Architects Filipe Balestra and Sara Göransson have developed a strategy to develop informal slums into permanent urban districts through a process of gradual improvement to existing dwellings instead of demolition and rebuilding.
Developed in Bombay, India, the Incremental Housing Strategy is intended to allow districts to improve organically without uprooting communities.
A pilot project will be implemented in Pune, India but the architects believe the strategy could be appropriate in any country with similar urban conditions.
The architects have developed three house typologies (below) consisting of simple frames that allow for later expansion.
“After creating works for Rem Koolhaas at OMA/ AMO, Neutelings Riedijk, NL architects, and Thomas Sandell, I found it essential to search for the opposite experience: to work for the ones who cannot pay,” says Balestra.
See also our story on Quinta Monroy in Chile by Alejandro Aravena
Here’s some text, photos and captions from the architects:
–
In September 2008, architects Filipe Balestra and Sara Göransson were invited by Sheela Patel and Jockin Arputham (www.sparcindia.org) to come to India to design an Incremental Housing Strategy. The strategy had to be implementable anywhere.
Above: implementation collage: kaccha houses incremented and customized
Filipe had previously designed and built a school and community centre in Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro’s largest slum, in a participatory design and construction process together with the locals. The project was called Sambarchitecture and it was documented in a movie which was shown in Cinema Zita in Stockholm during Brazilian Film Festival. This movie was also in exhibition in the Architecture Museum of Stockholm and in Botkyrka Konsthall; Sara has been working on a strategy to connect Stockholm, framing the future urban development as urban bridges between segregated suburbs.
Above: aerial collage: the new archipelago of incremented kaccha houses rising from a sea of well built permanent homes in a typical slum.
Soon after Filipe and Sara arrived to Bombay, a team of international architects, urban planners, landscape architects and graphic designers volunteered to set up the strategy which uses the existing urban formations as starting point for development. Organic patterns that have evolved during time are preserved and existing social networks are respected. Neighbors remain neighbors, local remains local.
Above: Far left: Savita Sonawane from Mahila Milan explaning strategy to slum dwellers of Netaji Nagar. Far right, Filipe Balestra sketching possibilities.
When Filipe and Sara started working they did not know the Indian government would initiate a grant of 4500 euro/ family for the incrementation of their homes at a national scale. The grant is now active and it can be given to any family who lives in a kaccha – an old temporary structure, not suitable for living. It is called City In-Situ Rehabilitation Scheme for Urban Poor Staying in Slums in City of Pune Under BSUP, JNNURM.
Above: informal office in Koregaon Park, Pune
The pilot project will be implemented in Pune, India. Filipe, Sara and SPARC is now spreading the word to implement the strategy in other countries with similar needs: Brazil, Kenya, South Africa, The Philippines, the list is long. 1/3 of the world’s urban population is now living in slums.
Above: Life inside a kaccha house I
The strategy strengthens the informal and aims to accelerate the legalization of the homes of the urban poor. The communities are asked to engage with the construction process to customize each house, i.e. each family will paint the house the color they want. After all, who knows better than the people themselves how do they want to live?”
Above: Life inside a kaccha house II
We developed 3 basic prototypes for the slum dwellers to choose from. These are 3 basic typologies. House A is a two story home, structured like a 3 story home to ensure safety in future vertical extension; House B has Incrementable ground floor, which is left open for either parking or for the family to turn that open space into a shop. House C has an incrementable middle floor, to hang clothes or to be used like a living room. All proposals are for one family and 270 sq foot area (grant regulations).
Above: Life inside a kaccha house III
Above: Life inside a kaccha house IV
Design team:
Filipe Balestra
Sara Göransson
Guilherme de Bivar
Martinho Pitta
Rafael Balestra
Remy Turquin
Carolina Cantante
SPARC and Mahila Milan
–
Posted by Marcus Fairs
May 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Beautiful…
May 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
total poverty…
May 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
well, I think it’s not as easy as it seems, but beautiful idea to help…
May 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
what is the interest in theorizing a vernacular attitude?
nobody in Bombay or in any slums in the world needs those architects; they are already building in this way for ages, i.e. cheap structural base then fulfilled with bricks
“The communities are asked to engage with the construction process to customize each house, i.e. each family will paint the house the color they want.”
bullshit…they build a 4 story building if they need a 4 story building, they don’t give a damn about the color, it has nothing to deal with “customization”
you’re somehow right, “who knows better than the people themselves how do they want to live”, so let them do it themselves and just take lessons from what they produce
May 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
what an inspiring project!
May 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I always find projects like this very interesting and inspiring.. these are the people who need architects the most.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Dream or real?
May 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@Matt
In some points i would like to agree with you. Maybe this way of “customization” by painting houses in fancy colors or wathever is not really a good argument, because nobody there cares about color. Thats just right.
But in the whole thing, I cant find something really bad about this?! The idea of helping people buidling up their homes and providing modern technology in terms of “know-how” is something i call a upcoming field of architectural design and an important step for nowadays architects.
Where is the problem? Of course people there they know how they can build homes for theirselves, but with a lack of building-quality and suistainability. I know about wrong help in many ways, but in this case this is not only interesting, but really important and beautiful.
May 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@matt – i think the larger issue here is that the current dwellings are illegal and could be torn down by the local authorities at any moment leading to a disruption of the community. the attempt is to somehow transform the existing dwellings into permanent, legally accepted structures rooted in the preexisting slum. it would perhaps be beneficial if the reworking of the dwellings is accompanied by a reworking of the building/zoning strictures to allow for these marginal neighborhoods to become permanent….
May 5th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
POVERTY PORN.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
MATT…..IF THATS THE CASE WOULD YOU CUT YOUR OWN HAIR? OR DESIGN YOUR OWN CAR TO DRIVE INSIDE OUT? PROBABLY NOT SO JUDGING FROM THOSE PICTURES ABOVE AN ARCHITECT IS NEEDED NOT ONLY FOR AESTHETIC REASONS, BUT FOR SAFETY REASONS ALSO.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
“…consisting of simple frames that allow for later expansion…”
How much will these frames and their facade material cost?!
In theory it looks great, and Matt people don’t WANT to live like this. They just don’t have any choice, economic choice that is…
So how much will these expandable structures cost?
€4500? If so this would be great, if not, it only provides with a too expensive solution.
I hope it’s the first!
May 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
@Matt’s comment – you could call it “theorizing a vernacular attitude” etc, or you could call it an attempt to drastically improve their living conditions while also trying to respect the way their settlement has grown. The argument about whether upgrading to these slum buil is actually necessary\desired or not is obviously an entirely separate matter, but if an improvement program is being made then it seems preferrable that a sensitive approach like the one described here was taken.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I think solving problems in the slums have nothing to deal with architecture, but with political decision.
This project is -i’m sorry to repeat- nothing but what is already existing, nicely drawn on a cad-software. Slums are already “growing organically without uprooting communities”. The structure is already a cheap slabs-and-columns concrete skeleton, that could easily be extended (highest building in Rocinha is around 7 floors.)
Let’s have a look on the “Favela Bairro” project, that happened in Rio de Janeiro. What the city did was to somehow legalize the whole neighboorhood, or at least recognize it and give it a name. They were not leaving a “hole in the map” anymore. Then, they gave names to the streets; now, you live “somewhere”, you have a mailbox: you already become a part of the city. Since then, you can own the land on which your house is built. After, the city provides legal electricity, tries to solve the problem of the wasted water, collects the garbage…this is how you become a citizen, working inside the city and having the city working for you.
In Brasil, since Favela Bairro, people are extending their house, and then rent the first floor as an apartment. They have create their own economy (which is, surprisingly, something close to capitalism), they have internet-cafés, they produce music, they sell clothes…
What I just wanted to say is that they don’t need architecture that tries to intellectualize something; they didn’t wait for any architect to build houses cheaper than 4500€, or to turn their ground floor into a shop, or grow vertically. They are far more intelligent than what you all seem to believe.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Matt I think you are being a bit unfair- the whole point is the actual design and solution was created together with the local communities. “Who knows better than the people themselves how do they want to live”, was the premise for the whole project– and letting them do it themselves means cutting out the extra layer of corrupt construction companies “affiliated” with local authorities.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Nice to finally see some of your work Filipe and Sara, I’m so proud of you! It´s nice to see someone doing something that’s real. You are the good guys!
Stor kram, Lisa.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The text also does not describe how the solution decreases costs, by analysing the housing construction needs in clusters that maintain the original footprint of the houses. Shared walls and posts are a simple solution with dramatic effects. The owners of the building are exactly that- owners, and can choose to expand upwards, as well as the varient of house they want- far beyond the “color of the walls.
Upgrading the slum is the only way forward- one that has managed to evade NGOs and government bodies before, who instead funded development by squeezing all the population into a 3rd of the existing space, demolishing the whole slum and building a 5 star hotel to fund the “re-development” – an understanding of the actual realities of these working slums (that produce much of the clothes etc we consume by the way) shed light on exactly how ingenious and successful this project is.
May 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Michael- we heard that the cost was more in the region of €3000
May 5th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Nice work Sara and Filip! Might need you over here in Kabul when your finished! Maybe a little blast mitigation additions and we are sorted. Hope to see you guys soon and catch up, getting all warm and fuzzy architecture feelings again.. oh dear… Filip you keep doing this to me!
Best
-Nathan
May 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Architecture with a capital A.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I agree with Matt here. Approximately zero architecture involved. It’s just a standardisation of an existing typology, backed up with some pretty maps and perspectives. The 270 square feet contained by one of these equates to two 3.5m square rooms, and the difference between these and the existing kaccha houses is minimal. Improving slums is worthy, but this project isn’t suggesting any significant architectural change.
May 5th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Matt….
seriously keep it real man! Go and live in slums before you talk about projects you only see them online. Go and live in Rio´s favela to know what is all about. Same in India.
This project not only gives people real houses with safe structures but will also bring water, toilets and plenty of other things….such as a shop for families to open they´re own buisness!
Great project! I am very proud of people like them…..making the difference while most of us seat in our comfortable chair thinking about a material world!
Some people talk….some others do
Well done, architecture finally!
May 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Jones Maybe that is the point of the project. No significant architectural change, just providing the people what they really need, a better house which they customize and better infrastructures and streets conditions. Simple and straight forward as that.
People in the slums they dont need the ego point of view of an architect, they just need some knowledge, tips and tools because they can do an amazing job by then selves.
Sorry to tell you but I think you miss the main aspect of this project.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
please RB tell me you have any clue on how architecture in a city works and try to understand by yourself that:
there’s no way to have running water, even in the best building on earth, if there is no network on which you can connect. work, design, improve buildings as much as you want, it would never bring any change if you can’t plug your house on fresh water and efficient wasting system. and bringing network into a neighbourhoud has nothing to do with architecture.
still, you’re right, I’ve never lived in favelas; I also assume nobody here did.
still, i agree with you that there’s plenty reasons to be proud of people working on favelas, but i don’t think they’re architect: teachers, doctors, association, artists, have something to bring to slums; architect only have something to pick up from favelas.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
>guilherme
“People in the slums they dont need the ego point of view of an architect, they just need some knowledge, tips and tools because they can do an amazing job by themselves.”
this is the best intervention of the whole discussion
May 6th, 2009 at 5:00 am
A people orientated point of view is always better for the people, as comun sense is always better for the Community.
Refreshing.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Seriously you guys…. you assume noone lived in a favela Matt but check out these guys project in the favela in Rio where they built a school with the local community with a minimal budget as u can see from the lack of equipment…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qanCFjRh6Hg
This isn’t ego architecture, but catalyst architecture- hardcore planning, endless meetings and facing the reality head on with the local people. From what we hear this project is now being implemented further by local architects, with local people, so the prototype is being implemented without the intervention of private sector money that is merely trying to “reclaim” land from the slums for commercial purposes and condense the slums even more. For me this is the measure of success- this project isn’t suggesting any significant architectural change – no, its not a showcase for a flashy architect, but a massive change in process and that is what is significant about this project.
Anyone who has lived in Brasil or India can appreciate the tremendous obstacles in getting anything moving there, in slums that are total mirror cities, completely excluded from the main infrastructure of the formal city….
What this project provides is exactly what you describe: knowledge, tips and tools, but equally importantly, Matt, the momentum and legitimacy albeit from an outsider, to bypass the usual hurdles and get the funding and official permissions to allow the local community to evolve their neighborhoods… It’s simply is not as easy as you might imagine, Matt, all the layers to peel away and all the work done that cannot be formulated in a nice drawing- or this situation would not exist in the first place. There is nothing romantic about living in a slum and what u see here is the tip of an iceberg…
May 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
i cannot pretend to hve a true and detailed knowledge of the real issues here, and it would seem that the architects have looked at ths in some detail, i can guess that indeed the ‘architectural’ issues (if there indeed any) are relatively simple, and it would seem that a unitised frame and infill is a suitabel approach.for what its worth it also, to me, looks good.
there are a number of exemplar self build community projects built or underway, and they take a similar approach, it is indeed the infrastructure issues (drains, power supply, public realm) which are the most challenging, and this will always be complex when working within a pre-prescribed existing context.
i think many of the comments above are interesting and valid, its a pleasure to read debates on these architectural issues rather on ther latest stair design by some name for a fashion house.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Beautiful project!
Maybe Matt is a bit sad, because this is not on of the usual Rhino-outputs
May 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I basically agree with a lot of the points Matt is making, in that politics and urban planning are more urgent than architecture here, but I still think that architecture has a role, even if all it is doing is providing a strucutral framework for people to develop on.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
looks like a good project, definitely a good alternative to the total razing of a slum. I do have a problem with the flat roofs. Having lived in India in such a concrete building, the monsoon season saturates everything. Leaking, mold, etc.
should really concentrate on water collection, as drought conditions can be severe, when it just rained solidly for three months.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
…. (cont.) not to mention eliminating standing water, which attributes to malaria, dangue-fever (killed 200+ in my neighborhood), and other mosquito / water-born diseases.
would just take a simple, inexpensive shed roof addition, with an option for cisterns.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
If you a politician, look for political solutions; an architect, look for architectural solutions. This is a thoughtful and innovative approach, hat’s off to the team. This would be great to see on the Open Architecture Network.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
and if you are Rem Koolhaas, do both at the same time
May 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Of course, infrastructure is the foundation of the city! It must be laid off before architecture, bottom-up! But why do you assume this is not happening here? If you read this particular In-Situ Rehab BSUP project regulations, you will know that the Government of India is responsible for providing water, sewage and electricity into every single incrementable house before construction. Why do you assume these architects did all this work without even thinking about infrastructure? You could have been positive and assumed the opposite… Your glass is half empty.
Any country that wishes to implement this strategy needs to take care of infrastructure first. This is what India is doing – moving ahead! Remarkable politics which demand architects to merge with the communities in order to legalize their homes – a social class masala.
This strategy was obviously drawn by people who listen to the humble communities, with respect – throwing status away to do only what is really necessary. And that is what the people want, what they are comfortable with: the vernacular. It might be time to calibrate our taste towards a whole new genre of architectural values.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Guilherme: it´s fantastic to see people that really care for the conditions that others live in . And leave their houses, their family, their confort -their umbilicus – and go,and try and hope to change what they would not want for themselves.
This is a job for a few .
I´m very proud that you are one of them
May 7th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
i cant see anything new here…
May 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
sorry, what I wanted to say: I fail to see the substance in this project…:(
May 7th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Well, i agree with Matt on this one. It is a nice effort but i think quite inutile. It is not as if they never had good architects in India who didn’t try to solve the problem. Please read on internet about Laurie Baker, Charles Correa and Rahul Mehrotra, who have really occupied themselves with the subject and with a better understanding of culture and local living style, they were able to produce beautiful work, some of which remained a proposal till date due to lack of political initiative.
As for color, it is a young architect’s way of explaining customization. A house is much more than just color.
Also the bland structural framework here lacks aesthics which Laurie Baker could generate on a still lower budget.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
i think this sounds really positive, & useing the pilot project as a
testing ground, i imagine to check things like sustainability/social context etc, i think, is good to. I would like to hear about how their project gets on/develops in the near future,
May 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
beautifully done, true architecture for humanity
May 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I agree with everyone that trust in the work of the architects. The favelas are a bad environment and need more than political discourses and false respect for their inhabitants: they are not architects, neither physicians or lawyers and the human habitat is not a matter of shelter alone. Even poor people deserves the best and only architects can provide it.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Hello, first give me ‘pukka’ tenure, then services. do i need an architect after that? hmm.. no thanks. matt has been flooded by the yay-sayers. but he is right.
really, give the people here the assurance of ownership, take some lines of water, electricity, sewerage, and hand them the money to build their houses, even on loan, and you will see a real vernacular, true expression of their aspirations, and adaptability …and flexibility in built form.
ARCHITECTS CAN BE PLEASED AUDIENCE.
this seems like the best solution in a 5-hour time problem in an architecture school.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Great architecture! A proposal that tries to solve people problems. What’s the matter? Maybe we preffer poor goverments wasting money in building Zaha’s, but facing the real problems is the best attitude. Let’s design for the people, also poor people, not only for companies and politicians. Congratulations!
May 7th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
anyone interested should look at Caribbean architecture. government grants provide money to build a house bit by bit. First one concrete wall is purchased to make a lean-to, then extra walls can be added to give more protection from th elements and enclose the space. after this cladding and roofs can be added. the people inherit the house from their ancestors and keep adding to it bit by bit. its the only way in situations like this, and it works.
“matt” clearly doesnt know what he is talking about. of course people residing in slums need help!
May 7th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
This is a very good project, with decent people doing good work. a pragmatic mix of architectural special knowleges, activist humanist discipline, and the approach of a seasoned social worker.
Why poo-poo good work? There’s Always a flaw somewhere. And as far as i could discern, there’s little or no denigration of local knowledge or capability. And sometimes it really Helps to have outsiders who work in solidarity with local communities to jumpstart progressive change.
Urbanization to this scale is a recent historical development. there are no ‘established’ traditions proven over Time. good work in helping.
mike
May 7th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The pertinence of the architects’ hand on the matter of the creation of sustainable strategies for development in slum communities is unarguable. What’s really remarkable about this project is the recognition that the communities have constituted roots, closely related to the site, and that any attempt of “improvement” must seek also the continuity of certain establishments, such as their usual paths and neighbouring relations. Nevertheless, the “implementable anywhere” strategy taken to a formal response has never been a good answer. This three typologies are a good way to deal with the conditionants given and discussed by this community in particular, and it would be wrong to simply land on another community and just pull the model out of the pocket and implement it, the “Enlightened Solution”. Just imagine: this project turns out to be a success in its formal outcome, so the government’s way of making a good distribution of their 4500 euro would be ensuring that it would be applied into the application of this same scheme (it could happen!). Over and over, the reproduction of the same three typologies. Infrastructure and sanitation may work, but there’s no color customization that will save you from the dominant dullness: The bureaucratized slum.
On the other hand, I personally don’t like the overexposure of curriculae and the amount of credit demanded. Displaying previous employers as mental (and normal) currency isn’t of good taste, especially on this context.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I agree with Matt.
It is same as the conclusion I got after a year’s urban design reaserch after a 15 year’s architect career.
Techonologist learn from animals, PLANNER, POLICY maker and architect learn from the vernacular phenomenon.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:26 am
wooo..what’s up with matt???
well i gotta say that i’ve been live in favela in indonesia for couple years.. and believe me, those peoples are lookin for any kind of help they can get. In the developing countries or city with huge slums like this you cant count on its government and their policies, because its likely corrupted.
I agree with the idea of architects as catalyst. i mean, what is architecture? why cant this become part of a real architecture??
The problems with slums auto-development is that those peoples cant see it as a whole. The only thing that matter for them is their own space, they didnt think of connection, network, cycle, time,system and how their act can be a substantial change for the environment and urbanity as a whole. Now that’s something that architects should know a lot better, and where they can actually take part. And i’ve seen it actually works.
It might be not innovative, grand, or “pop your eyes out of your head” thing, but its still a remarkable work, welldone.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
architecture= stable, comfortamble, and beautiful…
for the existing environment it has been a good way out.. if not the best..
….where are the bathrooms by the way? i guess i missed out this point… or the citizens are used to bushes and lakes? :s … just wondering, since it’s my weakest point :’)))
May 8th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
While architectural repetition of certain slum typology certainly brings an improvement step from existing structures, I think this is way away from rehabilitating slums. The reasons slums are slums is not only because of individual building qualities. If you rebuild on spot without uprooting, this means you are not touching one bit on the (non-existent) infrastructure (electrical, water, sewage, excess water drainage, roads etc.) For ex:without standard streets the slums are as unreachable by public service vehicles of any kind, so the quality of life is just as low. Rain water flows into the houses just as much, and “sewage” overflows just as often.
And what about slums that are built and grow without the proper consideration of topography? How do they effect the climate, ecology etc. of the city by being there? What kind of disadvantages do the people in a slum area live becase that particular area is topgraphically lower than the surrounding region?
Before architecture, there are many determining factors concerning the well-being of a city and its residents. And slums are cases where these factors have all been neglected in the first place.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
well just check out the number of comments this project has received. As a matter of discourse, this project is far more neccessary and relevant in todays current climate.
very inspiring work guys. miss you all..hopefully i can join this process one day.
what a breath of fresh air…
May 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I believe that architecture for poor and green architecture will bind human to nature. Great work.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:09 am
interesting work, something i would like to do back i Africa, interesting insight Kim, I lived near some of those slums growing up, they where sH**t, i rarely ventured into them, infact i am certain that any type of improvement would be apprecitated by those who live there. Rem says he loves the slums of Lagos, why doesn’t he move OMA there, and practice slum architecture, cook and drink the same water he ejects diarrhea into etc.trust me nobody really wants to live there, it’s not a matter of choice, as Matt makes it seem. As long as a project has built in considerations that are significantly tied into local energy flows, natural and local culture in terms of materiality and execution, then i guess it’s ok with me, and it’s appearent that this project is striving for that.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am
btw Favela Barrio is like heaven compared to some of the stuff i’ve seen, they had 2 by 4’s, and electric power tools. Like superpower nations emerging and underdeveloped nations, there are superpower slums, emerging, and slum ass “third world” slums as well. A favela in Brazil is like a superpower slum, while something in Mushin or Ajegunle, is a “slum ass slum”; there are varying levels of slum typologies Matt.
May 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I’m a little bit late, perhaps, to contribute to the discussion.
Anyway, I believe that Matt has good points and that slums need more social policies, social workers, infrastructures, planning, and bla bla bla.
Nevertheless I think that architecture is asked to contribute with its milieu to the rehabilitation of favelas. It’s true: architecture, perhaps, is the last thing people are thinking to get done.
But it would mean that architecture is useless. That architecture is just a matter of glossy magazines. That architecture is a leisure for a small elite. …
Instead i think that architecture has limits and we have to accept those. Also planning, economic, infrastructure engineering, have limits. The solution, if any, is made of a plenty of variables in which also architecture plays an important role (less than have running water, more than have a local Guggenheim, etc)
Yet we should be a bit patient. Architecture will not change in one year (because we have a global crisis). We have to understand that changes happen gradually. I believe that they will happen gradually by doing and making also mistakes. Then they will affect also the academic curriculum.
Perhaps in 20 years we will have a better architecture: socially responsible, less selfish, …perhaps something really different from what we get now. we have to wait and doing…otherwise it’s just sterile discussion
Ad what we get now??? A dutch architect and his friends appreciating the aesthetics and organizational values of slums…nothing more than a selfish and opportunistic interpretation.
If we wanna change we should also move on …from this opportunistic/generic/junk-like modus operandi to something which is more democratic-like modus operandi
Yes! democracy is the keyword, in my point of view, for the future Architecture.
By the way, as group we are working in P2P urbanism. check at this link:
http://www.cityleft.altervista.org/diy/diy.htm
we would love to have contributes also by you.
thanks
cityleft
May 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I feel that the whole issue with the informal slums is that governments usually look as this places as an eyesore. Slums are also viewed as places that are breeding grounds for malaria, typhoid and cholera.
With the introduction of this design, i believe problems such as this could be solved and governments would be able to accept this places as hygenic and acceptable housing estates. This would negate the problems that has caused many slum areas in different countries where the government so commonly seek to clear this areas.
Furthermore, it would also be beneficial for the people in terms of health and elevation of their land prices, which will eventually lead to growth of the economics and vibrancy of the area.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Matt ->
When I lived in Mumbai for 18 months I walked by two very large slums every day on the way to work (Studio Mumbai Arch). I saw how these neighborhoods are structured in a very complex manner. Talking with the locals, they refer to their slums as their “Village”. They are in fact structured more as villages and towns within the larger city. The truth is that many times, whole villages from the country will re-locate into the city, fleeing the poverty and toil of the farmlands. It is imperative to keep the Village together.
As it stands now, the current way of slum improvement, is to completely raze the entire village (which always involves riots and violence) and in its place put a large concrete apartment building (see link) that has a completely different structure that cannot adjust to the pre-existing village fabric. By this time, everyone has moved away to another slum farther outside the city, their jobs, family networks, and livelihood completely destroyed. The most common structure of a slum has the family business on the ground floor, either retail, or small industry, and the whole extended family living on the floors above the business. The current redevelopment building simply cannot support this mixed use structure. Whats more is that, the families that were supposed to live in the new housing almost always rent out their space for a profit, while still living on another slum.
Building these small new buildings would help the government install proper water lines, electricity, and sewer lines, that are very much needed in the center of slums. Most Mumbai slums have electricity and running water (govt donated), most do not have proper sewage perhaps. leading to disease and sickness.
I also think that painting the building all different colors is a great start, though I’m positive the inhabitants will take over and continue painting and improving for years…
Keep in mind these laums and their buisnesses are not something small you can backhandedly toy with. Dharavi Mumbai (Asia’s) largest slum (pop. 1 million) has an annual economic output of $650,000,000 a year. ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS. So to come in, bulldozing and putting in regular apartment buildings would be absolutely stupid, and a huge blow to the city.
Here are some photos of Mumbai slums, and some redevelopments;
Typical slum house
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_gloww/2109878749/in/set-72157612955470576/
Slum redevelopment sign
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_gloww/2220811198/in/photostream/
new slum apartment building overlooking and existing slum
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_gloww/2274375352/sizes/l/
May 9th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Cityleft->
We do need architects to work on this problem, because when we don’t we are left with very insensitive and ignorant city officials building apartment blocks, that ruin the culture of the slum, and destroy the local economy. It takes architects like Filipe Balestra and Sara Göransson to wedge themselves between the local officials, and the local villagers, and say “wait a minute lets figure this out in another way”. Leaving it up to only the locals, or only the officials will not, and has never improved the situation.
Architects need to be here to mediate this very very complex problem. It is not as simple as building an apartment building and leaving. Riots, and wars are caused by the demolition of slums, it happens all the time in India. Who says that an architects job is to only work for the rich, build museums, and come up with funky designs that are formally original. thats BULLSHIT!! pure BS.
And to say that the project here is not original, the materials, and form only repeat what has been done earlier is not a valid argument. So what, if its not original, or is not beautiful, thats beside the point completely. It helps address an issue that is very architectural (at its core) and has far greater impacts on the quality of life of many more people then any Bilbao could dream of. To say that an architect is not needed to take care of these problems, is to deny what architecture is altogether.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Brilliant idea! The local culture can only be truly reflected by ppl who actually live in it!
May 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
from Argentina:
*Slums* are not what you think
They are called *villa miseria*.Slum is a very welcome word.
1. they have no water
2. no electricity
3.no sewers
4. no bathsrooms
5. no w.c.
6. their walls are made of cardboard or pieces of wood from vegetable boxes through which wind blows
7.no floors just earth that gets damp in winter
one window if lucky
8.illegal electirc connections which are a threat to dwellers
9.ponds or streams of stagnant water where garbage,dead animals etc.float
10.no streets just narrow winding paths beteen huts.Neither ambulances not firemen can get to them.
Picture the poorest medieval human living in the poorest hut and you’ ll cattch the idea
ANY architecture is most welcome if it can solve these problems
May 11th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
this is the BEST Villa Miseria ,close to my house in the province of Buenos Aires:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=1&q=villa+la+cava&btnG=Search+Images&aq=f&oq=
May 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Now this is tops of the tops in Buenos Aires downtown:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=1&q=villa+31&btnG=Search+Images&aq=f&oq=
May 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
nice project! i like the colors!
hope to see more of you guys!
May 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
oh,
i forgot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxdVGRdsh3Q
are the homes going to be furnished, hired, sold, have running water, electricity… and the garage on the ground floor, will it have an electric door? it’s such a pain to get out of your car when you come home after a long day of begging!
amen
May 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
This is a good project, and so simple that i wonder why we haven’t thought of it before. Maybe the joy of this lies in the fact that it’s a costed, applicable option.
Swastik – the point of ‘architecture’ here is not to beautify, but to regulate and help. residents will need expert support, and their aspirations will have to be tinged by reality, because we live in a world of limited resources and limited freedom. Choosing to idealise the ‘vernacular’ is probably not the biggest priority here. May even be an indulgence in the face of a workable practical sensitive and good solution.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:10 am
matt + jones = haterade.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am
POVERTY PORN – is right! All we need is for western architects to put into words and theories the actions of others, add colours and publish a book/paper…….where would we be without you guys?
May 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
A day should come when architects were rated based on their service to the
down trodden society, developing plans to the slum and lower middle class,
who actually deserve the service of architects and engineers.
Teresa, Nightingale etc; became noble just because of their service to the poor.
being an architect i felt very bad on the negative comments made on a good
effort made by the designers.
May 13th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Bewildered by so many negative comments on what seems a very simple, straightforward and sensible minimum change for maximum improvement of miserable conditions in which slum-dwellers are forced to live.
And if architects aren’t the obvious and best people to deal with ALL the factors involved — including working with and for the community they serve — then our training, skills and attitudes aren’t up to much.
It was architects who, over 40 years ago, proposed to developing-world city governments that the growth of shanty-towns could and should be civilised for their burgeoning populations by providing a basic grid of services and drainage before people appropriated land, even if nothing more could be publicly afforded.
270 sq ft per house / family, distributed over three floors, is pitifully small compared with the space standards most of us are used to. But if this is all that is feasible (I notice the grant stipulation) without uprooting entire communities & shifting them to soulless blocks liable to be rented out to others, then this is the way to do it.
While normally the “applicable anywhere” description would sound warning bells, clearly these simple basic principles are the exception, unless perhaps in earthquake areas. And it has to be assumed that in monsoon areas, the run-off from flat roofs is provided for.
People do care about colour — especially in situations where few other personal choices can be made. Choice of colour expresses feeling and identity, and helps to act as unique home and (in sequence) “street” location markers in otherwise bewildering miles of similar construction. And paint at least is cheap, compared with construction materials.
Good for these architects.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
thats an excelent idea, low cost, simple plan, and the location… these people really need the intervention.
the team is excelent, talented and inteligent people, showing to the world that the portuguese architecture is not only siza vieira and souto moura!
peace and respect my friends
May 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Nobody deserves the services of architects.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:36 am
HI Guys,
This is very interesting discussion between role of architectural typology and social, political, economical issue. I think both sides are fare enough but still not able to solve the problem of informality. I agree with MATT this is not first time such projects is done but at the same time Matt there are lot of the policies made for slums and still they are not able to answer the question of such informality.
My point is both architecture and the Matts idea of implementation of policies has to worked out simultaneously. Matt the architectural typology plays very important role in socio economical process. that we can see it in most of European cities. The second issue is we need such projects which will help to improve living conditions for slums, but at the same time it should not be gentrification. One of the point mentioned in above discussion about ownership will create the problem of gentrification.
Few days ago i was reading about Berlin redevelopment in 1900. I think it is very interesting to refer that example to understand the role of architect, planner, socialist working together for issue of informality.
About the above project i think it is giving some better housing conditions than existing, but this not enough, Providing cheap boxes is not the solution for slums. This is where i agree with Matts point of increasing there economical conditions. How to improve the job conditions, how to improve there local businesses. These issues are totally missing in the proposal.
Most of the slums in India, specially in Mumbai has lot of local businesses, the new building typology should consider to improve those businesses, like we can see this in Some social Housing in London, I think the above proposal is just a box which will fix the family in fix area, Thts what i understood by looking images of building typology. This is project is not so much different than what we see in most of the slum clearance project.
Finally i want to say, we need to rethink our tools for issue of informality, we need to understand that just giving house for poor people is not going to help to reduce the poverty but also need to create social economical structure which will create the conditions for help them self…
May 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Whilst i agree with some of the comments here that Architects have been in the past egoists, I also find it ridiculous that the Architect bashers here are stating that Architecture today is irrelevant to affordable housing, and that the problems are legal, political and or infrastructure based only. Architects study for 5 years and then train for another 5, we are as close to experts as you will get in this field, it is an Architects job to be innovative, accountable, contextual and also culturally senstive in any outcome be it high or low budget and i think youll find most Architects are rearing for an opportunity to work pro bono in low tech solutions fed up with only getting high end commissions. I have researched countless exampled of NGOS who build stuff without thinking, without engaging Architects where the built outcome is rejected by the local community, engineers, builders and lawyers just dont get it, its not their job to. I think most Architects would be interested in the background occupations of these backyard critics and their qualifications for making the above negative comments. I think this project will be a catalyst in this emerging unprecedented field of drastic urbanisation redevelopment where 1 billion people are in need of help. Yes slum dwellers arent stupid, yes the problems are often about legal rights but slum dwellers also arent experts in construction either, and sometimes proffesional expertise shouldnt be shrugged off either beit local or from abroad. I was personally inspired doing a slum redevelopment university unit studying under Doshi in Amhedabad and having been dieing to find a way to go back and help, and most of the things i learnt where based on eveolving ideas with input from all cultures, Yes local Archtiects probably have more local knowledge but synthesis of eastern and western knowledge is where we may actually achieve a creative innovative outcome. I think sitting back on a golden throne and poking holes in projects that are genuinly trying to make a difference and only referencing the imperial mistakes of the past is naive as it is distasteful
June 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
hey you guy that write down your social status as part of your name and spell Architecture with a Capital A, it seems that you know your lesson very well, is it a real copy-paste of your courses or did your courses copy-pasted themselves in your mind?
i think i’d like to meet you and talk with you about Architecture
the only reason to justify the Capital A is this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bWUfpDDVi4
August 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Iniciativa excelente! A humanização da arquitetura é uma das melhores contribuições para melhoria da qualidade de vida e desenvolvimento social. Através de um plano piloto visando a implantação de infraestrutura básica em favelas ou zonas de habitação social de baixa renda, garante-se também prevenção de doenças, mortalidade infantil e outras mazelas advindas da pobreza e da falta de condições de saneamento básico. Eleva-se a autoestima dos habitantes da localidade, levando-os à busca de uma melhor forma de viver. PARABÉNS aos arquitetos e ao seu trabalho.