Conclusion

by Christian Werthmann

Nine hours of presentations and discussions; nine speakers, four commentators, a curator, a dozen organizers and roughly 200 symposium attendants brought Metropolis Nonformal, Landscape, Urbanism and Infrastructure in the Global South to life. For two evenings and one full day the event pursued one question:

What are the contemporary modes of engagement for designers in nonformal cities?

My conclusion does not summarize the discussion, but will highlight a few repetitive themes that surfaced or were subcutaneous present throughout the symposium. Thereby I will abstain from going into issues that are commonplace in design such as the call for interdisciplinary approaches or the need for multi-scalar and multi-functional solutions (which is already understood), but rather focus on a few particular observances that need to be pursued in the future.

1. Informal Urbanism Has No Face
   As the morphological variability of informal cities proves, the physical and social structure of informal settlements is as much varied as in formal settlements. Globally, there are as much commonalities between nonformal settlements as there are differences. For example the spectrum of informal dwellings can reach from cardboard shacks to fully finished houses with running water, electricity, Internet and TV. Urban layouts can vary from nonlinear systems to laid out grids. Infrastructure can vary from dirt path to paved roads with sidewalks. Income can vary from extremely poor to solid middle class. In contrast to popular belief, there is no typical form or face to informal urbanism.
   
   
2. The Division of the City between Formal and Nonformal Is Inadequate
   In the design field there is an ongoing crisis of the vocabulary regarding urban phenomena. Especially dichotomies describing only the extremes of a wide spectrum can be obstacles in understanding and subsequently shaping the more nuanced relations and dynamics of a territory. For example the traditional dichotomies of “land” and “water” can lead designers to misunderstand and mis-design a territory that has to be thought of land and water at the same time, as it is the case in Mumbai's estuary (see Anuradha Mathur’s talk).
   Similarly one can detect a crisis concerning the vocabulary for nonformal urbanism. Although the term of non-formal or informal urbanism has gained wide support due to its non-derogatory nature, the massive phenomenon comprising one billion of residents is not be described satisfyingly. Oppositions such as “Formal” and “Informal” describe only the extreme ends of one very large spectrum thereby excluding the many different gradations, typologies between formal and nonformal. The seemingly random morphology and dynamic of informal urbanism can by closer inspection be driven by very well organized processes (f.e. community leaders), whereas the so-called formal city can be alternatively shaped by random and informal processes (f.e. corruption or political favoritism). There are territories that can be thought of formal and informal at once, such as undercover land deals where urban residents actually buy their lot from an illegal seller. Similarly as in the “land" and “water “ issue, designers have to be cautious when using the words “formal” and “informal”. Instead they have to develop specific terms for specific urban territory.
   As a side note: no direct solution was offered in the symposium concerning the terminology crisis. Therefore this text still uses “informal” in lieu of a better word well knowing that the terminology is imperfect.
   
   
3. The Modes of Engagement Have To Go beyond the Neighborhood
   The terminological segregation between informal and formal neighborhoods can lead designers to focus mostly on the problems inside a low income neighborhood. This areal approach has been the practice in many informal city upgrading programs in the past. In contrast, future upgrading programs could improve the interaction between low income communities and their whole urban territory, if formal or informal. Instead of an area focus, dendritic strategies should be applied to improve infrastructural, economic and ecological systems such as water, energy, transport, food, industrial production and recreation throughout the whole urban terrain (see the talks of Gabriel Duarte and Alejandro Echeverri). For example, landscape and culturally cognizant models for water management on a Metropolitan scale could lead to a positive impact on low-income neighborhoods as an integrative part of the whole watershed (see the talks of Fernando De Mello Franco and Anuradha Mathur).
   
   
4. The Mode of Engagement is Directly Correlated to the Political Milieu
   The presented modes of engagement reached from micro strategies to large urban renewal projects. In the planning community it is common wisdom that the best strategies combine micro with macro approaches in order to be effective on multiple scales (probably best executed in the miracle transformation of Medellin presented by Alejandro Echeverri). Upon closer inspection, it became clear that the chosen mode of engagement is not the designer's choice, but almost entirely driven by the micro and macro-political context. Therefore a project cannot be judged by its close adherence to ideal planning principles, but by the degree how well it navigates a given political situation. For example, a micro-strategy that is employed in a massive informal city quarter such as Kibera (Nairobi) may lack large-scale coordination, but cannot be criticized for it. In Nairobi the political ruling class disallows profound structural change, therefore forcing the designers to pursue a “stealth” strategy (see the talk of Arthur Adeya). In most cases where government is absent or ignorant, well calculated localized interventions that are easy to fund and that can be incrementally implemented can be the only viable modus operandi for a designer to create a bigger impact over the long term (see also the talk of Flavio Janches and Haris Piplas).
   
   
5. New Modes of Community Participation Have To Be Found
   It is undisputed that nonformal residents have to be deeply embedded in the design process for the improvement of their neighborhoods. However there is a wide spectrum of opinions how community participation is structured. It can take over half a decade to gain the trust of a disenfranchised community, - a time frame that stands in contrast to the shorter turnover periods of design contracts and political leadership. It became evident that alternative models of participation need to be further explored that go beyond the standard community workshop with crayons on paper rolls. For example new creative financing models could empower low income communities to steer their own communities through the select investment of union pension funds in businesses of the nonformal sector. Or, strategies could be developed to harness the power of worldwide youth cultures such as rap and hip-hop to include the overwhelmingly young population of informal neighborhoods in the redevelopment processes. Eventually these new creative modes of community involvement have to be deeply integrated into the design process (see the talk of Phillip Thompson).
   
   
6. Proper Modes of Engagement for Designers from the Global North Have To Be Explored
   In general European designers and academics are concerned about many questions regarding their involvement in the global South. Can designers provide socially and culturally appropriate solutions in cultures they know little about? Is there a danger that European city models are forced onto other contexts resulting in a new form of design imperialism? Is it even possible that a designer can earn the trust of a low income community thousands of kilometers away? Is there even a role for designers of the global North or should they rather stick to their own culture?
   
   In the final discussion of the symposium the designers from the global South had some interesting advice for their European colleagues. The Nairobi landscape architect Arthur Adeya noted that the input of outside designers is highly critical in the cities of the global South. As an example he explained that his North American colleagues developed in Kibera innovative strategies that he alone could not have conceived. He felt that he was too entrenched in his own culture following traditions that disallowed him to think out of the box. Adeya also reported that community workshops with his foreign partners were more successful, because his partners were not seen as part of special interest groups or political faction. Residents trusted the outsiders more than their fellow Kenyans. Along these lines Anuradha Mathur also warned against the abstention of designers in foreign contexts. Immense metropolitan areas will form in the coming decades in the Global South; design and planning will be in high demand to engage problems of water, food and infrastructure that can only be tackled through an international exchange of design ideas.
   
   As we know international design practice is already an integral part of many design firms. European and North American design offices increasingly pursue global projects, - some of them support substantial parts of their operations with foreign contracts. In the moment these commissions are mostly in formal areas of the city, but given the global proliferation of informal urbanism this will change. Especially when it comes to master planning in larger metropolitan areas designers will have to deal with all levels of society, thereby an expert knowledge about designing for low income communities is necessary. If this expert knowledge is not developed in the coming years the design profession is in danger of serving only the privileged and not the whole of humanity.