The people living in this tower in Caracas may be living in poverty, but out of necessity an architecture is emerging that is far more dynamic and is a result of a collective community need. Small shops have emerged within the tower; a taxi service takes people up the first 15 floors due to lack of elevators; the facade becomes varied and interesting because individual inhabitants decide how it should be built. This is exciting and interesting. Forget about the poor and unsafe conditions for a moment and recognise the value to architecture in such an ad-hoc approach

London may be a wealthy city, but there is massive housing poverty. People are desperate to buy and rent but simply can’t afford to. I would like to see what would happen if you built basic structure and services (sanitation, electric, etc..) and than let people inhabit it by their own means. How would this transform areas that are becoming overly gentrified? Or do people want to live in sanitised cities?

The direction of these article as the idea it’s wrong… It’s sad the government use these as examples, should we celebrate how they create a space home? These places are very but very dangerous. I’m sure half the criminality of the city is born there (60 dead by week as average in Caracas).