06.2b spr95kellet napier sml

7/28/2019 06.2b Spr95Kellet Napier Sml

1/18

TDSR V O L . VI NO . (( 1 9 9 5 7 - 2 4

SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE? A CRITICAL EXAMINATIONOFVERNACULAR THEORY AND SPONTANEOUS SETTLEMENT

WITH REFERENCETOSOUTHAMERICAAND SOUTHAFRICA

P E T E R K E L L E T T / M A R K N A P I E R

T he t radit ion of study that ha s grown up around the investigation of spontaneous settlements in

th e past three decades ha s tended to emphasize the process which gives rise to informally pro-

duced housing rather than the buil t form of the housing itself. As a result, only a part ial

understanding of such sett lements ha s emerged because there has been a virtual absence of

empirical data on "squatter" architecture. Meanwhile, frameworks designed to facilitate a

holistic understanding of vernacular environments have recently reached a stage of maturi ty

which allows descriptions of sufficient complexity to handle the great variety of cases found

within th e definition of th e vernacular. Indeed, many descriptions of vernacular environments

have th e potential to include spontaneous set t lement an d hold the promise of affording a better

understanding of these people -made places. Given that the w ord "vernacular" commonly refers

to a language or architecture which has local rather than foreign origins, it would seem wholly

appropriate to apply the frameworks of vernacular architecture studies to spontaneous environ-

ments. Th e ai m of this paper is to suggest ways this might begin to be accomplished, to gain a

more comprehensive and balanced understanding of both the product an d process dynamics of

spontaneous sett lements an d of th e people wh o create and inhabit them.

P E T E R K E L L E T T is an architect an d Lecturer in Housing Studies at the

Centre for Architectural Research an d Development Overseas at the U niver-

sity of Newcastle upon Tyne. MARK N A P I E R trained as an anhitect in

South Africa. Fol/owing postgardttate studies an d research at Newcastle

Univenity, he is now working as a resemcher at the Building Technology

Division of he CSIR in Pretoria , South Africa.

Frameworks designed (0 facilitate a holistic understanding ofvernacular environments have recently reached a stage ofmaturity which allows them (0 handle the great variety ofcases found within the definition of the vernacular. Suchframeworks now seek (0 integrate an understanding of builtform along with process and use characteristics, as well as


2/18

8 T D S R 6 . 2

accommodate th e struct ural contexts in w hi ch such enviro nments develop.

Since many descripti ons of vernacular environments have th e

potential to includ e spontaneous settlement, it would seemwholly appropriate to extend the use of suc h comprehensiveframeworks to th e study of spontaneo us environments. Sucha project would also add to the work already don e on traditional environments.

Th e paper begins by ske tchi n g the way spontaneous se ttlements have been studied over th e last fifty years. It thenreviews the key positions of theorists who have developedappropriate inve st igative approaches for th e analysis of vernacular set tlement s. Th e issues raised by t hese frameworksabout how the view of informal set tlem ents should be alteredare then discussed wi t h illu strations from two countr ies:Colombia and South Africa. Th e conclusion looks at ways inwhich the findings may be employed, bu t counsels againstdrawing oversimplified lesson s from th e data.

SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS:

FROM EYESORE TO U P G R A D I N G

Th e ph enome non of informal ' urban hou sin g is no t new .Throughout histor y, th e poor have constructed their dwellings around the urban centers of the ri ch and powerful. Forexa mp l e, in Latin America, according to Jorge Hardoy, "se lf

help was as characteristicof

the past asof th e

present LatinAmerican cit y. In both, the se lf-built shelters of the majoritysurro unded th e small city core built for pr e -Columbian, colonial or national elit es.'" Neith er is such a pattern of residencea phenomenon exclusive to th e so -call ed Third World, as abrief g lance both at th e history of European urbani zatio n andth e present condition of the "homeless" in many Europ ean andNorth American cities demonstrates.!

What is different today is the scale of activity, a situation whichhas its roots in the massive movement of rural people away fromsubsistence ag ricultur e toward rapidly expanding urban centers. Compared with most of Asia and Africa, these migratory

movements occurred earlier in L at in Am erica, and by the mid-1960s a majorit y of the continent 's rapidly increasing population was living in urban areas, many in improvi sed dwellings in"sq uatt er set tlement s."4 For this reason most of the earliestwritings on spontaneous settlements are based on studies andobservations made in Latin America . In contras t , many Africancountries are still predominantly rural - w ith the exception ofa few, including South Africa 5- and mov ement tow ards urbancenters has been mu ch more recent. South Africa's rapid urban

growt h began in th e 1970S with the establishment of informalsettlements on the distant p eripheries of cities structured acco rdin g to apa rtheid legislation.

Initiall y, spo ntane ous settlements were ubiquitously viewedas visual and social pollution, in which untested nega tivestereot ypes and prejudices about th e morals, abilities andvalues of th e residents were reinforced by th e images ofinadequate , disorg anized and improvis ed shelters . Such viewsbecame gene rali zed; for example, according to one author,"every Third World ci t y is a dual city - an island of we althsurrounded by a black belt of misery. Outside the bright,shining modern cit y of skyscrapers, fl yovers and desirableresiden ces, the poor are ca mp ed in sq ualor , disease andneglect, in shacks and hutm ent s of plywood, cardboard , mu dor straw . . . . 6 Pow erfu l inter es t gro ups were concerned aboutthe radical political potential of such substa ndard places asbreeding grounds for revolutionary activity , particularly giventh e success of th e Cuban revolution in 1959, bu t the predominant stereo typ e of such set tlers was of pathetic, apatheticand delinqu ent rural peasants w ho really had no place in the cit y.These negative stereotypes of the poor as incapable of selfimprovement were reinforced by the now-di scre dited concept ofthe "culture of po verty," as propounded by Oscar Lewis .7

FROM PROBLEM TO SOLUTION

Durin g the 1960s a reassessment began , spearheaded by an

thropologistWilliam Mangin

an d architectJohn

Turner.8

Both me n had been closely involved wi t h the squatte rs inLima over a long period and cou ld b ase their interpr eta tionson empirical data. They invert ed established thinkin g andsugge sted that, far from bein g a problem, such se tt l ementswere, in fact, a so lution. Turn er reinterpreted the simpleshacks in the squatter settlements as th e first stage in anincremental process of construction. 9 Far from being passivevictims of circumstance or being trapp ed in a "culture ofpoverty," he wrote that th e poor in such set tlement s demonstrated g reat energy and intelli ge nce in th e use of resourcesand in evaluating priorities. H e describ ed the res id ents ofsuch districts as rational and effective articulators of th eir own

needs and priorities, who were able to weigh th e relativemerits of different stra tegi es: for example, short-term discomfort an d inse curi ty, in re turn for lon ge r -t erm benefits suchas in d epende nce, space, and income-gene rating possibilities."Contrary to the genera lisation s made by th e mass media andan uninformed middle-class, th ese squatter se ttlement s are nomore slu m s th an any building or development und er construction,"10 Turn er wrote. From his analysis of such incremental processes in th e barriadas of Peru , he articulated th e


3/18

,.

idea of housing as essentially an act ivit y or process - "housi ~ g ; s; ;verb," rather th an as a mere physical object. Turner'semphasis on the un d erlying processes refocused discussionaway from visual and physical characteristics ~ ~. , what ahouse "is") toward what a house "does" - in other words, away

Trom product an d toward process .

In addition to reinterpreting informal user-controlled environments, Turner also critiqued sta t e-sponsored social housin g proje cts, the conventio nal alternative to spontaneousse tt l e ments. He defined the fundamental issue as being one ofcontrol over decision-making, and he argued that centrallyadministered bureaucratic (heteronomous) systems were intrinsically inefficient compared to locally contro lled (autonomous) approaches, which cou ld ac hi eve high use va lu es and aclose fit between dweller and dwelling. He contrasted theenvironments that resulted from th e two approaches from avariety of perspectives, including th e official insist ence onhigh physical standard s that inevitably led to high constru ction an d maintenance costs. He also commented on th eappearance of mass housing projects , heavily influenced by the"functionalism" of the Modern Movement: "their naked dinginess is often alien and unattractive while th e honestly poorshack is often personal and warm. The most important architectural advantage of th e squatters' procedure is th e co nsequent adaptabil it y of space and structures to the changingneeds and behaviour patterns of th e family.""

Turner then proposed that such an in t erpretation could form

the basis for new approaches [Q housing delivery that wou ldplace th e use rs at the center of a decision-making processsupported by the state and other organizations. He suggestedthat the potentia l of existing spontaneo us settle ments sho uldbe consolidated by up grad in g programs , and that new developments could take th e form of serviced sites, in which newresidents wou ld hav e th e "freedom to build " dwellings thatreflected their own priorities and budgets. This approach, hebelieved, would make more effec tive use of sca rce resources byunlocking the previously unacknowledged reso ur ce of th epeople themselves, and res ul t in more responsive an d appropriate dwelling environments.

No t surprisingly, such a radical reconceptualization attractedconsiderable a ttention , and a long running "self-he lp housingdebate " began. " Th e most vigoro us criticism of Turner 's id eascame from lef t- wing academics who believed the "Turnerschool" was rationalizing poverty and romant icizing th esubstandard housing conditions of th e poor.' J .Squatter environments reflected no t freedom an d ingenuity, the y argued,bu t serious structural constraints, injustic e, and exploita ti onof th e poor. They claimed the so lution lay no t in encouraging

KELLE TT/NAP IER: SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE. 9

the poor [Q build their own housing with their own limit edtime and meager resources, bu t in fundamental structuralchanges w hi ch would address the dramatically uneven distribution of power and resources throughout society. Theyrejected th e individuali zation of problems th ey saw as therespon sibility of th e state; in short , ~ e yargued, such approach es depo!iticized "t he h,9using prob.le!l1," a n ~e f f e c t i ve .! ~T a i n ~ a i n e dthe st[itus quo. In addition , academics outsideLatin America questioned th e apparently universal claimsabout the potential of self-help as a solution applicable indifferent cultura l and economic conditions. '4

Despit e the theoretical eloquence of many of the above views,the reality on th e ground demanded more practica l respons es.Th e proportion and sca le of th e urban population throu ghoutthe world living in informal housing areas was acceler atingrapidly. Th e capitals of the newly in d ependent African stateswere becoming poles of at tr action to many Africans who hadpreviously been excluded from urban areas, and urban growthrates worldwide were increasing through improvements inp ubli c hea lth. In most places, urbanization was also takingplace without parallel increases in industrialization and economic development. In addition conventional housing approaches , which led to the demo lition of nformal housing andits repl ace ment by "Western" models of state -sub sidized andstate-planned socia l housing projects , were proving bothsocially and economica lly expensive. As a result, receptivityincreased to what was soon to become the new self-he lporthodo xy . Th e new trend became particularl y apparent at the

1976 UNCHS Habitat conference in Vancouver. Ever since, thepromotion of self-help ha s become a central plank in mostnational housing policies , as well as a srandard policy ofintern ationa l agencies such as th e World Bank and th e IMF.

SHELTER OR ARCHITECTURE?

Despit e initial intention s, institutionalization and state supportfor informal effortS have , in reality, failed to materializ e on anysignificant scale. ' 5 Demolitions and forced relocations are nowrare, bu t the ideal of a partnership between the state and c iti zenshas genera lly not been realized, not least because o f deterioratin g

economic circumstances. Hence, more urban dwellers th an everbefore are now responsibl e for creating their own dwelling env ironments within a wide range of economic and cul tu r al circumstances. However , despit e the immense scale of such activities, th eresulting built environments have been lar gely ignored.

Th e preceding discussion has outlined how Turner propo sedthat many informal settlements could in fact be seen as lon gterm building sites, and how he argued that many of the

L .t"-,. ,


4/18

10 T D S R 6 . 2

obvious physical inad equ ac ies of spo nt aneous settlementsw o ~ l dgradually be ov ercome through processes of incremen tal

.@ Qrovement. Numerous studi es have si"nce documentedvarious aspects of such process es, and others have focused onth e social aspects of living in such settlements .'G Bu t fewstudies have chosen to examine the built forms and spaces asinte g ral components in th e ho u si ng equation . Interestin g ly,some of th e researchers wh o did s tudy this issue dismissed anypositive aspects of their findin gs because of the structuralconstraints within which the dwellings were created, andbecause of the unacceptability of promoting approaches orpolicies which appeared to condone such conditions.

For exa mple, in a study of spontaneous settlements in Medellin ,th e Colombian architec t Fernan do Viviescas found "a considerab le expressive potential ," which might form the basis for a"genuine architectural position " given the right "cultur aldevelopment context. " However , Viviescas also wrote: " [the 1circ umstances under which th ese 'barrios ' are establishedprohibits a reference to architecture. Rather, we are referrin gto th e basic , immediate and d espe rat e need for shelter."1 7Effectively, he was arguing that poverty denies th e verypossibility of personal choice in urban circumstances. Suchpov erty inhibits meaningful impa cts on the built environmentother than the production of the bar est of shelter: '~t h espatialcon figuration of these barrios responded no t so much to anyauthentic development ini tiati ng from wi thin , bu t rather to aninevitabl e (given the ma t erial co nditions) impoverished superimpo sition of ideologi ca l, aes th etic and environmental values

originating in other mo r e affluent parts of the city. . . . Th eenvironmental result tend s inevitably towards a penuriouskitsch." 18 As a consequence, he rejected the self-help approach tosolving the housing problem as an "imposed solution," which"holds no real possibilit y for improvement in the conditions ofexistence of Colombia 's ci ti ze ns nor g uarantees any real oppor tunit y of architectural expression for th e poor."1 9

Such bold and generalized assertion s cannot remain unchallen ge d. Without for one moment denying the reality of theextreme conditions of poverty and injustice which are increasin g ly prevalent throughout the Third World , it is curious thatthe apparently equivalent constraints of rigid social structur es,

clim ate, and limited resources have been identified as keyformative factors in the production of ttaditional vernacularenvironments, and these are frequently acknowledged to be bothexpressive and supportive . Wh y have urban spontaneous environments been interpr eted so differently compared wit h traditional vernacular settlements:> 20 Wh y has there been so littl ein t eres t in studying th e forms of spontaneous settlements,espec ially when informal processes have b ecome the predominanthou sing production method in man y Third World cities :> Th e

low level of academic interest can be illustrated by examining thecontent of the 2 0 0 papers in th e first 51 volumes of the LASTE

Working Paper Series (1989-93). Only twelve of he papers in thisg roup, or 6 percent, appear to address issues of spontaneousse ttlem ent. Considering that spontaneo us settlements are increasing in scale, and traditional settlements are declining, thi swould appear to b e a surprising imbalance .

REASSESSING VERNACULAR:

A N Y SPACE FOR THE SPONTANEOUS?

In contrast to the prevailing absence of formal analysis ofsponta neous settlements, studies of traditional vernacular environments - especially thos e by architects - have frequ entlyproduced romantic and naiv e analyses of the bui lt forms, no tleas t by concentrating on visual appearances independently ofsoc ial structures an d economic co nditions. This approa ch ,epitomized in the pioneerin g work of Rudofsky, 21 and so effectivelydismissed b y more recent cr itics, " continues. For example,when discussing Anatoli an vernacular, Denel writes: "even atthe expe nse of scholarship and proper methodology an d eve nat the risk of being proven incorr ec t, it is imperative thathypotheses be immediately dev elop ed based on obser vation ,assumption, rumour s, hear say, ava ilable data and commonsense."23 Fortunately, others are not prepared to rely on suchimprovised and inadequat e methods and are willing to do boththe serious theoretical thinkin g and painstaking empiricalfieldwork. Such efforts are producing promising results.

A g roup of theorists hav e re ce ntly proposed analyticalframeworks designed preci se ly to redress the previous imbal-ances an d partial interpr etations surrounding vernacular environments. Such frameworks are more holistic an d comprehe n sive in nature and are see king to accommodate pro cess,product and use characteristics, as we ll as address issues ofco nstraint an d conte xt. Th e broader sco pe and greater complexity of such frameworks ca n more naturally includespo ntaneous settlements as part of th e wider spectrum ofnonprofessional environments, bu r to date these approacheshave been generally applied only in more traditional environments. A key aim of this paper is to use such approachesto raise the level of attention paid to the bui l t form ofspo ntaneous settlements, while simultaneously accommodatin g the ideological an d economic contexts in which suchenv ironments are produced - in other words, to e xa mine th ebuilt form of spontaneous settlements alongside pr o cess asp ec ts in a way that is inte g rally anchored within specificco nt ex ts. This does no t prejudge any outcomes as to th equ alities of such built form s, as we ca n neither anticipate norge neralize, bu t there are seve ral co nvincing reasons why we


5/18

consider th e attempt to be valid. Such reasons include thewidespread and increasing sca le of spontaneous bui lt form; theneed to make a record of it (as archaeologists do) for perpetuityand as a potemially valuable database of spontaneous settlemems; the need to restore the lost balance in ana lysis; thedesire to acknowledge the creative (and possibly uncreative,where constraims dominate ) efforts of people; and the desireto learn from the vernacular, and possibly even, as professionals, to learn to use the positive parts of whatever grammar wemay discover in the contemporary urban vernacular - inother words "learning to speak the vernacular."'4

We now turn to a discussion of existing theoretical positions inthe study of vernacular environments that might also playa rolein the examination of spomaneous settlements. In seeking toascertain the relevance and significance of the work of theoristsin the area of vernacular settlemems, a set of questions was askedof them . What was the aim a/their study, i.e., what fundamenta lquestion were they seeking to answer? How did they define thekinds a/s ettlement they were examining, and did their definitionsinclude or preclude informal settlement ;> How did theystructure their approach and ideas, i.e., what was their method-ology' What terms 0/reference or framework did they use for comparing examples? On what ca ses did they test their framework?And what were their conclusions regarding their own frameworksand their anticipations for using thefindin gs which were the resultof their approach? Only five of the theorists considered arereviewed here, with passing reference to two others .

LAWRENCE: A LARGER B O D Y OF EVIDENCE

Roderick Lawrence's stated aim is to gain a fuller understandingof he design, meaning and use of dwellings, using as wide a rangeof historical evidence as possib le, including the kinds of "architecrural, cultural, social and psychological factors that ought tobe considered in a complementary way." Based on these findings,he investigates "how architectura l features of domestic settings

.-reflect, catalyse or inhibit social and psychological goals ." '5

In his empirical studies of domestic urban architecture,Lawrence '6 draws on the work of Mercer and Brunskill' ? to list

particu lar defining qualities of domestic vernacular architecture. According to this framework, a dwelling should be identifiable as a type (i.e., it should share qualities with a numericallysignificant group) which is specific to a period and to a place(especially in terms of its use of building materials); its designand construction should be traditionally rather than "academically" inspired; and it should house the normal activities ofordinary people. This definition would clearly qualify manyinformal settlemems as vernacular building, with the possible

KEL LETI/NAPIERSQUATTERARCHITECTURE'11

exception of he quality of raditional inspiration in cases wherecontinuity with the past is tenuous or nonexistent. However,informal settlemems are clearly not academically inspired,and so fall more towards the vernacular type (a conclusionwhich Rapoport also reaches after a detailed discussion '8).

Lawrence proposes a "more comprehensive approach thataccounts for the reciprocal relations between a range of contextually defined factors which are implicated in the design anduse of the built environment, especially residential buildings. " 29To structure these relations, he groups the factors im o three"dimensions," which form three sides of a cube: r) the physical ormaterial factors, 2) societal and cultural factors, and 3) individual or human factors. lo Physical factors include the availability of materials and technology, and site and climatic conditions; societal factors include historical and social values androles, population structure and household composition, building regu lations and economic factors; and individual factorsinclude age, gender , marital status, personal beliefs, residentialbiographies, and external contacts and experiences .

On e of Lawrence's most significam comributions is that he notonly urges study of he form and meaning of dwellings bu t alsoexamination of how form is used by people at different stagesin their life cycle and throughout the history of the building.In addition to looking at macro-scale economic, political,social and cultural influences, he collects data from oral andwritten biographical histories about the detai led use anddesign of the house types he studies , thus filling ou t the

picture at the micro-scale . Lawrence 's approach is useful as achecklist of possible influencing factors. In fact , the way headdresses the subject and the suggestions he makes as tosources of evidence are potemially more useful than theframework itself. His approach is essemially an historical,temporal perspective , and is both evolutionary and typological in that it describes the emergence of dwelling types andtheir social and geographical origins over time. Although hememions such synonyms for vernacular as "primitive," "folk,""popular" and "spomaneous," l' he does not bu ild these im o hisframework, other than on an individual case basis. Therefore,his approach wou ld appear better suited to the detailed studyof types which evolve in a particular region, and less useful for

discussing wider groups of examples on a comparative basis,in ways other than relating to the relative importance ofmaterial, societal and human factors.

RAPOPORT: C O M PA R AT I V E C O N T I N U U M S

Amos Rapoport is, to our knowledge, the only one of theselected group of traditiona l-environmem theorists who has

, I


6/18

12 T O 5 R 6 . 2

applied his framework specifically to informal settlementenvironments (although others do make passing reference).Hi s star ti n g point is that, "If vernacular design is definedproperly, spontaneous settlements can be shown to be itsclosest contemporary equivalent." l' Rapoport, therefore,sets ou t to "ini ti at e a discussion of the 'des ig n quality' ofspontaneous settlements. . . . Th e spec ific question posedhere is: ho w successfull y do spontaneous se t tlement s respondto th e cultura l and aesthetic needs of their inhabitants;>" HThis concern is simi lar to Lawrence 's call to examine th edesign, use an d meaning of dwellings .

Rapoport's definitions are difficult to restate succinctly, as

they are based on "a polythetic classification with it s corollary of multiple descriptors." H He describes spontaneoussettlements as "cultural landscapes " which represent th e

decisions of manyindi

v id u als over lo ng periods of time, bu twhich are notable for adding up to "recognizab le wholes." 3sti e lists numerous process an d product characteristics whichcan be used to describe all traditional settlements. Examplesof ptocess characteristics include the identi ty and intentionsof th e designers, th e reliance on a model with variations, th eextent of sharing of sing le models, and the congruence of th echosen model with the ideals of th e users . Product characteristics include degree of cultural and place specificity,specific models, plan forms an d morphologies, use of specificmaterials, textures and co lors, effectiveness of response toclimate, an d effectiveness of environment as a setting forlife-style an d activity systems. 36 Rapoport devotes severa l of

his p r. ? .c e~ s . ~ ~ r a c t e r i s t i c sto th e discussion of th e presenceof a shared model, a qLiality which Christopher Alexander 3?has identified an d articulated we ll in his various works, andwhich goes a lon g way toward explaining th e visual coherenceof many settlements . l?y expressing these qualities as

situations of degree, Rapoport's framework of analysispresen ts a versatile descri ptive tool , where tendencies wi th i nsettlements an d comparisons betw een groups of examp les

can be discussed. Using his lists of se tt l ement qualities, heconfronts charact erist ic tendencies in both vernacular andspontaneous environments.

In th e discussion of forma l qualities, Rapoport sets his

discussion of spontaneous se t tlem en t between two environmental types: traditional vernacu lar settlements an d professionally designed environments. Hi s categorization of builtenvironments is thus based on wh o th e designers are, or, inhis words, the" denti ty" of th e designers - common peop leor academica lly trained professionals. He then asks : towhich of the two environments are spontaneous settlementsmore compara ble Fo r most of his listed charac teristics th eanswer is obvious because of the extreme frame of reference

he has chosen. In essence, th e compariso n takes p laceaccording to two ideals which rarely occur in their pureforms across th e full range of product an d process characteristics whic h he lists. Th e strength of th e framework, however, is that it is comparat ive, a ll owi ng each informalsettlement case to be exa mined for its likene ss to thevernacular or the ptofessional in each of the quality areas .Hi s overall conclusion is very much the premise on whichthis paper is based , namely, "that for both ptocess andproduct cha ra cteristics this exercise wo u ld place spontaneous se t tl ements closer to traditional vernacular than to anyother type of environment and farthest from professionallydesigned, or 'high- st y le,' environments. "3 8

However, where th e approach seems to show weaknesses is

in the way Rapoport himself uses it. In particular, his conclusion in th e area of the aesthetics of informal settlementsis less convincing. After citing certain examp le s of usuallyhighly consolidated and established spontaneous settlements, he concludes that "spontaneous settlements are a lso

often extreme ly successful in formal and percep tual (aesthetic)terms . 39 This is puzzling given that perceptual quality is

th e characteris tic l east associated with informal settlements.In fact, addressing th e "eyesore" accusation against suchsettlements has occupied apo lo gists for many years. Th eso luti on which follows from this conclusion is thereforeflawed in it s motiv ation: that on the basis of their formalquality, suc h environments ought to be conserved an dupgraded using "conservative surgery" rather than being

demolished. Th e more common and , it seems, more reasonab le motivation for upgrading informa l settlements hasbeen to allow th e gradua l improvement of housing overtime, thus allowing people with very limited resources thetime an d flexibility to conso lidat e their housing an d achievecertain formal qualities and gain access to improved infrastructure. Upgrading has rarely been motivated by a wishto conserve what is there on th e merit of its aesthetics .

Where we can concur with R apoport is in his concl us ionsthat "spontaneous settlements are as wort h y as traditionalvernacular settlements of being eva lu ated on aestheticgrounds by designers"; that th ey "may we ll be th e closestthing to vernac ular we h ave today"4 0 ; an d that we shou ldlearn by an a lyzing such se n lement sY However, to concludethat w h at we will find after th e proposed refocusing of thestudy wi ll necessarily be positive, or in his words that"spontaneo us settlements work well c ulturall y and aesthetically, that is , in terms of some compo nents of environmental q uali ty," is both too general an d premature giventh e extensive variety and lack of detailed empirical evidenceabout th e built form of informal se tt l ements .


7/18

/

OLIVER: A N EVOLUTIONIST V I E W OF

PROGRESSIVE M Y S T I F I C AT I O N

Th e approach adopted by Paul Oliver4 2 is simi lar to Rapoport 'sbut places greater emphasis on the evo lution ary d eve lopment of th e house-building process - in different co ntexts.Where Rapoport talks about vernacular and professional environments as opposites, Oliver uses the words " tribal ,""folk " an d " in stitutional" (among others),4J and links themto g e ther as stages in a progression toward th e ever -in creas in gprot ec tion of knowledge (i .e ., specia li za ti on). In fact , headdresses th e subject of vernacular archi te cture in terms ofth e sharing of knowledge, "know-ho w, " or "technology" inthe true sense of th e word. Although Stea and Turan 44

challenge this generalization, 9liver's conjecture is that inmost traditional ( ~ s p e c ~ a l l y"tri bal ") societies, most, if no ta ir, KtloWledge about building - conditions of climate,

-ro po grapb.y; natura l hazard, materials , tools and methodsl S P a ~ ~- ~ f the common domain. Using exa mples, Oliverc 1arts t he route from such a position where knowl edg e isaccessib le to all, to a position where in "folk " soc ieti es peopleincr eas ingly my s ti f y th e knowledge of building through thespecia li zation of cert ain tasks, which are then defended an dperpetuated throu g h such socia l compacts as crafts andguilds. The ultimate protection of knowledge, or ",knowhow, " takes place in " insti tut ional" societies wi thprofessionalization an d a ju dicial an d legi slative systemdesi g ned to enforce it . This same proc ess is descr ibed by Steaand Turan in their ow n term s .45

Oliver is notable for discussing informal settlements andfitting them into his ev olutionary framework : "Eventually,more elegant so luti ons to the prob lems of building in the cityperiphery wi ll evolve, differentiation of ski lls may appear,know-how will be expanded an d passed on to subs equentgenerations. Wi th th e possible growth of li t eracy, problemisolation and the conceptua li sing of so luti ons may becomecommonplace . But if it does, will the resultant forms ofsh elt er s till be 'vernacular ')"4 6 By saying this, O liver placesspontaneous set tlem en t at th e extreme end of a sca le ofknowledge specialization, as the most unspecialized of typesof settlement. This may be an overgenera li zat ion. There is

considerable evidenc e of th e use of ski ll ed labor and of sm a llscale contractors operating in informal settlementsY Forexample, a study of informal set tlem ents in Colombia foundthat on ly 29 percent of ho u seho ld s were tr u e "se lf-builders ,"an d that 54 percent of dwellings were constructed a lm o stentirely by paid labor 48 Where "b uilding" knowledge is rarelydistinguished from "des ig n " knowledge, this implies thatknowledge is indeed concentrated and echoes a clear, if flexible ,division of labor.

KE LLEn /NAPIER: SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE 13

O liver sees th e activities in barriadas andfavelas as "processesof emergent vernac ul ar types" which wi ll b e refined over time.He then concludes with a plea that vernacular archi tecture notbe st u died in order simp ly to imitate it, but that it be recogni zed for it s own merits where it occurs, and that efforts bedirected to conserve it where appropriate. It is important tounderstand the vernacu lar, bu t no t overlook it s defects.O liv er's observations turn to suggest ions of so lution s whenhe says that local "know -ho w " has a major part t o play in th econtemporary urban context: "yet it is clear that there is aworld shortage of housing , that th e material s, th e ski lls, th efinancial expend i ture necessary to meet it by 'modern' meanssimp ly does not exist."49 In saying this, he , like Turner,implies that the builders of informal settlements shou ld bepart of th e answer to urban housing pro bl ems.

STEA A N D T U R A N : M O D E S OF P R O D U C T I O N

A N D CONDITIONS OF E X I S T E N C E

In contrast to th e above theorists, David Stea and Mete Turanfocus on "p lacemaking ."5 0 Impli ci t in dleir use of this term isthe idea ~ f participation in th e making of p lace, and it isth ere fore appropriate for the description of the in forma lsettlement formation process. Their concern is wit h th eprocess of placemaking , the ptoducts of pla ce making activity,~ n dthe use of places (or the "consump tion of built form") .5

Tl;es e concerns ar e similar to the areas of ana lysis used byLawrence and Rapoport. However, their "s ta t ement on place

making" \' has as its starting point a view of the vary ing modes ofproduction operat in g within societies . Hence , their definition of placemaking is "as a form of c o n o ~ i cactivity, in itsbroadest sense, combining social, cu ltural, political, and materialaspects of a society 's mode of product ion. "53 They define thi slatt er concept as "a spec ific , historically occurring set of socialrelations through which labour is deployed to wrest energy fromnature by means of too ls, skills, organisation, and knowledge. "54

Using mode of production as a basis for analysis , their aim isto tr y to "improve ou r un d erstanding of the domestic architecture and se ttlem en t patterns -- 've rnacular' form - - oftraditional and transitional soc ieti es."55 Their view is that

"most of today's societies are transitional and in the process ofmoving from one mode of production to another."5 6 Th eclearly transitional condition of many informally hous edsocieties makes theirs a parti cularly ap t tool for analysis.

Stea and Turan hav e applied their ideas to the comparativestud y of traditional se ttlement s, anci ent and modern; bur th eyalso make passing reference to inform al settlements in their1990 work. Here they discuss set tl ements where spaces appear


8/18

14 T O 5 R 6 . 2

disordered, and they offer two explanations. Th e first is thatthe observer may not understand, or may understand inadequately, the "u nderlying rules of order" operating within thatsettlement: "Thus the apparent 'messiness' surrounding asquatter dwelling .. . may actually be a 'stockpiling' system forbuilding materials . . . . " Th e second reason for apparent spatialdisorder" [may] result from a traumatic transition from onemode of production to another; the originally intended ordermay then give way to real disorder disrupting or destroying theplace /activity dialectic. If a space is flexible and thereforepartially controllable , however , a new order emerges." 57

Oliver 's view of informal settlements as a kind of nascentvernacular, where tradition eventually emerges over time, isremarkably similar to these ideas of Stea and Turan. The ackno wledgment that the destruction of the "place /activity dialec

tic" can occur - or as Rapoport puts it, that "in some casesconstraints may be more important than choice" 58- is a demonstration that these frameworks do have the strength to deal withsituations in which, as Viviescas commented , imposed structuralconditions subsume all personal attempts at participation. 9

Stea and Turan employ a shorthand method of referring tocontext. For example, they use the phrase "conditions of existence": "A society's material conditions and its cultural condi-tions, taken together, are its conditions of existence." Suchconditions break down into material conditions (includingclimate, siting , resources), and cultural conditions (includingkinship, social and labor relations). Conditions of existence so

defined are accompanied by conditions of change, which comefrom outside of society. Th e conditions found within a society

~ which shape the response to externa l forces are referred to as the"basis of change. "Go

Th e approach ofStea and Turan is similar to Rapoport's in thatthey present ideals for comparison and then invite the reader toplace specific cases on the continuum between the ideals. WhereRapoport uses th e notion of societies as typically vernacularand typically professional, Stea an d Turan start from the"primitive communist mode of production," G, where peopletruly participate in the making of place. They then trace adevelopment (similar to Oliver 's evolutionary process) throughincreasing "stratification " of society , and "mystification, ""professionalization" and" commodification" of he placemakingprocess, until they reach the totally commodified environmentcharacteristic of he "Capitalist West," where places are receivedby exchange rather than made, and where people are products ofthe environment rather than vice-versa. G2

Th e differences between the two modes of production arepresented in a table comparing "shelter" with "property" as

th e "basic relationships in domestic architecture": for example, use value is contrasted with exchange value, and socialidentity is contrasted with individual/family identity. G) Th equalities under the headings of "shelter" and "property" arepresented as "polarities" and not as "opposites," a frameworkdesigned to exclude atypical cases. Although th e criticismleveled at Rapoport concerning th e use of rarely occurringideal situations as th e frame of reference applies also to Steaand Turan, by presenting their ideas in terms of dialectics,they allow the description of tendencies in settlements, ratherthan forcing categories onto sometimes recalcitrant examples.This approach also avoids generalizations and simplificationsand provides for the likelihood of change or transition insettlements over time. Significantly, Stea and Turan do notpresent their way of analysis as the antithesis of politicaleconomy approaches, bu t rather offer the opportunit y to incor

porate such perspectives within a more holistic framework.G4

An important element of Stea and Turan's work is theirdiscussion of people-object relationships. They seek to movefrom a general "ecological " theory to a theory of "specific personenvironment relations." G5 They see the process of design anddecision-making working in a certain way, viewing th e house,or "the architectural object," as a product of the "art " of placemaking and " the act of building [as] a purposive action inwhich the achievement of ends and means is efficientl y organised, and wherein decision procedures for choosing amongalternatives are developed."GG The theme of decision-makingemerges as especially important in situations where people act

within the often severe constraints of resource limits.

R.R. Wilk 's work on "The Built Environment and ConsumerDecisions"G 7 also makes an important contribution to thissubject, and any frame w ork must incorporate the decisionmaking filter through which all places are made in situationswhere either choice or constraint may dominate in the differentspheres of process and use. J. Kemeny has also proposed aframework which juxtaposes these relations between peopleand environment effectively. 68

TH E THEORISTS C O M PA R E D

One initial observation that can be made about the work of thetheorists reviewed above is that their frameworks are remarkably similar. Ever since theorists of vernacular environments moved away from viewing only the artifact, andreconcentrated their attention on the people in a society whoshape the form, use the form, alter the form, and are shaped bythe form, their frameworks have tended to arrive at descriptivetypologies which rel y on the kinds of societies creating the


9/18

environments, or (in th e case ofStea and Tu r an) on th e way inwhich such soc ieties t yp ically organize th eir labor.

Un like th e co mmon ap proach u sed in mu ch ea rl y vernac ulars tudy - w here the artifact was first viewed , and then co nclusions about the peopl e we re dra wn from it - the investi ga tionis now b e in g initiated fro m the opposite direction . Forexa mple, Turan po sed th e follo wing que st ion in hi s book onve rnacular architecture: "Should a n un d ers tandin g of thefu ndament al n a tu r e of m an be derived from an a nalysis of thebu i lt envir o nm ent ;> Or , should an evaluat ion of vernaculara rchitectur e in its to t a lity be ~ a d ewithin th e framework of atheo ry of human na ture ?"69 Clearly, the answer de pends on

\ whether th e a rtifact i s ex tant and the soc iet y no t (as in th e case ofarc haeolo g ical exa mple s), or whether information about thesociety is ava ilable in hi sto rical documents or from th e peoplethemselves (an opportunity p rese nt ed to th e researc h er ofconte mpor ary informal se tt l em ents). It is no t surprising,therefore, that frameworks are now centered on comparisonsof th e societies in which th e form s of sp ontan eo us settlementsarise. Th e i mportan ce of th e form its elf has remained a nel eme nt of vernacular fra mework s, however; and it is preciselyth i s strength that studies of inform al settlement ca n r ecover ifviewe d prop erl y as a t ype of vernacular. Th e tools for h a ndlin gco mplexit y in soc ie ti es and in built environments are nowavailable to researchers if this route is taken.

REVISING OUR VIEW OF THE I N F O R M A L

ARCHITECTURAL OBJECT

Th e formulation of analytical framew ork s w hich enable anacc urate description and a mo r e co mpreh ens ive under st an ding of a va ri ety of types of built environment providesresea rch ers w ith the ch all eng e of taking th e interpret ation ofinformal se tt l ement s one stage further. A starting pointmu st be th e inclusion of such se t tl ement s within th e broadfamily of vernacular architectur e . Ho weve r , th ere are anumber of characteri s ti cs that qualify informal settlementsas a s pecial su b-typ e of ve rnacular , and which hav e delayed(and s till ca use opposition to) th eir entra n ce into the orbit ofvernacular ana lysis. Th i s partly a rises ou t of h e way vernac ularstudies hav e bee n done in the p as t , particul arly the te nd encyto romanticize vernac ul ar built form and ge nerali ze andoverstate it s appropriateness to ce rt a in physical and soc iocultural settings.

More va lid objec tion s to the inclu sio n of spo ntaneou s se tt l ements in the broad er investi ga ti on of traditional environm ents mi g ht arise from th e fact th at inform al settlements areusua lly lo ca ted in (o r ju x tapo sed wi th ) manmade " institu-

KEL LE n/NAPIER: SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE. 15

ti ona l" or "professional " environments , rath er than bein g locatedin natural env ironm ents. This situation allows a discu ss ion ofhuman culpability for th e conditions that pertain. This hasresu lted in the tar ge t in g of s tr u ctu ral a nd super- st ructuralcon dition s as being to bl ame for th e inad equate conditions,a nd in th e refusal by m any to admit the significance of pe rso nalchoice in shap in g responses to suc h conditions.

I t is important to acknowledge difference s in th e natur e of the"co ndition s of existence " (to u se Stea an d Turan's term)expe rien ced by th e in habitant s of traditional vernaculardwellings a nd in for ma l settlements . However, manyarche typica lly vernacu lar examp les have also been construc tedin s ituati ons of extreme constraint of narural origin, of tenleadi ng to praise for th e way people hav e efficie nt l y crea tedap propriat e forms in th e face of adversity. Th e fact th at urbaninformal se tt l ement s are co ns tr u cted in s it u ations of art i fic ialconstra in t - as well, som e time s, as natural cons tr ain t (poss ibly as a r esul t of ntentional physic al and social marginalization)- should len d as much intere st to th e study of the se housin gpr o duct s as previously developed in circumstances of onlynatural cons traint. Th e study of process should b e no lessthorough as a consequence; bu t eve n process ca nnot be understood pro pe rl y considering the myopia th at co mmonl y c haracte rize s views of th e informal dwelling. Clearly, th e directions in which soluti ons are sought to th e problems whicharise in natural and arti ficial se ttin gs will di ffer. Bu t th eproduct is no less worthy of s tu d y for bein g in a context w it han artificial, or structural, di m ension.

Th ere are, of course, other differences in co nstr a in t . Incont rast to th e relatively stable co ntext and slo w D arwin ianevo lution of tradition al vernacular environments,? o spo ntaneous se tt l em ents by d efinition h ave e me r ged a nd continue toexpa nd in condi tion s of considerable inst ab ility and are oftensubject to unce rtain r ap id change. To use Stea and Turan' s termaga in , th e" condition s of ex isten ce" (as well as ex terna l co nditionsof chan ge) in w hi ch such settlements are formed rarely rem ainsta tic. Th i s provides a further challenge in accommodating suchdimensions within a classificatory framework .

We have arg ued that sp ontan eo us settlement achieves its

di st inctiv e (i f varied) identity by r eferenc e an d contr as t withth e formal , in stituti ona l and lega l parts of cit y. Th e cri ti ca limportan ce of legal st a tu s as a factor of senlri ty of tenur e wasidentified by Turner ? 1 He propo sed a typolo gy of settlem entsin term s o f l evels of physical deve lopm ent and degree ofsec urit y of t enure , wh ich included fourteen possible stages ,rang in g from tran sient and tentative to comp lete and lega l.He beli eve d that security of tenur e was crucial to unlockingth e creative ene rg y a nd r esourc es of the squa tt ers, a nd in his


10/18

16 T D S R 6 . 2

case studies from Peru he showed how over a period of years,dwellings and settlements consolidated when security of tenurewas achievable. What is fascinating is that fully consolidated andlegalized settlements can become indistinguishable over timefrom conventional formal residential neighborhoods , despitetheir contrasting development trajectories ?2

TO WA R D A M U LT I D I M E N S I O N A L FRAMEWORK

It is clear that unidimensional frameworks are unable to copew it h the complexity and changing nature of such a broaduniverse, and this underlines the importance of comprehen-sive approaches . Using the ideas ofStea and Turan as a startingpoint, it is possible to construct a framework which expandsthe development levels of Turner and contains a series of

la ye red continuums and the relationships between them . I tshould then be possible to locate th e various characteristics ofa particular dwelling (o r groups of dwellings or settlements)at a point in time within this framework. Iflon gi tudinal dataare available, it should further be possible to plot change overtime. Key elements to consider in designin g the frameworkwould be the residents, or households; the dwelling an d howit is used ; th e processes through which the dwellers shape it ;and, perhaps most significantly, th e context or setting inwhich these actions take place .

A simple diagram, while setting out to be neither definitivenor conclusive, is helpful in beginning to make these group-

ings clearer. It will become evident that we have developedthis diagram based on certain of th e concepts of th e theoristspreviously reviewed 73 If we take as a starting point that thelevel of the study is th e dwelling and th e household (bearingin mind that these are located in th e larger context of settlements and societies, and that such studies can be entered atother levels), the accompanying figure represents these elements and their interrelationships (FIG. I) .

In th e majority of cases where people have shelter of somekind, the elements at the four "points" of th e circle arecoexistent through ti m e. Process , on the other hand -including design, materials acquisition, and cons t ruc t ion-happens, or assumes importance, for a family at distinct timesin the dwelling's life cycle (e.g., when creating, altering, orexchanging shelter). Process is the purposeful, modifyingaction of the household on th e dwelling. As such, it has manyqualities,74 one of which is th e way labor is organized to carryit and other tasks out. Referred to by Stea an d Turan as modeof production, this is different from "use," which is th e dailyactivity that takes place in an d around the dwelling and can bedefined as th e "consumption of form." 75

Householdin society

Use

- - - - P R O C E S S

Existential Context('conditions of existence')

Dwellingin settlement

FIGURE L HOllSehold and dwelling: key elelllents and ,'elationships.

I t is fundamental to this framework that decisions about and

actions to the dwelling filter through the user or th e user'sagent (the builder). Hence, when speaking of the setting ofthe dwelling, it is more proper to speak of th e existentialcontext, as filtered through th e experience of th e usersJ6Where th e users are closely involved in the "making of place,"or are participating directly in this process (as in manyspontaneous environments), the household as facilitator ofprocess is an especially important factor. "Existential context"is here equivalent to Stea and Turan's "conditions of existence," and includes th e following: a household 's societalcontext, suc h as relations with various social groupings (or"mediating communities"), including family groups, neighborhood groupings, and labor associations, as well as th e wider

political and economic conditions of th e society; and ahousehold's material conditions, including qualities of siteand climate and the household 's access to resources 77

"Households" described in terms of such qualities as the age,gender, opinions, beliefs and skills of members; "dwellings"with qualities of form, substance, function, meaning andlocality; as well as how household members "use" theirdwelling and the wider "context" in which they live should allbe seen as part o f an interrelated association which changesthrough t im e - gradually or rapidly, traditio nally or perhapstraumaticall y. Environmental factors and use cause deter ioration of the dwelling, and from time to time the users reshapeth e product, as th e y are undoubtedly shaped by it ?8 Even inth e most tenuous and constrained of circumstances theserelationships exist and can be studied, no t least in terms of howpeople in different places respond to adverse social and mate-rial contexts and how their built form might reflect suchadverse condition s.

If the time dimension is added, each of the four main elementscan be described as the y change in relation to each other, and


11/18

Household

their relationships and relative impact s on process and produc t ca n be discuss ed (F IG . 2) . Using these concepts, th i sproce ss and th e changing product whic h accompanies it canbe illustrated using examples. Th e who le picture can becaptured where con so lidation of the dwelling from an impermanent, initial sh elter to a more estab li shed, consolidatedhouse occurs.

To illustrate how th e model abov e may be used , we nowprovid e two examples from significantly contrastin g existential contex ts.

A LATIN AMERICAN SETTING:SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS IN S A N TA M A RTA

Th e Colombian c it y of Santa Marta is a region al capital on th eCaribbean coast, with an urban popu lati on approaching2 I I , 0 0 0 J9 A majority of th e popu lation li ve in settlement swhich began as organi ze d ille ga l in vasions of l and , th e first ofwhi ch date from early this century . In Santa Marta landin vasions appear to b e tolerated, and at time s encouraged ,becau se pow er f ul in t e rest groups in th e city benefit throughunequal cli en t -patrona ge relationships with the low-incomese t tl er populations .so Th e accompany in g phoro shows aninva sion settl ement six months af t er initia l occupation in1991 (FIG . 3) . Here the land was subdivided by settl e rs intoequa l plots follo w in g a convent ion al g ridiron layo ut , w ith

plots demarc a ted by simp le post-and-wire fences. The invasion a nd layout were done collectively, bu t the im proviseddwellin gs were constructed indi vidua ll y from th e most accessible and cheapest source, offcut s from a nearb y timbersawmil l. Mo st such se tt l em e nt s are consolidated rap id l y :within five years 8 0 percent of dwellings in a nearby settlement had at leas t one room co nstructed of p er manent material s ( usually h andmad e concrete block s w it h asbes to s-ce mentroof shee ts) .

LaterDwelling

KELLEn/NAPIER: SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE. 17

F IGURE 2. (LEFT) H OlISe and dwelling relationships

th rollgh time.

FIGURE 3. (BELOW) Santa Marta : a squatter settle-

ment six months after the initial invasion. Photo by

Peter Kell ett.

FIGURE 4. (BOTTOM) A group of empora,)' dwell -

ings ill the same settlement as shown in F glt1'e j.

Photo by Peter Kellett .

In cases such as that of Santa Marta the main function of theimprovised she lter in the early stages is ro est ablish claim overth e plot; and for th ose ab le ro begin co nsol idation th e sh elt ercan be regard ed as a bui lde r 's hut. In so me cases children andold er peopl e w ill rema in in th eir previous pla ce of res idence(perhaps with relatives or in a rental unit) until the dwe ll in gand infrastru cture are upgrad ed . To illustrate how thi s proce ssworks, th e dwelling in th e foregro und of th e next photo of th esettlement is occupied by a bus driv er and his w ife, who areboth in th eir early thirties, and their three childr en (FIG. 4) .


12/18

18 T O 5 R 6 . 2

They managed to obtain twO plots, and shortly plan to se llone to help finance th e construction of a dwelling in perma-nent materials. They bu y water from a wate r seller with adonkey cart, bu t obtain free electricity through illegal connections to the power li n es on th e main road. In addition toth e sing le-room shelter, they have exten ded the roof toprovide shade, as most daytime activities (coo king , was hin g,child care, etc.) tak e place outside. Although no t visible inthe pictute, trees have been planted to provide both futureshade an d fruit.

Not all such residents of spontaneous settlements in SantaMarta are able to consolidate. Single women with dependentchi ld r en , in particular, are rarely ab le to acc umulate sufficientsavings to bu y permanent building materials. For example,Este ll a separa ted from her partner whe n their two children

were small, an d she and her child r

en have lived in a singleroom dwelling since sh e joined an invasion two years beforethe accompanying photo was taken (FIG. 5). The dwelling isbuilt of timber and recycled asbestos shee ti n g, and measuredless than 14 square meters. Despite the violence of th e initialinvasion and subsequent hardships, she is positive:

My situation has improved became now I have what I didn't have

before - a home of my own. [Although 1 he work situation hasgot worse, I 1IlttSt thank God that I've got enough to eat. I came

here to have something of my own [so 1 I feel very content here inmy little house. You can live well in a home of wooden boards

especially ifit's nicelykept, and I' m aI-ways doing something. I'm

really so happy here: people ask me when am I going to rest fromknocking in nails and things , but I am so delighted to be here: I 've

never had a hOltse before!

Although the external appearance of the dwelling is rough andunattractive, its small internal space is carefully and thought-fully arranged . Small she lv es are filled with objects of personalsignificance, and se lect ed pictures are hung on th e walls. Thespace under the beds is us ed for storage, an d many ho u seho ldactivities take place outside.

In cities such as Santa Marra the change from improviseddwelling to fully conso lidat ed dwelling usually takes many

years, bu t in some cases it may be sped up if resourc es allow.For examp le , usin g capital accumu lated in Venezuela,Vespaciano Mejia bought a large plot two years after th ein vasion an d paid skilled laborers (from the same settlement)to do most of th e construction work (FIG. 6) . With one of hisbrothe rs, Vespaciano runs a motor mechanic workshop alongside th e house, and frequently the ho u se is full of produce thatthe family brings from th e co untr yside in his veh icle for resalein th e settlement. Th e house is home to thirteen people:

Vespaciano, his wife, five children, four younger brother s, hi smother, and a nephew. Th e house plan is typical of suchset tl ements. It follows a shared typological model, whi ch hasbeen ski llfully stepped to cope with a gently sloping site , andit includes distinctively curved walls between th e dinin g a ndliving areas. Ther e are th r ee bedrooms, a large central livingroom , a dining room, a kitchen, and a bathroom. Pattern edcurtains are used in doorways to provide visual privacy, bu talso to allow cross ventilation . All rooms are we ll furnished,painted, and ta stefull y decorated with religious and otherpictures. In terms of space standards and quality of finishes,th e house provides livin g conditions that are far superior tothose in the few social housing projects that have been constructed in Santa Marta, and th e house shares man y featureswith dwellings in private, formal areas.

Incontrast to squatt er houses such

asthose illustr ated above,private-sector houses in th e cit y are usually architect-des igned

for a developer (who may also be the archi tect) and built by acontractor to conform tei planning an d building regulations(FIG. 7). Houses in spontaneous set tl ements are illegal and arebuilt by a co mbination of self-help and paid labor (FIGS . 8,9).Yet, despite th e difference in pedigree and mode of production, th e dwellings in Figures 7, 8 and 9 sha re numerous design features: all are surrounded by trees - partly for shade,bu t also for decoration (and in th e squatter houses also forproduction of fruit and coconuts); a ll ha ve recessed andstepped entrances th at are centrally positioned with verandahs(incomp let e in th e case of the house in Figure 9); all h ave low

pitched roofs w it h walls painted in pastel colors; and all havefront areas that are sharpl y demarcated w ith low walls display-

.- .~ .1 -1 - - - - -~'; ~ .I . j ..... ' [

' ~. ' j . , ' . ~ . ' , ' . ' ". .':7'

,, . . ..., ~ . .- .

FIGURE 5. (TOP RIGHT)

Estella and her two

children inside their

hallie buill a/recycled

lIlalerials. Ph oto by

P ler Kellett.

FIGURE 6. (BOTTOM

RIGHT) PetrI of Ihe

wain living spctce of a

f"lIy comolidaleelelwell

ing. Photo by Peter

Kellett.


13/18

FIGURE 7. (TOP) A pri-velte mieldle-class dwellin g in SClIltClIHClrta . Photo by

Peter K ell ett.

FIGURE 8. (MIDDLE) A well- co llSoliela ted squa tter dwellin g. Photo by Peter

Kellett.

FIGURE 9. (BOTTOM) Th e ront of hi s sqltatt er dwelling is buil t in p erlllanent

ma terials f bllt the back is in imp rovised materia l an d has 1IIa11)1featll res 0/ r/t ra !

life. sitch CIS cookin g o/wood an d ree/ri ng of animals. A t e lection time . tbe tires were

paint ed ill the co lors o the /)a rty slt/)/)orted by the hOfSehold. Photo by Peter K ellett.

FIGURE 10 . (RIGHT) D urbcm: Bes ter 's Camp settlement il l Greater Inand a . The

evidence of he IIpgradin g exercise is visible i" the toil ets dotted 0 11 the hill side.

Photo by Mc",k Nctpier.

KELLEn/NAPIER: SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE. 19

in g a distinctive semicircular motif (th e car tires in Figure 9echo this motif and effectively carry ou t the desired function).Th e decorative railings in Figure 7 are a lso found in we llconsolidated dwellings in squatter areas . A significa nt differencebetween forma l and spontaneo us dwellings is, how ever, thepresence of garages and on-site parking in most formal housingareas, which reflects both lif e-style and in come differenti als.

A N A F R I C A N SETTING:

SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS A R O U N D DURBAN

Built around a lar ge, natural harbor on th e country's east coast,the Durban Functional Region (DFR) is South Africa 's secondlargest conurbation , with a popylation of approximately 3.8million peop le. Sprawling, informal housing areas form asemicircular belt around the city some 20 kilometers from itscenter. Over 40 percent of th e total population of th e region(1.8 million people) live in these "free -standing" informalsettlements 8 ' Th e city as a whole grew phenomenally in th e1970s: from 1 million people at the beginning of th e decade,ro 2 million by th e end. On e of the major complexes ofinformal settlement northwest of Durban is Greater Inanda.Th e 750,000 people presen tl y li ving there have through theyears been the sub ject of sporadic emergency responses by ci t yauthorities to th e need for basic services 82

Settlements in Inanda range from very early settlements likeAmaoti, estab lished before 1913,8) and those formed in the

19 70S that have grown incrementally over the years, to thosemore recently formed by invasion, like the Bester 's Campsettlement (FIG . 10). A study of Bester's Camp report ed in 1993that "Ma jor settlement took place in the Bester's Campv icinit y after the August 1985 upheavals in Inanda, largelythrough a series of land invasions th at fo ll owed. The 'greaterBester 's ' area has approximately 8,000 shacks w hich are hometo around 60,000 people." 8 This area has since been the


14/18

20 T D S R 6 . 2

subject of a major upgrading exercise, beginning with approaches to th e community in 1989 and culminating in anongoing project.

Observation of the architectural objects in th e settlements ofInanda reveals a number of common characteristics. Threemajor t ypes of wall construction are employed: a) wattle- andpole frame construction w it h sheet-material covering, including corrugated iron, plywood, or (in preliminary stages)plastic sheeting (FIG . I I ) ; b) a more traditional method ofwattle and daub (FIG. 12); and c) load-bearing concrete block(and sometimes mu d brick) . Most houses have corrugatediron roofs. Th e less permanent construction methods appear tobe linked to earlier stages in the settlement process, and morepermanent methods are indi f ative of more stable tenure andother "cond itions of existence." However, on observing the

older, initially less dense settlements like Amaoti, one can seethat more permanent conso lidated houses are interspersed withmore recent and impermanent dwellings (FIGS. 13, 14). Newersettlements, on the other hand , like Bester's Camp, have a morehomogenous, though impermanent profile. What is cle ar in thisAfrican example is that whole settlements of dwellings have notmoved as guickly and generally towards consolidation as theyhave in the Colombian example.

There are a number of possible reason s for the slower pace ofchange around Durban . Historically, the threat of removal bycity authorities has been a major consideration blocking households from more securely establishing their hold on the land .

This condition began to diminish slightly after 1985 , and moremarkedly since 1990. Th e way that th e city and regionalborders have been drawn by the authorities, imposing the "groupareas" structure, has also had an impact by circumscribing thechoice ofliving location. No t only this, bu t where in Santa Martapeople could be seen settling the land with the ai m of establishing permanent settlement,s) in South Africa the intentions andrationale are different. In Durban's free-standing informalsettlements almost half he people had lived in townshi ps s6 beforemoving to the settlement. Th e motivation for movin g out of heoften-overcrowded conditions in the townships was, for manypeople, the wish to start new households 87 with the hope ofeventually getting a formal house of their own . 8 Th e remainingpopulation of informal settlements are more recent in-migrant sfrom rural areas - meaning that some settlements , especiallyBester 's Camp, contained groupings with very different originsand traditions 89 Th e image of "transitional" societies 90 is auseful one for this context. Th e strategy has been to liveinformally in order to acguire, or increase one's chances ofacguiring, formal housing later. This expectation has beenheightened by the present prospect of a large-scale, nationalformal house-building initiative under the Mandela govern-

FIGURE II . (TOP) A

cOl'l"Itgated iron shack

built 01/ the edge of a

forllla! D urban tOWI/-

ship . Photo by Mark

Napier .

FIGURE 12 . (BOTTOM)

Traditiona! 1Ilud and

frame constrltction by

one of he more recent

bllilders in A metali.

From: Dmelr Bac/sha ,

"llllijondolo: A Photo-

grajJhic Esscty on Forced

Relllovais in South

Africa " (Durban

Afrapix , I98S).

ment. Such expectations have affected the form of houses andho w people ha ve be en likely to apportion their effort andlimited resources. A third possible set of explanations for th elack of consolidation has been proposed by theorists like AlanMabin w ho have studied the long-term circular migrationpatterns of people in South Africa. Th e issue is clearly complex, and simplistic explanations are inappropriate.

With no wish to impute a va lue to Durban 's informal dwell

ings which their inhabitants would no t share, it is possible topoint ou t that, for their very impermanence, these dwellingsare interesting in form and meaning. As in Santa Marta, theguality of interior decoration and furnishing (FIG. 15) , and thecare and delineation of areas surrounding th e house (REFER TOFIG. 13) are regarded as very important. In a climate wherecorrugated iron houses are uncomfortably ho t during the day,external space is used intensively (REFER TO FIG. 14) . Th erectilinear house form is most common, with the more traditional circular and dome forms being very rare. Give n thatapproximately 69 percent of adults in Inanda settlements wereborn in rural areas,9' this is surprising, but it could reflect boththe practical reguirements of accommodating furniture andthe constraints of corrugated iron as a roofing material, as wellas a wish to embrace a more urban way of life.

C O N C L U D I N G T H O U G H T S

Th e juxtaposition ofinformal and formal settlement in Durbanreflects more than a successful search for land close to kin andthe limited social amenities available. Among other things,


15/18

it may indicate an aspiration and a strategy towards acquiringformal she lter , or a long-t erm strategy for the survival ofgroupings of people who may be dispersed over wide areas . Ifth e forms of older dwellings were tracked through th e lastdec ades, the cont inued impermanence of form would illustrate th at th e relationships charted in Figure 2 do not inevitably create a deterministic path toward conso lid ated housing.Th e path of the dwelling through time and the action ofhouseholds in shaping their housing is not necessarily evolutionary in th e sense of mprovement toward some ideal. As has beenimplied, the reasons for this might be found b oth in the residents 'conditions of existence, where structura l forces have (by purpos eful action of authorities) kept the dwellings of the disadvan-

F IGURE 13 . (TOP LEFT) \Vattle-and-d cllb bOtse witb plywood olttbollse , Ama oti.

Fro", : Oma l" Bad sba , "Imijondolo: A Ph otogr" jlh ic Essay Ol For ced Removals in

SOllth Afr ica" (D ltrban Afrajli x, I9 85)

FIGURE 14 . (BOTTOM LEFT) Mat weaving next to an older dwelli ng repai red

with corrttgated iron sbeeting, Inanda. From: OJII"'" Badsba , "IlIlijo lldolo: A Pho

tograph ic Essay all Forced Removals in SOlltb Africa " (D urban Aji-apix, I985).

FIGURE IS. (TOP R I G H D Shack illlerior, Amaoti. Fr om: Oma r Bads ha ,

"Iwijo lldolo: A P hotographi c Essay all F orced Removals ill SOltb A frica" ( Dlfl"ban

Afr apix, 1985).

KELLE n/ N AP IER : SQUATTER ARCHITECTURE' 21

caged impermanent, and in th e strate g ies of households themselv es. Without a framework capable of describing such diale c

tics, our p icture wou ld be in compl ete.

Long-term living in condition s of im p ermanence and deprivation , where constraints dominate, as in the South Africanexample, might suggest that meaning and cu ltural expressionare manifested in unexpected and subtle ways. With only thepartially informed view of th e architectural object that presently characterizes th e study of spontaneous settlements, it isno t possible to understand how this might happen . Nor, wecontend , is it even possible to prop erl y understand process. Insome places , a tradition of building skills does seem to emergein settlements which ma y begin in th e most tenuous andthreatened of circumstances, and something recognizable a s a

"traditional " vernacular is born. It could be argued that whereth e path towards permanence is not taken , either by choice orbecause of constraint, or because of a mixture of the two, thestrategies developed by people to survive such situations leadalso to a type of vernacular, a language of building spoken bypeopl e excluded from the formalized , mystified language ofth e late - twentie th - century city. This is not to imply that theformal and informal are separate or independent in otherspheres. In fact , just the opposite is most often the case: theformal can be heavily dependent on w hat th e informal offersin terms of both labor and informal services, and the informalcan be highly penetrated by forma l interests. 92

In contrast to Sourh Africa, the institutional and economicconstraints in the Santa Marta context are weaker, and theesrablished informal ho u sing process is both a recognized andapparently effective housing delivery system, tolerated andsupported by official infrastructure upgrading projects. 93

Unsuccessful land invasions an d dwellings which do noteventua ll y consolidate are the exception; hence, expectationsof achieving adequate housing through this process are high ,even though for th e poorest and weakest the social costs can be


16/18

22 T O 5 R 6 . 2

hi gh . Relaxed constraints imply greater scope for choice. Th eexercise of such choi ce in housing ha s led to the adoption ofshared models (typologies, se lection of materia ls, sequence ofconstruction, etc.), bu t w ithin which consi derabl e varia ti onand indi vid ual expressio n rakes place. Many of th e observedva ri ations reflect n ot on ly income diff erent ials , bu t variationsin hou sehold structure an d life cycle, as we ll as diff ere ntcultural values refl ect in g regi on of origin. 94 All dw ellin gs areid en t ifiab le a nd distinctive, particularly int erna lly, although th ese tt l ements achieve a vis ual coheren ce through formalized str ee tlayouts, exuberant vegeta ti on , as we ll as th roug h a limit ed rangeof m ater ials and single-story bui ldi n g heights .

If we refer again to Figure 2, w hi ch indicates tran sformationth rou g h time (from temporary towards consol id ated dwellings in certain cases), it wou ld be possib le to add ot her c haracteristics: from single use to multiu se (e .g., toward incorporating in come -generating ac ti vit i es suc h as shops, works hops,and su bletting for rent ); ftom low density to hi g h density;from illegal to legal (if reg ul arized); ftom abse n ce of infrast ru cture to full infr as tr u cru r e; and toward inc reasing use ofspecialist cons tr u c ti on labo r. Considerable chan ges of formaccompany such changes and the incr eased co mple xity of use.For examp le, it is possible to ob serve a change from sing leroom dwellings to multi room d we llin gs, with incr eased definition and hierarchy of spaces; and from temporary to permanent materia ls ; ftom reliance on foun d, recy cled an d nat u ralmaterials to increas ed use of indu stri a lly p roduced ma t erials,frequently purchased from s mall- scale, informal-sector sup

pliers (e .g. , ce m ent, roofing shee ts , sanitary app lianc es , etc.).This illustrates again th e in t errel ations hi p between formaland informal goods and processes . I t s also poss ibl e to observea characteristic overlapping an d in t erpe netra tion in h ousi ng

forms , especia lly in the conso lidation process w hen many of theform s a nd layouts characte ristic of th e formal sector are achievedslow ly through increme nt al , informal means. Bu t formal pa tterns can a lso be detected from th e very begi nnin g w hen th ese tt l ement s a re laid ou t and constru cti on beg ins, eve n though th eprocess of transformation may tak e decades, and in some casesmay neve r be reali zed - at least not by th e original settlers.

Spontaneous or in forma l se tt l ement s have tr ad iti onally beendefined in n egat ive terms in r elatio nship to formal parts of thecity: absence of lega lit y, substand ard in terms of space a ndin frast ru cture, absence of permanent materials, etc. Effectively,in forma l se ttlem ents have achieved their identity through whatthey are not, or do not have , in comparison wit h th e formaL T hi sis illu minating , particularly as we have shown how in favorablecircumsrances th e conso lid at ion proc esses may be regarded as ag rad ual movement away from what are rega rded as in f orma lchatacteris ti cs toward increas ing form ali t y. However, such anin t erpre tation could lead to a co nt inuance of the invisibility ofthe bui lt forms of the earli er stages of set tl eme nt and conso lid ation, and to a denial of the va lid arch it ectura l expr ession wh ichcan undeniably exist. This paper suggests th at if we look f or suc hexpression, we will find it.

We have att empte d to demonstrate wh y and ho w we mustrev ise ou r view of spo nt aneo us settlements and attach appropriate importance to th e s tu d y of the built environment.When th e housin g obj ect i s restor ed to our analytical view, itallows us a f uller picture of th e de cis ion -making process of th e

inhabi tants, w ith the fu ll scope of possib le influence s w hi chmay have an ef fec t on the sha pi n g of that built form. Wi thinth i s sha rp ly focused p icture, th e dialectic of built form, env ironment and so ciety ca n be discussed respo nsibly .

REFERENCE NOT ES L Ther e ar e num erous terms to desc rib e thehousi ng of th e urban poor, but th ere is littl eagree m ent ove r d e finitions. In this paper we u se

"spontaneou s" a nd " informal " int erchang eabl y."Se lf -h elp " is frequ e ntl y synon ymou s w it h th esete rms , but it is a lso used to ref e r t o st at e-sponsored proj ec ts with dw ell er inv olvement."Sq uatter " will only be used in t he s pecific casesw here settl em ent occ u rs wit h out p e rmi ss ion, on

land owned b y ot h ers. We avo id t erm s s uch as"shant y" and "s lum ." For a di scuss ion ofdefi niti ons a nd term s, s ee A. Gi lbert and JG ugler , ed s. , Cities , Poverty and D eveloplllent:

tbe Analysis of U rban /sslles (London: Wi l ey, 1982),

1'.193. See , for exa m pl e, F. Ste inbe rg, "I nforma lH ousin g in the 'First ' World: Transferrin g'Th ird ' Wo rld Exp er iences)" Trialog 36 (1993),1'1'.5-13; and D. Hard y a nd C. Ward, Arcadiafo rAII: the Legacy of a iHakeshi/t Land scape (London:M ansell, 1984).4. The urban popu lat ion of Latin Am erica in1960 was 44 percent , a nd b y 1990 it h ad ri sen to

72 p ercent. See A. G ilb ert , The Latill AlIIericclIICity (London: Latin Am eri ca Bureau , 199 4 ), 1'.26.5. Gilbert and Gu g ler , Cities, Poverty andDevelopment, p.lO.rba nisati on in tbe Tb ird Worl d (Oxford : Oxford

U ni ve rsit y Pr ess, 1992), pp .121-23.2. J Hardo y, "Th e Buildin g of Latin Amer icanCities ," in A. Gilb e rt , eci. , U rba lli satioll in

ConteJllporal}' Latin America : C ritical Af!f!roacbes to

6. P. H arri son, Th e Third W orld Tomorr olV(H armondsworth: P eng uin, 1980), P.109.7. O. Lewis , Los Hijos de Sanchez: Alttobiografiade IIlIa Famil ia Mexicalla (Mexico: Edit o rial


17/18

Joaguin Mortiz, 1965); and La Vida: a P lIertoRican Fami!y in the CII!tltre of Poverty (New York :Vintag e Book s, 1968).8. Ot h ers who made influ ent ial co ntriburionsinclude Ot m Koen igsberger, Charles Smkes andCharle s Abrams.9 . J. Turner, "Dwellin g Re sources in LatinAmerica, " Architectltra! D esign 33 (August 1963);"Barriers and Channels for Ho u s ing Development in Mod ernising Countrie s,"}ollrna! ofAmerican Institllte ofPlanllers 33 (May 1967),PP.16 7-81; "Housing Prioriti es , SettlementPatterns , and Urban Deve lopment inModernisin g Count r ies,"} ollrnal of AwericanInstitll te ofPlctrmers 34 (November 1968), PP 354-63; "Th e Sgu art er Set tl ement: an Architecturethat Works," Architectltral Design 38, No.8(August 1968), PP.355-60; and H ousing by People:Towards Autonomy in Building En vironments

(London: Marion Boyars, 1976).

10. J. Turn er, "The Reeducation of a Professiona l," in J. Turner and R. Fichter, eds., Fr eedomto Build: Dweller Control of he H oming P rocess(London: Collier-Macm illan , 1972), P.131.II . Turner, "Ho using Prioriti es," P.360.12. P. Ward, ed. , Self-Help Homing: a C"itiqJle(London: Mans ell, 1982); and K. Mathey, ed.,Beyond Self-Help H ot/sing (London: Mansell, 1992).13. See, for exam ple, R . Bur gess, "Sel f-HelpH ousing Advocacy: A Curi ous Form ofRadi ca li sm ," in Ward, Self-Help Homing; H .Harms "Limit at ions of Self-Help," ArchitecturalDesign XLVI (1976); and E. Pradilla, E! Problemade la Vivienda en America Latina (Quim: Centm deInvestig aciones C [ U DAD , [983).

'4 . A. Hugu e, The Myth of Self-Help H oming: ACritical Allalysis of he Conventional Depiction ofShanty Towns (Stockholm: Royal In stitute ofTechnology, 1982).15. A well-documented exception is the supporthousin g program of Sri Lank a.16. S. Lobo, A House of My Own: SocialOrganisalion in the Squatter Settlelllel1lsof L illla , Pem(Tucson: University of Arizona Pr ess, 1982); andL. Lomnit z, Networks and Margille"ity: Life in aMexican Shetnlylown (Academi c Pr ess, 1977).17. F. Viviescas, "My th of Self-Build as PopularArchitecture: the Case of Low-In come Ho usingin Co lombian Cities," Open H ome Inlernalional,NO.4 (1985), PP.44-48. See also F. Viviescas,Vrb anizacion y Cittdad en Colombia: Vna CulturaPOl' Comlmir en Colombia (Bogota: Foro Nacionalpor Colombia, 1989).18. F. Viviescas, "M yth of Self-Bui ld," PA5.19 Ibid ., P46.20. Lisa Peart ie pmvides some illuminatinginsights on these issues by analyzing the "fragilebeauty " of the sguatter dw ellin g a nd placing itwithin a discussion of the aesthetic politics ofpopu lar set tl ements. L. Peat ti e, "Aest het icPoliti cs: Shantymwn or Ne w Vernacular'"

Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, Vol.3NO.2 (Spring 1992) , PP.23-32.21. B. Rudofsk y, Architecture wilhout A"chitects: aShort Introduction to Non- Pedigreed Architecture(Londo n: Academy Editions, 1964) ; an d ThePl'Odigiom Bllilders: Notes towards a Nalura! H istOl)'of Architecture (London: Seeker and Warberg,

1977)22 . P. O liver, D wellings: the HOHse across the World(Oxford: Phaidon Pr ess, 1987); D. Highlands,"W hat 's Indi genous' An Essa y on Buildin g," inM. Turan , ed ., Vemacu!ar Architecture: Pa radigmsof Environmelllal Response (Aldershor: Avebuty,

199 0 ).23. M. Bilgi D enel, "Maxims and Traditions:Anatolian Vern acu lar," in Turan, ed., VerJlacular

Architecture, P .165.24. See C. A lexande r , A Paltem Language. Towns.Buildings. Comtmction (New York: OxfordUniversity Pre ss, 1977).

25 . R. Lawren ce, Hot/sing, Dw ellings and Homes:D esign Theol)', Research and Pra ctice (Chichester:Wi ley, 1987), PP-41,15.26. R. Lawr ence, " Lea rning from ColonialHouses and Lifesty les," in Turan , ed. , Vemam!arArchitectllre, pp.219-257; and Hom ing , DlVellingsand Homes.27. E. Mercer , English Vernamlar H Ollses: Stl1dy ofTretditional Farl1lhomes emd Cottages (London:HMSO, [9 75), p.l; and R .W. Brunskill ,Traditional Bl1ildings of Britain: all IlIIroc!lIction toVernaC11!al' Architecture (London: Vi ctor Gollanz,1981), p.24-28 . A . Rapoport , "Spo ntaneous Settlements asVernacular D es ig n ," in C.V. Patton , ed.,

Spolllaneom Shelter: 11lIel'l1atioilai Perspectives alldProspects (Philadelphia: Temple University Press ,1988).29. Law renc e, Homing, DlVellings and Homes,

P-32 .30. Lawr ence, " Lea rnin g from Colonial Houses ,"

P25531. Lawren ce, Homing, D lVellingsand H omes, P.1532. Rapoport , "Spontaneo us Settl em ents asVernacular Desi g n ," P.53 .33 Ibid., P51.34. A. Rapop ort, "Defin ing Verna cular D esig n ,"in Turan, ed. , Vernac/l.lar Architecture , P.7l.35. Rapoport , "Spo nt aneo us Settlem ents asVernacular D esign," P.52 .

36 . Ibid., P.54-37. Alexander, A Pattem Language.38 . Rapoport , "Spontaneo us Settlements asVernacular D es ig n," P.55 .

39 Ibid ., P5940. Ibid ., p.63.41. Ibid ., P7342. P. Oliver, "Vernacu lar Know-How ," inTllfan, ed., Vel'1lClctt!ar Architecture, pp. 146-60;and D wellings.43. Oli ver, "Vernacular Know-Ho w."

KELLETT/NAPIER: SQUATT E R AR C H ITEC TU R E 23

44 . D. Stea and M. Turan , "A Statement onPla ce making," in Turan, ed., VernacularArehitectltre, pp.102-21.45. See the following sect ion.46. Oliver, "Vern acu lar Know -How ," P.158.47. See, for examp le, K. Gough, "From B ambooto Bricks: Self-Help H ousing and the Buildin gMat erials Industry in Ur b an Colombia" (Ph.D.diss. , Universi ty Co llege London, 1992); and R.Bllf gess, " The Limits of State Self-Help Ho u singPro g ram mes ," D evelopmentand Change, Vol.16No.2 (Apr il [985), PP.271-3I2 .48. P. Kellett, "Constructing Home: Produ ctionand Consumption of Popular Housing inNorthern Colombia" (Ph.D. diss., draft, 1994).Ot h er data from this stud y are discussed lat er inthi s paper.49. O liver, " Verna cular Know-How," p.160.50 . Stea and Turan , "A Statement on Plac emakin g"; and Placemaking: Production of Bl1i!t Environ

'lIellls ill Two Cultures (Aldershot: AvebllfY, 1993).51. Stea and Turan, Plaeemaking, p.lO .52. Stea and Turan , "A Statement on Placemak ing."53. Ibid., p.102.54. Definition by E.R. Wolf cited in Stea andTuran, P!acemaking, P.13.55. Stea and Turan, "A Statement on P lacemaking," p.121.56 . Stea and Turan , P!aeemaking, P.17.57. Stea and Turan , "A Statement on Plac ema king, " P. 1l7.58. A. Rapoport , "Thinkin g about Hom eEnvironments: A Con cept ual Framework ," in I.Altman and C.M. Werner, eds., Home Environments: H 1Iman Behaviour and Environment (New

York: Pl enum Pre ss, 1985), P.258.59. Viviescas, "M yth of Self-Build. "60. Stea and Turan , "A Statement on Pla cemakin g," P.1l4.61. Ibid., P.II5 .62. Ibid.63. Ibid., P1l7.64. This brin gs them closer to critics such asBurg ess, not least tbrough the use of "mod e ofprodu ct ion" as a basi s for analysis.65. Stea and Turan, "A Statement on Plac ema king," P.103.66 . Ibid., p.IO?67. R .R. Wilk, "T he Built Environment andConsumer Decision s," in S. Kent, ed., D omesticArchitectllre and the Vse ofSI)ace: An Intere/iscil)!i-11m)' Cross -Cultl1ra! Stl1dy (Cambridge: Cambrid geUniversity Press , 1990 ), PP.34-42.68. J. Kemeny, Homin g and Socia! Theory(Londo n: Routled ge, 1992 ).69. M. Turan, "Vernacu lar Design andEnvironmental Wisdom," in Turan, ed.,

Vernamlcl1' Architecture, P.19.70. Stea and Turan , P!aeemaking, P.17, suggestthat some ve rnacular soc iet ies ma y not be as

static as tbe y appear, and (hat some of th e most


18/18

24 T O 5 R 6 . 2

success ful vernacular architectur e is a pro du ct of

incorporating change into a preexisting framework.Thi s link s to their idea of societi es in tran sition.71. J. Turner, "Uncontroll ed Ur b an S e tt l ements: Problems and Polici es," in G. Br eese, ed.,Tb e City in Newly D eveloping Countri es (New

J ersey: Prenti ce H all, 1972), PP507-3472 . Th e issue of classific ation of settle m ent s isco mp lex. See , for example, R . Bur gess,"P ro bl em s in the Classification of Low -In co m eNe ig hbourh oods in Latin America," Third \V orld

Pl anning Review, VO!.7 NO4 (1985), PP287-306;and J. Salas, "An Anal ysis of Lati n A m er ica nAuto-Consrruction: A Plural and Ma ssPh enomenon ," Open Hom e I nternationa l , Vo!'1 3

NOA (1988), pp.2-11.73 . The work of Kemen y (H oming an d SocialTbeory) is pa rti cularl y significant.74. Rapoport has listed th em: Rapoport,"Spontaneous Settlement as Vernacular D es ign."

75 . Stea a nd Tu r an, P lacelllaking , p.lO .76. Thi s is w here Law ren ce's framework issl ig ht l y wea k . He lists nu merous aspects ofconcex t bu t underemphasizes that t he bu il

06.2b spr95kellet napier sml

Documents