What if the poor were part of city planning Smruti Jukur Johari

What is our imagery of cities?

When we imagine cities,

we often imagine it
to be something like this.

But what if what you’re looking at
is just half a picture,

but there is a city within the city.

This part of the city
is often seen as slums,

squatters, informal,

and people living here
are called illegal, informal,

criminals, beneficiaries,
supplicants, etc.

But in reality,

these are poor people with no choices.

Poverty is a vicious cycle.

If born poor, it can take
three or more generations

to escape one.

Many are forced in this cycle
without choices,

to live on pavements,

along train tracks,

in dumping grounds,

along rivers,

swamps and many such unlivable spaces,

without clean water, toilets or housing.

But these places are not unfamiliar to me,

because since the age of six,
I accompanied my father, a doctor,

who treated patients
in the slums of Bombay.

Growing up, I would help him
carry his bag of medicines

after school lessons –

I loved doing that.

Wanting to do something
about these habitats,

I decided to become an architect.

But quite early on, I realized

that the beauty of architecture
was only for the rich.

So I decided to do urban planning

and joined an NGO in India
that works with the urban poor

who organize themselves
to access basic services,

such as water, sanitation and housing,
for the poor living in cities.

Now I spent 10 years of my life
in professional education, in learning,

and then five years in unlearning it.

Because I realized

that all my training in architecture,
design and planning

failed ground realities.

And this is where I learned
the power of choice.

I unlearned many things,

but there are two myths about the poor

that I would like to share
that we live with.

The first myth is a perception

that migration of poor people
into cities is a problem.

Is migration really a choice?

My mentor Sheela Patel

asked to those who think
of this as a problem,

“Go ask your grandfather
where he came from,” she says.

So what do poor people do
when they migrate in cities?

Let me share an example.

This is the Mumbai International Airport.

All that you see in blue
are large informal settlements around it.

Close to 75,000 people live here.

So who are these people
that work silently in hotels, restaurants,

as laborers, babysitters, house helps

and countless other jobs

that we need for cities to function
without a glitch?

And where do they live?

In most cities, they live in slums.

So let us think again.

Do we want poor people
to stop migrating in our cities?

What if they had a choice of not to?

The second myth is my personal experience.

It’s this attitude that we
professionals know better.

We professionals love
to make choices for others,

especially for the poor.

Let me share an experience.

In a workshop that looked at designing
250 new houses for poor families

from a slum nearby,

there were different building materials
that were presented,

ranging from papier-mâché,
cardboard, honeycomb, etc.,

simply because they were affordable.

But there was this one idea
that was of shipping containers.

Now we immediately approved of it,

because we thought it was sustainable,
scalable, affordable.

But during this presentation,

a lady from the slum humbly spoke up.

And she asked the presenter,

“Would you choose to live in it?”

(Laughter)

“If not, then why did you think we would?”

Now this was a personal
unlearning moment for me,

where I realized that poverty
only changes affordability –

it does not change aspirations.

Now poor people have lived
in temporary structures all their life.

They go from wall to wall,

moving from bricks to tin.

They move from building from bamboo,

tarpaulin sheets, plastic,
to cardboard, to tin,

to bricks and cement,

just like the way we do.

So somewhere here, we were forcing
our choices on them.

So should we force our choices on them,

or should we broaden their choices?

Now what if the opportunity to choose
was given to people?

These are women who lived on the pavements
of a neighborhood in Mumbai.

Now they faced constant evictions,
and in response to it,

they organized a women’s network
called Mahila Milan.

Not only did they fight against evictions
with those in power,

saved money and bought land,

but they also designed
and helped construct their own houses.

Well, these were illiterate women,
so how did they do that?

They used floor mats and saris
to understand measurements.

A sari is four meters in length
and 1.5 meters in width.

They used these simple day-to-day items
to demonstrate house models.

And even they made
three options to choose from

and invited all their fellow residents
to come and have a look.

(Laughter)

And everybody loved this option
that had a loft in it,

simply because it did two things.

One is that it accommodated
larger families to sleep in.

And two, it allowed home-based work,

such as bangle-making, jewelry-designing,

embroidery-stitching,
packaging items, etc.

Now they also decided
to not have a toilet inside,

but instead have it outside
in the corridors,

simply because it gave them
more space and it was cheaper.

Now, professionals
could have never thought

of something like that.

A formal design would have necessitated
to have a toilet inside.

Now these are smaller examples –

let me share some larger context:

881,000,000 people –

that’s about one sixth of this world,
as we talk here –

are living in slums
and informal settlements.

Almost every city in the global south
has large slums in the size of townships.

Kibera, in Nairobi,

Dharavi, in Mumbai,

Khayelitsha in South Africa, just a few.

Now initially, they were all
on waste and abandoned lands

that cities were never interested in.

As cities grew,

poor people started building
on these lands

and brought value to this over time.

And today, these lands have become
real estate hot spots

that everybody wants a piece of.

So how do cities and those in power
choose to deal with them?

They demolish them and evict them

and move them away
from their cities and economies

in order to build a new infrastructure.

They move them into vertical housing,

which in reality looks like this.

Now when built in high densities,

they lack natural light and ventilation,

and it often leads
to unhealthy conditions.

Now, on one hand,

poor people are not involved
in the participation of design,

and there is poor quality of construction.

And on the other hand,

they do not understand
how to do maintenance,

you know, keeping bills,
keeping records, forming societies –

this is always difficult for them.

And being forced to move
into this formal society,

they end up looking like this
in a few years.

Because formalization is not a product,

it’s a process.

Moving from informal to formal
for poor people is a journey.

It takes time to accept and adapt.

And when that choice is not given,

it becomes like this,

which I’m afraid, in future,
these would become the slums.

Now instead of doing this,

what if we accommodated poor people

and gave them a choice
to be a part of our cities

and develop them where they are,

giving them basic services,
like in this picture?

Now what happens if cities
and governments could work together,

if governments acknowledge poor people,

and they could build it together?

This is Mukuru.

It’s a large informal
settlement in Nairobi.

It’s one of the largest
settlements in Africa.

It’s home to 300,000 people

living over 650 acres of land.

To help us understand that scale,

it’s like squeezing
the population of Pittsburgh

into the New York Central Park.

That’s Mukuru.

So to give us a glimpse,

this is the condition of housing.

And this is what it is in between them.

So what is life in Mukuru like,
just talking briefly?

Five hundred and fifty people
use one single water tap

and pay nine times more

than what anybody else
in the city could pay,

simply because there is
no water infrastructure

and water is sold.

Many come back from work to find out
that their houses do not exist,

because they have either been bulldozed,

or they have been burned down.

So, tired of this situation,

a local slum dwellers' federation
called Muungano

decided to do something about it.

In four years,

they organized 20,000 residents
to collect data,

map structures and put it together.

And the plan was very simple –

they only needed four things.

They wanted clean water,

toilets, decent roads

and, most importantly, not to be evicted.

So they presented this
with the government of Nairobi.

And for the first time in history ever,

a city has agreed to do it.

The city of Nairobi,
the government of Kenya,

declared Mukuru
to be a special planning area,

which means that people
could come up with their own plan.

People could decide to come up
with their own norms and standards,

because the standards that work
for the formal citizens

do not work in informal settings.

So what does that mean,
to give us an instance?

If these are roads in Mukuru,

you can see that there are houses
along both sides of the road.

Now in order to bring in a city bus,

as per the standards,

planners would have gone for
a luxurious 25-meter-wide road.

Now that would mean displacing
[25] percent of the structures –

that’s a lot of people.

So instead of doing that,
we came up with a 12-meter-wide road,

which had the structures intact
and brought the city bus

without compromising
on much services.

In another instance,
let’s talk about community toilets.

You know, in high-density areas,

where there is no scope
for individual toilets,

like the public toilets that we have here.

So we would go for a male section
and a female section.

But imagine this situation.

In the morning rush hours to the toilet,

when everybody is in intense
pressure to relieve themselves,

and if you’re standing
in a queue of 50 people,

and there is a child
standing behind an adult,

who wins?

Children end up squatting outside.

And that’s why women decided

to come up with a separate
squatting area for children.

Now, who could have thought
of something like that?

The idea here is
that when poor people choose,

they choose better.

They choose what works for them.

So choice is everything.

And power decides choice.

And we need those in power –

politicians, leaders, governments,

architects, planners,
institutions, researchers –

and all of us in our everyday lives
to respect choices.

Instead of choosing what is right
for people, for the poor,

let’s acknowledge
and empower their choices.

And that is how we can build

better and inclusive cities for tomorrow,

completing the imagery of cities

built by the choices of its own people.

Thank you.

(Applause)

我们对城市的印象是什么?

当我们想象城市时,

我们经常想象
它是这样的。

但如果你看到的
只是半张照片,

却有城中之城。

城市的这一部分
通常被视为贫民窟、

棚户区、非正式的

,居住在这里的人
被称为非法的、非正式的、

罪犯、受益者、
恳求者等。

但实际上,

这些都是没有选择的穷人。

贫穷是一个恶性循环。

如果出生贫穷,可能需要
三代或更多代

才能摆脱一个。

许多人被迫在这个循环中
毫无选择

地生活在人行道

、火车轨道

、垃圾场、

河流、

沼泽和许多此类不宜

居住的地方,没有干净的水、厕所或住房。

但这些地方对我来说并不陌生,

因为从六岁起,
我就跟着我的父亲,一位医生,

在孟买的贫民窟治疗病人。

长大后,我会

在放学后帮他拿药袋——

我喜欢这样做。

想为
这些栖息地做点什么,

我决定成为一名建筑师。

但很早以前,我就

意识到建筑之美
只属于富人。

因此,我决定进行城市规划,

并加入了印度的一个非政府组织,该组织
与城市贫民合作

,他们组织起来
为生活在城市的穷人提供

水、卫生设施和住房等基本服务

现在我用了 10 年的时间
在专业教育、学习中

,然后用了 5 年时间忘却了它。

因为我

意识到我在建筑、
设计和规划方面的所有培训都

失败了。

这就是我学到
选择的力量的地方。

我没有学到很多东西,

我想分享两个
关于我们生活的穷人的神话。

第一个神话是

认为穷人
向城市迁移是一个问题。

移民真的是一种选择吗?

我的导师希拉帕特尔

问那些
认为这是一个问题的人,

“去问问你的祖父
他来自哪里,”她说。

那么穷人
在城市迁移时会做什么呢?

让我分享一个例子。

这是孟买国际机场。

你看到的所有蓝色
都是围绕它的大型非正式定居点。

近 75,000 人居住在这里。

那么,这些
在酒店、餐馆

、劳工、保姆、家政服务

人员

以及我们城市正常运转所需的无数其他工作中默默工作
的人是谁?

他们住在哪里?

在大多数城市,他们住在贫民窟。

所以让我们再想想。

我们希望
穷人停止在我们的城市迁移吗?

如果他们可以选择不这样做呢?

第二个误区是我的个人经历。

我们
专业人士更了解这种态度。

我们的专业人士喜欢
为他人做出选择,

尤其是为穷人。

让我分享一个经验。

在一个
为附近贫民窟的贫困家庭设计 250 栋新房的工作坊中

,展示

了不同的建筑材料

从纸浆、
纸板、蜂窝等,

仅仅是因为它们价格实惠。

但是有一个想法
是运输集装箱。

现在我们立即批准了它,

因为我们认为它是可持续的、
可扩展的、负担得起的。

但在这次演讲中,

贫民窟的一位女士谦虚地开口了。

她问主持人,

“你会选择住在里面吗?”

(笑声)

“如果不是,那你为什么认为我们会?”

现在,这
对我来说是一个忘我的时刻

,我意识到贫困
只会改变负担能力——

它不会改变愿望。

现在,穷人
一生都住在临时结构中。

他们从一堵墙走到另一堵墙,

从砖到锡。

他们从竹子、

防水布、塑料
到纸板、锡

、砖和水泥,

就像我们所做的那样。

所以在这里的某个地方,我们
把我们的选择强加给了他们。

那么,我们应该把选择强加给他们,

还是应该扩大他们的选择范围?

现在,如果
给人们选择的机会呢?

这些是住
在孟买社区人行道上的妇女。

现在他们面临着不断的驱逐
,作为回应,

他们组织了一个
名为 Mahila Milan 的女性网络。

他们不仅
与当权者抗争、

节省资金和购买土地,

而且还设计
并帮助建造了自己的房屋。

嗯,这些都是文盲的女人,
那么她们是怎么做到的呢?

他们使用地垫和纱丽
来理解测量结果。

纱丽长4
米,宽1.5米。

他们使用这些简单的日常用品
来展示房屋模型。

甚至他们也做出了
三个选择,

并邀请所有的居民
来看看。

(笑声

) 每个人都喜欢
这个有阁楼的选择,

仅仅因为它做了两件事。

一是它可以容纳
更大的家庭睡觉

。二是它允许在家工作,

例如手镯制作,珠宝设计,

刺绣,
包装物品等。

现在他们还决定
里面没有厕所 ,

而是把它
放在走廊外面,

只是因为它给了他们
更多的空间而且更便宜。

现在,专业人士
可能从未想到过

这样的事情。

正式的设计必须
在里面有一个厕所。

现在这些是较小的例子——

让我分享一些更大的背景:

881,000,000 人——正如我们在这里

所说的那样,这大约是这个世界的六分之一

——生活在贫民窟
和非正规住区。

几乎全球南部的每个城市
都有乡镇规模的大型贫民窟。

内罗毕的基贝拉

、孟买的达拉维、

南非的卡耶利沙等等。

现在最初,他们都
在城市从不感兴趣的废弃和废弃的土地

上。

随着城市的发展,

穷人开始
在这些土地上建设,

并随着时间的推移为这些土地带来价值。

而今天,这些土地已经成为

人人都想要的房地产热点。

那么城市和当权者如何
选择与他们打交道呢?

他们拆除并驱逐他们

,并将
他们从城市和经济

中移走,以建立新的基础设施。

他们将它们移动到垂直房屋中

,实际上看起来像这样。

现在,在高密度建造时,

它们缺乏自然光和通风,

并且经常
导致不健康的状况。

现在,一方面,

穷人不
参与设计,

施工质量差。

另一方面,

他们不知道
如何进行维护,

你知道,保存账单,
保存记录,组建社团——

这对他们来说总是很困难。

被迫
进入这个正式的社会,几年后

他们就变成了这个样子

因为正规化不是产品,

而是一个过程。

对穷人来说,从非正式走向正式是一段旅程。

接受和适应需要时间。

而如果不给这个选择,

就会变成这样

,恐怕以后,
这些地方就会变成贫民窟。

现在不这样做

,如果我们容纳穷人

,让他们
选择成为我们城市的一部分,

并在他们所在的地方发展他们,

为他们提供基本服务,
就像这张照片一样?

现在如果城市
和政府可以合作,

如果政府承认穷人

,他们可以一起建设,会发生什么?

这是穆库鲁。

这是内罗毕的一个大型非正式
定居点。

它是非洲最大的
定居点之一。

300,000 人

居住在 650 多英亩的土地上。

为了帮助我们理解这种规模,

这就像将
匹兹堡的人口

挤进纽约中央公园。

那是穆库鲁。

所以让我们一睹为快,

这就是住房条件。

这就是他们之间的情况。

那么,简单来说,Mukuru 的生活是怎样的

550 人
使用一个水龙头

,支付的费用是该市其他人支付的费用的 9 倍

,这

仅仅是因为
没有水基础设施,

而且水被出售。

许多人下班回来
发现他们的房子不存在了,

因为它们要么被推土机推平,

要么被烧毁。

因此,厌倦了这种情况

,当地一个名为 Muungano 的贫民窟居民联合会

决定采取一些措施。

在四年内,

他们组织了 20,000 名
居民收集数据、

绘制结构图并将其组合在一起。

计划非常简单——

他们只需要四样东西。

他们想要干净的水、

厕所、体面的道路

,最重要的是,不要被驱逐。

所以他们向内罗毕政府提出了这个
问题。

历史上第一次,

一个城市同意这样做。

肯尼亚政府内罗毕市

宣布
穆库鲁为特殊规划区,

这意味着人们
可以提出自己的计划。

人们可以决定
提出自己的规范和标准,

因为
适用于正式公民的标准

不适用于非正式环境。

那么,
给我们举个例子,这意味着什么?

如果这些是Mukuru的道路,

您可以看到
道路两侧都有房屋。

现在,为了引进一辆城市公交车,

按照标准,

规划者会选择
一条 25 米宽的豪华道路。

现在这意味着要取代
[25]% 的结构

——人数众多。

因此,我们没有这样做,
而是想出了一条 12 米宽的道路,

它的结构完好无损,
并在


影响很多服务的情况下带来了城市公交车。

在另一个例子中,
让我们谈谈社区厕所。

你知道,在高密度地区

,没有
单独的厕所,

比如我们这里的公共厕所。

所以我们会选择男性部分
和女性部分。

但是想象一下这种情况。

在早上上厕所的高峰时间

,每个人都面临着巨大的
压力来缓解自己

,如果你站在
50 人的队列中,

并且有一个孩子
站在一个成年人后面,

谁赢了?

孩子们最终蹲在外面。

这就是为什么女性决定

为儿童设计一个单独的
蹲点区。

现在,谁能想到
这样的事情?

这里的想法是
,当穷人选择时,

他们会选择更好。

他们选择对他们有用的东西。

所以选择就是一切。

权力决定选择。

我们需要当权者——

政治家、领导人、政府、

建筑师、规划师、
机构、研究人员——

以及我们日常生活中的所有人
尊重选择。

与其选择
适合人们和穷人的东西,

不如让我们承认
并赋予他们的选择权。

这就是我们如何

为明天建设更好、更具包容性的城市,

完成

由本国人民选择建造的城市的形象。

谢谢你。

(掌声)