Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Settlements - African Cities: Intro. to Urban Planning (Jérome Chenal)
Hello, our video today-settlement.
Now settlement is not housing.
It's not just a dwelling, a house, a shack.
Settlement has a broader sense.
Settlement is a way of organizing human population.
There is housing, the place where one lives,
and also all of its annexes, the small alleys which service it,
the spaces in front of the house, or even its gardens.
All of these things make up the settlement.
So, in certain urban neighborhoods,
we have situations where housing is poorly represented,
is largely minoritized, in relation to the overall system of the settlement.
But one thing is certain,
which is that, globally, when we speak of settlement
in African cities, we are generally speaking of housing.
The idea is confused, I would argue, by the classic definition of settlement,
which we must consider in a much broader sense.
It is thus possible to classify settlement
an individual settlement, a residential settlement.
There are many ways to classify it.
But, generally, what is most important is how we formulate the basis
for a typology of settlement, which is on its mode of production.
Now, by mode of production we do not mean solely the type of construction,
or solely its economics, but rather the whole of these interventions.
We can find ourselves at the same time on economic, social, or technical levels.
And we define this as the mode of production of settlement.
This mode of production encompasses all of the interventions
which, in one way or another, modify or create a settlement.
In some ways this is a very restrictive definition,
but it is at the same time a vast one,
for we find ourselves on extremely different levels
when it comes to levels of intervention.
In addition, all of these interventions can evolve with time.
So, the one who begins a settlement project
may not necessarily be the one who will ultimately use it.
So in these modes of production there are two major types:
the planned settlement, that of long ago,
the managed settlement, and the working-class settlement.
The planned settlement is one of large complexes, extensive rules,
where the state builds a certain number of housing units, of housing projects,
developments on vast tracts of land.
The managed settlement is one where it is the private sector who is given
the responsibility for its construction
but within the relatively strict guidelines provided by the State.
And then we have working-class settlements,
where there are no rules, where the informal is given the upper hand,
and the people do more or less as they choose.
I say more or less, because with working-class settlements there are,
if the code is not strictly administered by the state,
within working-class settlements there are commonly accepted rules,
which are those of the community,
whether in terms of construction, those of implantation,
or lifestyle rules between neighbors.
So it is not that there are no rules,
but simply that these are community-based rather than
managed either by the state or by local authorities.
Thus there are different parties involved in
the production modes of the settlement, and these are numerous.
The list is not necessarily exhaustive, but we can include the community,
of course the state and local authorities, or even private organizations.
There may also be a developer, whether public or private.
Likewise, there may be investors, technicians, the architect
or design office, builders and of course the construction company,
laborers, inhabitants, managers.
These are some of those who form part of these modes of production.
Naturally there is one of greater importance than the rest,
and that is the inhabitant, because this is the final recipient,
the one for whom the settlement was created.
So before moving on to the production chains
of these various participants, two things.
The fewer there are, the greater the ease of the process.
This seems evident.
And when speaking of settlements,
the question of financing becomes, in principal, central.
There must be, on the one hand, a source of funding.
The beneficiary must be financially able to purchase their home,
Whether via a loan, or in cash, all possibilities exist.
But he must have sufficient financial autonomy to secure housing.
Now, when we speak of modes of production,
we must include the production chain of the settlement.
This is a chain made up of four main links.
The first is public policy as it pertains to the settlement.
So national policy is the first link of our chain.
Next is local planning, the second link.
The third link is property development.
The fourth link, real estate.
We see that we pass from a national level
to one strictly local down to the parcel, to real estate.
Now let's return to these four links.
The first link, the national level, state level, public policy.
What are the problems here? Primarily it is the question of property.
The question of property is dual; it is two-fold problem.
On the one hand, land allocation
in no way corresponds to demand.
We distribute far more plots of land than are needed
This is the first problem.
The second problem is that it is extremely difficult,
and this in most countries, to secure a land title.
One can secure titles of occupancy, but the definitive land title,
which is deposited with the notary, filed and paid for,
is extremely difficult to obtain.
These then are two problems inherent in land ownership.
But there is also another problem, which is a weak banking system.
Indeed, if you do not have a banking system
which allows one to borrow money,
it will be extremely difficult for a section of the population
to obtain housing.
And because of this, many prefer land speculation to property ownership,
and loans within the banking market in African cities are very expensive.
Mortgage rates are very high,
which in no way encourages mortgage lending.
Behind this is, without a doubt,
a cultural element as well as
a lack of confidence in and use of the banking system.
Because of this many prefer to use
other systems, traditional systems,
to finance their housing, rather than turn to a bank.
We've seen the two principal problems of land-ownership, the banking system.
This means that certain solutions can be found
in an overhaul of the land-ownership system,
an end, surely, to the level of speculation.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking.
To put in place such a system is extremely difficult, agreed.
But at any given moment we may be obligated to rethink
the entire land-ownership system,
because it won't be possible to sustain, decade after decade,
to put on the market land parcels,
and more land parcels, and more land parcels, etc.
It's impossible.
So it must be redefined, made reasonable,
with a review of all the processes
which allow one to secure a land title.
At the same time, the state clearly must invest in the financing of housing,
particularly that designated for its poorest inhabitants.
Finally, the banking system must be developed,
mortgage rates lowered, with the state as guarantor of this system.
To continue, we were on the state level, so let's go to the city level.
Three principal problems.
The first is the total lack of control in urban development.
We cannot get a handle on this development,
despite existing documents.
This is the main goal of our course,
to explore how we can formulate documents which would,
in fact, create a framework for urban development.
The second problem is the chronic underestimation
of the number of housing units which should be on the market.
When the number is always underestimated, so is the need.
Third, we have public authorities,
who have little to do with settlements.
There was a long period in which international sources of funding,
bilateral or multilateral, financed settlement programs.
This has been abandoned, and now financing is only available,
with few exceptions, for large settlement programs.
Communities do not have the means to finance themselves,
and suddenly there is no more financing available for settlements.
This is without doubt one of the main objectives for urban development.
Once again, the solution is to counteract these problems
or to put in place systems which enable
the documentation of urban planning, and to utilize these documents.
These documents should be made with, by and for the community.
The final beneficiary must be able to
contribute his or her advice about the urban planning document.
And this document of urban planning must be reinforced,
clearly on a legal level, and must be enforceable against third parties.
For now, as we've seen,
there are zoning, land allocation and land-use plans,
which are enforceable against third parties.
The private should be subject to the same.
The blueprints, master plans, the SDAU, do not have the force of the law
when it comes to private, only public administration.
This, then, is our second level.
This is the level of the city.
Now we'll go down to the level of land-use.
The level of land-use is that of development.
There still, we have created a system which develops the parcel or plot,
with the sole purpose is speculation.
There is no concern for urban quality behind this.
It is no production calendar
behind the development of these land parcels.
They are created one by one without a vision of the whole,
without consideration of the needs or the parcel demands of
the final beneficiaries, but instead according to administrations
who create parcels here and there, with very good or bad reasoning.
We won't go there.
But one thing is clear, and that is that
we have the obligation to counteract this problem,
to provide quality housing developments.
To ensure that quality housing is developed in places
earmarked for future urban expansion.
We have a global plan which would be a master plan,
which defines zones prioritized for urban development,
and these housing developments must be built, exactly and strictly
in zones defined by the general document.
This seems relatively simple, when put like this
But the examples we have where this has been working
can be counted on one hand, of this I'm very positive.
Finally, there remains one level, the last link, that of the parcel,
which is that of real-estate development.
One can be one's own promoter,
or have a company hired to do real-estate promotion.
But we are very much at the level of the parcel,
and on this level there are two principal problems.
The problem is the relationship with businesses.
It is no longer, for the most part, in most cities,
about businesses, but rather about workers who do masonry.
Or of businesses already formed, teams, totally informal,
who do not have the minimum of knowledge or competency
required for the technical aspects of building,
They are without doubt full of good intention,
but do not have the skills and techniques needed for building,
which makes the quality of construction often unreliable.
Another critical problem with real-estate promotion
is the price fluctuation of material costs.
A ton of cement can very quickly double the cost of concrete blocks.
If you begin with one price, and a few months later it has doubled,
this poses problems; it poses financing problems, surely.
These price fluctuations of materials
which has never been stabilized on a state level,
presents problems even on a neighborhood level.
As the price increases, as the price of a ton of cement increases
we see a halt, in some neighborhoods, of nearly all construction.
In fact, when we speak of housing,
we are often speaking of social housing.
Why? Because housing for those who are relatively well off,
or middle class, poses few problems
when compared to the number of poor who need housing.
And to provide housing for the poorest,
one needs an intervention by the state, or by other funders.
But without intervention from the outside,
the only real-estate promotion by the poorest population,
for the poorest of the population,
is extremely difficult, and leads to the development of slums.
If we want to have an increase in construction quality,
we must return to these programs, and to obligatory state aid.
This plan is an extremely easy one.
We finally have standards.
These are the norms, the standards of construction.
The standards in housing are going down, for example.
And then here, whether in dollars or euros,
it is the cost of the standard norm.
And then, this is the income of the population.
We see that between this standard, this norm,
and income, there is a gap, a differential,
and this differential should be taken into account,
by public authorities.
This differential, is aid to the most modest households.
There are two possibilities to fill this gap.
There is the possibility of offering assistance,
or assisting those who ask for it.
To offer assistance means to price land modestly.
We can develop the land without being paid for it.
We can build at moderate prices.
This is what will go on the market.
One can offer aid as materials or land.
Aid on demand is based on a system of borrowing and spending.
On assists with borrowing, for example,
with a 0% financing, or lowered rates, with special duration,
or we put in place a system of savings.
We can imagine that the baseline here is lower
than normal, but we have these two possibilities.
There is supply, and there is demand.
So with housing programs, we must find out
where we stand, whether on the side of supply or demand,
or if we try, in an integral manner, to blend these two forms of assistance,
to balance at the same time supply and demand.
Surely, by linking together the two, we can achieve results
which are no doubt better, and much quicker,
than aid offered based only on supply or on demand.
We've touched briefly on the question of settlements,
the four links in the production of settlements,
from the state level, to that of the land parcel.
And then, some considerations on aid to the poorest
because this is the crux when it comes to settlements.
It is surely settlements, for those populations with the lowest incomes
where we must succeed for urban integration.