Masterplanning the Adaptive City

Mexico, and San Diego. A well-known illustration is that of Casa Familiar, which
through the involvement of local communities came up with a new mix of types
and uses that challenged very directly the existing regulations and institutional
arrangements for housing provision. It is precisely this articulation between local
social practices, a design strategy, and the redesigning of rules which propels
these experiences beyond site into the realm of urban transformation. 
At an intermediate urban scale there have been many very interesting
experiences, providing the best examples of attempts at implementing integrated
projects of a multidimensional, multisectoral, and multiscalar nature. The
paradigmatic case is Favela-Bairro in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil—a slum upgrading
program for settlements of up to 2500 families. It combined the provision of
infrastructures of connectivity, the introduction of services, and the requalification
of the public realm with the production of housing for those residents that needed
relocation, the provision of clinics and educational facilities, and job creation
initiatives. In spatial and design terms it placed particular emphasis on the
treatment of the edges of the sites and the articulation with the surrounding areas
by overlapping the infrastructures of access and circulation with public spaces
and the introduction of new services. 
At the very large end of the spectrum of interventions within the informal 
city are examples such as the upgrading of the favela Rocinha in Rio de Janeiro,
with a population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants, or, even more
striking, the proposals for the upgrading and redevelopment of Dharavi, a large
slum in Mumbai, India, with a population of almost one million inhabitants. The
challenges posed by these types of sites are much more complex and require a
combination of spatial tools. The proposal of HOK for Dharavi is very interesting in
its attempt to combine masterplanning with a flexible approach to progressive
development and upgrading.
What these experiences have in common is that, whether small or very
large interventions, they are all projects formulated within conditions of almost
complete informality, often only connecting spatially with the formal city at the
edges of their sites. A new generation of large projects has emerged in the last few
years, however, which explicitly addresses large territories encompassing a variety
of informal and formal conditions. We believe that these projects pose bigger
challenges, but also carry much greater potential for transformation at the scale 
of the city. This is the case not only because these territories are much more
representative of the city condition as a whole in their multiple articulations of
informal and formal, but also because the resolution of the challenges they pose—
institutional as well as spatial—connects more explicitly with the scale of the city.
Some recent instances of this type of project have been driven, not accidentally, by
the introduction of large transport infrastructures. The Metrocables of Medellin 
(by architects Edison Escobar and María Patricia Bustamante) and Caracas (by 
the Urban Think Tank) are interesting examples. Another project of similar scale
and complexity is the Complexo da Mangueira (by architect Jorge Jáurequi) in a
central zone of Rio, which encompasses favelas, large transport infrastructures,
significant sports facilities such as the Maracanã Stadium, green areas and parks,
formal residential areas, commercial amenities, and many important institutions. 
At the core of all these experiences lie, in our view, three central challenges.
First, the need to combine with great flexibility and sensitivity the preservation of
46
JORGE FIORI

---

many of the qualities of the informal with the eradication and redevelopment 
of conditions that are socially and economically undermining and ethically
unacceptable. This is a fine, complex and often extremely conflictual balance to
achieve, as it touches on a variety of entrenched positions and interests. Second,
the need to formulate spatial strategies that can enhance the productivity of the
territory, since low productivity is not only a defining feature of the informal but
one that is directly associated with the conditions of deprivation and poverty
within the informal. Here, questions of connectivity and articulation of multiple
economic scales is central to any lasting increase in productivity. Third, and 
most important, there is the need to develop spatial strategies that engage very
explicitly with the politics of institutional transformation. The articulation of spatial
design with the redesign of urban political institutions and regulations is an
unavoidable challenge, and the cornerstone of any spatial strategy that aims to
contribute to the creation of inclusive cities capable of accommodating a variety 
of logics of city production, appropriation, and use.
The examples given here are not in any way intended to provide an
illustration of best practice, rather they show the range of what has now become a
vast and rich experience of designing for and with the informal city. Not only have
the tools of design been insufficiently analyzed, but the impact of these integrated
projects and their spatial strategies has not been assessed in any meaningful
manner, not least because the methodologies of impact assessment are too
limited to give an account of the complexity and multiplicity of levels and scales 
of impact. We believe, however, that almost two decades of projects for the
informal city, in contrast to prior responses, reflect the emergence of a different
understanding of site, of context, of connectivity, of scale, and of the articulation 
of design with the productivity of the territory, with the social organization and
mobilization of informal producers and dwellers, and with the politics of
institutional redesign.
It is in line with this belief, and with the arguments formulated here, that the
AA research cluster on Urbanism and the Informal City has identified the
questions we consider central to uncovering the potential of such projects:
•
What is the place and role of design in addressing the scale of the informal
city and of the social needs associated with it? 
•
What is specific about designing for, with, and in the informal city? What are
the appropriate tools, instruments, and methodologies of design?
•
In what ways does design contribute to the research, analysis, and
understanding of the informal? 
•
How does design contribute to enhancing the productivity of a territory? 
•
How does design articulate with the redesigning of urban institutions and
political processes in the city? 
NOTE
1
> This text presents a condensed version of the introduction to the symposium of the same
title, organized by the AA research cluster on Urbanism and the Informal City, which took place in
February 2012. The research cluster is coordinated by Jorge Fiori, Elena Pascolo, and Alex
Warnock-Smith. 
47
INFORMAL CITY

---