Nov 11, 2020 / InfUr Webinar 6 / Symposium Panel on “Informal Settlements”

Symposium Panel on “Informal Settlements”

Watch here

Presenters / abstracts:

Informal morphology as cultural artefact David Week, University of Melbourne

In the modern era, informal urban settlements have been considered an aberration in the idealized conception of the planned city. Increasingly, however, pragmatic and human rights considerations have led to a widening acceptance that such settlements constitute the homes of hundreds of millions of people and must be accepted into the city. One form of this acceptance would have settlers acquire the same rights and benefits as any other resident. A more ambitious form of acceptance is co-production, in which the parties engage in city-making on the basis of the knowledge and capacities that each brings to the table, without falling back on pre-existing, problematic and inequitable power relationships. What’s at stake here is whether urban professionals, themselves imbued by their education and position with the values and biases of modernity, can deal with informal settlers on an equitable basis.

This presentation frames both the “formal” city and “informal” settlements as cultural artefacts: the first shaped by the culture of modernity, disseminated through mechanisms of colonialism; the second shaped by local cultures through their encounter with modernity. City officials and informal settlers create, evolve and maintain these artefacts as agents of those respective cultures. The paper will deploy concepts of positionality, perspectivism, and historicity in order to reconceive “formal” and “informal” as no different in essence, just in history: “formality” largely European, and informality (like Said’s “Orient”) as highly diverse.

Rules of Production, Co-Production and Transformation: Informal Settlements in Indonesia Ninik Suhartini, ITB, Indonesia Paul Jones, University of Sydney

This paper explores the rules and protocols by which built form in informal settlements is produced, co-produced and transformed. Typically, this production of space is incremental and of micro-morphological scale. There is a clear sequence of physical activities by which built form evolves, with adaptation and transformation occurring through local rules and protocols sanctioned and accepted by residents as normal urbanism or produced together with the government and/or other stakeholders such as NGOs. This is a dynamic interplay between formal urban rules, regulations, plans and codes, and the emergent informal rules and protocols which modulate and facilitate adaptation, incrementalism and transformation in informal settlements. This presentation unpacks the rules of production, co-production and transformation of built form and space in Kampung Lebak Siliwangi in Bandung, Indonesia, by profiling examples of two main rule types: explicit rules and understood rules. Rules of co-production work where there are mutual benefits to stakeholders, social capital can be leveraged, and existing political bases underpinning local governance arrangements are negotiated, not challenged. The presentation highlights the complexity of the formal/informal nexus, including the adverse impact of self-governed rules on issues of public interest and wider settlement functionality.

Competition, Cooptation or Coproduction: Architects and Builders in Self-build Housing in Delhi Manas Murthy and Howard Davis, University of Oregon

Self-build housing is a key aspect of informal urban production, yet there is little research into the nature of professional assistance that owners receive in producing it. This paper critically examines professional politics between builders and architects as they compete for popular recognition and market share, co-opt business models, styles and modes of operation, and ultimately coproduce self-build housing. It brings attention to the divergence in outcomes that follow from formalized/informal labor practices in this field. The professionalization of architecture has sought to distinguish architecture from craftsmen and builders by touting universal ideals of modernism and a scientific approach, against traditional embodied practices of vernacular production. The history of professional politics between architects and builders, in this sense, is at the root of the bifurcation between informal and formal production of housing. In this presentation a cross-cultural comparison of the role of architects and builders in the UK and India will help reveal a critical professional framework for the linked practices of informal and formal urbanism.