No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Living in the city beyond housing
... Diverse capacities, knowledges and interests contribute to the codesign of collective spaces that promote alternative governance and maintenance of the city. The objective is to respond to the diversity of territories in Lima (i.e., collective infrastructure in flat and more consolidated areas vs reconceptualization of public spaces on steep slopes with limited access to basic services) (Desmaison, 2021). ...
The involvement of citizens and communities in processes that affect their lives and livelihoods through co-production methods has gained currency in recent years as a method to deliver place-based action capable of advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. Co-production represents a promising approach that addresses criticisms leveraged against community-oriented and participatory planning approaches. In this paper, we investigate the potential of co-production methods to advance different dimensions of urban equality in urban environments, including progress towards equitable distribution of resources and services, the reciprocal recognition of communities and institutions, the access to political and decision-making processes, and the recognition of multiple forms of knowledge and perspectives.
First, the paper reviews what is unique about co-production as a method in urban development planning. Co-production is distinct because it focuses on delivering a shared outcome. In doing so, it challenges epistemic injustices. Second, the paper presents a collective assessment of the outcomes of co-production practices in six different cities. The comparative analysis of these experiences shows that multiple co-production practices can help to establish long-term, adaptable partnerships to deliver urban equality. However, such a process requires constant adjustment and trade-offs to achieve equality gains in different domains. For that reason, the transformative impacts of co-production are not always measurable, even when its role in social change is evident.
In this article, we analyse the structural causes of inequality in Lima – beginning with a review of the historical context – to propose a multidimensional approach to urban inequality. We discuss spatial, public-institutional and political-social fragmentation and how these factors contribute to the reproduction of urban inequality. We supplement this discussion by describing two initiatives that contributed to the creation of a collective understanding of inequality and strategies to deal with it. First, we worked with marginalized social groups promoting collective care practices to address food insecurity resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with this, we developed a National Housing and Urban Planning Policy with the Peruvian Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation that included a definition of urban inequality and the creation of an index for urban inequality. In each case, we discuss the difficulties faced, whether by citizens or the state, in trying to reach relevant solutions to address inequalities.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of solidarity and care networks in withstanding crises. One example is the emergence of Ollas Comunes (Common Pots, a type of community kitchen) in the peripheries of Lima, which highlighted the enormous need for spaces that promote, channel, and strengthen collective support. Consolidating these networks, and allowing them to prosper over time, constitutes an alternative aimed at improving the living conditions of marginal groups, a crucial task in reducing urban inequalities. Co-production occurred at multiple scales: from local implementations of community kitchens to the design of urban networks for agriculture, water and sanitation, and food production. Collective innovation happened in technical terms towards promoting the efficient use of renewable resources (extending the concept of care to the care of the territory and the environment) and in the formulation of alternative governance in the maintenance and repair of the implemented infrastructure towards a renewed sense of citizenship.
Con la crisis del fordismo urbano, el mercado inmobiliario ha resurgido como una fuerza determinante del proceso de coordinación social del uso del suelo y la producción de estructura intraurbana. Es el retorno de la "mano invisible" del mercado. En este artículo se analiza la relación entre la producción de estructura urbana y el funcionamiento del mercado inmobiliario en América Latina, tanto en su versión formal como en la informal. La hipótesis de trabajo es que las ciudades latinoamericanas, comparadas con los dos modelos tradicionales (la urbe compacta mediterránea, y la difusa anglosajona), muestran una estructura urbana particular. En ellas, el funcionamiento de los mercados del suelo produce simultáneamente una estructura urbana compacta y difusa. Es a esta estructura, característica de las grandes urbes latinoamericanas, que llamamos ciudad "com-fusa".With the crisis of urban Fordism, the real estate market has reemerged as a determining force in the social coordination process of land use and in the production of intra-urban structure. It has been the return of the "invisible hand" of the market. This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between the production of urban structure and the functioning modes of formal and informal land markets in Latin America. It proposes the hypothesis that, compared to the two traditional models (compact Mediterranean cities and the Anglo-Saxon diffused cities), Latin American cities exhibit a particular urban structure. In these cities, the functioning of land markets produces simultaneously a compact and a diffused urban structure. This urban structure, characteristic of large Latin American cities, we designate as the "Com-Fused" City.