementations on site

Based on the points agreed upon in part 3, the participants were once again divided into groups. This time, their skills as planners were called upon. Using the map, and the visual basis from part 2 of the workshop, improve-ments on site were implemented using the basic design guidelines from part 3. The result was a meshwork of planned spaces that, al-though based on the same design principals, expressed very different physical results. Also, a number of interesting discussions ensued, for example concerning the construction of “high rise” buildings in such an area, the need for open plots, and issues regarding feeling protected in contrast to feeling monitored.

Overall, the discussions showed how a work-shop like this can have as much value for architects and planners, as for community groups on site. Usually, in real terms, this type of workshop will span the better part of a week, albeit with much larger groups of peoples, and perhaps with a greater fo-cus on diplomacy. In this case, the workshop was more of an insight into action planning. Unfortunately, the workshop was cut short at the end of the day. The remaining topics were related to policy and governance – topics that arguably are of great importance when dealing with safety and urban poverty.

Anders EseCo-Chairman

Habitat Norway

66

67

Concluding Remarks

The poetic theme of UN Habitat last year, “Cities magnets of hope”, has been replaced with a growing awareness of the risk factors facing urban populations. In 2007, the central theme read that “A safe city is a just city”. One of our key-speakers at the conference, Sven Erik Svendsen added a question mark to this quote in order to encourage raised awareness and continued reflection on the topic. He went on to ask how best to secure urban populations without renouncing their rights. There are a number of important issues facing urban dwellers such as forced evictions, insecurity of tenure, increasing incidents of violent crime as well as natural and man-made disasters. The responses depend on the circumstances and the answers are complex. It is also important to note that having a greater number of safe cities does not necessarily make these cities more pleasant living spaces.

Øystein Grønning substantiated this point when he explained how Israel builds and establishes safety in their zones, and how they in this process create further injustice for the Palestinian populations. The Israeli’s security rests on violence in spatial, structural and physical terms. Grønning thus highlighted the necessity of building confidence rather than security. However, how does one break patterns of conflict when there is a complete lack of confidence between the participating actors? His suggestion was to bridge gaps of both the visible and invisible sort and to create common links using methods such as trade, transportation and cultural meeting

grounds. Money may work wonders, he said, as confidence can be created through trade and market activities.

Representing the Foreign Ministry, Erik Berg presented the policy paper “Cities – hopes and challenges - on urban development and international cooperation”. The policy paper encourages multilateral efforts and cross-sectoral approaches. Norwegian development programs are increasingly taking this into account by targeting many of the urban challenges we are currently facing. One of the many topics discussed in the paper is poverty and the vulnerability of the urban poor to crime, forced evictions, natural hazards, pollution and diseases. Throughout the era of international development, the urban sector has been and still is, grossly under-funded. The fact that the Norwegian government is launching this paper, was thus highly acclaimed at the conference.

This year Habitat Norway wanted to expand the scope of the conference on the Habitat Day. We wanted to shift the form of communication from a style based mainly on presentations to including a more active dialogue on development issues in the context of a workshop. The conference was thus supplemented by a workshop that provided training on community-based action planning methods. This one day exercise attracted mainly students who made up the majority of the participants; the discussion was complemented by the presence of a few professionals like me. The workshop gave rise

68

Dr. Ingun B AmundsenCo-Chairman

Habitat Norway

to a number of interesting discussions that highlighted many of the central issues on the topic “A safe city is a just city”.

In order to guide this process, we were fortunate enough to be able to present the renowned action planner, Nabeel Hamdi from Oxford Brookes University. At Oxford Brookes, Hamdi founded the master course on development practice, and he is currently the professor of housing and urban development.The workshop included a simulation of common problems encountered within the field. Eli Grønn gave us a vivid and authentic introduction to some of the challenges experienced by urban populations. Using the example of the Villas Miserias in Buenos Aires, Argentina, she elucidated the grave issues linked to insecurity and poverty that people face in this kind of context.

The workshop exercise consisted of role plays where the participants were subdivided into three groups. Two groups represented the local community and their different points of view whilst the third group took on the role of the “outsider” coming into the community. The scenario focused on methods of community involvement and empowerment in the project identification process. This was done in order to move away from the conventional scenario where planners and architects are simply seen as the providers but where they do not take into account local experiences, views and needs. We were advised to avoid using standard models, despite the fact that these “blueprint” solutions are often being

requested. Conflict awareness and problem solving were central to the exercise. Various proposals were mapped, conflicts became apparent and the catalyst properties of certain actions were explored. What did we learn? The workshop opened up for new ways of thinking, and it became apparent that when the advantages of a proposal are clear, it is always easier to reach a consensus. It is recommended to include something similar next year - the workshop was a vehicle for learning and understanding.

69

List of participants 01.10.07

Amundsen Ingun B ingun.amundsen@gmail.com Insam/Habitat Norge

Andersen Aasa G aasa@andersens.no Andersens E&D

Berdal Annika

Berg Jørn Are joernare@gmail.com AHO

Binz Annikken a9k1@yahoo.com

Dale Gunnar siv.ark@gunnar-dale.no

Ellefsen Karl Otto Karl.O.Ellefsen@aho.no AHO

Ese Anders ae@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo/Habitat Norge

Ese Mari betongmari@hotmail.com Westerdals

Gjefle Karsten Karsten.Gjefle@norskform.no Norsk Form

Grønn Eli eli@migrant.no migrant a+u

Haffner Benjamin bh@lmr-arkitektur.no

Halseth Lisbeth LiH@lpo.no LPO arkitektur & design as

Hansen Bror bror.hansen@gmail.com BAS

Harboe Lisbet lisbet.harboe@aho.no AHO

Helland Mona mona.helland@krd.dep.no KRD

Hellevang Christian christian.hellevang@ks.no KS

Hennissen Grete Kristin gretekh@stud.ntnu.no NTNU

Hilde Kristin Jahr

Hillestad Anita anita@anitahillestad.org

Hjelle Christian christianhjelle@yahoo.no

Holm Lars Lars.Holm@skanska.no Skanska Norge

Holst Helga

Jinghua Lisbeth lee.ljh@gmail.com

Kiøsterud Tore tore.kiosterud@nova.no NOVA

Kjøsnes Kathrine kathrinekjosnes@gmail.com FN-Sambandet

70

Knutslien Sarah Sarah@norskform.no Norsk Form

Lange Tore torlan3@online.no NBBL

Langslet Marit marit@migrant.no migrant a+u

Lauvland Gro gro.lauvland@aho.no AHO

Leren Trine Kvaal trinekle@stud.ntnu.no NTNU

Lyngner Ivar il@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo arkitekter

Minasian Henrik Der henrik@r-o-m.no Galleri ROM

Naganathan Sara saba@broadpark.no

Nygaard Per per.nygaard@krd.dep.no KRD

Riska Minna minna@spacegroup.no Spacegroup

Ruden Anne anne.ruden@husbanken.no Husbanken

Rydland Asbjørn arydland@gmail.com Habitat Norge

Rønhovde Tomas vinglo81@gmail.com

Sandbakken Camilla cas@nca.no Kirkens Nødhjelp

Schønheyder Caroline T. carolts@student.hf.uio.no UIO

Sem-Olsen Ina Bakka ibso@mail.com BAS

Stedje Hilde hilde@in4mail.no Informal

Stork Karel karel.stork@c2i.net Stork Prosjekt AS

Strandbygaard Mikkel

Sunde Henning hs@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo arkitekter

Svela Audhild audhild@in4mal.no Informal

Trae Marit maritrae@stud.ntnu.no NTNU

Tøllefsen Liz Eva lizeva@gmail.com BAS

Wilhelmsen Marit marit.wilhelmsen@fn.no FN-Sambandet

Ågotsdatter Hanne

71

Workshop Participants 29.09.07

Amundsen Ingun B ingun.amundsen@gmail.com Insam/Habitat Norge

Ask Øystein oystein.ask@asplan.no Asplan Viak

Berg Ingvild ingvildberg@hotmail.com

Bermudez Christian zanatefilms@yahoo.com

Ese Jo je@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo arkitekter

Ese Anders ae@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo arkitekter

Haffner Benjamin haffner@stud.ntnu.no NTNU

Hansen Bror R. bror.hansen@gmail.com BAS

Hjelle Christian christianhjelle@yahoo.no

Holhjelm Marita maita.holhjelm@arkitektur.no

Johnsen Thomas Forslund thomasfjohnsen@gmail.com BAS

Rydland Asbjørn arydland@gmail.com Habitat Norge

Rønhovde Tomas vinglo81@gmail.com

Sem-Olsen Ina Bakka ibso@mail.com BAS

Svela Audhild audhild@in4mal.no Informal

Trae Marit maritrae@stud.ntnu.no BAS

Tøllefsen Liz Eva lizeva@gmail.com BAS

Vitanza Erik Snøhetta

72

Contributors/Lecturers

Workshop Holders/Crew

Robbins Edward edward.robbins@aho.no AHO

Hamdi Nabeel nabs.hamdi@gmail.com Oxford Brookes University

Grønn Eli eli@migrant.no migrant a+u

Ese Anders ae@rodeo-arkitekter.no Rodeo arkitekter

Robbins Edward edward.robbins@aho.no AHO

Svendsen Sven Erik svenerik.svendsen@ark.ntnu.no NTNU

Grønning Øystein oystein@migrant.no migrant a+u

Berg Erik erik.berg@mfa.no UD

Hamdi Nabeel nabs.hamdi@gmail.com Oxford Brookes University

Grønn Eli eli@migrant.no migrant a+u

73

On the Contributors

Ed Robbins (chair)is professor at the Institute of Landscape and Urbanism at the Oslo School of Design and Architecture. He is a social anthropologist and has previously taught at Harvard and MiT. He has published several books and articles on topics concerning urban poverty.

Sven Erik Svendsenis professor of housing at the Norwegian Uni-versity of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim and adjunct professor of develop-ment studies at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO); he is currently directing the SEARCH-project (Southern & Eastern Af-rica Research Cooperation for Habitat) involv-ing several African universities.

Øystein Grønninghas more than 30 years of experience as an architect and planner in Norway and in-ternationally. He is the founder of Migrant architecture+urbanism in Oslo, and much used as external examiner in urbanism and plan-ning at several universities in Norway. Since 1995 he has been engaged in planning and institution building for the Palestinian National Authority, long term and short term, in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Erik Berghas a M.A (Modern African History) from the University of Trondheim (1975), a B.SC from the University of Oslo (1972), and Studies in Tropical Agriculture and Sustainable Devel-opment from NLH/NORAGRIC (1988). He is currently the Senior Advisor, Dept. for UN.

Peace and Humanitarian Issues at the Minis-try of Foreign Affairs, Oslo, and is responsible for human settlements issues. Before this he was Counsellor to the Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh (1999-2002), as well as asst. res. rep for NORAD in Zambia (1983-86), Kenya (1990), and Tanzania (1991-93). From 1973-76 he was Chairman of the Norwe-gian Students International Assistance Fund (SAIH).

Nabeel Hamdiis professor emeritus at Oxford Brookes University. He is the architect behind award-winning community-based PSSHAK hous-ing projects in London in the 1970s, and the principal investigator on sponsored research into low-income housing in UK, USA and in numerous developing countries. He is a con-sultant to governments, development agencies and banks in countries world-wide. He has authored many articles, and four books, and is the winner of UN Habitat’s Scroll of Honour 1997 for his contribution to community ac-tion planning in cities. Former co-Director of CENDEP (Oxford Brookes University).

Eli Grønnis Master of Architecture and works for Migrant architecture+urbanism in Oslo. She has done studies on urban development and regenera-tion in depraved areas in Buenos Aires, Ar-gentina, in Kumasi, Ghana, and in Mali. She is presently employed with large scale develop-ment projects for trade and retail in several Norwegian towns, and with redevelopment projects in central Oslo.

74

Abbreviations

IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIIED International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentAHO The Oslo School of Design and ArchitectureNTNU Norwegian University of Technology and ScienceBAS Bergen School of ArchitectureUiO University of OsloKRD Ministry of Local Government and Regional DevelopmentNORAD Norwegian Agency for Development CooperationUD Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Photo Credits

Anders Ese p 4, 8, 10, 15-16, 26, 30, 52, 55, 60-67.Aasa G Andersen p 76.Øystein Grønning p 22-23, 25.Stopthewall.org p 20-21.Eli Grønn p 34-36, 39-45, 47-48, 51, diagrams p 56-59, and cover photo.

75

Habitat Norway is a Norwegian non govern-mental organisation with the overall aim to promote the interest and awareness of settle-ment issues around the world. Habitat Norway was founded in 1988 as a result of the activi-ties carried out during the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Habitat Norway was established in order to put human settle-ment issues on the Norwegian Development Policy Agenda. Habitat Norway has the follow-ing tasks and concerns:

- To give assistance in development planning policies and proposals- To focus on sustainable development in plan-ning of infrastructure- To assist in the use of safe and sustainable local building materials and methods where appropriate- To focus on construction using appropriate technology- To ensure communication between grass roots and administration in self help projects

About Habitat Norway

- To focus on long term administration and maintenance of dwellings and their associated service facilities- To ensure recruitment of architects, sociolo-gist and planners for development work Habitat Norway is attached to the Norwegian Branch of International Federation of Housing and Planning. The organisation is a member of Habitat International Coalition. The organisa-tion is open to all professionals; it has mem-

bers representing many different disciplines such as architecture, engineering, sociology, human geography, and social anthropology.

The activities consist mainly of lectures and seminars, sometimes in cooperation with other organisations. Habitat Norway arranges a seminar in October each year in celebration of the World Habitat Day. Membership costs NOK 420 per year, and includes subscription to the bimonthly periodical “Plan”.

Habitat Norway

HABITAT Norway

c/o Polyteknisk Foreningavd. Bolig- og byplanforeningenRosenkrantzgate 70156 OsloNorway

Please visit www.habitat-norge.org