著：（美）戴維·加弗努爾 譯：張晨笛

1 對(duì)非正規(guī)城市的偏見

為什么對(duì)于顯著的非正規(guī)城市問題的處理如此低效？目前有近10億人生活在自建區(qū)，未來30年，此人數(shù)將會(huì)再增加10億[1]①（圖1）。然而，政治家、學(xué)者和專業(yè)人士對(duì)非正規(guī)城市往往存在偏見，妨礙人們欣賞非正規(guī)城市的積極方面，并進(jìn)一步阻礙他們實(shí)現(xiàn)更好城市標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的愿望。

1 靠近中央商業(yè)區(qū)的非正規(guī)住區(qū)（委內(nèi)瑞拉加拉加斯）Informal settlements adjacent to central business areas(Caracas, Venezuela)

在文化價(jià)值觀和經(jīng)濟(jì)上，較富裕和在政治上占主導(dǎo)地位的人往往與住在城市里的窮人不同。政治家、專業(yè)人士和中上層階級(jí)的消極態(tài)度源于對(duì)非正規(guī)社區(qū)出現(xiàn)的原因缺乏了解。正規(guī)城市的居民往往認(rèn)為非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居民是外來的，對(duì)他們的生活水平有負(fù)面影響，但在許多情況下，他們甚至沒有去過非正規(guī)住區(qū)。

筆者的祖國(guó)委內(nèi)瑞拉在經(jīng)歷了不太成功的社會(huì)主義革命之后，經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條，對(duì)非正規(guī)城市的研究具有一定代表性。雖然其政治目標(biāo)是為不太富裕的人口服務(wù)，但政府官員和普通民眾都經(jīng)常提到：“鞏固社區(qū)就是鞏固苦難?！被蛘撸骸拔覀儽仨毺峁w面的住房來替代這些不適合居住的地方?！痹诠P者看來，這兩種說法都反映了對(duì)非正規(guī)城市化動(dòng)態(tài)的誤解。并且非正規(guī)住區(qū)一直被忽視，只有一小部分新增住房需求會(huì)涵蓋在（政府組織的正規(guī)）社會(huì)住房計(jì)劃中。

盡管各大洲有許多例子表明改善現(xiàn)有非正規(guī)住區(qū)的生活條件是可行的，但仍有一些國(guó)家，特別是那些具有高度中央集權(quán)的政府形式的國(guó)家，在這種情況下，拆遷和摧毀自建的非正規(guī)住區(qū)仍然是常態(tài)。以津巴布韋為例，在2008年，容納近80萬人的大型非正規(guī)住區(qū)被夷為平地。大多數(shù)情況下，沒有為流離失所的居住者提供其他選擇[2]。因此，這些移民最終部分在鄰國(guó)南非定居，部分則返回其原籍的農(nóng)村地區(qū)，或重新開始在其他地區(qū)進(jìn)行非正規(guī)居住。這種性質(zhì)的強(qiáng)制行動(dòng)可能可以將原居住者的居住場(chǎng)地用于其他用途；但對(duì)那些曾居住在此地的人來說，這是暴力破壞，導(dǎo)致他們只能在其他地方居住，由于未來面臨被驅(qū)逐的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，他們對(duì)社會(huì)的怨恨和不安全感增加。在更富裕的發(fā)展中國(guó)家，比如中國(guó)，城市更新進(jìn)程非常普遍。而這些項(xiàng)目卻擾亂了非正規(guī)和傳統(tǒng)的城市區(qū)域（中國(guó)的城中村），迫使居民遠(yuǎn)離原居住地，他們必須適應(yīng)與之前完全不同的居住條件，如高層住宅區(qū)。在這個(gè)過程中，這些項(xiàng)目侵蝕了當(dāng)?shù)氐纳罘绞胶蜕顐鹘y(tǒng)。這些對(duì)非正規(guī)住區(qū)居民的驅(qū)逐還與可耕農(nóng)業(yè)土地的減少、自然棲息地的減少，以及尊重自然、規(guī)避自然災(zāi)害的文化習(xí)俗的喪失有關(guān)。

2 非正規(guī)都市主義的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)

許多窮人除了自建住所和社區(qū)別無選擇。他們無法參與正規(guī)的房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)（的各項(xiàng)買賣活動(dòng)），也負(fù)擔(dān)不起正規(guī)住房的相關(guān)成本，即使這些正規(guī)住房項(xiàng)目得到了高額補(bǔ)貼。從農(nóng)村或小城鎮(zhèn)進(jìn)入城市或試圖從大城市現(xiàn)有的非正規(guī)區(qū)域遷移到城市的移民，沒有穩(wěn)定的工作、固定的收入或儲(chǔ)蓄。他們無法獲得抵押貸款或其他形式的補(bǔ)貼以購買住房或租房。因此，對(duì)于那些不太富裕的人來說，唯一的選擇是非法占有大量未開發(fā)的土地，或者以他們能負(fù)擔(dān)得起的價(jià)格從非法或非正規(guī)開發(fā)商那里購買土地。鄉(xiāng)村庇護(hù)所逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變成一個(gè)更穩(wěn)定的住所。它們通常不只是住所，更像活的有機(jī)體，能夠發(fā)展為大家庭、出租單位或一些諸如小型商店及制造業(yè)的生產(chǎn)活動(dòng)場(chǎng)所。

在大多數(shù)情況下，非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居民不去支付水電等公用事業(yè)費(fèi)用，也不支付財(cái)產(chǎn)稅，同樣也無法申請(qǐng)到商業(yè)執(zhí)照。在整合的后期階段，學(xué)校或日托中心等基本公共服務(wù)由城市或非政府組織提供。在自建社區(qū)中，社會(huì)聯(lián)系也非常緊密，場(chǎng)所感和身份感通常比任何規(guī)劃中的社會(huì)住房項(xiàng)目都要強(qiáng)烈得多。所有這些因素都給非正規(guī)居住者帶來了巨大的好處。雖然非正規(guī)住區(qū)的形成與產(chǎn)生原因?qū)τ谄渲械木用駛兲峁┝嗽S多好處，但非正規(guī)住區(qū)并不是全無問題。在發(fā)展中國(guó)家的自建城市里，社會(huì)債務(wù)在不斷累積和升級(jí)。由于缺乏獲得信息、教育、保健服務(wù)的機(jī)會(huì)，或者不知道如何更好地利用商業(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)，許多非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居住者相對(duì)于正規(guī)城市居民而言，常處于不利地位[3-4]②。雖然有許多富有創(chuàng)造性的案例可以說明企業(yè)是如何在非正規(guī)場(chǎng)所中繁榮起來的，但這不是常態(tài)。

不同國(guó)家、城市或地區(qū)的情況可能有很大差異，但（非正規(guī)）住區(qū)往往缺乏公共部門直接或間接提供的基本城市條件（圖2-1、2-2）。這些不足體現(xiàn)在以下方面。

2-1 洪澇區(qū)域上的非正規(guī)住區(qū)（委內(nèi)瑞拉加拉加斯卡塔馳）Informal settlements on a flood plain (Catuche, Caracas,Venezuela)

2-2 陡峭地形上的非正規(guī)住區(qū)（委內(nèi)瑞拉加拉加斯）Informal settlements on a steep terrain (Caracas,Venezuela)

1）處于不安全的地點(diǎn)，如洪泛區(qū)、陡坡、棕地和地質(zhì)不穩(wěn)定的場(chǎng)地。這些地點(diǎn)常常無法保證人身生命安全，易造成財(cái)產(chǎn)損失并造成環(huán)境破壞，如森林砍伐、流域破壞、土壤侵蝕、含水層污染、生物多樣性減弱等。

2）缺乏基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，特別是飲用水和下水道，造成公共衛(wèi)生問題。

3）社區(qū)服務(wù)差，例如在教育、醫(yī)療援助、體育設(shè)施、娛樂設(shè)施等方面。

4）非正規(guī)區(qū)域內(nèi)的公共交通系統(tǒng)不完善，可達(dá)性、流動(dòng)性和連通性弱，以及在這些方面與正規(guī)城市區(qū)域也比較割裂。這些因素造成了空間隔離，使居住者難以在正規(guī)城市獲得工作和服務(wù)，也無法在居住地獲得基本的城市服務(wù)，如警察監(jiān)護(hù)、緊急救護(hù)、消防、垃圾收集等。

5）街道或人行道狹窄，以及缺少甚至沒有公共場(chǎng)所，減少了社交和休閑的可能性。

6）社會(huì)怨恨的增加以及上述情況的發(fā)生常會(huì)導(dǎo)致暴力、不安全和犯罪，在許多國(guó)家，非正規(guī)和正規(guī)地區(qū)的居民都認(rèn)為這些指標(biāo)是最令人關(guān)切的，是城市發(fā)展水平低的標(biāo)志。

一定要記住的是，當(dāng)住區(qū)不斷擴(kuò)大變得更密集且遠(yuǎn)離舊的非正規(guī)區(qū)域和正規(guī)城市時(shí)，城市問題往往會(huì)被放大。為了減少正規(guī)城市和非正規(guī)城市之間的差距，緩解不斷升級(jí)的、緊張的社會(huì)局勢(shì)，迫切需要一套新的規(guī)劃、設(shè)計(jì)和管理模式。

3 應(yīng)對(duì)非正規(guī)城市擴(kuò)張的嘗試

在大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家，現(xiàn)代化和工業(yè)化帶來了顯著的人口變化。為了尋求更好的收入和服務(wù)，農(nóng)村人口大量遷移到城市。在某些情況下，這樣的遷移源自武裝沖突、倫理問題、宗教問題、暴力或饑荒。

政府對(duì)非正規(guī)住區(qū)的第一反應(yīng)往往是忽視他們，或讓他們遠(yuǎn)離“稱心如意的地點(diǎn)”（圖3）。隨著時(shí)間的推移，當(dāng)局意識(shí)到無法阻止非正規(guī)城市化的進(jìn)程。為應(yīng)對(duì)此現(xiàn)象，他們?cè)噲D為城市發(fā)展提前規(guī)劃；推進(jìn)社會(huì)住房計(jì)劃、“場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目”或發(fā)展改善住區(qū)的項(xiàng)目。正如將要闡釋的，這些方法在不同程度上取得了成功，但因?yàn)槿丝诘目焖僭鲩L(zhǎng)、自建地區(qū)的規(guī)模以及發(fā)展中城市的復(fù)雜性，其也有局限性。下面的內(nèi)容闡述了這些嘗試性解決方案的一些缺陷。

3 游離于城市設(shè)計(jì)所規(guī)劃的范圍之外的非正規(guī)住區(qū)（委內(nèi)瑞拉法哈多城）Informal settlements outside the boundaries of an official Urban Design Plan (Ciudad Fajardo, Venezuela)

3.1 傳統(tǒng)城市規(guī)劃帶來的不良影響

在大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家，公共機(jī)構(gòu)主要負(fù)責(zé)制定規(guī)劃指導(dǎo)城市發(fā)展。這些規(guī)劃政策與20世紀(jì)下半葉以來工業(yè)化國(guó)家創(chuàng)造制定和應(yīng)用的政策沒有太大區(qū)別。這些規(guī)劃主要著眼于人口預(yù)測(cè)，設(shè)想城市應(yīng)該如何擴(kuò)張，在哪里擴(kuò)張。他們建議了一定的建筑密度與用地范圍，這些建筑和用地與提供基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和移動(dòng)系統(tǒng)以及服務(wù)相關(guān)。這些政策通常是一般性的工具，沒有考慮到發(fā)展中國(guó)家的背景和文化條件。它們也不涉及非正規(guī)形式的發(fā)展增長(zhǎng)。最好的情況是，他們只是在地圖上標(biāo)注并在法律上承認(rèn)非正規(guī)住區(qū)的存在，但不會(huì)為其規(guī)劃新的住區(qū)。

此外，這些規(guī)劃可能會(huì)對(duì)非正規(guī)區(qū)域的發(fā)展選址和發(fā)展方式產(chǎn)生不良影響。大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家繼承了殖民時(shí)期不公平的土地所有權(quán)模式所留下來的遺產(chǎn)，財(cái)產(chǎn)集中在少數(shù)人手中。因此，公共土地有限，甚至在某些情況下是緊缺的，這就需要控制較貧窮階層住區(qū)的人口增長(zhǎng)。這些規(guī)劃政策一出臺(tái)，就會(huì)把農(nóng)村土地變成城市土地，促進(jìn)并刺激房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)。

隨后政府會(huì)提供基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，如道路、飲用水和下水道，在私人土地上創(chuàng)造額外價(jià)值，通常并沒有提供增加這些有價(jià)值的設(shè)施以幫助數(shù)不勝數(shù)的（非正規(guī)）庇護(hù)所的機(jī)制。正如前面所提到的，較貧窮的人口無法進(jìn)入正規(guī)的房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)，他們被迫居住在不太理想且服務(wù)設(shè)施條件差的場(chǎng)地，而這些場(chǎng)地通常是在規(guī)劃政策所劃定的城市邊界之外。

3.2 社會(huì)住房無法滿足需求并可能導(dǎo)致城市問題

社會(huì)住房計(jì)劃通常旨在重新為現(xiàn)有的非正規(guī)住區(qū)選址、遷址，或應(yīng)對(duì)新移民潮。特別是在非正規(guī)城市化的早期階段，當(dāng)局仍然相信可以徹底消除非正規(guī)住區(qū)或避免它們的增長(zhǎng)。此外，社會(huì)住房計(jì)劃迫使居住者適應(yīng)不同的生活條件，拋棄他們自身的文化/鄉(xiāng)村習(xí)俗。同時(shí)，非正規(guī)住房所提供的靈活性優(yōu)勢(shì)也被削弱了。

公共住房政策通常關(guān)注的是可提供的住房單元的數(shù)量，但這樣的城市條件不一定能讓這些住房成為可持續(xù)的棲息場(chǎng)所。為了尋求便宜的土地，公共機(jī)構(gòu)或被政府協(xié)助的（負(fù)責(zé)興建一些適合非正規(guī)住區(qū)居民的）開發(fā)商在遠(yuǎn)離就業(yè)、服務(wù)和交通的城市邊緣地區(qū)進(jìn)行開發(fā)建設(shè)。因此，這些項(xiàng)目加速了城市擴(kuò)張并導(dǎo)致社會(huì)孤立化。即使在能夠提供大量補(bǔ)貼住房的較富裕的發(fā)展中國(guó)家，自行建造住房的移民人數(shù)也逐漸超過在公共或公共與私人混合型住宅開發(fā)項(xiàng)目中定居的移民人數(shù)。社會(huì)住房并沒有為那些負(fù)擔(dān)不起的人提供可行的解決方案。

4 改善非正規(guī)住區(qū)的成功規(guī)劃或有局限性

學(xué)術(shù)界、公共部門和各種機(jī)構(gòu)逐漸認(rèn)識(shí)到很大一部分人口住在自建地區(qū)。他們知道這種情況會(huì)持續(xù)下去，因此開始承認(rèn)需要關(guān)注非正規(guī)住區(qū)。但當(dāng)?shù)貙I(yè)人員經(jīng)常缺少處理非正規(guī)問題的培訓(xùn)和專業(yè)實(shí)踐知識(shí)。

然而，許多發(fā)展中國(guó)家對(duì)非正規(guī)住區(qū)的看法已經(jīng)改變。隨著非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居民比例增加，他們的政治影響力也越來越大。因此，許多國(guó)家，如委內(nèi)瑞拉、巴西、哥倫比亞，已改變其管理領(lǐng)土和城市規(guī)劃的法律框架，承認(rèn)非正規(guī)居住，并就如何改善現(xiàn)有的非正規(guī)區(qū)域提供規(guī)范和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。最初，實(shí)施簡(jiǎn)單的城市干預(yù)措施，如在陡峭處的居民點(diǎn)鋪設(shè)道路和小徑與樓梯，安裝公用設(shè)施或下水道，建造學(xué)校和基礎(chǔ)醫(yī)療設(shè)施（圖4-1、4-2）。官員們還授予他們土地所有權(quán)。雖然這些舉措受到居住者的歡迎，但在顯著改變社區(qū)的生活條件方面，還是顯得微不足道。因此，非正規(guī)區(qū)域相對(duì)于正規(guī)城市仍處于不利地位。

4-1 20世紀(jì)50年代建造的住宅區(qū)被非正規(guī)增長(zhǎng)所吞沒（委內(nèi)瑞拉加拉加斯）Housing blocks built in the 1950’s, engulfed by informal growth (Caracas, Venezuela)

4-2 哥倫比亞麥德林圣哈維爾的公共空間和地鐵電纜Public spaces and metro-cable in San Javier, Medellín,Colombia

20世紀(jì)90年代，筆者曾任委內(nèi)瑞拉城市發(fā)展國(guó)家主任。在此期間，支持了一批有才華的研究人員，包括拖林達(dá)·寶利瓦、約瑟芬·鮑多和弗雷德里克·比利亞。這些研究人員首次提醒了對(duì)非正規(guī)（住區(qū)）采取措施的急迫性。筆者通過公職協(xié)助改善加拉加斯非正規(guī)住區(qū)的計(jì)劃，這項(xiàng)計(jì)劃也反映了他們的調(diào)查結(jié)果[5-6]③。在不到一年的時(shí)間里，這個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)研究成果頗豐。幾年后，當(dāng)烏戈·查韋斯就任總統(tǒng)后，鮑多教授被任命為委內(nèi)瑞拉住房委員會(huì)的會(huì)長(zhǎng)，他將改善非正規(guī)住區(qū)的計(jì)劃列為國(guó)家優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)，并組織了數(shù)百場(chǎng)競(jìng)賽，逐步開始實(shí)施這些計(jì)劃。然而，有影響力的軍事部門仍然對(duì)以非正規(guī)住區(qū)為重點(diǎn)的倡議抱有一貫偏見。此外，自上而下的政府組織限制了這些行動(dòng)。

盡管有一些缺點(diǎn)，在過去10年間委內(nèi)瑞拉（在非正規(guī)住區(qū)方面）取得的先進(jìn)實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)，對(duì)其他國(guó)家有著指導(dǎo)作用。有價(jià)值的信息、工作方法和設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)正在被分享并應(yīng)用于各種環(huán)境，在南美的一些國(guó)家和南非，特別是巴西、哥倫比亞、玻利維亞和其他安第斯國(guó)家，都有被視作整體康復(fù)項(xiàng)目的重要提議[7-9]④。

也許最著名的例子是在哥倫比亞的麥德林市進(jìn)行的舉世聞名并多次獲獎(jiǎng)的提升改造項(xiàng)目。就在30年前，麥德林還被列為世界上最暴力的城市。統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，最高比例的暴力犯罪集中在幾乎人跡罕至的山頂?shù)姆钦?guī)區(qū)域[10]⑤。2014年4月，上海舉辦了世界城市論壇。來自世界各地的參會(huì)人員能夠欣賞到應(yīng)對(duì)城市變化的管控手段的創(chuàng)造性設(shè)計(jì)、透明度，以及了解改善最貧困地區(qū)之一的生活條件的方式。麥德林獲得了比大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家更多的市政資金和技術(shù)支持。然而，以下是促成麥德林成功的主要因素。

1）從政治上承諾解決積累了數(shù)10年且被暴力加劇的社會(huì)債務(wù)。

2）當(dāng)局將非正規(guī)住區(qū)提升項(xiàng)目作為主要行動(dòng)目標(biāo)，并將其作為更廣泛的城市戰(zhàn)略的一部分。

3）社區(qū)參與項(xiàng)目規(guī)劃、設(shè)計(jì)、建造、運(yùn)營(yíng)和維護(hù)的各個(gè)階段。

4）組織高效、高知、誠(chéng)信的團(tuán)隊(duì)，提供高質(zhì)量的設(shè)計(jì)解決方案，并對(duì)項(xiàng)目持續(xù)管理。

盡管麥德林提升改造項(xiàng)目取得了令人滿意的結(jié)果，但在試圖將非正規(guī)城市與正規(guī)城市的生活條件相匹配時(shí)，所取得的成就也是有限的。對(duì)高度固化的住所采取行動(dòng)是一個(gè)艱難的過程。要引入開放空間、改善連通性、提供基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和公共服務(wù)，或者從高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)地區(qū)重新安置移民，就需要替代住房。搬遷需要復(fù)雜的談判技巧。在同一社區(qū)或相鄰地區(qū)，很難找到拆遷后適宜的安置房用地。此外，那些需要搬遷的居民必須愿意搬遷。

在社區(qū)尺度，對(duì)現(xiàn)有住區(qū)的城市提升似乎實(shí)施得很好，但由于空間限制使得解決更大的城市/大都市需求的措施難以實(shí)施。例如，很難在高度固化和密集的居民點(diǎn)內(nèi)提供服務(wù)、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和公共空間，如大型公園、技術(shù)學(xué)校、大學(xué)、食品配送和運(yùn)輸中心、醫(yī)院、大型體育設(shè)施、制造業(yè)和工業(yè)區(qū)等。最好的非正規(guī)住區(qū)重建計(jì)劃也很難處理尺度更大以及設(shè)計(jì)城市需求方面的問題，而這已成為世界范圍內(nèi)的常態(tài)。

還必須提到的是，盡管當(dāng)局明確承認(rèn)非正規(guī)都市主義是無法阻止的，但是支持發(fā)展新的非正規(guī)區(qū)域的阻力仍然很大。甚至在法律制度層面和普遍做法明顯有利于改善現(xiàn)有非正規(guī)住區(qū)的區(qū)域，或是已經(jīng)成功地實(shí)施了這些措施的區(qū)域，發(fā)展新的非正規(guī)區(qū)域的阻力還是很大④。

下文將重點(diǎn)討論如何以預(yù)防性和可持續(xù)的方式應(yīng)對(duì)以非正規(guī)（住區(qū)）為主的城市的擴(kuò)張，并簡(jiǎn)述場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目——非正規(guī)框架（IA）規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法的第一步。筆者主張用IA作為應(yīng)對(duì)非正規(guī)性以及平衡（正規(guī)的）城市增長(zhǎng)的當(dāng)代挑戰(zhàn)的替代方法。

5 場(chǎng)地與服務(wù)：自建房屋理念構(gòu)架

早在20世紀(jì)60年代，一群關(guān)心社會(huì)的學(xué)者、研究人員和專業(yè)人士就清楚地認(rèn)識(shí)到，傳統(tǒng)的城市規(guī)劃和社會(huì)住房計(jì)劃無法滿足不富裕人群日益增長(zhǎng)的住房需求。這一群體包括在城市規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)研究中經(jīng)常被提及的作家和設(shè)計(jì)師，如霍雷肖·卡米諾斯、約翰·特納、彼得·蘭德和赫爾曼·桑佩爾等。他們提出了“場(chǎng)地與服務(wù)”這一理念，簡(jiǎn)言之：居住者知道如何占領(lǐng)大量土地，并逐步建造、擴(kuò)建和升級(jí)住所；卻無法獲得通常需要公共部門、專業(yè)人員、機(jī)構(gòu)或社區(qū)組織支持的城市條件。因此，這個(gè)理念的目標(biāo)是提供一個(gè)平衡的棲息場(chǎng)所，其中包括可達(dá)性、多分區(qū)城市布局、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施以及逐步融合社區(qū)服務(wù)與設(shè)施的開放空間。

這些發(fā)起人將該理念傳遞給成千上萬的學(xué)生，這些學(xué)生隨后成為活躍的專業(yè)人士，在全球領(lǐng)先的學(xué)術(shù)、金融和規(guī)劃?rùn)C(jī)構(gòu)擔(dān)任重要職務(wù)。根據(jù)不同場(chǎng)地的資金與管理?xiàng)l件，場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)計(jì)劃的應(yīng)用范圍有所不同。在某些情況下，它提供基本的毛坯房或帶有浴室和廚房的居住單元，同時(shí)提供規(guī)劃和技術(shù)援助，以指導(dǎo)住區(qū)的擴(kuò)大和改善過程。在其他情況下，他們?cè)O(shè)想通過提供技術(shù)和資金支持，協(xié)助社區(qū)在當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)低成本的建筑材料，以提供用戶友好的建造方式。

也許這些倡議中最具象征意義的是1965年的普雷維（PREVI）競(jìng)賽（圖5-1、5-2），該競(jìng)賽是為秘魯利馬南部大片空地的城市化而組織的。彼得·蘭德教授統(tǒng)籌PREVI競(jìng)賽，他呼吁來自不同區(qū)域的杰出規(guī)劃師和設(shè)計(jì)師參與其中。蘭德教授的推動(dòng)及當(dāng)時(shí)秘魯總統(tǒng)、建筑師費(fèi)爾南多·貝朗德·特里的支持，促進(jìn)了該項(xiàng)目的實(shí)施。在普雷維，很多社區(qū)的設(shè)計(jì)方案是根據(jù)競(jìng)賽的獲勝方案制定的，更大的城市框架將不同的社區(qū)設(shè)計(jì)方案聯(lián)結(jié)在一起。

5-1 秘魯利馬普雷維競(jìng)賽——場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)的入圍設(shè)計(jì)，由赫爾曼·桑佩爾設(shè)計(jì)Entry for the Site and Services PREVI competition, Lima, Perú, by Germán Samper5-2 毗鄰非正規(guī)住區(qū)的社會(huì)住房城市框架。哥倫比亞波哥大Metrovivienda項(xiàng)目，由康拉德·布魯納，古斯塔沃·佩列，愛多華多·桑佩爾和西門娜·桑佩爾設(shè)計(jì)Urban framework for social housing adjacent to informal settlements.Metrovivienda project, Bogotá, Colombia. Project: by Konrad Bruner, Gustavo Perry, Eduardo Samper and Ximena Samper

幾年前，筆者訪問了普雷維，在項(xiàng)目設(shè)想提出的45年后，最終得以看到住宅和公共空間的成果。然而，普雷維只是一個(gè)非常大的領(lǐng)土上的一個(gè)小的場(chǎng)地，其中有250多萬人居住在非正規(guī)住區(qū)。對(duì)于普雷維的大多數(shù)居民來說，基本的城市服務(wù)、設(shè)施和工作都在正規(guī)的城市中。他們?nèi)孕璩^1.5 h通行穿過一系列低于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的非正規(guī)區(qū)域。

從2008年開始，筆者多次到訪麥德林，見證過正在進(jìn)行的、多層次的變革進(jìn)程。這些進(jìn)程從根本上改善了當(dāng)?shù)氐姆钦?guī)社區(qū)。這項(xiàng)提議是在市長(zhǎng)塞爾吉奧·法哈多的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和亞歷杭德羅·埃切維里的專業(yè)協(xié)調(diào)下提出的。這些地區(qū)在下一屆政府的執(zhí)政領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下繼續(xù)繁榮發(fā)展。筆者還帶著學(xué)生去了麥德林，花了幾個(gè)學(xué)期的時(shí)間來制定提案，設(shè)想了自建新區(qū)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展計(jì)劃。這些設(shè)計(jì)研究項(xiàng)目的目的是在規(guī)模和效果上超越目前的場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目。

利馬和麥德林的做法有著鮮明對(duì)比。在利馬，在先導(dǎo)性城市規(guī)劃框架指導(dǎo)下的區(qū)域/社區(qū)現(xiàn)已被未經(jīng)規(guī)劃的非正規(guī)區(qū)域吸納。在麥德林，這些項(xiàng)目可以被認(rèn)為是在現(xiàn)有的非正規(guī)住區(qū)進(jìn)行操作的一種糾正性的“城市手術(shù)”，這些住區(qū)是更廣泛的城市戰(zhàn)略的一部分。正如前面提到的，這些不同的舉措為筆者在摘要中提到的著作提供了關(guān)鍵的視角④。在這項(xiàng)工作中筆者引入了非正規(guī)框架（IA）規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法（圖6）。

6 非正規(guī)框架（IA）手稿（戴維·加弗努爾）Sketch of an Informal Armature by David Gouverneur

6 非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法

自從20世紀(jì)60年代場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目出現(xiàn)以來，并未對(duì)自建住區(qū)的發(fā)展進(jìn)行提前思考和行動(dòng)，迫切需要新的模式來促進(jìn)新的非正規(guī)城市的增長(zhǎng)。我們需要實(shí)施各種方法，利用能夠挖掘非正規(guī)性潛力的工具，并與自建棲息場(chǎng)所的社區(qū)進(jìn)行接觸。應(yīng)該記住，在許多情況下，我們是在非常大和復(fù)雜的城市地區(qū)試點(diǎn)，應(yīng)該借鑒創(chuàng)新的設(shè)計(jì)和具有效用的思想。規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是引導(dǎo)以非正規(guī)為主的城市提升城市效能，并幫助居民獲得更好的生活條件。

IA與以前的方法有何不同？IA在原則、設(shè)計(jì)思路和適用性方面力求簡(jiǎn)單。它的目標(biāo)是獲得令人信服的結(jié)果。它表明了正規(guī)和非正規(guī)城市建設(shè)模式之間存在共生關(guān)系，這可以產(chǎn)生豐富和動(dòng)態(tài)的城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，具有高度的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力和彈性④。IA方法的關(guān)鍵條件如下：1）把握先機(jī)和積極變革；2）實(shí)體性和效用；3）融合措施與多尺度措施；4）環(huán)境友好；5）簡(jiǎn)單易行。這些條件都是密切相關(guān)的。IA利用靈活的設(shè)計(jì)組件來適應(yīng)不同的場(chǎng)地條件。

6.1 把握先機(jī)與積極變革

IA本質(zhì)上是一種把握先機(jī)的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)方法，旨在促進(jìn)以非正規(guī)城市為主的增長(zhǎng)。作為一個(gè)支持系統(tǒng)，它旨在增強(qiáng)非正規(guī)城市化的內(nèi)在動(dòng)力，主要前提——提前規(guī)劃和引導(dǎo)城市化進(jìn)程，使發(fā)展更加平衡和高效。這與非正規(guī)社區(qū)的改造形成了對(duì)比。為使IA有效可行，必須符合下列條件：1）政治上接受未經(jīng)政府協(xié)助的非正規(guī)性住區(qū)自行發(fā)生，接受其在沒有遵循基本城市框架的情況下，占據(jù)非正規(guī)規(guī)劃所圈定的場(chǎng)地，認(rèn)識(shí)到非正規(guī)住區(qū)將導(dǎo)致復(fù)雜的城市情況并會(huì)產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重的社會(huì)和環(huán)境影響；2）公共部門具有重組、收購的意愿和能力或與私營(yíng)部門合作發(fā)展的意愿和能力；3）機(jī)構(gòu)里團(tuán)隊(duì)的倡導(dǎo)者要忠實(shí)致力于IA提議。團(tuán)隊(duì)還必須能夠使內(nèi)部評(píng)審標(biāo)準(zhǔn)適應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)貙?shí)際情況，讓社區(qū)參與進(jìn)來，根據(jù)特殊需求學(xué)習(xí)專業(yè)知識(shí)，并促進(jìn)IA示范地的轉(zhuǎn)型，直到被協(xié)助的對(duì)象不再需要協(xié)助為止。

6.2 實(shí)體性與效用

大多數(shù)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的傳統(tǒng)規(guī)劃都變成了沒有考慮設(shè)計(jì)的靜態(tài)土地利用規(guī)劃；它們主要集中在對(duì)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)的控制上，不涉及非正規(guī)城市化。發(fā)展中國(guó)家經(jīng)常將遇到的問題和無力解決這些問題的原因歸咎于缺乏財(cái)政來源。雖然這些國(guó)家確實(shí)可能存在經(jīng)濟(jì)上的限制，但更大的問題源于缺少對(duì)于確定事務(wù)優(yōu)先級(jí)、協(xié)調(diào)行動(dòng)和確保效率與透明度的一致愿景。麥德林的案例指出了引入先進(jìn)的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、高效和持續(xù)的管理，以及與社區(qū)攜手合作的重要性，這是確保改革措施交付和問責(zé)的最佳方式。

因此，IA規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法將空間組織和設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的概念與現(xiàn)場(chǎng)管理相結(jié)合。其重點(diǎn)在于如何通過預(yù)設(shè)簡(jiǎn)單的空間組織模式，以及用這些簡(jiǎn)單的空間組織模式來吸引并引導(dǎo)非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居民在住區(qū)形成初期對(duì)場(chǎng)地進(jìn)行占領(lǐng)，并建立牢固的聯(lián)系。該方法的作用很大程度上依賴于在項(xiàng)目的倡導(dǎo)者和社區(qū)之間建立信任，以及管理城市變化的方式。IA引發(fā)的變革不僅會(huì)發(fā)生在公共區(qū)域，而且在適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)候也會(huì)出現(xiàn)在自建地區(qū)作為補(bǔ)充，隨著社區(qū)的整合與發(fā)展，非正規(guī)住區(qū)有著更宏大的遠(yuǎn)景并成為更大的城市群的一部分。

從場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目以及非正規(guī)住區(qū)改善計(jì)劃中獲得的主要經(jīng)驗(yàn)之一：自建城市的空間組織和實(shí)體性非常重要?？沙掷m(xù)的城市建設(shè)需要高質(zhì)量的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)。這可能包括：設(shè)計(jì)引人注目的、具有效用的城市景觀，促進(jìn)創(chuàng)業(yè)，減少能源的合成和浪費(fèi)，加強(qiáng)社會(huì)互動(dòng)，減少暴力，支持共享參與式治理等。IA倡導(dǎo)者應(yīng)該努力讓早期居住者感到他們是改善其所處地區(qū)的積極組成部分，并幫助他們參與住區(qū)建造和發(fā)展的各個(gè)方面。

6.3 融合措施與多尺度措施

無論是場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目，還是非正規(guī)住區(qū)改善項(xiàng)目，都在試圖將自建的動(dòng)力與規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)相結(jié)合。發(fā)展中國(guó)家的運(yùn)作也遵循同樣的邏輯，但其目標(biāo)是實(shí)現(xiàn)高度平衡和有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的城市，這遲早會(huì)成為主流，因?yàn)樵S多發(fā)展中國(guó)家城市化的主要形式將是非正規(guī)住區(qū)。因此，IA倡議者必須使用專業(yè)技能設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)劃早期階段的居住選址，按照新移民的基本需求部署足夠簡(jiǎn)單的設(shè)計(jì)組件，同時(shí)計(jì)劃解決城市以及特大型城市里的更大城市集合體。這并不容易，且需要熟練的“領(lǐng)航員”。

各種類型的城市規(guī)劃框架及技術(shù)都可以追蹤記錄自建住宅土地。正如場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目所設(shè)想的那樣，包括其他形式的社會(huì)住房——這些是被IA改造的地區(qū)非常重要但非唯一的組成部分。IA考慮的是幾段或幾塊可能最初包含簡(jiǎn)單的交通系統(tǒng)或可以安裝接待帳篷和臨時(shí)供應(yīng)飲用水的閑置土地。這些開放空間最終可以幫助高效的公共交通系統(tǒng)可持續(xù)運(yùn)行，保持使用的多樣性，使得城市設(shè)施以及引人注目的公共空間可持續(xù)。IA還可以預(yù)先確定如何保護(hù)水道和種植區(qū)，這些區(qū)域?qū)⒊蔀槌鞘械男蓍e廊道，IA也可以將場(chǎng)地初步設(shè)想為回收中心，這樣回收中心提供建筑材料以幫助居住者建造他們的住所。這些地區(qū)最初可以用來啟動(dòng)都市農(nóng)業(yè)項(xiàng)目，最終會(huì)讓位于制造業(yè)中心、技術(shù)學(xué)校和大的城市市場(chǎng)等。

在社區(qū)愿景得以實(shí)現(xiàn)以及收入水平得到提高之前，一些有臨時(shí)用途的土地可能會(huì)一直保留在公眾手中。私營(yíng)部門可以提供更先進(jìn)的商業(yè)區(qū)和便利設(shè)施。這些行動(dòng)可以為IA協(xié)助機(jī)構(gòu)提供機(jī)會(huì)，吸引私人投資，為高收入人士提供綜合用途的建筑或住宅，提供原住民所需的正規(guī)住宅、辦公室、電影院和康樂設(shè)施。通過這些行動(dòng)所獲得的額外價(jià)值，可幫助IA倡導(dǎo)者賺取收入用于再投資于同一地區(qū)的其他服務(wù)，或在新城邊界重新推行類似的IA措施。IA管理的這些區(qū)域?qū)㈦S著自建的活力和特點(diǎn)與正規(guī)城市的便利設(shè)施相結(jié)合而蓬勃發(fā)展，成為一個(gè)真正的融合體。

6.4 環(huán)境友好

具有環(huán)境適應(yīng)性的當(dāng)代城市化規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)有義務(wù)解決環(huán)境問題，這些問題不僅對(duì)社區(qū)的福祉至關(guān)重要，而且對(duì)地球的健康也至關(guān)重要。在許多發(fā)展中國(guó)家，傳統(tǒng)的城市規(guī)劃仍然決定著正規(guī)城市的風(fēng)貌，但在常規(guī)城市規(guī)劃議程中并未考慮生態(tài)環(huán)境因素，而在場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目中也未將其視為IA規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法實(shí)施的前提。

由于在非正規(guī)居住發(fā)生前就開始實(shí)施IA規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法，因此可以決定定居點(diǎn)最初的物理和表現(xiàn)形式，可以提供一個(gè)有利且靈活的環(huán)境來實(shí)行環(huán)保標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。一些能想到的最敏感的方面包括：鄰近的流域、生物多樣性地區(qū)、寶貴的農(nóng)業(yè)土壤、毗鄰和在城市地區(qū)內(nèi)的水文網(wǎng)絡(luò)的保護(hù)機(jī)制。同樣，IA可以促進(jìn)綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、步行和清潔公共交通網(wǎng)絡(luò)、環(huán)?；厥枕?xiàng)目、社區(qū)農(nóng)業(yè)花園等的引進(jìn)。積極的IA倡導(dǎo)者的存在，將使規(guī)劃、設(shè)計(jì)和管理新的非正規(guī)/正規(guī)地區(qū)的思想融入早期定居者的日常生活。重要的是要記住那些未被幫扶的非正規(guī)住區(qū)的居民，特別是他們剛?cè)胱∪悦τ诳紤]生存問題時(shí)，他們不可能意識(shí)到或關(guān)心環(huán)境問題。他們中的許多人來自農(nóng)村地區(qū)，在成為城市居民后，對(duì)自然變得陌生并喪失農(nóng)業(yè)技能。IA幫助新的城市環(huán)境更好地容納這些農(nóng)業(yè)或自然的文化實(shí)踐。

6.5 簡(jiǎn)單易行：基于靈活的設(shè)計(jì)組件，適應(yīng)不同的場(chǎng)地條件

縱觀歷史，城市一直在嘗試新的城市組織模式。有些是由受文化實(shí)踐影響的設(shè)計(jì)原型塑造的，而另一些則是由領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者、設(shè)計(jì)師、經(jīng)濟(jì)利益集團(tuán)、服務(wù)提供者等引入的。設(shè)計(jì)解決方案經(jīng)常被復(fù)制到與它們產(chǎn)生的條件不同的環(huán)境中。那些流行的解決方案在空間層面實(shí)施上和執(zhí)行方式上都比較簡(jiǎn)單。在發(fā)展中國(guó)家使用的一般規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)原型符合特定的意識(shí)形態(tài)和政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)目標(biāo)，但并不總是有利于大多數(shù)人。IA提出了一套簡(jiǎn)單的設(shè)計(jì)組件，其主要目標(biāo)是為發(fā)展中國(guó)家中人口占比最大的窮人提供更好的生活條件。這些組件在性質(zhì)、規(guī)?；蛐螒B(tài)和效用上都不是固定死板的。相反，它們嵌入了能夠支持前面提到的多個(gè)流程的原則。這些空間形態(tài)解決方案以及表征式解決方案的成功布局，將取決于當(dāng)?shù)氐沫h(huán)境和文化差異，以及IA倡導(dǎo)者讓社區(qū)和其他城市參與者參與行動(dòng)的能力。

為了簡(jiǎn)化應(yīng)用程序，IA將設(shè)計(jì)組件分為以下幾類：廊道、板塊和保育者。這些組件旨在作為城市組織劑，促進(jìn)被割裂的雜亂無序的城市融合成一個(gè)綜合的系統(tǒng)，支持非正規(guī)（住區(qū)的進(jìn)程）并發(fā)揮不同的作用。

廊道本質(zhì)上是構(gòu)成公共區(qū)域的線性元素組件或者條帶，是開放空間、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、交通系統(tǒng)、水管理設(shè)備以及服務(wù)等的骨架或者基因。廊道又分為兩類。1）吸引點(diǎn)：作為吸引聚集點(diǎn)或熱點(diǎn)，鼓勵(lì)人口和活動(dòng)向更適宜的地區(qū)集中，提供空間和管理?xiàng)l件以更好地處理它們；2）保護(hù)點(diǎn)：與吸引點(diǎn)相反，消耗城市能量，協(xié)助保護(hù)環(huán)境，并作為緩沖，以避免非正規(guī)和正規(guī)形式的城市在敏感區(qū)域的占領(lǐng)/擴(kuò)張。吸引點(diǎn)和保護(hù)點(diǎn)將作用于更大城市范圍里更高比例的住區(qū)變革，并需要更多的公眾參與來實(shí)現(xiàn)其目標(biāo)，特別是在占領(lǐng)、鞏固和增長(zhǎng)的早期階段（圖7-1、7-2）。

7-1 廊道（吸引點(diǎn)和保護(hù)點(diǎn)）綜合分析圖Composite diagram of Corridors (Attractors and Protectors)7-2 城市尺度廊道設(shè)計(jì)（津巴布韋哈拉雷市奇通維扎）Protector Corridors proposed for Chitungwiza, Harare, Zimbabwe

板塊：代表由廊道滋養(yǎng)培育而成或由廊道連接起來的嵌入城市的區(qū)域（圖8-1、8-2）；板塊又分為兩類。1）受體區(qū)：用于非正規(guī)居住的場(chǎng)地，在那里自建社區(qū)有望繁榮發(fā)展；2）變革區(qū)：能夠維持多種用途的區(qū)域，與廊道一起將IA與非輔助的非正規(guī)住區(qū)以及場(chǎng)地和服務(wù)項(xiàng)目區(qū)分開。

8-1 板塊綜合分析圖Composite diagram of Receptor and Productive Patches8-2 為哥倫比亞的拉薩巴納波哥大提供保護(hù)濕地的生產(chǎn)性板塊（溫室）Proposal of Productive Patches (for green houses) with protected wetlands for La Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia

保育者：可能出現(xiàn)在上述所有的類別中，以確保所需空間的可使用性，隨著IA作用區(qū)域的演化逐步適應(yīng)城市需求（圖9-1、9-2）。IA方法成功的難點(diǎn)之一是預(yù)留必要的空間，以逐步引入更多更復(fù)雜的城市功能，在住區(qū)里逐步完善服務(wù)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。如果這些空間得不到保障，未來的巨型非正規(guī)城市將會(huì)形成一個(gè)以住宅為主、由一些本地商業(yè)和服務(wù)拼接而成的“百家被”。這些非正規(guī)住區(qū)（的居民）將繼續(xù)遭受交通堵塞、生產(chǎn)性工作機(jī)會(huì)受限、大都市服務(wù)和便利設(shè)施以及廣闊的開放空間缺乏等問題的困擾。從墨西哥城、拉各斯、利馬、亞的斯亞貝巴或加拉加斯可預(yù)見的不斷下降的生活條件，可以窺見未來無人援助、不完整和邊緣的大型非正規(guī)城市的狀況。

9-1 廊道和板塊之上的保育者分析圖Composite diagram of Corridors, Patches, and Stewards9-2 文化和娛樂設(shè)施充當(dāng)廢棄采石場(chǎng)保育者的提案（哥倫比亞波哥大）Proposal for cultural and recreational facilities as Stewards on an extinct quarry, in Bogotá, Colombia

小尺度上的操作需要大尺度支持才能充分發(fā)揮作用。在正規(guī)的規(guī)劃中，這些空間在被需要之前只是被分區(qū)保護(hù)。但在沒有指導(dǎo)的非正規(guī)城市，免費(fèi)的土地是一種非常理想的商品，主要用于自建房屋。IA提議保持土地可用的最佳方法是引入臨時(shí)用途，這些臨時(shí)用途必須對(duì)處于不同演變階段的社區(qū)有意義。同時(shí)，IA應(yīng)該對(duì)值得信賴的社區(qū)、機(jī)構(gòu)或者街區(qū)的“保育者”進(jìn)行管理。在改造這些空間以適應(yīng)不斷變化的需求的過程中，“保育者”也扮演著關(guān)鍵的角色，與IA培育的地區(qū)的倡導(dǎo)者攜手合作。空間改造的規(guī)模、用途和形態(tài)，以及與城市發(fā)展進(jìn)程相關(guān)的不同組件，將應(yīng)對(duì)不同背景下的文化、管理和經(jīng)濟(jì)條件。此外，它們需要技術(shù)援助或公眾參與。然而，正如筆者在本文中所指出的，社區(qū)本身就可以處理住房以及社區(qū)尺度的問題。城市的其他組件則需要特定公共部門或?qū)I(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)的支持。

非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法是《未來非正規(guī)住區(qū)規(guī)劃與設(shè)計(jì)：塑造自建城市》一書的核心，即塑造自我建設(shè)的城市，是對(duì)政治家、學(xué)者、專業(yè)人士、機(jī)構(gòu)、私營(yíng)部門和社區(qū)等緊急采取行動(dòng)的呼吁，旨在以一種簡(jiǎn)單而堅(jiān)定的方式來管理剛剛崛起的非正規(guī)城市，播種一個(gè)可持續(xù)的未來。筆者真誠(chéng)地希望它能引起那些有責(zé)任、有手段、有能力在發(fā)展中城市引起城市變化的人的注意，并激勵(lì)他們實(shí)施試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目來證明IA的有效性（圖10～12）。這本書里囊括了很多學(xué)術(shù)范例，以用于闡明這一手法在不同的實(shí)體空間和表現(xiàn)條件上能夠處理的各種問題。它還指出了IA需要進(jìn)一步的實(shí)驗(yàn)和研究⑥。

10 由賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院的學(xué)生設(shè)計(jì)的測(cè)試非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法的提案：在津巴布韋哈拉雷市奇通維扎的非正規(guī)/正規(guī)擴(kuò)張研究Academic proposals testing the Informal Armatures Approach by students of PennDesign/University of Pennsylvania: Armatures for Informal/Formal Expansion in Chitungwiza, Harare, Zimbabwe

11 由賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院的學(xué)生設(shè)計(jì)的測(cè)試非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法的提案：為津巴布韋哈拉雷市的霍普利農(nóng)場(chǎng)設(shè)計(jì)的公共空間和社區(qū)框架Academic proposals testing the Informal Armatures Approach by students of PennDesign/University of Pennsylvania: Proposal for public spaces and neighborhood frameworks for Hopley Farms, Harare,Zimbabwe,

12 由賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院的學(xué)生設(shè)計(jì)的測(cè)試非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法的提案：重新安置目前居住在不穩(wěn)定地區(qū)上的居住者（哥倫比亞麥德林巴里圣多明哥）Academic proposals testing the Informal Armatures Approach, by students of PennDesign/University of Pennsylvania: Armatures to relocate settlers currently on unstable land, Barrio Santo Domingo, Medellín,Colombia

生活在發(fā)展中國(guó)家的數(shù)十億人的生活受到幾十年前引入的規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)模式的影響。同樣，更多的人的生活將因無所作為而受到不利影響。IA旨在證明，這是一種可以改變現(xiàn)狀的可行且合理的方法。現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候采取緊急有效的行動(dòng)了。

注釋：

① 有關(guān)貧民窟暴力來源和類型的詳細(xì)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)詳見參考文獻(xiàn)[1]。

② 對(duì)于來自城市不平等的問題糾正詳見參考文獻(xiàn)[3]。

③ 有關(guān)該計(jì)劃的更多信息，請(qǐng)參見參考文獻(xiàn)[5]。

④ 有關(guān)如何使這些案例與改善非正規(guī)住區(qū)相關(guān)的更多信息，請(qǐng)參見參考文獻(xiàn)[7]。

⑤ 麥德林從包括紐約和特拉維夫在內(nèi)的入圍城市中獲得了由《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》和花旗集團(tuán)于2013年組織的“年度創(chuàng)新城市”競(jìng)賽，成為今年最具創(chuàng)造力的城市。幾十年來，麥德林一直被認(rèn)為是世界上最暴力的城市。麥德林舉例說明，即使在最不利的條件下，城市的改善也有可能，而且在很短的時(shí)間內(nèi)可以成為許多發(fā)展中國(guó)家的參考，特別是在改善非正規(guī)住區(qū)方面。參見參考文獻(xiàn)[10]。

⑥ 《未來非正規(guī)住區(qū)規(guī)劃與設(shè)計(jì)：塑造自建城市》一書的編輯、更新和擴(kuò)展版將于2022年在中國(guó)出版（中文），其中的差異將解釋非正規(guī)框架規(guī)劃設(shè)計(jì)方法對(duì)快速發(fā)展的亞洲城市的適用性。

圖片來源：

圖1?卡洛斯·伊垂亞高；圖2-1、6?戴維·加弗努爾，圖2-2、4-1?加拉加斯紀(jì)念館/城市文化基金會(huì)；圖3設(shè)計(jì)：都市大學(xué)的學(xué)生，指導(dǎo)教授：戴維·加弗努爾，課程協(xié)調(diào)管理、渲染和照片：路易斯·薩利；圖4-2?大衛(wèi)·馬埃斯特羅；圖5-1?赫爾曼·桑佩爾，圖5-2?卡特琳娜·桑佩爾；圖7作者：梅根·塔拉羅斯基和彼得·巴納德，指導(dǎo)老師：戴維·加弗努爾和塔博·蘭內(nèi)耶；圖8作者：塔瑪拉·亨利，指導(dǎo)教師：戴維·加弗努爾和阿布達(dá)拉·塔貝特；圖9作者瑞秋·埃亨，指導(dǎo)教師：戴維·加弗努爾和阿布達(dá)拉·塔貝特；圖10作者：丹尼爾·薩恩斯，指導(dǎo)教師：戴維·加弗努爾和塔博·倫內(nèi)耶；圖11作者：萊昂納多·羅布雷托，指導(dǎo)教師：戴維·加弗努爾和塔博·倫內(nèi)耶；圖12作者：金伯利·庫珀、麗貝卡·富克斯和凱亞·昆特，指導(dǎo)教師：戴維·加弗努爾和特雷弗·李。

（編輯/劉玉霞）

The Informal Armature Approach

Author: (USA) David Gouverneur Translator: ZHANG Chendi

1 Biases Against the Informal City

Why have we been so ineffective in dealing with the predominantly informal city? Close to a billion people live in self-constructed districts and another billion will live in similar conditions over the next three decades[1]①(Fig. 1). Yet, politicians,academics, and professionals often have biases that prevent appreciation for positive aspects of the informal city and consequently deter helping them from achieving better urban standards.

The cultural values of the more affluent and politically dominant tend to differ from the idiosyncrasies and financial possibilities of the urban poor. The negative attitude of the politicians,professionals and middle and upper classes stems from a lack of understanding of the causes that induce the emergence of informal communities.Residents of the formal city often consider informal settlements alien and a threat to their standards of living, but in many cases they have not even been in informal settlements.

My homeland Venezuela, which is collapsing economically after 20 years of a failed Socialist Revolution, offers an example of this orientation.While the political agenda, in theory, caters to the less-affluent segment of the population,government officials and ordinary citizens often mention “to consolidate barrios (how informal settlements are called in Caribbean nations)is to consolidate misery.” Another common statement is “We must substitute these unfit areas by providing dignified housing”. In my opinion,both statements reflect a misunderstanding of the dynamics of informal urbanization. Here, the informal settlements have been neglected, and only a fraction of the demand for new homes has been covered by social housing programs.

Even though there are many examples in different continents that have demonstrated the viability of improving living conditions in existing informal settlements, there are still countries,particularly those with highly centralized and authoritarian forms of government, in which eviction and destruction of self-constructed informal settlements are still the norms. Such was the case in Zimbabwe, where as recently as 2008, large informal settlements housing close to 800,000 people were razed. Here, for the most part, no alternatives were offered for the displaced settlers[2]. Consequently, the settlers ended up in neighboring South Africa, some returned to their rural areas of origin, or reinitiated a process of informal occupation on other sites. Forceful actions of this nature may liberate the sites intended for other uses from settlers; but they are a violent disruption for those who have occupied these locations, causing them to squat elsewhere with increased social resentment and sense of insecurity due to the possibility of future evictions.In more affluent developing nations, as in the case of China, urban renewal operations are very common. These projects have destroyed entire informal and traditional urban areas (referred in China as villages), forcing residents to live in distant sites where they must adapt to entirely different conditions in high-rise residential complexes. In the process, these projects erode local lifestyles and traditions. Such evictions are also associated with the loss of valuable agricultural land and natural habitats, as well as of cultural practices that enabled communities to respect the forces of nature and reduce risks.

2 Pros and Cons of Informal Urbanism

Many of the less affluent have no other option than to self-construct their dwellings and neighborhoods. They cannot access the formal realestate markets, or afford the costs associated with formal housing, even when those highly-subsidized programs. Migrants arriving in the cities from rural areas or smaller towns or seeking to relocate from existing informal areas of larger cities, do not have stable jobs, fixed income, or savings. They cannot meet the conditions that are indispensable to make them eligible to obtain mortgages or other forms of subsidies to acquire a home, or to rent one.Therefore, their only option is to illegally occupy a lot of undeveloped land, or to buy it at a price they can afford from illegal or “pirate” developers.Gradually, in a piecemeal process, the rustic shelters transform into more stable dwellings. They are often more than homes. They perform as living organisms, which grow to incorporate extended families, rental units, and productive activities such as small shops or manufacturing.

In most cases, residents of informal settlements do not pay for utilities, such as electricity or water, nor for property taxes or for commercial licenses. In later phases of consolidation, basic communal services as schools or daycare centers are provided by the city or NGO’s. Social ties are also very strong within self-constructed neighborhoods,and the sense of place and identity are usually much stronger than in any planned social housing program. All these factors represent enormous advantages for the informal dwellers. While informal logic offers many benefits, informal settlements are far from being problem-free. There is an accumulated and escalating social debt in the self-constructed cities of the developing world.The lack of opportunities to access information,education, health services, or knowledge of how to take better advantage of the commercial networks,keeps many residents of informal settlements at disadvantage in relation to formal city dwellers[3-4]②.While there are many creative examples of how prosperous economic enterprises have emerged within informality, this is not the norm.

Conditions may vary greatly from one country, city, or district to another, but settlements frequently lack fundamental urban conditions that are made available through the public sector, directly or indirectly (Fig. 2-1, 2-2). These deficiencies are reflected in:

1) Unsafe locations, like floodplains, very steep slopes, brownfields, and geologically unstable land, periodically leading to the loss of lives and properties as well as of environmental assets,such as deforestation, destruction of watersheds,soil erosion, contamination of aquifers, loss of biodiversity, etc.

2) Lack of infrastructure, particularly of potable water and sewers, which translates into public health problems.

3) Poor community services, such as education, medical assistance, sports facilities,recreational amenities.

4) Deficient public transportation, accessibility,mobility, and connectivity within the informal areas,and with the formal city. These factors contribute to spatial segregation and make it difficult for settlers to access jobs and services in the formal city, while impeding the provision of basic urban services in the settlements, as police surveillance,the access of ambulances, firefighters, garbage collection, etc.

5) Scarce or non-existent public places, other than narrow streets or pedestrian paths, that reduce the possibility of socialization and leisure.

6) Increased social resentment. These conditions may lead to violence, insecurity and crime, indicators which are perceived by the residents of both those informal settlements and in formal areas as the greatest concern and indicators of poor urban standards.

It is important to keep in mind that such urban problems tend to magnify as the settlements become larger, denser, and occupy sites further away from the older informal areas and from the formal city. To reduce urban disparities between the formal and the informal city, and ease escalating social tensions, a new set of planning, design, managerial paradigms are urgently required.

3 Attempt to Deal with the Growth of the Informal City

In the majority of developing countries,modernization and industrialization brought about significant demographic changes. In search of better income and services, the rural population migrated to the cities in large numbers. In some cases, migrations were the result of armed, ethnic,religious conflicts, violence, or famine.

Governments tend to respond to the initial informal settlements by ignoring them or keeping them away from “desirable locations” (Fig. 3).Over time, authorities realize that the processes of informal urbanization can’t be halted. In response,they try to plan for city growth, advancing social housing programs, “Site and Services” initiatives,or developing projects for the improvement of the settlements. As will be explained, these approaches have succeeded at various degrees, but also have limitations, in light of the rapid population growth,the magnitude of the self-constructed areas, and the complexities of developing cities. The following sections explain some of the deficiencies of these attempted solutions.

3.1 Unwanted Effects Derived from Traditional Urban Planning

In most developing nations, public agencies produce plans to guide urban growth. These planning instruments do not differ much from those that were originated and applied in industrialized nations from the second half of the 20th Century on. Such plans focus mainly on demographic projections which envision how and where the city should expand. They suggest densities and land uses associated with the provision of infrastructure, mobility systems, and services. These instruments are typically generic tools that do not take into account the contextual and cultural conditions of developing nations. Nor do they address informal growth. In the best of cases, they simply map and legally acknowledge the existence of the informal settlements, but certainly do not plan for new ones.

Moreover, these plans may have an undesirable effect on where and how informal areas grow.Most developing countries inherit a colonial legacy of inequitable land ownership patterns where properties are concentrated in the hands of a few. Public land is thus limited or in some cases nonexistent, which is required to steer the growth of settlements for the less-affluent segments of the population. As soon as the planning instruments are enacted, they transform rural land into urban land, sparking the real-estate market.

Governments then supply infrastructures,such as roads and potable water and sewers,creating additional value on private land, normally with no mechanisms to recapture this added value.And as has been mentioned, the less-affluent segment of the population cannot enter the formal real-estate market and are forced to settle on undesirable and poorly serviced sites, usually outside the urban boundaries established by the planning instruments.

3.2 Social Housing Cannot Cope with the Demand, and may Foster Urban Problems

Social housing programs are often aimed at relocating existing informal settlements or to dealing with the waves of new migrants. This occurs, particularly in the early phases of informal urbanization, when authorities still believe that they can eradicate them, or avoid their growth.Furthermore, social housing projects force settlers to adapt to different living conditions, leaving behind their cultural/rural practices. Formal housing projects also impedes them from taking advantage of the flexibility offered by the informal dwellings.

Additionally, public housing policies usually focus on the number of units that are provided,and not on the urban conditions that could make them sustainable habitats. Seeking cheap land,public agencies, or publicly assisted developers construct on the urban fringe, far away from jobs,services and transportation. Thus, these projects many times increase urban sprawl and social isolation. Even in wealthier developing nations,which are capable of providing heavily subsidized housing, the numbers of settlers who self-construct their homes gradually surpass those who access the public or public/private housing developments.Social housing is not a solution for those who cannot afford it.

4 Successful Plans for Improvement of Informal Settlements may also Have Limitations

Academia, the public sector, and various institutions gradually have recognized that a large portion of the population occupies selfconstructed areas. Knowing that they are here to stay, they acknowledge that informal settlements require attention. Local professionals frequently lack training and practical expertise on how to deal with informality.

However, perceptions towards informality have changed in numerous developing countries.As those living in the informal become the majority of the population, they have gained increasing political leverage. Consequently, many nations,like Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, have introduced changes in their legal frameworks that regulate territorial and city planning, acknowledging informal occupation and offering norms and criteria on how to improve existing informal areas.Initially, they are simple urban interventions, such as paving roads and paths/staircases in settlements located on steep sites, installing utilities or drains for sewage, or building schools and basic medical facilities (Fig 4-1, 4-2). Officials also grant land ownership titles. While settlers welcome these initiatives, they are minor accomplishments that fall short in significantly altering living conditions in these neighborhoods. As a result, the informal districts remain in disadvantaged in relation to the formal city.

In the 1990s I was National Director of Urban Development of Venezuela. During that time, I supported a group of talented researchers, including Teolinda Bolívar, Josefina Baldó and Federico Villanueva. These researchers were perhaps the first in the region to warn of the consequences of inaction concerning informality. The Plan for the Improvement of Informal Settlements in Caracas which I was able to assist from my public position reflected their findings[5-6]③. In less than a year, the team produced a large amount of technical information.A few years later, when Hugo Chavez assumed his fist mandate, Professor Baldó was named the President of the Venezuelan Housing Council.Baldó made plans for the improvement of informal settlements a national priority and organized hundreds of competitions to begin their implementation. However, the influential military sector still had a persistent bias against initiatives focused on informal settlements. Additionally, the top-down governmental organization limited the implementation of such efforts.

Despite these shortcomings in Venezuela, the past decades have been characterized by cuttingedge practical experiences in this direction in other nations. Valuable information, working methods,and design criteria are being shared and adapted to various contexts. In different South American countries and in South Africa there have been very important initiatives conceived as holistic rehabilitation projects. Notable are those in Brazil,Colombia, Bolivia and other Andean Nations[7-9]④.

Perhaps the most notable example is the world-renown—and many times awarded—improvement projects in the city of Medellín,Colombia. Only three decades ago, Medellín ranked as the most violent city in the world. Statistics revealed that the highest percentage of violent crime was concentrated in the informal areas at the almost inaccessible mountain-tops[10]⑤. In April 2014, the city hosted the World Urban Forum.Participants from all over the world were able to appreciate how creative design and transparency in the management of urban change could improve living conditions in the most distressed areas. The availability of municipal funding and technical expertise in Medellin may surpass those available in most developing cities. However, the main factors that contributed to Medellín’s success were:

1) Political commitment to address an accumulated social debt of decades of exclusion,exacerbated by deep-rooted violence.

2) Authorities making informal settlements upgrading programs the main course of action and envisioning them as part of a wider urban strategy.

3) Community engagement in all phases of planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the projects.

4) The organization of efficient, knowledgeable,and honest teams, capable of delivering highquality design solutions, and providing sustained management to the programs.

Despite, these gratifying outcomes, there is also a limit of what can be achieved when trying to match living conditions in the informal city to those present in the formal urban areas. Acting on highly consolidated settlements is a laborious process.To introduce open spaces, improve connectivity,infrastructure, and communal services, or relocate settlers from high-risk areas requires substitution housing. Relocations require complex negotiation skills. It is not easy to find land to construct relocation housing in the same neighborhoods or in adjacent areas. Furthermore, those who have to be relocated must be willing to move.

The urban improvements within existing settlements seem to work well at a neighborhood scale, but the spatial limitations hamper efforts at addressing greater urban/metropolitan demands.For example, it is very difficult to provide services,infrastructure, uses, and public spaces such as large parks, technical schools, universities, food distribution and transportation centers, hospitals,large sport facilities, manufacturing and industrial areas, and so on, within highly consolidated and dense settlements. Even the best plans for the rehabilitation of informal settlements also has limitations dealing with the demands of much larger self-constructed districts and cities, which are becoming the norm worldwide.

It is also important mentioning that there is a strong resistance to support the development of new informal areas. This even occurs within contexts where the legal system and common practices favor the improvement of existing informal settlements, and have been successful in implementing them, and even when the authorities acknowledge that informal urbanism cannot be deterred④.

The following sections of this article focus on how to deal with the growth of the predominantly informal city in a preventive and sustainable manner. I will refer briefly to the Site and Services programs, as a precursor of the Informal Armatures approach. I then suggest IA as an alternative method to deal with contemporary challenges of informality and balanced urban growth.

5 Sites and Services: Frameworks for Self-constructed Housing

As early as the 1960’s, it became evident to a group of socially concerned academics, researchers and professionals that conventional urban planning and social housing programs could not meet the growing demands of shelter for the less affluent.This group included authors and designers who are now frequently cited or referred to in studies on urban planning and design, such as Horacio Caminos, John Turner, Peter Land, and Germán Samper. They advanced ideas and projects that came to be known as the Site and Services programs. The notion was simple: settlers know how to occupy a plot of land and gradually build, expand and upgrade their dwellings. Settlers cannot achieve the urban conditions that normally require support from the public sector, professionals, institutions,or communally driven organizations. The goal then was to provide a balanced habitat, which included the following: access to appropriate sites,urban layouts with lot subdivisions, infrastructure,and open spaces where communal services and amenities would gradually be incorporated.

These authors passed on the torch to thousands of their students who then became active professionals, taking important positions in leading academic, finance, and planning institutions worldwide. The scope of Site and Services programs varied according to the financial,managerial and design assets of the different locations. In some cases, it included the provision of basic housing shells, or a combined bathroom and kitchen unit, accompanied by plans and technical assistance to guide the expansion and improvement process. In other instances, they envisioned assisting the community by providing skills and financing to locally produce low-cost construction materials and user-friendly building methods.

Perhaps one of the most emblematic of such initiative was the 1965 PREVI competition(Fig. 5-1, 5-2), organized for the urbanization of a large tract of vacant land in the South of Lima,Peru. Professor Peter Land coordinated PREVI,which called for distinguished planners and designers from different continents to participate. Professor Land’s drive and the support of the Peruvian President at the time, architect Fernando Belaúnde Terry, facilitated the implementation of the project.In PREVI, a larger urban framework tied together different design proposals for the neighborhoods,which were developed according to the winning schemes of the competition.

I visited PREVI a few years ago and was able to see the quality of the homes and the communal spaces 45 years after the project had been envisioned. However, PREVI is only a small site in a very large territory where over 2.5 million lived predominantly in informal settlements. For most inhabitants of PREVI, essential city services,amenities, and jobs are to be found in the formal city. They still must travel for more than an hour and a half, passing through a continuum of substandard informal areas.

I had also been several times in Medellín from 2008 on, appreciating the ongoing, multi-layered processes that radically improved their informal neighborhoods. This initiative occurred under the leadership of Mayor Sergio Fajardo and technical coordination of Alejandro Echeverri. These areas have continued to thrive in the following administrations. I had also taken my students on trips to Medellín and dedicated several semesters formulating proposals which envisioned the sustainable growth of new self-constructed areas.These projects were intended to go a step beyond,in scale and performance, concerning the Site and Services programs.

Approaches in Lima and Medellín contrast sharply. In Lima, the provision of a preemptive urban framework, working at a district/neighborhood scale is now engulfed by a large unplanned informal territory. In Medellín, the projects could be considered a sort of corrective urban surgery, operating on existing informal settlements which are part of a wider urban strategy. These different initiatives provided pivotal insight explored in my aforementioned book④.In this publication, I introduce the Informal Armatures Approach (Fig. 6).

6 The Informal Armature Approach(IA)

Since the emergence of the Site and Services programs in the 1960s, not much has been done in terms of thinking ahead and acting on the growth of self-constructed settlements. We are in urgent need of new paradigms to foster new informal urban growth. We must implement methods,utilizing tools capable of tapping the potentials of informality and engaging with the communities that self-construct their habitats. This should be done keeping in mind that in many cases we are seeding very large and complex urban areas. We should draw upon innovative design and performative ideas. Our aim should be to steer the predominantly informal cities to higher levels of performance and help their residents attain decent living conditions.

How is the IA different from previous methods? The IA is intended to be simple in its principles, design ideas, and applicability. It aims for compelling results. It suggests a symbiosis between the formal and the informal modes of city-making, which can result in rich and dynamic urban ecosystems that are highly competitive and resilient④. The key conditions of the IA approach are as follows: Preemptive and Transformative,Physical and Performative, Hybrid and Multi-scale Operations, Environmentally Friendly, and Simple.These conditions are all closely interrelated. IA is based on flexible design components adaptable to different site conditions.

6.1 Preemptive and Transformative

IA is essentially a preemptive planning and design method that aims to foster the growth of the predominantly informal city. It intends to serve as a support system enhancing the internal dynamism of informal urbanization. The main premise is that planning and guiding the urbanization process allows for more balanced and efficient development. This contrasts to retrofitting consolidated informal neighborhoods. For the IA to be effective, the following conditions must be met: 1) Political acceptance that unassisted informality will occur on its own, occupying inadequate locations without the basic urban frameworks, and thus will result in difficult urban situations with severe social and environmental implications, 2) The availability of suitable public land to apply the approach, the will, and capability of the public sector to assemble it, acquire it, or to develop it in partnership with the private sector,and 3) The organization of teams of facilitators,committed to the IA initiative. The teams must also have the ability to adapt the IA criteria to local conditions, engage the community, incorporate expertise according to particular needs, and foster the transformation of the IA sites till their assistance is no longer necessary.

6.2 Physical and Performative

Traditional planning in most developing countries is reduced to static land use plans with no design considerations; they are centered on controlling the real estate market which has no incidence on informal urbanism. Developing countries frequently blame their problems and the inability to cope with them on the lack of financial resources. While there certainly may be economic limitations, greater weaknesses in these nations stem from the lack of coherent visions to establish priorities, coordinate actions, and ensure efficiency and transparency. Medellín points to the importance of introducing cutting edge planning and design standards, with efficient and sustained management, and working hand in hand with the communities as the best way to ensure deliverance and accountability.

Thus, the IA approach combines notions of spatial organization and design criteria with on-site management. It suggests how to foresee simple spatial organization patterns to attract and guide the initial occupation of the sites and create a strong bond with the settlers. The strength of the approach relies greatly on establishing trust between the facilitators of the program and the communities, and also in the way urban changes are managed. The transformations of the IA territories will occur not only in the public realm, but also in the appropriately timed inclusion of a diversity of uses that are meant to supplement the selfconstructed areas, as the communities consolidate,evolve, have greater expectations, and become part of much larger urban agglomerations.

One of the main lessons gained from the Site and Services programs and the informal settlement improvement plans is that spatial organization and physicality of the self-constructed city is important.Sustainable urbanism requires quality planning and design. This may include designing compelling and performative urban landscapes, facilitating entrepreneurship, dismissing energy composition and waste, enhancing social interaction, reducing violence, favoring shared participatory governance,and so on. Facilitators of the IA should have the ability to make the early settlers feel that they are a proactive part of improving their districts and help them engage in all facets of the foundation and evolution of the settlements.

6.3 Hybrid and Multi-scalar Operations

Both the Site and Services and the informal settlements improvement projects seek to merge the dynamics of the self-constructed with planning and design. IA operates with the same logic, but its goal is to attain a highly balanced and competitive urban product that will, in time, become the mainstream,as the dominant form of urbanization in many developing countries will be informal settlements.To do so, IA facilitators must develop the skills to deal with early phases of occupation, deploying rather simple design components in accordance with the basic needs of the new settlers, while simultaneously planning and be preparing to address the urban and metropolitan demands of larger urban ensembles. This is not an easy task; it requires skilled “navigators”.

Tracks of land for self-constructed dwellings which can be subjected to different types of urban frameworks and technical assistance, as the Sites and Service programs envisioned - accompanied by other forms of social housing - are very important components of the IA fostered territories, but far from the only ones. The IA initiative considers strands and patches of vacant land that may initially incorporate simple mobility systems, or allow for the installation of reception tents with a provisional supply of potable water. These open spaces may eventually sustain an efficient public transportation system, and a diversity of uses,civic amenities, and compelling public spaces. The IA program may also predefine how to protect waterways and vegetated areas that will become the recreational corridors of the city, or envision sites initially employed as recycling centers in order to obtain construction materials to assist the settlers in building their shelters. There may be areas that will serve to initiate urban agricultural programs that,in time, will give way to manufacturing centers,technical schools, large city markets, and so on.

Some land with temporary uses may be kept in public hands till the aspirations and income levels of the community demands rise. The private sector then can be called in to provide more sophisticated commercial areas and amenities.These operations may represent opportunities for the IA facilitators to attract private investment targeting mixed use/residential developments for higher income groups, providing formal housing,offices, cinemas, recreational facilities which the original settlers will also demand. The additional value obtained down the line from such operations will help the IA facilitators generate revenues to reinvest in other services within the same territories or reinitiate similar IA initiatives in new urban frontiers. These IA-managed districts are expected to thrive with the vitality and character of the selfconstructed combined with the amenities of the formal city, as a true hybrid product.

6.4 Environmentally Friendly

Responsive contemporary urbanism must address environmental aspects that are pivotal not only for the wellbeing of the communities but also for the health of the planet. Such considerations were not in the agenda of conventional urban planning which still determines the urban conditions of the formal city in many developing countries, nor were they considered in the Site and Services programs as precursors of the IA approach.

Since IA begins operating before occupation takes place and determines the first physical and performative conditions of the settlements, it represents a favorable and still flexible milieu to introduce environmentally friendly criteria. Among some of the most sensitive aspects we can mention mechanisms to protect adjacent watersheds,areas of biodiversity, valuable agricultural soils,the hydrological network -adjacent to and within the urban areas-. Similarly, IA can facilitate the introduction of green infrastructure, pedestrian and clean public transportations networks, recycling programs, community agricultural gardens, etc. The presence of pro-active IA facilitators will allow the planning, design, and management of the new informal/formal districts with these ideas in mind,making them meaningful for the early settlers as part of their daily lives. It is important to keep in mind those in non-fostered informal settlements,particularly in primal phases of occupation when they are in survival mode, settlers cannot be aware of or care for environmental issues. Many of them have arrived from rural areas, and quickly lose their agrarian skills and familiarity with nature as they become urbanites. The IA allows accommodating these cultural practices in the new urban settings.

6.5 Simple: Based on Flexible Design Components,Adaptable to Different Site Conditions

Throughout history, cities have been experimenting in testing new urban organizations.Some were shaped by prototypes embedded in cultural practices, and others introduced by the vision of leaders, designers, economic interest groups, providers of services, etc. Design solutions are often replicated in contexts different from those in which they originated. Those that prevail tend to be simple in the manner they are spatialized and implemented. Commonly planning and design prototypes used in the developing world respond to particular ideologies and political, economic, and social goals of the elites, but do not always benefit the majority of the population. IA sets forwards a toolkit of simple design components whose main goal is to provide better living conditions for the most numerous segments of the population of the developing world, the poor. These components are not dogmatic in their nature, scale, or in their morphological and performative qualities.Rather they embed principles that can sustain the multiple processes mentioned in the preceding sections. Their successful deployment as spatial/performative solutions will depend on the local contextual and cultural nuances, and of the ability of the IA facilitators to engage the communities and other urban actors in the initiatives.

To simplify its application, the IA approach classifies the design components into the following categories: Corridors, Patches, and Stewards. These components are expected to act as urban organizers of an integrated system, supporting the informal processes and performing different roles.

The Corridors are essentially linear components or strands that structure the public realm, acting as the skeleton and DNA of the systems of open spaces, infrastructure, mobility systems, water management devices, services, and so on. The Corridors are subdivided into two sub-categories:

1) Attractors: acts as pullers or hot spots encouraging the concentration of the population and activities towards areas where it is more appropriate to do so, providing spatial and managerial conditions to better handle them, and 2) Protectors: contrarily, dissipate urban energy,safeguarding environmental assists, and acting as buffers to avoid urban occupation/expansionwhether informal or formal- from sensitive areas.

Attractors and Protectors are expected to manage a high percentage of the transformations of the settlements into larger districts and urban territories and require a higher degree of public involvement to achieve their goals, particularly in the early stages of occupation, consolidation, and growth (Fig. 7-1, 7-2).

Patches: represent the areas of urban infill that are nurtured or held together by the Corridors(Fig. 8-1, 8-2); they are also grouped into two subcategories,

1) Receptors: are sites made available for informal occupation, where the self-constructed neighborhood are expected to flourish; and 2) Transformers: areas capable of sustaining a multiplicity of uses that, together with the Corridors, are expected to differentiate the IA from the non-assisted informal settlements and the Site and Services programs.

Stewards: which are components, that may appear in all the previous categories to ensure the availability of space needed to gradually accommodate the urban demands, as the IA territories evolve (Fig. 9-1, 9-2). One of the difficult tasks for the success of the IA approach is to secure the spatial requirements to gradually introduce more complex urban uses, services and infrastructure at more mature stages of consolidation of the settlements, according to the economies of scale associated with much a larger population and urban areas. If these spaces are not secured, the mega-informal cities of the future will result in a quilt of predominantly residential patches with some local commerce and services.They will continue to suffer from strangled mobility, limited productive jobs, in addition to lack of metropolitan services and amenities and large open spaces. The current living conditions and the diminished performance of Mexico City, Lagos,Lima, Addis Abeba, or Caracas provide a glimpse into the future of the unassisted, incomplete, and marginal mega informal cities.

The small scale requires the large one to adequately perform. In formal planning, these spaces are simply safeguarded by zoning, until they are required. But in the unguided informal city, free land is a highly desirable commodity, to be used mainly to self-construct homes. IA suggests that the best way to keep the land available is to introduce provisional uses which must be meaningful for the communities in the different levels of evolution of the settlements accompanied by trusted communal or institutional or neighborhood “custodians”that will establish stewardship over them. The Custodians also play a pivotal role working hand in hand with the facilitators of the IA fostered territories, in the process of retrofitting these spaces to respond to changing demands. The scale,uses, and morphologies, as well as the associated urban processes of the different components,will depend on the cultural, managerial, and economic conditions in each context. In addition,they require technical assistance or public involvement. However, as I have argued in this article, communities alone can handle the housing/neighborhood scale. The other urban components demand some sort of public or institutional support.

The Informal Armatures approach, at the core of the book Planning and Design for Future Informal Settlements: Shaping the Self-Constructed City is a call for urgent action, directed to politicians, academics, professionals, institutions,the private sector and communities alike, to embark in a simple but committed way in stewarding the informal city that is just emerging today, seeding a sustainable future. I sincerely hope that it will call the attention of those who have the responsibility,the means, and the ability to induce urban changes in developing cities, motivating them to implement pilot projects to prove its validity (Fig. 10-12). The book includes academic examples illustrating the physicality, and the performative conditions that the approach may handle, in very different contexts. It also suggests courses of further experimentation and research that the IA requires⑥.

The lives of billions living in the developing world is impacted by planning and design paradigms that were introduced decades ago.Similarly, the lives of many more will be adversely affected by inaction. IA aims to prove that it is a feasible and appropriate approach to make a real difference. Now is the time for urgent and efficient action.

Notes:

① For detailed statistic on sources and type of violence in the slums see reference [1].

② For issues derived from urban inequalities revise see reference [3].

③ For additional information on the Plan see reference [5].

④ For more information on what makes those cases particularly relevant in the context of working with informal settlement improvements, see reference [7].

⑤ Medellín received the ‘Innovative City of the Year’competition, organized in 2013 by The Wall Street Journal and Citi, as the most creative city of the year,from a shortlist that included New York City and Tel-Aviv.This was one of many prizes and praises that Medellín,considered for decades the most violent city in the world.Medellín exemplifies that even under the most adverse conditions urban improvement is possible, and in a short time, becoming a reference for many developing nations and particularly in relation to the improvement of informal settlements. See reference [10].

⑥ An edited, updated, and expanded version on Planning and Design for Future Informal Settlements: Shapping the Self-Constructed City, will be published in China (in Mandarin) in 2022, with variances that will explain the applicability of the Informal Armatures approach for fastgrowing Asian cities.

Sources of Figures:

Fig. 1?Carlos Itriago; Fig. 2-1, 6?David Gouverneur,Fig. 2-2, 4-1?Caracas Cenital/Fundación para la Cultura Urbana; Fig. 3?students of Universidad Metropolitana.Advisor: David Gouverneur. Project coordinator, Rendering and Photo: Luis Sully; Fig. 4-2?David Maestres; Fig. 5-1?Germán Samper, Fig. 5-2?Catalina Samper; Fig. 7?Megan Talarowski and Peter Barnard. Advisor: David Gouverneur and Thabo Lenneiye; Fig. 8?Tamara Henry. Advisors: David Gouverneur and Abdallah Tabet; Fig. 9?Rachel Ahern. Advisors:David Gouverneur and Abdallah Tabet; Fig. 10?Daniel Saenz. Advisors: David Gouverneur and Thabo Lenneiye;Fig. 11?Leonardo Robleto. Advisors: David Gouverneur and Thabo Lenneiye; Fig. 12?Kimberly Cooper, Rebecca Fuchs and Keya Kunte. Advisors: David Gouverneur and Trevor Lee.

(Editor / LIU Yuxia)