DPU60 Day 2 – Informality, contestation, pragmatism and the urban imperative.

Day two of the conference provoked a series of interesting talking points, among which were: informality as a way of contesting the city; calls for counter-narratives to prevalent practices in urban design; the need to separate a one-project approach from a more integrated and systematic approach to city planning; the differential merits of applying overly pragmatic approaches to planning and urban development discourses; and why we need to think of cities as urban planners and not simply as as development experts if we are to enact real change at the local level beyond the SDGs in 2015.

Approaches to urban equality and informality in the cities of the global south

The opening session of day two focused on issues of urban equality and informality in the global south. With a focus on different regions, speakers discussed urban circumstances in Egypt, India and Ecuador. An overarching theme of the session was in reconstituting the relationship between people and the city in different ways. This was reflected in Omar Nagati’s talk which discussed the changing nature of the public spaces appropriated by street vendors, and how activists have contested and reoccupied certain parts of the city in Cairo.

Sheela Patel particularly talked about informality and how to incorporate exiting ‘informal’ practices into formal regulatory frameworks. Emphasising the importance of a strategic approach to planning that addresses long term goals, not by simply resolving immediate concerns in a step-by-step process, Diego Carrion talked us through several infrastructure projects at different scales in Quite, Ecuador. Discussant Pushpa Arabindoo stressed the importance of forging better links between pedagogy and practice especially when theorising an understanding of informality – something very central to the vision of the DPU.

Participation and contested practices in urban design and planning: Rights, needs and urban imaginaries

A fascinating discussion about urban design followed in Session 3 that ranged from very grounded case studies to more theoretical articulations of urban design as a disciplinary practice. Soomsook Boonyabacha advocated people-led development solutions at the city-wide scale as an alternative to simply isolated urban projects. She drew on her experience with ACHR and CODI to suggest how this could be done, but she sees a need for new financial mechanisms to support these alternatives. Focusing on a specific city case study, Jane Weru presented the challenges faced by many urban dwellers in Kenya in fighting against land speculation and the dominance of wealthy landholders, but also the inflexibility of the statutory legal system.

‘Practicing Dissensus’ was the title of Camillo Boano’s presentation. He spoke of the need to rediscover the potential of urban design, which has been ‘capitulated to the developer’ in many circumstances. Jane Rendell, the discussant for the session echoed Camillo’s calls for subversive urban practices and counter-narratives, where dialogue at these points of disagreement can foster productive outcomes. The plenary discussion continued to unpack these issues, and particularly ‘unlearning’ as a means of breaking away from the dominant discourses that define the boundaries that need to be crossed.

Forging New Relationships in Governance and Planning: State, Market and Society in a Post-Economic Crisis World

A common theme from speakers in Session 4 was that urban projects cannot be thought of one by one, but must be packaged or conceived in relation to one-another. Antonio Estache opened the session with an analysis of lessons from Public Private Partnerships. With infrastructure demands still huge and urbanisation rates higher than they were 25 years ago, he suggested that PPPs have not done as well as many expected, and that greater realism is required in fitting PPPs in with urban strategies. Peter Brand drew comparisons between Bogota and Medellin, contrasting Bogota as a socially just and multicultural city, versus Medellin as a spectacle city – a government export project. The critique of Medellin suggested that as such it shows off poverty, rather than necessarily addressing it in a holistic way. He finished by asking if, as planners, we standing on the glossy surface of capitalism, or the foundations of ethical and social concerns.

Lawrie Robertson presented the challenge of the ‘strategic planning equation’: meeting the rising social aspirations of urban residents. He sees three present themes in urban development, from the perspective of city managers: to ‘grow faster’ in order to remain internationally competitive; to ‘spend now’ through the involvement of private sector in development; and ‘localise’ through the decentralisation of responsibilities. He finished with a call for us to seek out pragmatic and effective solutions, which echoed the other speakers. This was picked up by discussant Mike Raco, who sees the term as devoid of substance as it claims to remove ideology and politics from the equation. He went on to question where social movements and the democratic voice fit into this call for pragmatism in urban governance, asking ‘do you have to be a technical expert to be political?’

Urban Development and Development Assistance

In the final presentation of the day Dr Joan Clos, the Director of UN Habitat, looked ahead to Habitat III. He identifies the event as coming at a critical time: post-SDGs; responding to the latest conversations on climate change; and to the continuing challenges posed by urbanisation. It will therefore be the role of the Habitat conference to discuss how to incorporate this broader thinking in cities at the local level. Part of the agenda is UN Habitat’s proposal for National Urban Policies and related Local Urban Policies.

David Satterthwaite followed, asking how can we make aid work better for the poor? He bemoaned the fact that fewer international agencies and development banks have urban sections than 30 or 40 years ago, in spite of the widely understood importance of combating urban poverty. If ‘the urban’ features prominently on the post-2015 agenda, he sees this as representing a sea change. This would have important knock on effects for local governance working with urban poor groups in the co-production of knowledge and service delivery in support of better city planning. He stressed that at present this remains an ‘if’.

The discussion continues tomorrow!

For bios of all of the speakers taking part in the conference, please visit: https://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/dpu60/dpu60-conference/speakers

You can read more about the conference via our website