There is much that is admirable in the way that slum dwellers struggle against overwhelming adversity, but admiration must be tempered by the realization that they do not struggle because they choose to, out of principle, or in the service of high social or political ideals, but because of their desperation at the brutal limits of survival. It is a mistake—and a grave disservice to them—to imagine that their ingenuity, resourcefulness, and capacities for self-organization can in any way serve as models for our present global society. To believe so would be to endorse the dog-eat-dog ethics that rule their lives and, all too often, those occupying society’s more economically advantaged classes.
truly one of the few designers who has become more eloquent and clear in their positions as they've gotten older. but then again, i think he's really cleaned his act up over the past few years....it's great to see that he is continuing to interrogate the profession with such passion and intelligence when so many others of his generation have just accepted the situation and become complacent in their positions.
The essay feels like LW has never stepped foot in an informal settlement (a much better term then 'slum') or talked to people who live in one. His pessimism seems misplaced by the sociology and information I've learned from planners who have worked on enfranchising these places.
The conditions are more complex then he seems to comprehend, and living conditions are generally better. If conditions were so bad, people would move back to the country side (where life is even worse).
yes, there are structural economic conditions keeping the poor repressed, but cities are where its at for generating wealth. Many studies show that with-in a few generations, living/economic conditions for the residents of informal settlement have greatly improved in cities. Of course if there is war or corruption endemic in a society, life can slide backwards. But cities are the biggest generator of wealth in the world.
though, wealth for whom? unless the conditions of 'just' movement and wealth are adopted, there is no 'greatly' improvement of anything for slum settlements.
urban transformation projects usually refer to emptying slum areas of the city, relocating the population to disconnected areas where a multi unit/story housing projects developed with no supporting commercial activities and opening the emptied areas in urban core to high middle class consuming capable urban elite/professionals.
yes the exceptions are there but 1 in 1000 is sort of like a distant lottery for 999 (numbers i refer are way too optimistic)
mr. woods' points go to the core of the issue and very simply put.
i don't see it as 'pessimistic' but perhaps 'realistic and humanistic.'
if the cities are generating wealth, why are the slums or overnight settlements are increasing in areas and numbers? obviously the wealth generating cities are also limited in their capacity and economic structures to provide for and reverse the increase.
planners will always try to enfranchise the communities they are developing projects for.
some of the slum designated areas of city like istanbul, now fall in some of the most valuable urban transformation (read, speculative development) and central areas. and of course there is a resistance to bulldozers. most slums are run by their own systems of dis/organization and the people on top of that structure are usually far from thinking the very benefits of their own community. most of the time these people are referred as the success story coming from slums where in fact they are brutal crime heads holding the community by gun power, intimidation and terror.
i am for development of better conditions from within the slums, and that is when it starts to get more complex and challenging. the day slums start to generate their own politicians, planners, civil organizations and power base, is usually the day toward improvement for the better life starts.
governments who have large slum communities know that disfranchising creates more powerful resistance, so, they know how to incorporate surface enfranchising and opiumising policies to their action packages.
i went to public high school in turkey where more than half of my class walked in to school from slum housing, the other side of the hill... i have been to their slums many times.
plus, the current world population and economics, don't have the conditions that can improve over the generational cycles. we can say, nothing improved to a degree that we have declined poverty except low populated eastern europe, but that is mainly subsidy power from their wealthier partners.
In much the same way illegally undocumented people come to the US to work, the reason that there a slums in poor manufacturing cities and not, say, Brussels is simply - jobs. Jobs where the government is unwilling/unable to enforce a living wage standard.
For the most part, its a very good article, but there are subtle notes of the idea that there's the slum-dweller's life in the fields was better than their current life - the idea of the agrarian utopia, which (only) slightly detracts from his argument.
But TK, I think he's done a better job summarizing (its 11 paragraphs) the plight or true cost of slums than a lot of people who have been in slums - whether or not he's been in a slum (and I'm not agreeing with you that he hasn't) is not as important than if he got it right. While you are technically correct that slums in Rio are structured differently than those in Mexico City, or Shaignhai, etc.. I think you are commenting about the trees when you should really be looking at the forest.
Jan 23, 08 4:01 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
9 Comments
wow. thanks for posting this. i'm continually impressed by lebbeus woods.
Powerful stuff...
such a clearly stated argument from an artist/academic architect?! unheard of. but appreciated.
truly one of the few designers who has become more eloquent and clear in their positions as they've gotten older. but then again, i think he's really cleaned his act up over the past few years....it's great to see that he is continuing to interrogate the profession with such passion and intelligence when so many others of his generation have just accepted the situation and become complacent in their positions.
WOW...did i miss an amazing three months of lebbeus woods blogging. did anyone read the other posts found there?
http://wordpress.com/tag/lw/
ya, this guy is on fire. thanks again for posting this brian.
The essay feels like LW has never stepped foot in an informal settlement (a much better term then 'slum') or talked to people who live in one. His pessimism seems misplaced by the sociology and information I've learned from planners who have worked on enfranchising these places.
The conditions are more complex then he seems to comprehend, and living conditions are generally better. If conditions were so bad, people would move back to the country side (where life is even worse).
yes, there are structural economic conditions keeping the poor repressed, but cities are where its at for generating wealth. Many studies show that with-in a few generations, living/economic conditions for the residents of informal settlement have greatly improved in cities. Of course if there is war or corruption endemic in a society, life can slide backwards. But cities are the biggest generator of wealth in the world.
though, wealth for whom? unless the conditions of 'just' movement and wealth are adopted, there is no 'greatly' improvement of anything for slum settlements.
urban transformation projects usually refer to emptying slum areas of the city, relocating the population to disconnected areas where a multi unit/story housing projects developed with no supporting commercial activities and opening the emptied areas in urban core to high middle class consuming capable urban elite/professionals.
yes the exceptions are there but 1 in 1000 is sort of like a distant lottery for 999 (numbers i refer are way too optimistic)
mr. woods' points go to the core of the issue and very simply put.
i don't see it as 'pessimistic' but perhaps 'realistic and humanistic.'
if the cities are generating wealth, why are the slums or overnight settlements are increasing in areas and numbers? obviously the wealth generating cities are also limited in their capacity and economic structures to provide for and reverse the increase.
planners will always try to enfranchise the communities they are developing projects for.
some of the slum designated areas of city like istanbul, now fall in some of the most valuable urban transformation (read, speculative development) and central areas. and of course there is a resistance to bulldozers. most slums are run by their own systems of dis/organization and the people on top of that structure are usually far from thinking the very benefits of their own community. most of the time these people are referred as the success story coming from slums where in fact they are brutal crime heads holding the community by gun power, intimidation and terror.
i am for development of better conditions from within the slums, and that is when it starts to get more complex and challenging. the day slums start to generate their own politicians, planners, civil organizations and power base, is usually the day toward improvement for the better life starts.
governments who have large slum communities know that disfranchising creates more powerful resistance, so, they know how to incorporate surface enfranchising and opiumising policies to their action packages.
i went to public high school in turkey where more than half of my class walked in to school from slum housing, the other side of the hill... i have been to their slums many times.
plus, the current world population and economics, don't have the conditions that can improve over the generational cycles. we can say, nothing improved to a degree that we have declined poverty except low populated eastern europe, but that is mainly subsidy power from their wealthier partners.
In much the same way illegally undocumented people come to the US to work, the reason that there a slums in poor manufacturing cities and not, say, Brussels is simply - jobs. Jobs where the government is unwilling/unable to enforce a living wage standard.
For the most part, its a very good article, but there are subtle notes of the idea that there's the slum-dweller's life in the fields was better than their current life - the idea of the agrarian utopia, which (only) slightly detracts from his argument.
But TK, I think he's done a better job summarizing (its 11 paragraphs) the plight or true cost of slums than a lot of people who have been in slums - whether or not he's been in a slum (and I'm not agreeing with you that he hasn't) is not as important than if he got it right. While you are technically correct that slums in Rio are structured differently than those in Mexico City, or Shaignhai, etc.. I think you are commenting about the trees when you should really be looking at the forest.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.