Urbanismo(s) e informalidad(es) en Río de Janeiro, Brasil

CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil * Urbanismo(s) e informalidad(es) en Río de Janeiro, Brasil LUIZA FARNESE LANA SARAYED-DIN Ph. D. in Urban Planning Profesora Pontificia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (Belo Horizonte, Brasil) [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-3564-2209 LUIZ ALEX SILVA SARAIVA Ph. D. in Administration Profesor Associado Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Belo Horizonte, Brasil) [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-5307-9750 Recibido/Received: 30-09-2023; Aceptado/Accepted: 17-04-2024 Cómo citar/How to cite: Sarayed-Din, Luiza Farnese Lana & Saraiva, Luiz Alex Silva (2024): “Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil”, Ciudades, 27, pp. 75-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24197/ciudades.27.2024.75-90 Artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY 4.0). / Open access article under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY 4.0). Abstract: This article examines urbanisms and informalities intertwined with Brazilian popular culture, in the light of a theoretical and empirical study of two examples from the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The primary conclusions underscore a tension between formal urbanism, which attempts to propagate a uniform way of urban existence, and the exuberance of life in the urbe. This highlights that urbanism is inherently multifaceted and requires the incorporation of multiple urban existences within global south cities while considering their distinctions. Keywords: urbanism, informality, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, global south. Resumen: Este artículo analiza los urbanismos y las informalidades entrelazados con la cultura popular brasileña, a través de un estudio teórico-empírico de dos ejemplos de la ciudad de Río de Janeiro, Brasil. Las principales conclusiones subrayan una tensión entre el urbanismo formal, que intenta establecer un modo uniforme de existencia urbana, y la exuberancia de la vida en la urbe. Esto pone de relieve que el urbanismo es intrínsecamente polifacético y requiere la incorporación de múltiples existencias urbanas dentro de las ciudades del sur global sin dejar de considerar sus distinciones. Palabras clave: urbanismo, informalidad, Río de Janeiro, Brasil, sur global. * This text presents data from the research “Informality in cities of the global south” funded by Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES, Brasil) and carried out in a collaborative context by researchers from the University of Malaya and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. 76 Luiza Farnese Lana Sarayed-Din & Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 Urbanism is an intricate phenomenon with dual facets: one encompasses precision, lines, and rationality, while the other is invariably entangled with the unplanned elements of a city. Therefore, urbanization always presents a formal, deliberate dimension alongside an informal, spontaneous counterpart that often challenges the very notion of marginality within urban processes. Beyond these dichotomies, the trajectory of urbanization in the global south, particularly in countries like Brazil, has historically followed a unidirectional path. Guided by the ideals of an “organized” city, this trajectory constructs a varied of spaces according to a purportedly universal model - an “urbanistic frame” that designates anything evading urban planning as insufficiency. This “frame” fosters a singular, monolithic urban lifestyle, rendering numerous alternative urban experiences invisible. In turn, this invisibility involves concealing something that exists but should not be seen. When a specific urban archetype becomes a norm or standard, all other urban diversities are relegated to the informal category, thereby becoming both a product of and resistance against a homogenizing force that prescribes a solitary, unique urban structure. Consequently, informality encompasses all that exceeds the scope of formal planning, i.e., it embodies alternative ways of urban inhabitation that are not just a product but an inseparable component of urban planning itself. Thus, informality becomes the very idiom of urbanization (Roy, 2009). The operational approach of urbanism, centered on formalizing urban lifestyles, fails to encompass those who exist at the margins of planned urbanization. Scrutinizing and drawing lessons from these informalities, with their interplay of conformity and resistance, constitutes a political endeavor that acknowledges other forms of urban existence. Recognizing that informality arises in reaction to context necessitates understanding how distinct urban lifestyles are configured within varied relationships with established norms and standards. This pursuit does not seek to replace a Northern urban rationality with a Southern one in a universalist fashion; rather, it undertakes an ethical stance in recognizing the city as a tapestry of differences and divergence. As such, it calls for plural urbanisms that are attentive to the multifarious nature of urban life. The discourse surrounding cities in the global south surfaces as a critique of this perspective, advocating for an outlook that accommodates cities defying singular conceptions of modernity and progress. These cities are understood as against hierarchies and the categorization trap (Robinson, 2006). Consequently, we adopt a political standpoint that views the city as a locus of differences and what is different, allowing for the inclusion of varied modes of existing/inhabiting the urban space into our analysis. Anchored in the conceptual framework of the city as a space of differences and what is different (Saraiva, 2020), this article endeavors to explore urbanism and informality in their manifold forms (Robinson & Roy, 2015), intricately woven into the rich tapestry of Brazilian popular culture (Chauí, 1986). Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 77 CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 Figure 1: Favela da Rocinha and Port Region at Rio de Janeiro’s city map. Rocinha’s area is identified with black dashed lines, while Port Region is marked by the blue shadowed area. Source: Adapted by the authors from a map retrieved from https://www.data.rio/datasets/PCRJ::aeiu-porto-maravilha/explore (accessed: 22-02-2024). Both cases explored in this theoretical-empirical article are the result of more than 10 years studying informality in the city of Rio de Janeiro and were researched at two different times. Firstly, an ethnography was carried out in the Favela da Rocinha, exploring the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC), the 'PAC of the favelas', during master's research between 2007 and 2009 (Sarayed-Din, 2009). The urban redevelopment plan for Rio's port region -Porto Maravilhawas explored during doctoral research between 2012 and 2017, as part of a comparative study between two historically inhabited traditional communities that were under pressure from large urban developments. In this case, the community of Kampong Bharu, below the Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Morro da Conceição, located in the heart of Rio de Janeiro's port area and under heavy pressure from the urban interventions resulting from the mega-events that took place between 2007 and 2016 in the city (2007 Pan American Games, 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games). Figure 1 shows the location of Favela da Rocinha and the Port Region in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Both are located in prime areas of the city, with Rocinha surrounded by neighborhoods whose square meter is one of the most expensive in the country, and the Port Region being located in the central region, surrounded by offices and for a long time 'forgotten' by the real estate market, but home to the oldest favela in Brazil (Morro da Providência) among other groups with a history of social 78 Luiza Farnese Lana Sarayed-Din & Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 vulnerability. Grounded in an understanding of informality transcending mere poverty (Roy, 2009), this research strives to advance conversations regarding urbanism that challenge the rigid formal/informal dichotomy and prevailing developmentalist narratives. 1. URBANISM(S) The urban landscape has surged to the forefront of discussions addressing the challenges afflicting our planet in the 21st century. The predicaments of poverty, inequality, pollution, and disease, coupled with the necessity for interventions within urban domains, are supported by data heralding an imminent shift in global inhabitation patterns. For the first time in history, a majority of the population resides in cities as opposed to the countryside (UN-Habitat, 2006). Through meticulous monitoring that gauges population aggregation, categorizing nations and cities based on universal criteria, experts at the United Nations have proclaimed that since 2008, the world has witnessed the largest proportion of its populace dwelling in urban settings. Notably, this trend is paralleled by burgeoning population growth in peripheral countries, urging for a more discerning (and deliberate) examination of the urban trials besetting these areas. These profound transformations have not only steered conversations concerning urban predicaments but also underscored the exigency of an approach dedicated to alleviating inequality in developing cities while acknowledging their unique characteristics (UN-Habitat, 2006). However, this cry for action exhibits a certain degree of insensitivity to differences and nuances. Its foundation rests upon a perspective that delineates urbanism, cityscapes, and development through the prisms of universalism, hierarchy, control, and statistics. In this regard, Brenner and Schmid (2014) challenge the assertion of universality intrinsic to the conceptualization of the post-2008 era as the inception of the Urban Age. Unearthing geographical, historical and political constraints tracing back to post-war interests and strategies for quantifying the world’s urban populace, the authors contend that this notion of urbanism is “it is empirically untenable (a statistical artifact) and theoretically incoherent (a chaotic conception)” (Brenner & Schmid, 2014: 734). The Urban Age perpetuates a grand narrative that not only privileges concentrations of population and urban experiences of a solitary kind, centered on the construct of the nation-state, but concurrently shrouds alternative urban manifestations existing and evolving in contemporary times. Acknowledging the diversity of experiences omitted from this urban concept and its inclination towards universalization within immensely divergent population contexts, infrastructure and administrative structures, the analytical coherence of a theoretical construct committed to urban homogeneity appears questionable at best. Brenner and Schmid (2014) champion urbanization as a historical, non-homogeneous and interconnected process, an amalgamation that Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 79 CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 emerges within the socio-cultural and political-economic realms of capitalism. As the urban phenomenon is a continually evolving historical construct (Lefebvre, 2001, 2002), its interpretation cannot be constrained by a solitary perspective. In addition, due to being under construction, such a process is dynamic, variable and polymorphic, distancing itself from homogenizing understandings as urbanization is unevenly generated within the fabric of capitalist relations (Maricato, 2000) and therefore requires a new idiom. One avenue to cultivate this new vocabulary lies in the negotiation and formulation of a more comprehensive theoretical discourse encompassing cities and contexts that frequently fall beyond the spectrum of conventional urban understanding, as is the case of the global south. In line with a debate centered on the imperative to extend and reshape urbanism beyond the iconic cities of the global north, Robinson and Roy (2015) echo the critical appraisal by Brenner and Schmid (2014). They advocate an interpretation of “urbanisms” in their plural form, that is, new forms of urbanization, aiming to shed light on the vitality and diversity inherent in nascent perspectives on the urban. These perspectives emanate from a multitude of interventions, productions, and performances. The authors draw attention to “off the map” cities, historically relegated to the periphery of scholarly discourse (Robinson, 2006) and spaces that engender urban experiences, capable of informing alternative forms of urbanization that embrace the concept of pluralism of and within urban settings. Hence, harnessing the multiplicity inherent in the understanding of “urbanisms,” we will underscore two tenets pertinent to the urban phenomenon: first, our political commitment to conceptualizing the city as a locus of differences and of what is different, and second, our resolve to discern the multiple ways through which this urban landscape constructs new focal points and fringes. Through this critical vantage, which emerges as we approach the global south without prescriptive notions, we ascertain that the formal blueprint of urbanism functions as an ostensibly civilizing process. It accords legitimacy to a singular narrative, which merits scrutiny when juxtaposed against the backdrop of informalities. 2. INFORMALITY(IES) The endeavor of defining informality is a challenging task, especially when one is confronted with a one-sided and formal rendition of urbanism: such a perspective often results in delineating much of what the city is not. As a counterpoint to established regulations and practices, which constitute an “ideal” mode of urban dwelling, informality must be viewed not solely as an undesirable byproduct of impeccable planning but rather as something that transcends the confines of formal definition. Within this context, it challenges the onedimensionality of urban planning by questioning the civility - Pertaining to what? 80 Luiza Farnese Lana Sarayed-Din & Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 By whom? For whom? At whose expense? - of the civilizing process (Arantes, 2000), which is rooted in the daily existence of individuals. In the 1950s, Larissa Lomnitz (1998) discerned informality as a survival strategy adopted by marginalized and vulnerable segments of the population who possess a distinctive approach to urban dwelling. Lomnitz underscores the role of bonds of trust and personal connections as a form of social security mechanism, expanding the discourse on informality beyond the purview of a malfunction to be rectified by urban specialists. After her initial investigation into Mexican slums, where she surmised informality was associated with poverty, Lomnitz (2006) delved deeper into these informal experiences, striving to unravel their mechanics. Hernando de Soto (1987) introduced an economic and entrepreneurial standpoint to the quandary of informality, proposing that through judicious intervention, informality could transition toward formalization, a notion later embraced by development-oriented policies of international entities such as the World Bank during the 1990s. Approximately two decades later, upholding the same universalizing urban paradigms, Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) addressed the urban development crisis, termed “informal hyper-growth,” linking informality with poverty, violence, and the inadequacies of previous urban planning endeavors. This perspective, in turn, heralded the need for fresh mechanisms for comprehending and intervening in cities. In both these perspectives, informality is perceived as a challenge to be eradicated through suitable methods. This discourse gains further prominence within the contemplations of a group of scholars who scrutinize diverse urban inhabitation experiences through the lens of “global urbanisms,” including Simone (2020), Parnell and Oldfield (2014), Robinson and Roy (2015), Roy (2011, 2009, 2005), Miraftab (2009), Yiftachel (2009a, 2009b, 2006), Robinson (2006), and Roy and AlSayyad (2004). Encouraging the broadening of horizons beyond the confines of hegemonic urban theories, which often emanate from and cater to English-speaking nations, these authors champion an understanding of cities in the global south that endeavors to transcend hierarchies and dichotomies. Although often a concept subject to dispute and occasionally co-opted by a Northern-centric or economic perspective (Brandt, 1980), this perception of cities in the global south confronts the established intellectual mainstream (Parnell & Oldfield, 2014). It champions a cosmopolitan vision of cities (Robinson, 2006), countering the notion of the North as the sole producer of urban models and the South as the crucible of problems (Roy & AlSayyad, 2004). From this “southern perspective”, the discourse on informality within various African and Southeast Asian cities, for example, moves beyond the constraints of poverty and the discourse of exception. Drawing from studies of cities in the Middle East and Asia, Roy and AlSayyad (2004) posit that urban informality constitutes a governing logic that steers the process of urban Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 81 CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 transformation. Reflecting on Indian cities specifically, Roy (2005) invites us to reevaluate the epistemology of urban planning. He situates the informal dimension not as a sector contrasting with the formal economic/city sector but as an idiom of urbanization. Analyzing Palestinian urban occupations, Oren Yiftachel (2006) underscores that urbanism has primarily focused on interventions and how to enact them, disregarding the mechanisms through which these processes unfold within the lived experience of urban spaces. Building on years of inquiry into African cities, AbdouMaliq Simone (2020) regards informality as an orchestrated challenge to the prevailing form of social wealth production and distribution. Yiftachel (2009a, 2009b) highlights planning as the core axis of urban order, a force that both creates and criminalizes what he dubs “grey spaces.” The very planning that defines and develops “white spaces,” aligned with the universal city model, concurrently limits (or eliminates) possibilities for inclusion and acknowledgment for a sizable portion of the population relegated to informality. The areas intentionally overlooked by the urban logic responsible for their creation underscore urbanism as a system that manages and sustains deeply unequal cities (Yiftachel, 2009a). What remains, constituting a substantial portion of the city, is that which eludes planned constructs for being informal in nature. Roy (2009) emphasizes that certain forms of informality are labeled illegal, while others enjoy state endorsement or even State practice. For the author, privately owned and commercialized urban formations, nestled within both the city and its suburbs, wield influence over and attract public infrastructure and services as a demonstration of class dominance. This phenomenon, in turn, renders some informalities illegal while conferring legitimacy upon others. Consequently, informality becomes an idiom of urbanization, a mechanism through which diverse spaces and practices in the city receive varied valuations, managed by and benefiting the dominant group (Roy, 2011). Hence, it becomes paramount to examine the city and its historical trajectory through the lens of the differences that form its essence. This endeavor entails acknowledging the diverse voices and interconnected processes that shape a place’s history, recognizing them as political tools of opposition against a particular narrative of the past that is intertwined with power differentiation and legitimation of authority (Harvey, 2000). Urban action should pose the question “Whose history is this?” while critically evaluating the implicit association between informality and failure within global south cities. Instead, informality could be seen as a triumphant testament to their success in resisting Western models of urban planning and development (Miraftab, 2009). Embracing history as a pivotal aspect in understanding cities and envisioning alternative futures, Leonie Sandercock (2003) contends that the process of planning should consider these distinct historical accounts. That is, cities should be perceived in all their diversity, interwoven with differing interpretations of informality, necessitating 82 Luiza Farnese Lana Sarayed-Din & Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 attention to the multifaceted histories of urban communities, whose histories intersect with struggles for space, claims to place, urban policies, resistance, local planning traditions, and questions of identity, belonging, and acceptance of differences. 3. AUTHORITARIANISM AND DIFFERENCE IN BRAZILIAN POPULAR CULTURE When we transpose the fundamental issues underlying much of the urban critique in the global south to the Brazilian context, Brazilian popular culture emerges as a multifaceted component fraught with contradictions and tensions. Addressing this phenomenon is imperative, as it affords us the opportunity to approach concealed dimensions within the myriad ways of existing in and inhabiting Brazilian cities. Moreover, this endeavor aids us in comprehending, on one side, how informality is situated within this overarching narrative and, on the other side, the plethora of responses to this universal idealization of Brazilian culture, which subsequently inform diverse interpretations of informality within cities of the global south. In the broader sense, popular culture in Brazil bears the indelible imprint of historical authoritarianism (Schwarcz, 2019), and social interactions are often characterized by relationships predicated on tutelage and favor rather than the recognition of rights (Pimenta, 2020), with a propensity for issues to be resolved through top-down actions. This phenomenon finds its resonance in pivotal moments of Brazilian history, whether it’s the Proclamation of Independence by the Prince Regent of Portugal in 1822 or the Abolition of Slavery in 1888 under the edict of Princess Isabel. Indeed, such events unfold within a pattern where the leading figures are consistently drawn from the dominant echelons. This authoritarian disposition further entails the obliteration of other dimensions of dissent that underscored the struggle for these transformations, resulting in a national memory characterized by an “authoritarian memory” (Chauí, 1986: 51) that renders acts of resistance and social contestation by the populace invisible. The myth of Brazil’s formation propagated through this unilaterally constructed imagery of Brazilian popular culture portrays the nation as a harmonious blend of races, the product of processes, and devoid of significant conflicts (Ianni, 1994). Within this overarching narrative, popular expressions were absorbed and reshaped to conform to the conservative contours of the national discourse. Instances such as samba and soccer, for instance, underwent this transformation, aligning with universalizing concepts of national development during the era of military dictatorship. Examining these instances, Chauí (1986) underscores that our incapacity to navigate social distinctions and asymmetries culminates in their transformation into inequalities. In this relational society, the dominant figure is the “master-citizen”, leveraging the law to their advantage, thereby casting citizenship as a privilege Urbanism(s) and informality(ies) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 83 CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 of class: “Laws have perpetually functioned as tools to safeguard privileges and as potent instruments for suppression and subjugation, rather than outlining rights and responsibilities” (Chauí, 1986: 54). Those not sheltered by legal protection confront two choices: conformity or resistance. A sizable portion of the populace opts for conformity, often rationalized by explanations that bestow a semblance of meaning upon persistence. Conversely, the counter-response emerges from the ambiguity between one’s present state and potential, an individuality firmly maintaining its existing position without necessarily “constituting an alternate social existence” and essentially remaining “entangled within the structures of the established” (Chauí, 1986: 178). Scrutinizing these movements of conformity and resistance furnishes insights into the diverse facets of social dynamics within Brazil - a nation where urban informality reflects the role of law as an instrument in service of uniformity, grounded in historical authoritarianism and the prerogative of the dominant faction to dictate the “proper” form of urban sociability (Valladares, 2005). 4. THE INFORMAL AND THE URBAN IN BRAZIL The discussion surrounding informality and urban dynamics in Brazil is closely tied to the history of favelas and the intricate relationship they share with the formal urban landscape. This article delves into two illustrative cases within the city of Rio de Janeiro. Having been established as the capital of the nation in 1763, Rio de Janeiro stands as a unique example globally, being the sole city that evolved from a colony into the center of the colonizing kingdom. A pivotal turning point emerged in 1808, as the Portuguese royal family, seeking refuge from the European conflicts, relocated to Rio de Janeiro. Alongside them arrived customs, distinct social and political structures, institutions, significant investments in infrastructure and architectural endeavors to house the royal court. The city’s harbor also played host to one of the nation’s key ports, welcoming not only commodities but also over a million enslaved Africans brought to Brazil (Guimarães, 2014). The harbor region, often referred to as “Little Africa,” housed a black cemetery where the remains of those unable to endure the harrowing transatlantic voyage were interred. It also witnessed the first clusters of freed slaves and consequently served as the birthplace of substantial cultural expressions. Additionally, Rio de Janeiro bore witness to Brazil’s inaugural large-scale urban interventions during the early 20th century. The Urban Perform of Mayor Pereira Passos, inspired by the grandeur of architect and urban planner Haussmann’s designs in Paris, involved the demolition of tenements and the creation of spaces conducive to the realization of a modern city narrative within the national capital. This transformation was achieved through an authoritarian and forceful process, justified by hygienic progress (Carvalho, 2019; Chalhoub, 2018). This period marks the first recorded usage of the term favela, which was 90 Luiza Farnese Lana Sarayed-Din & Luiz Alex Silva Saraiva CIUDADES, 27 (2024): pp. 75-90 ISSN-E: 2445-3943 Roy, Ananya (2009), “Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization”, Planning Theory, vol. 8, nº1, pp. 76-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099299 Roy, Ananya (2011), “Slumdog cities: rethinking subaltern urbanism”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 35 nº2, pp. 223-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.x Roy, Ananya & AlSayyad, Nezar (2004), Urban informality: transnational perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia, Blue Ridge Summit, Lexington Books. Sandercock, Leonie (2003), Cosmopolis II, London, Continuum. Saraiva, Luiz A. S. (2020), Diferenças e territorialidades na cidade, Ituiutaba, Barlavento. Sarayed-Din, Luiza F. L. (2009), A ponte do Rio, Rio de Janeiro, E-papers. Schwarcz, Lilian M. (2019), Sobre o autoritarismo brasileiro, São Paulo, Companhia das Letras. Simone, Abdoumaliq (2020). “Cities of the Global South”, Annual Review of Sociology, nº46, pp. 603-622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054602 Souza, Marcelo L. (2000), O desafio metropolitano: um estudo sobre a problemática sócioespacial nas metrópoles brasileiras, Rio de Janeiro, Bertrand Brasil. Souza, Marcelo L. (2003), Mudar a cidade: uma introdução crítica ao planejamento e à gestão urbanos, Rio de Janeiro, Bertrand Brasil. United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-Habitat (2006), State of the world's cities report 2006/2007, New York, UN-Habitat. Valladares, Licia P. (2005), A invenção da favela, Rio de Janeiro, FGV. Ventura, Zeunir (1994), Cidade partida. São Paulo, Companhia das Letras. Yiftachel, Oren (2006), “Essay: re-engaging planning theory? Towards 'south-eastern' perspectives”. Planning Theory, vol. 5, nº3, pp. 211-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095206068627 Yiftachel, Oren (2009a), “Critical theory and 'gray space': mobilization of the colonized”, City, vol. 13, nº2-3, pp. 246-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982227 Yiftachel, Oren (2009b), “Theoretical notes on 'gray cities': the coming of urban apartheid?” Planning Theory, vol. 8, nº1, pp. 88-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099300 Zaluar, Alba, & Alvito, Marcos -eds.- (2006), Um século de favela, Rio de Janeiro, FGV.