Rethinking the Informal City

Critical Perspectives from Latin America

Felipe Hernández, Peter Kellett, Lea Knudsen Allen, Felipe Hernández, Peter Kellett, Lea Knudsen Allen

• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781845459727
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architektur
• Subtopic: Architektur Allgemein

Latin American cities have always been characterized by a strong tension between what is vaguely described as their formal and informal dimensions. However, the terms formal and informal refer not only to the physical aspect of cities but also to their entire socio-political fabric. Informal cities and settlements exceed the structures of order, control and homogeneity that one expects to find in a formal city; therefore the contributors to this volume - from such disciplines as architecture, urban planning, anthropology, urban design, cultural and urban studies and sociology - focus on alternative methods of analysis in order to study the phenomenon of urban informality. This book provides a thorough review of the work that is currently being carried out by scholars, practitioners and governmental institutions, in and outside Latin America, on the question of informal cities.

Chapter 1

Introduction: Reimagining the Informal in Latin America

Felipe Hernández and Peter Kellett

According to traditional architectural histories, Latin American cities have been characterised by a tension between their formal and informal dimensions. These two terms have been used in order to describe and theorise not only the physical aspect of cities but also their entire sociopolitical fabric. In theory, the term ‘formal’ is taken to represent the ordered city – in terms of its urban and architectural shape as well as its cultural, economic, political and social organisation – while the ‘informal’ is understood as the opposite: the shapeless areas of the city where economic and socio-political structures are particularly unstable and in which culture is characterised by its apparent incoherence. However, in practice, the enormous critical capacity assigned to the terms formal and informal casts a shadow of scepticism over their ability to embody the complex conditions that they attempt to represent. The terms are either used in order to encompass too much – as occurs in disciplines such as geography and urban planning – or they are reduced to illustrate too little. In the former situation, the terms formal and informal never achieve political specificity due to the vast scales in which they are made to operate. In the latter, the terms are reduced to their mere semantic connotations, thus losing their critical efficacy. Architecture belongs to the second category. Architects and architectural historians have appropriated the terms formal and informal in order to theorise what they are mainly concerned with: the form of buildings and, by extension, cities. In architectural speech, the formal stands for the buildings that have been designed by architects and the parts of cities that have been planned. The ‘informal’, on the other hand, is all the rest: the buildings and parts of cities that have developed without the participation of architects. In architecture, then, informal is a derogatory term used to dismiss anything that escapes the realm and control of the architect. Therefore, it can be affirmed that the term formal represents a spatial abstraction created in order to disavow other forms of space conceived within or outside it. As a result, so-called formal space aims at the elimination of differences, even its own internal differences and the historical conditions that gave rise to them, in an attempt to present itself as homogeneous and confirm its legitimacy.

Although the current usage of the terms formal and informal is relatively new – in architecture as well as in other disciplines within the social sciences – the conflict that they attempt to represent is not.¹ Historical evidence demonstrates that such a conflict existed in Latin America even before colonisation, but became more acute with the arrival of Europeans and has remained an escalating characteristic of the continent's cities ever since. In order briefly to demonstrate this point, we will explore two historical moments when the superimposition of different urban logics and power structures exacerbated the collision between what is described in architecture as formal and informal. These moments are: the foundation of colonial cities in the early sixteenth century and the ‘developmentalist’ period of the mid twentieth century.² The analysis of these two moments exposes multiple processes of transculturation which affected dramatically the formation and development of Latin American cities.³ In turn, the complexity of such processes renders the terms formal and informal insufficient for taking into account all the factors that have given shape to Latin American cityscapes. It is argued pointedly that the complexity of sustained processes of transculturation requires us to depart from such a reductive approach – as represented by the formal–informal dichotomy – for in order to tell the story of Latin American cities one must engage with a great variety of factors beyond their physical form. Together, these factors determine their historical and current, non-dichotomous condition.

Brief Historical Background: Formality and Informality in Colonial and Modern Latin American Cities

The foundation of cities was a fundamental part of the Spanish and, to a lesser extent the Portuguese, colonising strategy. New urban settlements were founded throughout their new territories in the Americas on a scale with few historical parallels. According to historical registers, between 1492 and 1700 more than 440 new cities were established in Spanish and Portuguese territories. It thus becomes clear that conquering new lands was synonymous with the founding of cities, particularly considering that ‘the colonial city was the centre of power and domination’ (Hardoy 1982: 23). Cities served as a means for the colonisers to impose their own socio-political and economic structures, thereby establishing themselves in a position of authority. Hence, cities had to be planned in order to materialise such a hierarchical structure, and this was achieved through the use of a perfect orthogonal grid. The order imposed by this highly rationalised urban space constituted a violent act of appropriation and denial – appropriation in the sense that it marked the seizure of the conquered territory, and denial because preexisting, or consequent, structures that did not comply with the newly imposed system were utterly rejected.

Orthogonal planning has a long history dating back to pre-Roman times. The present form of many Latin American cities can be traced back directly to the founding of the Spanish colonial settlements which after 1573 followed the Ordenanzas of Philip II (Law of the Indies), and which owe much to the Classical treatise of Vitrivius (Kostoff 1991: 114). However there was also a long experience with formal layouts in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. Several pre-Columbian cultures employed grid plans for ceremonial and military settlements (e.g., Aztec Tenochtitlan; pre-Inca Chanchan; Inca Cuzco and Ollantaytambo). Some authors suggest that knowledge of these cities combined with the experience of founding the early cities may have influenced the Ordenanzas (Kostof 1991: 115; García Fernández 1989: 217). In contrast, Portuguese colonial cities lacked overarching planning principles. Even though there are a few examples of regular town planning, most Portuguese cities were mostly irregular in an attempt to respond to the topographical features of their location.

In spite of their similar layouts, the imposition of an urban grid in places where Spanish foundations coincided with pre-existing indigenous settlements –such as Cuzco or Tenochtitlán – was particularly dramatic. The violence of the colonial (Spanish) city as an act of simultaneous appropriation and denial is seen in the fact that while the physical layouts of indigenous and colonial cities (particularly Spanish ones) shared multiple formal features, the socio-political implications attached to such forms did not correspond. The Ordenanzas of Philip II were the official means used in order to endow the Spanish orthogonal city plan with authority to undermine the architecture and layout of indigenous settlements. The clash between indigenous and colonial cities was reinforced by the subsequent physical segregation of indigenous people who were not allowed to live inside the formal city but were pushed to its perimeter.⁴ Despite the fact that on the periphery indigenous settlements continued to develop – initiating the contrast between the ordered centre and the so-called ‘informal periphery’ which still persists in many cities – the imposed hierarchy meant that their architectures were not fully recorded and, consequently, never historicised. It is important to note here that the ambiguity of the colonialist strategy of simultaneously appropriating and denying renders the authority entrusted to the planned city, as expressed in the Ordenanzas of Philip II, highly questionable.

But if the architectures of indigenous groups in the period of the first colonial foundations have been poorly historicised, the contribution of other groups has received even less attention, or none. Commonly, traditional accounts about the formation of early colonial cities overlook the fact that the indigenes and Spanish were not the only groups that participated in the processes: black African people who were brought as slaves represented a third significant group that contributed actively to the consolidation of colonial cities.

Unlike indigenes, black slaves lived both inside the perimeter of the Spanish city as servants and in the country as mining and agricultural labourers. Despite their captivity, slaves surreptitiously appropriated areas of the city, and made subtle spatial alterations in order to perform occasional collective activities. In time, slaves found ways to escape from their owners and settled on the periphery of cities alongside the indigenous population, although their social and cultural traditions did not mix completely. The forms of slaves’ settlements and their architectures differed greatly from those of indigenous groups and from the Spanish. However, the subtle alterations carried out by black slaves inside the city, and the architectures of their peripheral settlements have never been studied from an architectural perspective.⁵

Nonetheless, it is clear that there were not only two, but a multiplicity of architectures and urban logics coexisting inside and outside the Spanish and Portuguese colonial city. Given the circumstances of the groups involved, such coexistence was rarely harmonious. On the contrary, in most cases their coexistence was antagonistic. Considering also that each of these groups underwent historical processes of transculturation, prior to and during colonisation, each of them contained internal differences.⁶ At this point, we can conclude that the complex coexistence of the three heterogeneous groups challenges the clean dichotomy between formal and informal because the so-called formal centre was already inhabited by a degree of informality and the informal periphery included multiple elements: indigenes and black slaves of different origins. There were also significant geographic variations throughout the vast continent, which inevitably led to variations from the diagrammatic plan, especially in the Portuguese territories.

With some deviation – particularly in socio-political terms – the urban conditions described so far were maintained for over three hundred years as the cities gradually expanded. However, towards the middle of the twentieth century, predominantly between the 1940s and 1960s, the ambiguous relationship between the formal and the informal was exacerbated by the emergence of a precarious industrialisation. This caused the colonial centre to become obsolete, as it was no longer able to satisfy the demands of the modern city, either in scale or in typology. New urban models were applied in order to ‘modernise’ the city. The urban grid was expanded and its scale enlarged to cope with new forms of transport, production and commercialisation. Moreover, new and larger architectural typologies were developed which dwarfed preexisting buildings. Thus, the colonial city was increasingly displaced by the emergence of alternative centres which, in turn, replaced its dominant functions (social, cultural, political and symbolic).

Industrialisation and changes in rural practices also caused an accelerating mass migration of labourers from rural areas to major cities, which gave rise to numerous informal settlements on the perimeter of the newly expanded modern city. Like the peripheral settlements around the colonial city, these settlements – known today as favelas, invasiones and barrios among other terms – were not homogeneous. On the contrary, they were, and still are, comprised of people from different rural origins, races and socio-cultural groups who lived on the periphery but worked in the city centre or new industrial areas. In the periphery some migrants tried to replicate the rural environments where they used to live while others attempted to reproduce the forms of the affluent classes. In the city, they carried out aggressive spatial alterations and introduced new activities which transformed the order of the former city centre.⁷

Although most of the capitals and major Latin American cities were founded early in the colonial period, there is one obvious exception: Brasilia, which is a paradigmatic example of Latin American architecture and planning during this industrialisation period. It is a fascinating case because it echoes in several ways the processes by which the early colonial cities were planned. The formal orthogonal planning of the colonial city was substituted in Brasilia by the modernist planning principles of the hugely influential Congrès International de l'Architecture Moderne, or CIAM,⁸ in an attempt to embody the modernist and nationalist aspirations of the Brazilian state. In both cases an ‘ideal’ social order was imposed through rigid planning which made tangible in built form and space the power and value system of those in authority. Despite the radical credentials of Lucio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer, the planning and design of Brasilia demonstrates the exclusionary and narrow nature of this vision for the new capital. In the colonial city there was no place for the indigenes; in Brasilia there was no place for the manual workers who had literally built the city. In both cases these people had to make their own cities beyond the boundaries (physical as well as social) of the formal cities which were intended only for the affluent and powerful.

The above-mentioned examples illustrate complex processes of urban and architectural transculturation that have never been fully studied from an architectural perspective. As with the case of indigenous and slave settlements, twentieth-century informal cities and settlements have been dismissed for not corresponding with the idea of the modern city, which, as Rahul Mehrotra points out in his Foreword to this volume, offered a new paradigm of ‘formality’. However, the present study shows how, at this moment, the formal and the informal have become not only inseparable and interdependent but also indefinable.

Theoretical Background

One of the most interesting aspects of this volume is that it shows the ways in which Latin American architects – practitioners as well as theorists and academics – employ, successfully and with great ability, complex theoretical models in order to illustrate the convoluted situation of contemporary Latin American cities while at the same time going beyond the dualistic approach represented in the terms formal and informal. The book includes essays that are purely theoretical as well as others that combine theoretical discussion with the analysis of specific case studies. Contributors are at pains to highlight the dynamism found in contemporary cities, the speed at which changes occur, the transitory nature of many of the buildings produced by common people and the way such buildings obliterate the orderly ways architects and planners have traditionally conceived of the city.⁹ Instead of subscribing to a single methodology or a given terminology, authors adopt multiple methods of analysis and use a rich terminology which in many cases is borrowed from other disciplines such as philosophy and cultural studies. Thus, it becomes clear that many Latin American architectural theorists and practitioners are at the front of architectural debates although their practices do not conform to the parameters established by Euro- American academia. Instead, the success of their work rests heavily on the fact that it focuses on specific socio-cultural groups in contained geographical contexts with a particular set of political and economic conditions. This is the case of the Caracas Think Tank led by Alfredo Brillembourg and Hubert Klumpner, the Favela-Bairro programmes in Rio de Janeiro in which Jorge Jáuregui has played a leading role and, finally, the various workshops organised in Havana which are analysed by Ronaldo Ramírez. Equally, the Latin American scholars included in this volume are less interested in generating a narrative of universal applicability – or in joining one – than they are in examining individual cases in order to unveil their distinct characteristics. That is the case of Zeuler Lima and Vera Pallamin, Fernando Luiz Lara and Paola Jirón, among other authors in the volume. It is notable that many of the key theorists and commentators are also directly involved in practice. Their commitment to improving conditions for the majority goes beyond reflection and analysis and frequently leads to active engagement in informal settlements.

This preoccupation with socio-cultural, geographical and political specificity, along with an interest in broadening the discussion about informal settlements in Latin America beyond the limitations set by the formal–informal dichotomy, were among the main motivations behind this volume. Various other thinkers have presented alternative models in order to illustrate the tensions which the terms formal and informal fail to represent fully and, also, in order to incorporate a much wider set of social and political circumstances.

In his book The Production of Space, for example, Henry Lefebvre differentiates between abstract space and social space, two forms of space that are considered to be antagonistic. The former, abstract space, is understood as a tool of domination, a form of space ‘which destroys the historical conditions that gave rise to it, its own (internal) differences, and any such differences that show signs of developing, in order to impose an abstract homogeneity’ (Lefebvre 2003: 370). As in the case of the colonial city given above, abstract space is instrumental for the authorities – be they political, religious or military – not only to impose but to maintain their authority. Social space, on the other hand, is intrinsically connected to the people who produce it. According to Lefebvre, social space ‘incorporates social actions, the actions of subjects both individual and collective who are born and who die, who suffer and who act. From the point of view of these subjects, the behaviour of their space is at once vital and mortal; within it they develop, give expression to themselves, and encounter prohibitions; then they perish and that same space contains their graves’ (Lefebvre 2003: 33–4). For that reason, Lefebvre argues, social space works as a tool for the analysis of society. Here, Lefebvre contrasts the concept of space as conceived by the elites against the actual space produced by the people.

More recently, the postcolonial theorist Homi Bhabha has developed a different terminology in order to describe a similar set of circumstances. While Bhabha is not directly concerned with the concept of space itself, he is interested in studying the coexistence of multiple temporalities inside each (modern) nation, and his terminology coincides with the issues brought up by Lefebvre. The terms employed by Bhabha are the ‘pedagogical’ and the ‘performative’. The former corresponds with the official project of the nation as historicity and self-generation, whereas the latter brings to the fore the people as agents of a process of national signification which renders the homogenising intent of the nation's narrative both inappropriate and unrealisable. Thus, the performative temporality can be understood as the anti-official or, as Bhabha puts it, ‘a counter-narrative of the nation that continually evokes and erases its totalising boundaries – both actual and conceptual – disturbs those ideological manoeuvres thr...