The struggle of the 'invisibles': social policies and the urban poor. Planning within scarcity in the Northwest of Portugal.
Abstract
Throughout the intense urbanisation process that occurred in Portugal during the last decades, social policies related with the built environment, and especially concerning housing, have shown to be insufficient to address and reverse precarious living conditions. Moreover, in this process the urban poor have often been 'invisible', even in major decisions that specifically concerned them, meaning that social policies have at times not only missed their target of reducing precariousness but have also actively contributed to increasing social and spatial exclusion, through inducing the creation of clusters of vulnerabilities or neglecting adequate support. Taking into account the recent worldwide economic crisis and its national impact in producing a condition of 'scarcity', it is urgent to rethink strategies and roles to reduce disparities. The metropolitan urban area of Porto, the second largest in Portugal, is here presented as a 'laboratory' within a broader ongoing research - commissioned by the Portuguese Government to the Porto University - to seek guidelines for social and territorial cohesion.Therefore, having this metropolitan area as background, this paper will start by presenting a critical analysis of different approaches towards the needs and roles of the urban poor, discussing not only how '(in)visible' they have been and how social policies have shaped the city, but also their impact in the concentration or dilution of socially vulnerable groups, and in the perpetuation and rupture of geographically concentrated vulnerability.Secondly, it will suggest the analysis of different types of vulnerabilities, understanding processes that have caused them, and their specific morphological patterns. Then it will be discussed how policies for reducing disparities have been struggling to address this diversity and sometimes missing their targets. Finally, detecting in the international debate on social policies a recent tendency to seek collaborative approaches, we aim to contribute to discussing the tools for this challenge.
Full text
EURAU2014ICOMPOSITECITIESINovember12‐14,2014,IIstanbul‐Turkey THESTRUGGLEOFTHE‘INVISIBLES’:SOCIALPOLICIESANDTHEURBANPOOR. PLANNINGWITHINSCARCITYINTHENORTHWESTOFPORTUGAL. AnaSilvaFernandes1,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 1:CEAU‐CentreforStudiesinArchitectureandUrbanism FacultyofArchitecture UniversityofPorto‐ViaPanorâmicas/n,4150‐564Porto,Portugal e‐mail:[email protected],web:http://www.ceau.arq.up.pt/ 2:CEAU‐CentreforStudiesinArchitectureandUrbanism FacultyofArchitecture UniversityofPorto‐ViaPanorâmicas/n,4150‐564Porto,Portugal e‐mail:[email protected],[email protected],web:http://www.ceau.arq.up.pt/ Abstract ThroughouttheintenseurbanisationprocessthatoccurredinPortugalduringthelastdecades,social policiesrelatedwiththebuiltenvironment,andespeciallyconcerninghousing,haveshowntobe insufficienttoaddressandreverseprecariouslivingconditions.Moreover,inthisprocesstheurban poorhaveoftenbeen‘invisible’,eveninmajordecisionsthatspecificallyconcernedthem,meaning thatsocialpolicieshaveattimesnotonlymissedtheirtargetofreducingprecariousnessbuthave alsoactivelycontributedtoincreasingsocialandspatialexclusion,throughinducingthecreationof clustersofvulnerabilitiesorneglectingadequatesupport. Takingintoaccounttherecentworldwideeconomiccrisisanditsnationalimpactinproducinga conditionof‘scarcity’,itisurgenttorethinkstrategiesandrolestoreducedisparities.The metropolitanurbanareaofPorto,thesecondlargestinPortugal,isherepresentedasa‘laboratory’ withinabroaderongoingresearch–commissionedbythePortugueseGovernmenttothePorto University–toseekguidelinesforsocialandterritorialcohesion. Therefore,havingthismetropolitanareaasbackground,thispaperwillstartbypresentingacritical analysisofdifferentapproachestowardstheneedsandrolesoftheurbanpoor,discussingnotonly how‘(in)visible’theyhavebeenandhowsocialpolicieshaveshapedthecity,butalsotheirimpactin theconcentrationordilutionofsociallyvulnerablegroups,andintheperpetuationandruptureof geographicallyconcentratedvulnerability. Secondly,itwillsuggesttheanalysisofdifferenttypesofvulnerabilities,understandingprocesses thathavecausedthem,andtheirspecificmorphologicalpatterns.Thenitwillbediscussedhow policiesforreducingdisparitieshavebeenstrugglingtoaddressthisdiversityandsometimesmissing theirtargets. Finally,detectingintheinternationaldebateonsocialpoliciesarecenttendencytoseek collaborativeapproaches,weaimtocontributetodiscussingthetoolsforthischallenge. Keywords:poverty,scarcity,socialpolicies,equity,Portometropolitanarea
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 1. INTRODUCTION Theurbanenvironment,byproducingaconcentrationofpeopleandsocialdiversity,shows especiallyevidentsocioeconomiccontrasts,thusproducingcomplexpatternsofsegregation(Wirth, 1938,apudRaposo,Henriques,2005).Therefore,urbanareaspersistasfragmentedspaces, gatheringinvisiblecitieswithinthecity. Thecityhashistoricallybeenaspaceofdiversity,eitherformedbyprocessesofcomprehensive regulation‐‘cityshaped’‐orbyconstantadditions‐‘cityassembled’(Kostof,1992,1993). Nevertheless,whenthisdiversityproducesextremedisparities,theideaofsocialandspatial cohesionbecomesatrisk,causingprofoundinjusticesanddisruptions. Thefocusofthispaperison vulnerabilities:howsocioeconomicandspatialvulnerabilitiesarecreated,understoodandfought against,howthediscoursearoundthemhaschangedthroughouttime,whichargumentshavebeen usedandhowtheyhavebeenadoptedtosupportoppositepointsofview. Therecenteconomiccrisis,causedbythe2008realestatepressureandtheconsequentfinancial collapse,seemstohaveestablishedthatscarcityisbecomingamoreevidentconditioninthenext fewyears(Till,2012)1.Thisimpliesincreasedvulnerabilities–relatedtounemployment,poverty, ageing,lowerbirthrates,amongstotherconcerningindicators–alongwithfurtherlimitationsin publicandprivateinterventioncapacities,reductionofsocialsupportandphysicalactions. Thisrecentscenariodemandsthusanoverallanalysisofnewneedsandpriorities,aswellasa reorientationofpoliciesforreducingvulnerabilities.Inordertocontributetoovercomingarecurrent gapbetweenneedsandactions,thispaperwillanalysepastexperiences‐withtheirdifferent strategiesandrolesofstakeholders‐,soastodiscusstheoptimizationofexistingresourcesand actors,toshapemoreadequateandresponsivepolicies. 1.1. Alaboratory TheanalysispresentedinthispaperissetwithinawiderresearchontheNorth‐westernareaof Portugalthatgathersawiderteam2,andhasbeenwrittenalongwiththepaper‘Reactingtothe investmentwithdrawal:PlanningwithinscarcityintheNorthwestofPortugal’forthissame conference,aimingatsimultaneouslydiscussingorientationsandshifts:ontheonehand,ofthe socialpoliciestosupporttheonesthatcannotfindanswerstotheirneedsintheliberalmarket,and ontheotherhand,intheprivateinvestmentinthebuiltenvironment. ThenorthwestofPortugalisformedbyavasturbansystem,thatincludesPorto(thesecondlargest city)butalsoamultiplicityofsettlementpatternswithconsolidatedurbancores,urbanperipheral areas,dispersedoccupationandruralareas(Figure1).Takingintoaccountthat,fordiscussingmeans foraction,itisimportanttohaveaspecificterritoryasalaboratoryandatoolbox(Ferrão,2014),the NorthwestofPortugalwillherebethefocusofdebate,thoughreferringtobroaderissues. 1JeremyTillcoordinatestheresearchprojectSCIBE‐ScarcityandCreativityintheBuiltEnvironment(Till,J.,‘FromObjects ofAusteritytoProcessesofScarcity’,SCIBEworkingpapernr.11,April2012,in:http://www.scibe.eu/publications/. 2Thisstudy,entitled‘OrientaçõesEstratégicasdeCoerênciaTerritorial‐ArcoMetropolitanoNorte’(‘Strategicorientations forterritorialcohesion–NorthernMetropolitanArea’)wascommissionedtoCEAU‐FAUP(CentreforStudiesinArchitecture andUrbanism‐FacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityofPorto)bytheCCDR‐N(CommissionfortheCoordinationand DevelopmentoftheNorthernRegion).Recognizingthepresentconditionofuncertaintyandscarcity,thisresearchaimsto contributetotheconstructionofguidelinesforequityandcohesionoftheNorth‐westernregionofPortugal.Theauthorsof thispaperarepartoftheresearchteamthatcontributestothisstudy.
Figur e A n e 1.Diagram Diagramofthet e n aSilvaFerna ofterritoria e rritorialmodel f ndes1*,Nun o loccupatio n f ortheNorth‐we s theN o Travasso2 a n intheNort h sternMetropolit orthenAreaofP ndManuelF h westofPo r anArchdevelop e ortugal(PROT‐N ) ernandesde r tugal(Sour c e dbytheMDT‐C E ) . Sá2 c e:PROT‐N, C EAUfortheRegi o C EAU). o nalPlanfor
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 2. LEARNINGFROMTHEPAST‐the(in)visibilityoftheurbanpoor Howhavevulnerabilitiesbeenaddressedthroughouttime?ByanalysingthePortuguesebackground throughoutthelastdecades‐andfocusingonhousingpoliciesfortheurbanpoorasindicatorsof politicalandspatialorientationsforshapingthecityandreducingsocialvulnerability‐onecanfinda multiplicityofexamplesoftotallydifferentapproachesandrolesofeachstakeholder.Theyform, naturally,areflectionoftheirsocio‐politicalcontextsandofthevisionsofsocietyineachperiod. Nonetheless,theymayalsoillustratedifficultiesandconsequencesofdifferentactions,also accordingtothevisibilityandinvisibilityoftheurbanlow‐incomepopulation. 2.1. Informalprivateprovisionofhousing‐profitingfromthelow‐incomeclass ThroughouttheXIXthcenturyandduetoindustrializationandtheconsequentintensificationofthe urbanisationprocess,mainindustrialareasattractedlargenumbersofincomingpopulation,being forcedtodensify,expandandprovideshelter.Thehousingshortage,especiallyfortheworkingclass, becameachallenge,towhichdifferentanswerswereprovided,mainlybylandowners,industrial entrepreneursandsmallinvestors,whotooktheroleofproviders,respondingtothelow‐income housingdemand.Inthisprocess,theStatehadlittlecontribution,beinghelpless,unresponsiveor evenneglecting.Theurbanpoorthusbecameclientsofaprivateserviceofhouseprovisionwhich‐ duetothelargedemandofincomingnewurbanpopulation,reducedofferandlimitedcapacityfor payingrents‐oftenachievedverylowstandardsoflivingconditions. InPorto,the‘ilhas’(meaning‘islands’)werethencreatedbyinvestorsorprivateownersasasolution forhousingtheselabourers,throughtheconstructionofoneormorerowsofsmallhouses(around 4x4meters)alongthetraditionallyelongatedlotsoftheconsolidatedcity,inthebackofexisting bourgeoishouses(Figure2).Ifprovided,infrastructuressuchastoiletswouldoftenbesharedin commonareas.Theseareasoccupiedtheinterioroftheblocks,thereforebecominginvisiblepartsof thecitythatcouldnotbeperceivedfromthestreet,hidingtheirdwellers,inasituationthatbecame commonpracticeuntilanoutbreakofbubonicplagueexposedthemiserablelivingconditionstothe restofthecivilsocietyandforcedtheStatetotakeaction.Nevertheless,nowadaysplentyof examplesofthistypologycanstillbefound,withoutsignificantchangesintheirlivingconditions. 2.2. Authoritarianpublicprovision‐theroleoftheStatethroughoutadictatorship Followingtheinstallationofadictatorialregime,inthe1930sthepublicprovisionofhousingbecame atrademarkofanewvisionforsocietyandpartofitspoliticalpropaganda.Duringthefirstdecades, afewnewsocialhousingdevelopmentswerebuiltthroughoutthecountry,consistingmostlyofnew areaswithlow‐risehousingandafewsocialservicesinspiredintheideaofgardencities,butmostly intendedforcivilservantsratherthanforverylow‐incomefamilies. Duringtheperiodof1956to1966an‘improvementplan’(‘PlanodeMelhoramentos’)wascreated forthecityofPortofortheeradicationofthe‘ilhas’,andwasmainlyundertakenthroughvastsetsof blocksoftenimplantedinperipheralurbanareasofthemunicipality,wherethecostofthelandwas lower(Figure3).TheStatebecamethefinancingentityandatotalitariandecision‐maker,whilethe low‐incomepopulationswerepaternalisticallyperceivedasmerebeneficiaries,whichtheyshould showtobeworthy,throughastrictlycontrolledmoralconduct.Theseinitiativesprovedtobenot onlyinsufficienttomeettheneeds,butalsohighlycontestedbytheirinhabitants.By1974,itwas estimatedthatthehousedeficitinPortowouldbearound600.000housingunits(Ferreira,2013).
Figur e aeria l A n Figure2.‘Il h e 3.Locatio n l imageofo n n aSilvaFerna h as’ofPort o n ofsocialh o n eofthem‐ ndes1*,Nun o o :housesin t o usingopera t ‘BairrodoC e o Travasso2 a t heinterior o tionsofthe e rco’(Sourc e ndManuelF o ftheblocks ‘improveme e s:Câmara M ernandesde (Source:Te i ntsplan’of 1 M unicipaldo Sá2 ixeira,M.C.) 1956inPort Porto;Bing m . o,and m aps).
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 2.3. Participatoryhousingprograms–theriseandinterruptionofpost‐revolutionaspirations FollowingtheCarnationRevolutionin1974andthroughoutthePREC‐the‘ongoingrevolutionary process’,aperiodofeighteenmonthsofrestructurationoftheState‐conditionswerecreatedfor theimplementationofanewvisionofsocietyandurbanenvironment.Severaltargetsandprograms werecreatedthroughtechnicalsupportatlocallevel:forrehabilitationofdegradedhistorical centres,cooperativesandaparticipatoryhousingprogramfortheurbanpoorinspiredby internationalexperiences3of‘empowerment’ofthelow‐incomepopulation.Thislastprogram, namedSAAL(‘ServiçodeApoioAmbulatórioLocal’),reliedonthemobilizationofthedwellersthat, onlythroughtheformationofassociations,wouldbeeligibleforreceivingpublicfundstosupport housingconstruction.Itwouldthusdependontheparticipationofdwellersthroughoutthedecisionmakingprocess,boththroughassembliesfordiscussionandgroupmeetingswithtechnicians.This programwoulddefendsmallscaleoperationsandresettlementintheproximityofpreviousareasof residence,understandingthe‘righttothecity’(Lefebvre,1968)asalsotherighttomaintainsocial andurbanbonds,andnottobebannedtoperipheries(Figure4),hashadpreviouslyhappened. Duringthisprocess,thedwellersbecamegeneratorsandmobilizers,andthetechnicianswere supportersandpartners,producingnotonlythevisibilitybutalsoanactiveandprominentroleofthe dwellersthroughoutthedecision‐makingprocess.However,thisprogramwasprematurely interrupted,announcingashifttowardsaliberalorientationandthewithdrawaloftheState. 2.4. Themarketastheoverallprovider‐liberalizationandthetriumphofthefinancialsector Aimingatthepromotionoftheconstructionandfinancialsectors,publicactionshiftedin1976from theprovisionofpublichousingtothecreationofincentivestoitsacquisitionintheliberalmarket throughasystemofcreditsandsavings,andthelow‐incomepopulationthusbecamehypothetical clients.Butdidthemarketprovidesolutionsfortheurbanpoor?OrwasitanexcusefortheStateto discarditsresponsibilityinassuringoverallequitableaccesstodecentlivingconditions,leavingthe urgentneedsunanswered?Thoughtherewerealsohousingcooperatives,thatstrategyproved indeedinsufficient:bythebeginningofthe1990s,publicsocialhousingprovisionreturnedthrough thePER(‘programaespecialderealojamento’,meaning‘specialresettlementprogram’),aimingat theeradicationofprecarioushousingandrelying,onceagain,inresettlementoperations(Figure5). 2.5. Recentintegratedprograms–testingamultidimensionalapproach Duetothecomplexityoftacklingpovertyandthemultiplicityofstrategiesalreadytried,recent experiences‐suchas‘Proqual’,‘IniciativaBairrosCríticos’,amongstothers‐havebeentestingthe combinationofspatialinterventions(constructionofhousingand/orqualificationofpublicspace) alongwithimmaterialaction(employmentgeneration,training,socialsupport).Theyaimatputting thelow‐incomepopulationasparticipantsintheseseveralactions,gatheringseveralagents/partners intheprocess,articulatingeffortsandresourcestowardscommongoals.Thoughnotalwayswiththe expectedresultsorwithprematureinterruption,theyhavenonethelessprovedtobevaluable experiences,focusingontheusersasindividualsandnotasnumbers. 3SuchastheinfluenceofJohnF.C.TurnerwithintheinformalsettlementsinLima,Peru(Turner,1977),orCarlosNelson dosSantosinRiodeJaneiro,Brasil,thathadpersonalcontactwithNunoPortas,theportugueseurbanistthatpromotedthe implementationoftheseinitiativeswhenworkingasSecretary‐GeralofHousinginthePRECperiod(Bandeirinha,2007; Grande,2012).
Figure 4 with Figure5 A n 4 .TheSAAL p modelsoff u .Percentag e thePER n aSilvaFerna p rogram:lo c u turehouse s B e ofhousing program(S o ndes1*,Nun o ationofop e s ,exampleo f B andeirinha, builtbetwe e o urces:Serr a o Travasso2 a e rationsinP o fself‐constr u J.A.;Grand e e n1971and a ,N.;Câmar a ndManuelF o rto,aresid e u ctionadop t e ,N.;Dias,J . 1993,accor d a Municipal d ernandesde e nts’assem b t edinafew . ). d ingtoagen d aPóvoado Sá2 b lyin1975, r projects(So u n tsandane x Varzim). r esidents u rces: x ampleof
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 2.6. Lessonslearnt‐strategies,roles,outcomes Morethanashiftbetweenpoliciesorastrictorientation,nowadaystheseapproachescoexist, showingthatnoneofthesestrategieshasbeenstrictlydiscardedastotallyineffective.Theresultis thatnotonlyithasshowntobeachallengetorefineeachofthesestrategies(thatstillstrugglewith missingtheirtargets),butithasalsobeenespeciallydifficulttoassureaglobaloverviewandstrategy tocomprehensivelysupportthemostvulnerablesectorsofthepopulation.Throughoutthese differentapproaches,therehavebeendifferentattitudestowardstherecognition,thesocial perceptionandtherolesoftheurbanpoor:theyendedupbeingclients,beneficiariesordecisionmakersintheprocesses.Furthermore,urgentneedshaveattimesbeenignoredorfailedtobe addressed,notonlyduetothecomplexityofthechallengeitself,butalsoduetofactors‐suchas politicalbackground,fundlimitation,incentivestoconstruction,amongstothers‐thatinfluenced greatlyinthedefinitionofpriorities. Infact,thecomplexityofdiscussingtheideaofpovertyandtheroleofthewelfarestate,alongwith theirperceptionbydifferentgroupswithinthesocietyandthesocio‐politicalcontext,havealso meantthatsocialandredistributivepolicieshaveattimesadoptedpaternalisticorientations,where thelow‐incomesectorwouldbesubjectedtomoralstrictcontrolandspatialsegregation. Moreover,therehasoccasionallybeenaperverseeffectofcertainapproaches:forexample,while theextensiverelocationoperationsaimedatprovidinghouseswithadequateconditionstoalarge amountoflow‐incomepeople,theymayalsohavegeneratedtheconcentrationofvulnerabilities, thestigmatizationofcertainareasoftheurbanenvironmentandthusanincreaseddifficultyin breakingthepovertycycleandtheperpetuationofmarginalizationthroughoutgenerations. Itseemstoshowthat,ontheonehand,wherelow‐incomeresidentshavebeeninvisibleinthe decision‐makingprocessandmassiveoperationshavetakenplace,spatialandsocialintegrationhas remainedachallenge:someextensivesocialhousingoperationsbecamestigmatizedandsocially criticalareas,creatingclusterswheretheconcentrationofvulnerabilitiesmayescalateproblems.On theotherhand,itisbelievedthatthecombinationofparticipationofbeneficiariesinthedecisionmakingprocess,alongwithsmall‐scaleareasofinterventionandtheconcernputintospatially articulatingthemwiththesurroundings,supportedbymeasuresateconomicandeducationlevels, tendstopromotesocialandspatialintegration,andthereforemoreequitablelivingenvironments. Recentinterventionshavetriedtoadoptthisattitudeinexistinglargescalesocialhousingareas, increasingtheirpermeabilitytowardsthesurroundingsandthereforeamplifyingthecontact amongstdiversifiedsocialgroups.Suchpolicy,withthequalificationofpublicspace,jobcreationand professionaltraining,maythuscontributetodilutingstigmatizationanddisparities,thoughwith limitedresults. Fromtheseexamples,onemayrecognisenotonlythecomplexityofsocialvulnerabilitiesandtheir spatialrepercussions,butalsotheimportanceofactingsimultaneouslyintheseveraldimensions thatshapethem:byrelatingthequalificationofthebuiltenvironmentwithempowermentofits users,bynegotiatingamongstthestakeholders;thatis,toactspatially,sociallyandsymbolically. Inatimeofscarcityofresourcesbutalsoofincreasingawarenesstowardssocialresponsibilityas wellasavailabilityofstakeholdersthatmightbewillingtotakepartinprocessesforreducing disparities,itmaythusbeimportanttofindmechanismsforjoiningeffortsandreducethe fragmentationanddispersalofinterventions.Thisimpliesacomprehensiveoverviewanddeeper knowledgeofthedifferentattributesofeachcontext.
Figure A n Figure6.P e 7.Percenta g n aSilvaFerna e rcentageo f g eofsocial h ndes1*,Nun o f unemploy m h ousingrent s o Travasso2 a m entin2001 s andelderl y ndManuelF and2011( S y residentsi n ernandesde S ource:CEA U n 2011(Sour c Sá2 U ,INEdata). c e:CEAU,INEdata).
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 3.3. Effectsofdeindustrializationinurbandispersedareas Theareasofurbandiffusedsettlingpatterns,whichhaveoriginallybeenassociatedwiththe diffusionofsmallindustriesoverareasofformerruralbackground,facedifficultiesduetorecent economicconstraints,strugglingwiththesevereimpactofunemploymentandlossofitsoriginal economicstructure,thusonlivingconditions. Theareaof‘ValedoAve’(valleyoftheAveriver,Figure10)isaplacewherethisprocessofcreation andmutationofadispersedurbanoccupationisquiteobviousandintense:thislow‐densitybut continuousoccupation,inwhichconstructionsarescatteredandwidespreadintheterritory,faceda rapidsurgeofexpansionfromthe1970sandshowssignsofrecentretractionofitsoriginal structures. Withsmall‐scalelotsandafragmentedlandproperty,thispulverisationofconstructionshaslong reliedinthecombinationofeconomicactivities,meaningthatthetypicalresidents’livelihoodwould gatherboththelabouratindustrialplantsandsmall‐scalehomeplantationsforsubsistence.This characteristichasdictatedapulverizationofconstructions,butalsotherelativelyhighpermeability ofthesoil(foranurbanarea).Thus,whileretainingaruralstructure,thisareahasalsowelcomedthe legacyofindustrialdevelopmentthroughthefixationoffactoriesthatweremainlyconnectedwith thetextilemanufacturingandneededacloseconnectiontowater.Theexpansionoftheroad networkalsocontributedtothefixationofpopulationandtheintensificationofcommercialactivities andservices,thereforepromotingthecoexistenceofthesedifferentlogics. Contrarytowhatmightbesupposedbytheimpactoftheroadsystemintheproductionand maintenanceofdispersedsettlements,bymappingthedatacollectedinthelastcensus(INE,2011)it isshownthattheshortdistances‐aswellaswalking‐achievegreatimportanceineveryday movementsofresidentsofthesediffuseurbanizationareas,illustratinga‘senseofproximity’intheir livingroutines. The(pastand)recentindustrialdecayiscreatingfurtherchallenges,throughasevereandpersistent incidenceofunemployment(andespeciallylong‐termunemployment),aggravatedbyalegacyof intensespecializationoflabouranditsconstraintsintofindingworkalternatives,thusforcinga restructurationofthesocialandeconomicconfigurations.Thisprocesshasbeenquitedevastating, asstatisticalindicatorsshowalarmingsignsofincreasedvulnerabilities,andfurtherdetailedstudies thatgatherinterviewsaredetectingastrikingsenseoffrustrationandlossofaspirations(Pereira, 2012).Policiestoaddressthesevulnerabilitieshavebeenscarceandfacethedifficultyoftackling vulnerabilitiesthatarescatteredandwidespread,andthereforesometimesnearlyinvisible. Thisoccupationpatternwouldthereforedemandpoliciestobeadjustedtoitsspecificity.The attributesmentionedabovewouldneedtoberecognisedasspecificitiesandqualities,andthus understoodandusedfortheidentificationofcommongoalsandstrengtheningofacommon identity,suchasthelegacyofruralstructuresthatmightbetracedandenhanced,orthesmall‐scale horticultureasaneconomicbackupsubsistenceactivity. Aphysicalconsolidationprocesswouldalsobeimportant,throughcompletingandbetterarticulating supportingstructures(suchastheroadnetworkorotherinfrastructures),thecreationor qualificationofcentralitieswithintheurbanfabric(asmeetingpointsforthefruitionofpublicspace). Finally,socialpoliciesmightalsobestrengthened,throughsmall‐scaleandnetworkoperation, formingalightweightbutextensivesupportsystem.
Figure1 A n 1.Challenge location, n aSilvaFerna swithinrur a photograp h ndes1*,Nun o a lareasintr a s(Sources: J o Travasso2 a a nsformatio J orge,F.;PR O ndManuelF n‐theDour O T‐N;Maze, ernandesde o ’svalley:a e S.;Museud Sá2 e rialview,di d oDouro). agramof
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 3.4. Thetransformationoftheruralareas Lastly,theareasofruralsettlementthathaverecentlybeenconfrontedwithmajorchangesintheir agriculturaleconomicbackground,facealsospecificdifficultiesinsubsistence,modernisationor transitiontowardsurbanpatterns.Thereareindeedcertainareasofagriculturalpredominancethat areeconomicallydynamic,butsomeotherspresentextremelysevereindicatorsofvulnerability. TheexampleoftheDouro’svalley(Figure11)gathersbothofthesescenarios:alongwiththefamous portwinevineyardsandtheirvillas,thereisabackstageofinvisiblebutwidespreadprecarious contextwithveryhighindicatorsofageing,unemployment,populationexodusandinadequateliving conditions.Thisareapresentsespeciallyseveredwellingconditions,withalarmingdifficultiesin ensuringevenbasicneeds,suchassafewaterprovision,accesstoasanitationsystemandenergy. Thelegacyofaprofoundlyhierarchicalsocialstructurerelatedtolandownership,alongwithharsh conditionsforagrarianworkers(duetoweather,topography,seasonalityandprecariousdaily payments),haveperpetuateddisparitiesandextremeprecariousness,whicharestillevident.Some yearsago,civilconstructionhadbeenextensivelyemergingandrecruitinglabourforceinthisarea, actingalsoasacomplementaryeconomicactivity.Nevertheless,astherecentcrisiswasespecially severeinthatsector,thissameregionsufferedyetanotherhardhit,strugglingtoovercomethese difficultconditions,tofindalternativesandsocialsupport. Eventhoughinthisareathedistributionofasubsistencesubsidy(RSI‐‘rendimentosocialde inserção’)isrelativelyextensive,nonethelessithasproveninsufficienttocontrol‐orevenwishfully toreverse‐thevulnerabilityofarelevantpartofthepopulation.Specificpolicyorientationswould thereforedemandfurthereffortsinensuringequity,namelybyguaranteeingthatthesuccessful economicsectorswouldalsotranslateintowidespreadlocaldevelopment,andthatthesocial policieswouldinfactnotalsoreachtheneededbutalsoreducedisparitiesandpromotecohesion. 4.CONCLUSIONS‐COHESIONDESPITEUNCERTAINTY Inconclusion,thisdiscussionillustratestheimportanceoftacklingproblemsnotonlythroughtheir symptoms,butratherintheirseveraldimensions.Asitisshown,socialsupport,ifprovidedjustby itself,mayrepresentalleviationinneedsandprivationsbutfailtobreaktheperpetuationofpoverty andvulnerabilities(BrutodaCosta,2012).Therefore,itisindeedimperativetosimultaneouslytackle thespatial,socioeconomicandculturaldimensions,notonlybyensuringtheminimumofdignityfor allsocialgroups,butenablingtheiraccesstoopportunitiesandaspirations,thusbreakingcyclesof disparities. Therecognitionofheterogeneityisalsoimportant:havingdiscussedhowpastlegacyhasshaped recentdemands,aswellasthatdifferenthumansettlementsshowdistinctvulnerabilitiesand priorities,thisperceptionhighlightstheneedtoadjustsocialpoliciestodifferentandspecific challenges.Therefore,assimilarissuesmayshowthroughdistinctivewaysindifferentterritories, socialpolicieswouldneedtoensurethattheirtoolsmeetinfactdifferentneedsthroughoutthese specificcontexts,betheywidespreadorconcentratedinstigmatisedclusters. Therefore,commontargetsmaybeaddressedthroughdifferentimplementationstrategies, recognizingandtakingintoconsiderationasenseofspecificity.Itwasthusrecurrentlyhighlighted thatthespecificlocalidentitymightbeakeyfactorforsocioeconomicenhancementandspatial qualification,recognizingheterogeneityasavalue.Hence,insteadofanattemptofhomogenization, itwouldbefundamentaltoperceivespecificvaluesofeachterritoryandarea,returningtotheidea ofthelocalasatoolbox:aspacecontainingalreadymostoftheresourcesforitsimprovement.This
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 hasbeenevidentindifferentlocationsandpatternsofsettlement,allofthemimportantintheir specificity:thecentreasaproviderofalifestyleofproximity,theperipheriesasplacesof‘endless possibilities’thatneedtochangetheirconditionof‘beingclose’to‘beingconnected’,thedispersed areasasplacesofmixtureandrecombinationofcharacterswhereitsmultiplicitymaybecomea value,orthelowdensityareaswithspecificvaluesofalifestyleofcloserconnectionwithnatureand land,alongwiththeirpossibilityofcombinationwithcomplementaryactivities.Thedefinitionand clarificationofthislocalidentitywouldalsoinvolve,insomecases,aprocessofminimizationof stigmasandpromotionofintegration. Theideaofequityisalsocrucial,defendingtheneedtomakesurethatcommonresourcesand servicesarenotonlyavailable,butactuallyreachableforallsocialgroups,includingthelowerincomepopulationandthemostvulnerable.Thatwouldmean,ontheonehand,aregulationof liberalactionsbasedintheredistributionandreinvestmentofoutcomes,whileontheotherhand, strongerandmoresensitivesocialsupportmeasuresthatmightbeequallyeffectiveandadaptedto differentsituationsasthecontrastsincentres,theclustersofvulnerabilitiesinperipheriesortheir dilutionindispersedandlow‐densityareas.Thiswouldmeanthat,regardlessofthepatternof settlements,thereneedstobeensuredpropercoverageofservicesandsocialpolicies,anetworkto reacheveryoneandtheirprovisiondesignedfromtheusers’pointofview. Anotherimportantfactorthatcomesoutistheideaofphysicalarticulationandpublicspacesas catalysersofpermeability,socialdiversificationandinteraction.Therefore,itisalsodefendedthat theintentionofsocialintegrationandcontactcouldalsobepromotedbythequalificationofpublic space,throughprovidingmeetingpointsfordialogueandconflict,commonreferencesand affiliations,andforwieldingcitizenship.Theseintentionswouldnaturallyassumedifferent materializationsaccordingtothediversehumanoccupationpatternsandtheirspecificneeds.Thus, whereasinconsolidatedurbancentrestheremightalreadybephysicalcohesionbutsomesocial barriers,probablyinmostoftheperipheralareasthisarticulationisstilltobeensured,lackingon permeability,connectivity,relations,socialactivationanddiversificationofresidents.Likewise, dispersedsettlementsandlowdensityareasofruralcharacterprobablylackphysicalconsolidation, meaninganeedtostrengthenphysicalandsocialconnections,formingasmall‐scalebutwidespread network. Forthesegoals,italsobecomesclearthattherecentconditionofscarcity‐byincreasingchallenges andlimitingfunds‐demandsawholenewapproachofreorganisationofavailableresources, meaningtheurgencyintheirredistributionandactivation(Ferrão,2014).Takingintoaccountthe collaborativeorientationthatseemstoberecentlygainingfurtherstrength(Ferrão,2011),theneed forarticulationofactorsandcontributionshasbecomemoreurgent,rethinkingrolesandoutputs. Throughoutthepreviousdiscussion,itisalsoshownthatthe(in)visibilityoftheurbanpoor‐their socialandspatialexclusionorintegration,aswellastheirroleintheprocessesofintervention‐has dictatedimportantrepercussionsinthedeteriorationorsuccessofpolicies,provingthatan equitablesocietyandajustterritorycanonlybeachievedifalltheircitizensmayindeedsharetheir commonresourcesandaspirations.
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 REFERENCES Lefebvre,H.,Ledroitalaville,Paris:Anthropos,1968. Bandeirinha,J.A.,OProcessoSAALeaArquitecturano25deAbrilde1974.Coimbra:Imprensada UniversidadedeCoimbra,2007. BrutodaCosta,A.,etal.(ed.),Umolharsobreapobreza.Vulnerabilidadeeexclusãosocialno Portugalcontemporâneo.Lisboa:GradivaPublicações,2012(orig.2008). Delgado,Manuel,EspacioPúblico:Discurso,ArquitecturayAcción(conference),Acidaderesgatada‐ Therescuedcity,FundaçãodeSerralves,Porto,15thofMay2013. Ferrão,J.,OOrdenamentodoTerritóriocomoPolíticaPública,Lisboa,FCG,2011. Ferrão,J.,A Inovação no Desenvolvimento Territorial Sustentável, ConferênciasdeAljustrel: Cidadania,InovaçãoeTerritório,Aljustrel,4thand5thofApril2014 (in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MvDqe7w6-s). Ferreira,A.,“Anosde1970‐1980:doFundodeFomentodaHabitaçãoaoInstitutoNacionalde Habitação”,inPortas,N.(coord.),HabitaçãoparaoMaiorNúmero:Portugalosanosde1950‐1980, Lisboa,INH,2013,pp.110‐133. Grande,N.(ed.)OSerUrbano:NosCaminhosdeNunoPortas.Lisboa:ImprensaNacional‐Casada Moeda,2012. Kostof,S.,Thecityshaped:urbanpaternsandmeaningsthroughhistory,London:Thamesand Hudson,1991. Kostof,S.,Thecityassembled:theelementsofurbanformthroughhistory,London:Thamesand Hudson,1992. Malheiros,J.,‘AsCrise(s)Demográfica(s)eosTerritóriosdeBaixaDensidade’,Conferênciasde Aljustrel:Cidadania,InovaçãoeTerritório,Aljustrel,4thand5thofApril2014(in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NplHhimXi5s&feature=youtu.be). Pereira,V.B.(org.),Aocairdopano.Sobreaformaçãodoquotidianonumcontexto (des)industrializadodoValedoAve,EdiçõesAfrontamento,2012. Pereira,V.B.,ApolíticadehabitaçãodoEstadoeosseusefeitossociaisnoPortocontemporâneo: umaperspectivasintéticaepanorâmica,inSantos,C.,Família,EspaçoePatrimónio,Porto:CITCEM, 2011,pp.547‐557. Pereira,V.B.,Umaimensaesperadeconcretizações...Ilhas,bairroseclasseslaboriosasbrevemente perspectivadosapartirdacidadedoPorto,Sociologia,vol.XIII,Porto:FLUP,2003,pp.139‐148. Pereira,V.B.,Aquiloquequasetodossabemossobreo(Grande)Porto,masraramentetemos disponibilidadeparareconhecer‐Reflexõesapropósitodopapeldosocialnoplaneamentourbano, Portod'ideias‐acidadeemdebate:ciclodeconferências,Porto:APOR,2001,pp.19‐23. PlanodeMelhoramentos1956‐1966,Porto:CâmaraMunicipaldoPorto‐DirecçãodosServiçosdo PlanodeMelhoramentos,1966. Raposo,I.;Henriques,C.,(Sub)urbanidadeetransformaçãodousodosolonaperiferiadeMaputo, Ur:CadernosdaFaculdadedeArquitecturadaUniversidadeTécnicadeLisboa,2005. Serra,N.,"TerritórioehabitaçãoemPortugal".OficinadoCES,nº101,Coimbra:CentrodeEstudos Sociais,1997.
AnaSilvaFernandes1*,NunoTravasso2andManuelFernandesdeSá2 Teixeira,M.C.,Habitaçãopopularnacidadeoitocentista:asilhasdoPorto,Lisboa:Fundação CalousteGulbenkian,1996. Till,J.,‘FromObjectsofAusteritytoProcessesofScarcity’,SCIBEworkingpapernr.11,2012,in http://www.scibe.eu/publications/. Majordatasources: INE‐InstitutoNacionaldeEstatística(inhttp://censos.ine.pt). PORDATA‐BasedeDadosdePortugalContemporâneo,FundaçãoFranciscoManueldosSantos.(in www.pordata.pt). Referencesoffigures: CâmaraMunicipaldaPóvoadoVarzim(inhttp://www.cm‐pvarzim.pt). Dias,J.,AsoperaçõesSAAL(film),2007(inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45K1Bu9rA0E). Jorge,F.,Portugalvistodocéu,Lisboa,Argumentum,2009(alongwithunpublishedphotographsof thesameauthor). Maze,S.,inhttp://travel.nationalgeographic.com/. MuseudoDouro(inwww.dourovalley.eu). PortoLazer,inhttp://visitportoandnorth.travel/Porto‐and‐the‐North/Visit/Artigos/Cities‐with‐ nightlife. PROT‐N‐PlanoRegionaldeOrdenamentodoTerritóriodaRegiãodoNorte‐PropostadePlano, ComissãodeCoordenaçãodaRegiãodoNorte,2009. Romão,C.,inhttp://outra‐face.blogspot.pt/. AnaSilvaFernandes(Porto,1982)isanarchitect,post‐graduatedinMethodologiesofInterventioninArchitecturalHeritageandaPh.D. studentattheFacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityofPorto.Sheworkedbothinarchitecturaloffices,innationalandinternational contexts,andasafreelancer.SheiscurrentlyundertakingPh.D.researchonplanninginDevelopingCountries,havingtheDemocratic RepublicofSaoTomeandPrincipeascasestudy.Sheisintegratedinthegroup‘MorfologiaseDinâmicasdoTerritório’(Territorialdynamics andmorphologies)oftheCEAU‐FAUP(ResearchCentreonArchitectureandUrbanismoftheFacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityof Porto).Herresearchinterestsfocusondevelopment,informalsettlements,socialinclusion,postcolonialismandsharedheritage. NunoTravasso(Porto,1980)isanarchitectandPhDcandidateattheFacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityofPortoandanintegrated researcheratthethegroup‘MorfologiaseDinâmicasdoTerritório’(TerritorialDynamicsandMorphologies)oftheCEAU‐FAUP(Research CentreonArchitectureandUrbanismoftheFacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityofPorto).Hisresearchworkismainlyfocusedonthe analysisofurbanizationprocessesandactors,theunderstandingoftheroleofcommonhousingprojectsonthedefinitionofurban structures,andthereadingofdiffusedsettlements.HehasbeenAssistentlectureratFAUP(2010‐2013)andpartoftheresearchproject “UrbanPoliciesII–Transformations,regulationsandprojects”coordinatedbyNunoPortas.Hehasworkedinarchitecturalofficesand maintainsactivityasapracticingarchitectinthestudyofwhichheisafoundingpartner. ManuelFernandesdeSá(Porto,1943)isanArchitectgraduatedfromtheESBAP,UniversityofPorto(1966)andobtainedapostgraduationin“TownandCountryPlanning”fromtheManchesterUniversity(1970).HeisEmeritusProfessoroftheUniversityofPortoand theheadoftheresearchgroup‘MorfologiaseDinâmicasdoTerritório’(TerritorialDynamicsandMorphologies)oftheCEAU‐FAUP(Centre forArchitectureandUrbanStudiesoftheFacultyofArchitectureoftheUniversityofPorto),havingpresentedlecturesinseveral universitiesandconferencesworldwide.Hedevelopsresearchworkinthefieldsofmediumscaleplanning,metropolitananalysesand diffusedsettlementmodels.Hispublicationsarewidespreadandrelatedtourbanstudies,basedbothonhisresearchandonhisextensive consultancywork,academicandprofessionalexperience.Inhisprofessionalpractice,hehasledorparticipatedinseveralmajorMaster PlansandUrbanDesignprojects,andprovidedtechnicaladvisorysupporttoseveralMunicipalities.Heisanhonorablememberof PortugueseArchitectsAssociation.