BARCELONA— The home and the neighbourhood are where individuals and
communities around the world practice their full citizenship, participants
noted at a recent Habitat III stakeholder conference held here. With
every house and group of homes built, after all, people bring new focus to a
spectrum of concerns to their localities.
“Habitat — housing,
neighborhoods and settlements — is the locus of practicing full citizenship,
bringing together inhabitants and other stakeholders’ social, civic and
environmental rights and responsibilities,” the participants stated in formal
recommendations.
This is a simple extension of a
very old idea. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, “The human
right to adequate housing is more than just four walls and a roof. It is the
right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and sustain a safe and
secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.”
A. and I. Kruk/Shutterstock
For three days last week, 100
international experts and practitioners — architects, urban planners,
sociologists, politicians — gathered here to discuss the future of cities, how
to face changes in population growth and how fill the gap in emergency housing.
A key focus of the discussions focused on ensuring adequate housing for all in
the New Urban Agenda,
the 20-year urbanization strategy that will come out of next year’s Habitat III conference on cities.
“The most important issue in
housing is the location,” said Ana Sugranyes, a specialist in international
development cooperation and social housing policies. “There is an immense need
to avoid slums and ghettos, caused by wrong social policies.”
[See: Habitat III must rethink the
role of housing in sustainable urbanization]
The Barcelona event was an Urban Thinkers
Campus (UTC),
an initiative of UN-Habitat’s
World Urban Campaign, one of more than two-dozen such global events meant to
gather input ahead of Habitat III.
The conclusions of the three
days of workshops advocate an approach to housing policies that takes into
account multiple perspectives and contexts. This would offer a strategy for the
planning, production and governance of human settlements for all, without
discrimination, aiming to leave no one behind and reach the most vulnerable
first. See here for a
full list of the UTC’s recommendations.
The discussions on planning put a
significant priority on land and the need to avoid pockets of poverty
encouraged by the precariousness of social housing. Many cities “have built
massive social housing blocks on the outskirts of cities, far from the centres,
and that, have generated more poverty,” said Lorena Zarate, an urban planner
and president of the Habitat International Coalition.
In some Latin American cities, Zarate
said, these blocks “have become ‘ghost buildings’ because, ultimately, the
residents have been unable to front the debts of an apartment property.”
[See: In Latin
America, housing advocates set their sights on HabitatIII]
One of the conclusions of the Barcelona
campus is committing to the idea of “social rent” options, ensuring that the
poor can access housing. Today, many participants warned, most governments are
unable to make such assurances.
“Housing is a fundamental right which
fails systematically,” said Josep Maria Montaner, with Barcelona’s housing
department. “Housing cannot be ‘big business’ anymore, in that state and local
governments have to take charge and not let them — the banks, the investors or
the constructors — have empty flats. Because it is not business while there are
homeless people.”
Barcelona, Montaner said, has
emphasized social rent, prioritizing “more housing at more affordable prices”.
TheUTCalso pledged to renew a commitment to combating
homelessness, an issue seen as central to broader efforts to combat high levels
of inequality. “The European standard of quality of life has deteriorated due
to the growth of social inequality,” said Jordi San José, with the Barcelona
Metropolitan Institute for Land Development and Asset Management.
[See: Connecting
housing with sustainable urbanization in the New Urban Agenda]
Thus, the campus focused on the need
for adequate housing as a fundamental right. We need to “consider constituent
human rights in the context of the recognition of the right to the city,” said
Sugranyes, “including the human rights to land, energy, transport, urban planning
and the social function of property as a social claim in the process of an
emerging right.”
The UTC also set several goals for the New Urban Agenda,
underscoring the urgent need for states to intervene in land markets and
mitigate speculation, to implement human rights norms and protect the tenure of
vulnerable groups, and to ensure the affordability of adequate housing. The
recommendations end by contextualizing HabitatIIIas an important opportunity to fill in gaps in the
new global development framework agreed to in September at the United Nations.
“HabitatIIIhas a key role in filling the 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda gaps in specifying habitat indicators, including the
respect, protection and fulfillment of tenure security for adequate housing,”
the recommendations state, “paying particular attention to priority contexts
such as colonial and foreign occupation.”
Citiscope sat down with two participants at the
Barcelona Urban Thinkers Campus to discuss urban planning and future urban
development in Australia and Europe. These interviews have been edited
slightly.
Sonia Kirby is
an urban and environmental planner in Australia and a lecturer at Griffith
University.
Susana Alcaide: What kind of urban politics do you
have in Australia?
Sonia Kirby: In Australia we have three
levels of government, and all of them have some responsibility in terms of the
provision of housing in our cities. Most recently, we have had a federal
government who has announced a minister for cities and infrastructure. His
responsibility will be to give guidance to the states and local authorities
about how they should be planning for our cities and ensuring adequate housing
— ensuring that housing is affordable. Then, local governments are the primary
planning authorities, so it’s their responsibility to implement plans and
strategies in terms of where houses should be located, what form that housing
should be, where there should be social housing, and giving guidance and
approval. The private development is in terms of the construction of some of
that housing.
Is there adequate citizen participation in these
urban decisions?
Australia is very inclusive. We
actually include our communities and public in terms of the decisions for
housing and planning, so there’s a lot of laws and regulations in terms of when
the community has the opportunity to offer comments and feedback in plans for
decisions. They have the ability to contribute to policy — we have that
legislated within various pieces of legislation, that the community must have a
say. However, sometimes that can be too regulated, and there is still room for
improvement in terms of how the public can be involved. I think we also have
the responsibility as planners to assist in ensuring that the public is
informed about the opportunities and choices they have in terms of how planning
is undertaken. We also need to ensure that they have the level of understanding
for them to provide quality feedback and quality comments on decisions at the
strategic level before it gets down to the level of the development
application.
Is there still space for rethinking the cities?
Absolutely, I think Australia does a
lot of things very well, but I also think we have got a lot to learn from other
cultures and from other planning systems around the world. Some of it is
related to our government structures — at times the three levels of government
are still trying to determine what their respective roles are in planning, in
particularly in new cities. We still have problems with homelessness and we
still have problems with affordability; we still have problems with providing
infrastructure in an efficient manner. These challenges are only going to
increase, given that we have one of the most urbanized countries in the world,
where more than 80 percent of the population lives within an urban area.
How do local communities accept urban planning?
There are a lot of opportunities in
Australia for the community to get more involved and to have more grass-roots
and local knowledge coming into the planning process. I think sometimes you may
rely too much on government to provide for us and to plan for us, and I think
there’s a space for the community to step forward and say what type of cities
they want to have in the future. I have faith that in the future we, as the
planning profession, can help our community open the doors, be involved in the
discussions and find a way to bring them into really contributing to the future
of the city.
Are these Urban Thinkers Campuses and similar
conferences worthwhile?
These types of discussions are
essential in order to share ideas and knowledge, but also to gain perspective
and to realize that a lot of the cities have the same problems — it’s just the
magnitude of the problems that are different. So we do have a lot of lessons to
learn, to hear the stories from Sao Paolo or Barcelona. It’s not about
transporting the solutions from one city directly to the next but rather about
considering how those cities solve these problems and how those solutions can
be applied in my community. We need to learn from both the positive and the
negative in order to contribute.
Joris Scheers is
a spatial planner, sociologist, project manager for the Flanders government and
president of the European Council of Spatial Planners.
Susana Alcaide: Is there opportunity today for
rethinking the city?
Joris Scheers: There is a lot of room
to do so, because on the one hand, of course you need to valorise what’s has
been constructed for many centuries, but at the same time you must each time
reinvent the city. If the city doesn’t reinvent itself, it’s going to die, and
there are examples of cities that didn’t reinvent themselves and today they no
longer exist. So, yes, I think on every level it’s necessary to do so, on top
of what are today a few planetary challenges in Asia and upcoming in Africa.
There, new forms of organizations, new forms of city growth need to be
undertaken.
Do politicians tend to go about this differently
than citizens?
It depends. I think sometimes citizens
do so in different ways, and it may be easy to say that politicians like this
and citizens like that. But I think the key is to sit around the table and
talk, to make space for negotiation. The world has become more complex, and
urban problems are very complex, that’s true. But a good politician knows how
to do so and how to put forward a vision. A good citizen will also participate
and a good entrepreneur will try to put ideas on the table — and take some
responsibility as well.
How does population growth and immigration affect a
city’s identity?
For many regions and many cities, growth
is enormous and difficult to manage. In Europe, this isn’t such a problem. I
think Europe will be able to deal with the growth, as long as the long-term
vision of the structure of the cities, in the way they should developed, is
there. The Asian and African context requires more actions and more political
power to deal with their growing cities, but there too I think it’s possible to
deal with it.
At the same time, I think it’s an
illusion to think that the identity of a city or region stays the same. We know
that the Barcelona, the Catalan, the Spanish identity is in constant evolution;
their identity 30 years ago was different from now, and it will be different
again in another 30 years. I do valorise identity and it is important, but at
the same time you must be open to change and accept that identity is changing —
and be open to talk about what kind of identity we want in the future. That’s
the point of discussion each time, because new people are coming in and you
have to talk with them and show that it’s important for you.