Following up on our reading of Naomi Klein's chapter, we're going to look a little more deeply at the notion in inclusion and exclusion in cities this week. While Klein paints a fairly dire picture of what happens when populations fall (or are pushed) outside of the care and control of the government, Robert Neuwirth's work on "Squatter Cities" looks through a somewhat different lens to explore how some populations have survived and even thrived outside the law. We will spend some time on Tuesday and Wednesday thinking about what makes a "squatter" neighborhood and, inversely, what makes a "legitimate" neighborhood. So, as you read the chapters for this week (the Prologue and chapter 1 on Rio), think about what makes a squatter. How do we understand that term and, for Neuwirth, why should we consider these areas "squatter cities" rather than calling them "slums"? What do you think he is trying to express with this distinction?
Also consider what materials Neuwirth draws on to inform his readers about squatter cities. How is his evidence different from that of Raj Patel in Stuffed and Starved?
In the chapter on Rio, Neuwirth presents us with a series of characters and situations that tell the story of life in Racinho. How does this story reveal a tension (with benefits and drawbacks) to the neighborhood's status as an "illegitimate" part of the city? What are the benefits and drawbacks for the people living there? Based on Neuwirth's presentation, would you want to live in a squatter city?
Finally, we will also focus a bit this week on the difference between "asfalto" and "mutirao," so pay attention to what these words mean and what the implication of an encroaching "asfalto" is for the citizens of Racinho.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSquatters are locations in which people start constructing their homes. These locations are not legally places in which people can live. Squatters are developed by people that can't afford to rent a place to live or buy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Neuwirth "They build their homes on undesirable places allowing them to disappear from the public". This shows that the conditions in squatters’ neighborhoods are not good. People have to live under unsanitary conditions without electricity and water. People have to develop their own resources.
The government doesn't take any role in squatter neighborhoods. According to Neuwirth people living in squatters; have the challenge of organizing on how to engage in the political system. Despite the people interest the government doesn't show any interest in squatter neighborhoods. Neuwirth shows how officials developed a scheme to destroy squatter communities. In order to create a developing city.
This action is absurd to me since squatters can be consider developing cities. With the difference that there is no government interference. Squatters have developed good houses and business that are similar to legal neighborhoods. "International state and local government have refused to provide services to squatters". This situation contributed to an increase of crime. Drug dealers were the ones that took control over the protection of the squatters.
The difference between a squatter neighborhood and a slum is that squatter communities are able to develop and improve. In the contrary slums are not able to have high improvements due to disease, criminality, abuse and fear. The people from slums are more vulnerable to take drastic actions for the development of slums.
Based on the reading I was able to see that mutiroes are people from the same societies or family members. That helps each other build houses or new projects. Asfalto are big businesses that are able to buy smaller business .Which contribute to the expansion of the economy outside from the squatter neighborhoods.
I would like to say this book is very interesting and i actually enjoyed reading it. Squatters are areas where people move for the reason of bettering their lives for an affordable price however they build on land they didnt pay for and dont own. People in Squatters usually start by building their own houses or maybe even renting a home from someone else if the squatter they are in is more devoloped. I think what makes a squatter a squatter is the freedom you have from the government controll.
ReplyDeleteI think Neuwirth consider these place squatters instead of slums because the people there work very hard for what they have or make. The homes might not be the best but the people take pride in what they do have. Also they try to build the community up and improve it but to me in the slums the people dont try to improve their living conditions they just leave it how it is. People in the squatter cities build plumbing, start cable networks and bring electricity to the community.
I think some of the draw backs of living in a squatter city is that you might not have as much as other places right away. I think one good thing about squatter cities is that there is less crime and the people get along well.I dont know if this is a good thing or bad thing but the government doesnt get involved with squatter cities which leaves the squatter people to start their own commitees.
Based on the readings i would say i probably wouldnt want to live in an undeveloped squatter city. However in the beginning of the book Neuwirth said that the Rockaways in Queens N.Y. is a squatter city and being that I was born and raised there, I guess im from a squatter city after all.
Neuwirth wants us to understand that squatting is a movement with a long history - it's hard not to get the sense, though, that it's a phase that cities in the developed world moved through and overcame as they grown. Squatting means basically to raise a building in a certain place without any permission nor right to do that. In fact, this practice is often practiced by the poorest. As a result, big cities acquire new neighborhoods. Conversely, these squatters are build for cheap with some dubitable materials and reminds nothing but rubbish. No one can talk about electricity, water and gas accommodations in houses made of waste products. By it looks and by it have-nots inhabitants, such places are called "slums" by the majority of us. "The true challenge is not to eradicate these communities but to stop treating them as slums - that is, as horrific, scary and criminal - and start treating them as neighborhoods that can be improved. They don't need to be knocked down and built new, because in most cases this will only produce housing that is not affordable to the people who are living there." And Neuwirth knows what he's talking about. He spent a lot of time in slums. Spending time in these communities has shaped his conviction that urban planners, NGOs and city governments need to stop thinking of squatters as outlaws and to start thinking of them as productive fellow citizens. Of course the productivity and benefit from such poor, neglected and suspicious individuals may be doubt and put on a question. But Neuwirth bears the witness of their lives organization and tries to persuade his reader that squatter residents are working hard to improve their misery lives. They usually succeed in building a firm community inside the walls of their favelas. And thus, without any interference, support and help of any governmental structure. Yet, the government denies their legality at their places and in every possible ways disband squatters. The only way to not be pursued by the law, would be to get hold of ownership over the land that they occupy. But that issue is extremely expensive for the impoverished and tend to be only favorable for the wealth and their legal, self-owned, proprietorships. The only opportunity to rescue the disfavored from that situation and erase such things as slums and squatters, would be to organize an effective support - construct shelter housings, organize social help, make the right of propriety more accessible to everyone and dissolve the word "commodity" from dwelling...
ReplyDeleteSquatter cities are cities that are located within Cities. People who lives in Squatter cities offten builds homes on a land that they don't own. It's an whole community of people who created or build cities and homes on an illegal property, without outsiders knowing. According to Robert Neuwirth there are one billion squatters globally that is, about one in every six people on the planet living on Squatter city and by 2030 the number of Squatters will double, there will be about 2 billion Squatters by that time. The big reason after the increase of Squatters is that they can't afford to purchase land or can't or they dont want or they like to live on certain areas, usally Squatters are poors they barely have jobs or make money or they even can be people who loves to live in quiteness and don't like dealing with goverment, they just find the ways to live their best. Neuwirth also states that Squatters makes their homes more better and strong then what goverments makes. Squatters have created an huge hidden economy without an official systems. There are Squatter landloards and Squatter tenants, Suatterer merchants, laborers, consumers bokers, investors, teachers, Squatter schoolkids, Squatter beggers and even Squatter millionaires. The Squatter community is very diversed, it has mixed cultured and people with similar financial status. Squatters find secret ways to get the resources they need for their community, like stealing Electricity, clean water and other technoloy they need for their community. Each country has a Squattered city. The Squatter community are also divided from the more wealthy community from the poor communities. The story Neuwirth tells us with a series of characters and situations in Racinho and life style of Squatter people who lives is there. This is a very different life style compared to the life in city, there are so many people living under proverty that they have no money, no job, no good home,no food, no clean water, no education and they live in very dirty place. This is so dissapointing to modern life style that some places in the world people are still living like the old ages where there was no technology or education, like the Squatters in Racinho.The way I think is that this is a new kind of goverment because the actual goverment of a country failed to look after their people so people started self goverment to get a good life style that they can have even if they can't afford it, they still have a place to live.
ReplyDelete- Saliha Lipi
We've recently discussed the term "Squatter Cities" in different demographics of the world. We've taken the time to actually think about what it could mean, how it's defined in many other people's eyes and what does it take to actually call a rural or urban area in fact a squatter city or slum. Squatting is the term used to describe those large groups of individuals that move to an area with the intent of reshaping and remodeling their lives and place of living without actually having the means to pay for the land or area they occupy within. It becomes more so on a self governance proposition where these individuals take their fate and their actions in their own hands without the interference of the government or it's officials. Ruling out the opportunity of the government actually paying the expenses of the land which differs to the idea of what makes a neighborhood legitimately a community. Normally rural or urban areas have the advantage or opportunity of promoting from within meaning they have businesses that excel from beyond their starting point. They have a mass population of individuals that live in rural and urban areas dealing with government involvement in their lives. Squatter areas are normally poor rural settings with a lack of infrastructure that allows the land to function and go about smoothly without running into destruction or cause worry to it’s people; Slums are as well poor areas but their characterized as favelas and shanty towns that are usually more overcrowded urban areas experiencing the most extreme conditions of poverty, crime and decayed or neglected housings.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between squatters and slums is slums hold a negative conception of it's inhabitants and it's role in the world, squatters on the other hand are areas ran by individuals from the ground up with no outside dictation by the government. They live by no rules and their residents live by any means necessary to the best of not only their knowledge but what may seem acceptable and affordable for not only themselves but their families as well meaning whatever progress they make it is so how they are labeled and characterized in the world.
I think what Neuwirth is trying to depict is he’s trying to paint a picture of how similar the two appear to be in society and because of their keen identical nature, Those of us that are fortunate enough to live in areas that may be outside of the slums and squatters can gain an idea of how exactly they not only function but how the people that do live there exceed undesirable measures and stay alive.
Squatter cities are the places where people of lower class start to build houses on a barren or undeveloped land, away from the cities. Squatter cities encourage people with less opportunities and jobs to live in there because they cannot afford to live in big cities. It also helps individuals those who cannot survive in legal cities by provided them opportunities inside the society. The fact that squatter cities are illegal therefore residents of these places do not have excess to the basic resources such as clean water and electricity. In this situation residents of squatter cities have to struggle and arrange for their needs which create the ability of self- governance in them.
ReplyDeleteNeuwith discusses that squatter cities are not given much importance by the government instead government want to get rid of the these underdeveloped places, in this regard they make plans and schemes which helps them to clear up the land and make a high class housing societies which can bring them big profit.
Also, Neuwith argues that the lack of interest in the squatter cities by the government create a sense of exclusion in the individuals which leads them to live isolated for the government and legal cities. Despite, the fact that squatter cities are excluded Neuwith talks about the difference between the slum and squatter cities. According to him there is not much difference both are ignored and are deprived of the basic necessities of life but squatter cities have ability of construct in developed cities and the crime rate is also less whereas, slums are the dirty places where diseases are wide spread and crime rate is in abundant.
Therefore, Neuwith is trying to show us the difference between the ways of living of individuals in a society because there is a notion of exclusion and inclusion on the basis of power and approach. Those who have sustained a position in the society are given all the facilities but those who cannot survive in the society are ignored and pushed away from the society.
Robert Neuwirth makes his argument trying to convince his readers that there is a difference between a squatter city and a slum. Calling a place the slums is like describing the place to be run down, no safety, and dirty. These people have nothing and aren’t doing things to make their lives better. Neuwirth wants Racinho to be seen as a squatter city because they have better characteristics than a slum. The citizen of Racinho build and places to live on land they don’t take claim to. They have no government interference. Also they use all of their natural resources for free. They take water and use electricity when they please. These ways are improved by being in a squatter city. I can see why Neuwirth is trying to portray this argument. He wants people to understand these cities rather just judge it by what they see. Neuwirth has experiences in Squatter cities. He has traveled to different places and studied these squatter cities. He uses his experience rather than Raj Patel that uses facts. Neuwirth draws upon his own findings.
ReplyDeleteNeuwirth presents squatter cities as not a great place to live but it is livable. Many people have been able to survive there. There are many benefit and drawback to living there. Most benefits he reveals are having land to live on without the stress of paying bills and dealing with government issues; like taxes and bills. They get the same resources as someone that claimed their land from the government. Those are just a few benefits. But there are also drawbacks, bad conditions to living in a squatter city. These conditions would be that there is no law among them, the people are free to do what they want, but then not everyone is safe. He does go back and forth on how these benefits and bad conditions can be seen as both, the benefits as bad and the bad as benefits. Even how Neuwirth tries to portray squatter cities as a benefit I wouldn’t live there. I wouldn’t be able to adapt to such a place. I’m the kind of person the works hard to not be in a bad situation. I wouldn’t want to cheat the government and just live anywhere. I like nice and proper things. And even if that was the only life I knew I would see other surroundings and want better for my future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the book “Shadow Cities” Robert Neuwirth describes what he considers to be the cities of tomorrow because of the findings in his research of squatter cities. Many people migrate to the cities because they are seeking an area were they can adapt to based on their circumstances which is what many of us here in the states consider to be extremely dire; for the people of these communities it is a way of life and functional. In the area of Nairobi, people a subjected to a system that considers them tenants and they are buying the rights to construct and live in mud huts that belong to the government, limiting their abilities to construct their homes. The problem with this is that property rights can create debt and eviction and with little means made for a living already it is easy to see how many people end up moving to different areas because the do not have the means but more importantly the liberties as other squatter cities do such as Mumbai. The residents of Sanjay Gandhi Nagar own the plot of their land as a cooperative society and this allows them more of a guarantee to remain in their homes or provide options that they themselves can govern. They cater to a middle class through service industry and can navigate within the cities environment by accessing electricity, water and small businesses. The chapters were very descriptive on the daily lives of individuals residing in a squatter city. As for the question if I could live there depends on if I had to, not having a choice I would have to adapt to my environment. It’s a possible thought that it could be a state of mind over matter like how Neuwirth points out on what we consider a notion of wealth ; our perception, he explains how freedom to live and function in a way you want without any government policies is a form of wealth for many people living in these cities. They develop there own communities and are able to refrain from property rights that could lead them to debt and evection and if they are capable of building a city that generates jobs and a standard (may not what most would call a high standard) of living. It is not under the healthiest of circumstances but it is productive and people are living on their human spirit and making a place of their own.
ReplyDelete