Fiveless|notes



Urban Geog – Structure

1. Urban Concepts

• Urbanisation

o Concept of urbanisation & relationship to urban growth

o Suburbanisation, counter-urbanisation and re-urbanisation in DCs

o Urbanisation trends in DCs and LDCs

• World/Global cities

• Primate cities

2. The City

• CBD Dynamics

• Bid-rent theory

• Functional zoning

• Social forces

• Multiple nuclei

3. Influences on urban structure

• Historical

• State planning

• Office decentralisation

• City future forms

• Globalisation

4. Managing urban environments

• Housing problems

• Housing solutions

• Transport issues

Suburbanisation

Defn: movement of people away from the city to the edge, within city limits, usually within a 1-hour commute. Usu. upper class phenomenon, and in US, white.

Can be controlled (planned) or uncontrolled (urban sprawl)

• Horizontal expansion of city, engulfing rural areas and farmland

• Result of poorly-planned growth

• Aided by the advent of the private car and motor highways – urban sprawl often occurs along transport belts. E.g. avg. US household has 2 cars

Causes

• Push: Poor quality of life in inner-city areas

o Congestion, pollution

o “White flight”: esp. in US, white middle-class residents move out of non-white inner-city neighbourhoods

• Push: High property prices in cities compared to suburban developments

• Pull: Improvements in transport infrastructure – development of railroads in UK in 1920s and 30s, highways and road networks in the US post WWII

• Pull: Government policies/private initiatives

o US: federal govt underwriting mortgages

o UK: building societies which provided mortgages, govt development of New Towns e.g. Milton Keynes

• Pull: development in communications technology which allows more people to work from home

Consequences

• Political: govt planning necessary to avoid urban sprawl. E.g. creating green belts, New Towns, providing necessary infrastructure

• Social: segregation

o Rich-poor and racial segregation, e.g. Watts (inner-city) vs. Beverly Hills (suburb) in L.A.: Beverly Hills: 90% white, 70% earn over $35k annually compared to Watts: 70% Hispanic & 25% black, 60% earn below $35k

• Economic: hollowing out of city centre

o As middle-class taxpayers move out of inner city areas, the financial viability of the city is affected. E.g. federal govt rescued NYC in 1975

• Environmental: urban sprawl

o Intrusion into green belts and farmland. E.g. much of London is built on formerly-productive farmland.

o Cities joining into each other e.g. Bos-Wash megalopolis in NE US

o Loss of sense of place, termed “geography of nowhere” (Kunstler, 1993)

Counter-urbanisation

Defn: movement of people away from cities into rural areas beyond city limits. Can be seen as an extreme form of suburbanisation, push-pull factors more intense

Preconditions

• Dependent on transport (cars) and increasingly communications technologies

• Almost exclusively a DC phenomenon, except Indonesia’s transmigration programme (forced counter-urbanisation, politically motivated)

• Limited to those who can afford the daily commute

Causes

• Pull: Higher quality of life in rural areas. Less stressful, less pollution

o Japan: People living in log cabin communities, over an hour away from Tokyo by bullet train, to escape the concrete jungle for open spaces

• Pull: development in communications technology – people work from home

• Pull: holiday homes, e.g. Parisians buying homes in rural areas for May-Sept

• Push: hectic life in cities, especially for retired

Moderate vs. extreme

|Partial break |Complete break |

|Urban enclaves within rural setting |Rural immersion, in rural enclaves |

|Can lead to suburbanisation |Stays at village, hamlet level |

Consequences

• Services grow in rural areas. E.g. transport, out-of-town shopping centres

• Rural enclaves grow into suburbs, esp. in US, complete with shopping malls

• Society stratification

o Rural enclaves exclusive, intended to keep people out

o Racial segregation esp. US: those moving out of cities are mostly white

o Economic stratification: not many can afford this kind of lifestyle

• Hollowing out of inner city (NYC) to communities in upstate New York

• City govts lose money/taxpayers

o The rich move out, and city authorities can’t afford to support social services. E.g. NYC had to be saved from bankruptcy in 1975

• Communities grow apart

o Rural communities become insular, esp. walled neighbourhoods in US

o “Escape” from concerns of wider community

• Environmental damage to rural areas: encroachment on farmland

• Reliance on transport: bullet train in Japan, highways and car in US

Rates and Levels of Urbanisation – DCs

Level of urbanisation high in DCs:

• Long history of urbanisation

o Industrial Revolution in 1800s led to economic opportunities being concentrated in cities

• Urban-rural migration for economic opportunities. Also, international migration esp. to cities in the US

• BR high throughout, but in cities the population growth rate translated into high rates of urban growth

Rates of urbanisation low in DCs:

• DCs already highly urbanised: about 80% of the UK’s population lives in cities. Figure for most DCs around 70-80% – most people already live in urban areas, so rural-urban migration likely to be much less significant

• Pop growth rate slowed down in general

• Suburbanisation and counter-urbanisation occurring because of congestion, high rents, cost of living, quality-of-life issues: people are moving out of recognised urban areas, slowing urban growth

Rates and Levels of Urbanisation – LDCs

Level of urbanisation low in LDCs:

• Shorter history of urbanisation

• Cities in former colonies served mainly as trading ports, rest of country largely unaffected by urbanisation

• Restrictions on who could live in the city areas in many former colonies, inhibited growth

• Growth only took off post-independence

Rates of urbanisation high in LDCs:

• Pop growth rate high, LDCs generally less urbanised: more scope to grow

• Industrialisation leads to rural-urban migration as urban areas naturally become growth poles, creating economic opportunities and attracting migrants. E.g. Mexico City in 70s: as many as 1000 migrants every day

Urban Sprawl

• Horizontal expansion of the city towards outskirts, engulfing rural areas

• Result of uncontrolled, poorly-planned growth

• Uncontrolled suburbanisation

Causes

• White flight: middle classes escaping from inner city (perceptions of crime etc.), new neighbourhoods developed

• Use of the automobile and building of highways that radiate out from city centre, as well as improvements in transport network e.g. the London commuter belt covering an area of several thousand km2

• Some argue that green belts have paradoxically encouraged urban sprawl by limiting the area available for urban expansion, forcing people to live outside of the green belt

Consequences

• Lower house prices in suburbs, more can afford their own home

• Relieving pop pressure in city centre

• Engulfing farmland, loss of rural heritage

• Heavy reliance on cars = carbon emissions. Also traffic congestion because of long commute

• Loss of sense of place – suburbs all tend to look the same, Kunstler’s geography of nowhere. Increasing homogenisation of culture and society.

• Social phenomena e.g. (!) obesity blamed on urban sprawl because of dependence on car, rather than walking to buy groceries and stuff

• Stratification – only middle class and above can afford the commute

Myrdal’s Brilliant 3-in-1* Cumulative Causation Model

*Primate cities, world cities and global cities – adapt as desired

Describe the development of primate cities.

• Some cities enjoy concentrated growth in trade or commerce early in a country’s development e.g. ports.

• Built-in momentum to grow even more

o Concentration of workers, jobs, investment

o Rural-urban migration – push-pull factors

• Over-concentration of activities leading to backwash effect as one city draws in economic (retail, commercial, industrial) and social (cultural, political, educational, administrative) activities at the expense of other cities. Other cities become dependent on it for services. – stage where primate cities establish primacy

o E.g. Bangkok dwarfs all other cities in Thailand; few rural Thais would consider moving to anywhere but Bangkok

• Decentralisation (spread effects) – the extent to which this happens/has happened to primate cities is questionable –

o Diseconomies of scale (problems of overpopulation) and trickle-down effect leads to other cities eventually developing into growth poles in their own right

o Spread effect expressed in the spatial outflow of people in suburbanisation/counter-urbanisation that eventually reduces primacy of primate cities

o E.g. London: spread effects so great that overspill towns were created (Milton Keynes), London Metropolitan Green Belt created to limit urban sprawl (over 5000 km2 O.o)

o OTOH Bangkok: 60 times larger than Chiang Mai, centre of Thai culture, economy (produces 40+% of the GDP), administration, political power, little evidence of decentralisation to other regions except tourism.

Special characteristics of global cities

• First-name familiarity (e.g. Paris, London. OTOH where on earth is Abidjan?)

• Concentration of economic activity (e.g. headquarters of MNCs, law firms, stock exchanges that have considerable influence over world economy)

• Advanced communications network

• Large population

• Cultural institutions (museums, universities)

• Lively cultural scene (film festivals, music, theatre, art galleries, buskers)

• Influential media (e.g. BBC, New York Times)

• Sports (e.g. events like Wimbledon, ability to host Olympics, World Cup etc.)

The big 4: London, Paris, New York, Tokyo

Primate Cities good or bad?

Case studies: (LDCs) Bangkok, Manila & (DCs) Tokyo, London

Good

• Focus growth: govt resources more effectively used. Easier to provide infrastructure

• Multiplier effects create wealth/jobs e.g. tourism: hotels cater to tourists, who also support services e.g. food, tour guides, shopping

• (In LDCs) important channel for modernisation. Primate cities serve as a conduit for socio-economic opportunities e.g. squatter settlements in Cairo which have become so permanent that satellite dishes are a common sight

Bad

• Slums – uncontrolled development in Bangkok in 70s, 80s and urban sprawl

o Massive buildings that don’t blend well with Bangkok’s older architecture e.g. office blocks downstream from the royal palace complex

• Pollution and health problems – many primate cities are health hazards e.g. Manila: people living on Smoky Mountain and other landfills, Jakarta cited as bird flu hazard because of people living with poultry (which has been banned but enforcement is dubious), Bangkok’s legendary congestion

• Inequality, disconnect e.g. in Thailand, provinces feeling neglected. In the last GE, voters in Bangkok largely supported the Democratic Party while voters in the provinces voted for the Thai Rak Thai party

• Lack of spread effect to other cities (link to Cumulative Causation Model). Centrifugal pattern of growth so pronounced that MNCs only cite their offices/investments in prominent primate cities

• Parasitic effect – smaller towns and cities drained of capital, talent as people and money move out into the primate city

• Unemployment – Jakarta’s jobless rate is around 17% even as the economy grew by 6% because of the influx of rural-urban migrants. Cities cannot create jobs fast enough for them

CBD

CBD: area in the city which provides the highest concentration of administrative, financial, commercial and possibly retail functions.

Structure of the CBD includes the inner core (highest concentration of financial & commercial activities), outer core (lower concentration, wider range of activities) and zone of transition (mixed zone of old and new land use, including areas of discard, characterised by constant redevelopment).

Past questions:

N2004

a) Describe the changing nature of the CBD in urban areas you have studied. [9]

b) TWE are the changes in the CBD the consequences of increasing difficulties (O.o?) experienced within the CBD. [16]

Question b)

Consequences of difficulties within CBD

• Spatial limitations affect traffic – leads to changes in road upgrading, traffic congestion, need for more public transport

• Outdated buildings need to be demolished – gentrification of Chinatown, old National Library making way for some road tunnel

Not consequences of difficulties within CBD

• Maintain competitiveness and relevance, both within the city and against other cities. E.g. the integrated resorts

• Creating urban economies of scale: larger critical mass attracts economic activity

• Urban growth = CBD inadequate to meet the needs of the city. Need for secondary CBDs to spread growth, create secondary growth poles

• Tourist activities incorporated into CBD and 24-hour CBD: drawing on spatial strengths of CBD (accessibility, prime land, lots of people)

CBD Re-imaging

Re-imaging: constant readjustment in response to changes in social and economic trends. E.g. in Singapore, industrial and residential growth relevant in 70s now complemented with commercial, leisure and recreation.

Need for re-imaging

1. CBD’s relevance to the rest of the city changes over time. Re-imaging helps keeps the CBD relevant e.g. providing leisure activities (Clarke/Boat/Robertson Quay)

2. Old landscape needs to be updated to keep up with the times, e.g. Gentrification in Chinatown, Bugis area

3. Building functions, architecture, planning principles change.

4. Keep up with competitors: other upcoming world cities like Shanghai, Hong Kong. Attracting economic activity and people

Re-imaging strategies to vomit on the paper

1. Secondary CBDs

• In Singapore, Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East are examples

• Provide secondary retail and commercial functions to spread growth, reduce overconcentration of activity in CBD

2. Continuous redevelopment

• Takes place in outer core and zone of transition

• Old buildings torn down to make way for new ones – accounts for the changing face of CBD

• E.g. Old National Library, parts of Chinatown (later rebuilt at the expense of cultural heritage, turned into tourist trap)

• Problem: loss of character (Lonely Planet describes Singapore as “shockingly modern and anonymous” O.o)

3. Gentrification

• Places like Chinatown, Boat Quay. Changed the character of these areas (formerly warehouses, shophouses) to upmarket pubs, restaurants serving office workers after work.

4. 12-hour to 24-hour city

• Attract people by turning CBD into a vibrant area at night

• Draw on CBD’s strengths of central location, large pool of bored office workers and high rents to support pubs, restaurants, nightlife, bazaars.

• Creation of integrated hubs of activity e.g. integrated resorts combining retail, commercial and leisure functions.

• These activities are supported by 3 main groups of people: locals, people working in the vicinity, and tourists

Alonso’s Bid-Rent Theory

From the Urban Geog tips: Bid-rent can be useful in answering other questions

The bid-rent theory postulates that price & demand for land changes in relation to proximity to the CBD. The ability to bid for land results in patterns of differentiated land use.

1. Offices e.g. Shenton Way

2. Retail e.g. Orchard

3. Light industry (older parts of the central area) e.g. North Bridge Road

4. Low income residential e.g. Redhill, Bukit Merah

5. High income residential e.g. Bukit Timah

6. Heavy manufacturing e.g. Jurong

This theory is based upon the reasoning that the more accessible an area, the more profitable it is going to be. Retailers and offices wish to maximise their profitability, so they are much more willing to pay more for land close to the CBD and less for land further away from this area.

Bid-rent theory explains why financial & commercial activities are almost always found in the most accessible parts of the city, while industrial and residential land uses are further away. In reality, multiple peak land value intersections (PLVIs) create their own growth poles, resulting in multiple nuclei in a city.

Poorer people (in low income residential areas) live near the city because of urban history – the houses closest to the CBD are likely to be older, built before modern land planning and growth of cities, and the run-down appearance and lack of amenities (reflecting older, more functional urban planning – or even no planning at all) produces lower rents. Sub-letting (dividing the unit up for multiple tenants so they all share the cost of the full rent) also reduces rents.

Influences on City Structure

Social forces

• Burgess (1925): concept of a city based on a single centre that spreads itself concentrically outwards by the process of invasion and succession

• Poor rural-urban migrants settle nearest city centre, for accessibility to jobs. This pushes out the richer inhabitants, who move further out from the city centre. The process is repeated, and eventually a rich-poor divide is created

• Invasion and succession creates a rich-poor divide. E.g. LA – Watts vs. Bel Air

Influence of transport

• Transport is an important influence on land use

• It connects different nodes of growth together

• Higher accessibility along highways and expressways means that rents/prices are higher along them.

• Cities start growing horizontally, in wedge or ribbon-like patterns. These sectors are areas of growth for middle-class housing, suburban shopping malls, even light industry. E.g. Ventura and Pacific Highways along the coast of LA

Influence of growth poles

• Growth poles are hubs or clusters of activity, can be financial, commercial, industrial, residential in nature

• Growth pole theory is based on the observation that growth happens at different points with different degrees of intensity

• Growth poles spread out growth in the city. They also attract similar activities in a cluster, become obvious after some time.

Government

• Development of new towns

• Urban redevelopment

o Re-imaging

o Destruction and construction

o Creation of green belts

o Conservation of old buildings/monuments

Others

• Cultural and ethnic groupings e.g. Chinatown, Little India

• Topophilia: aesthetic, emotional or nostalgic attachment to a place

• Gentrification: creative class want to stay in the inner-city because of nightlife and close proximity to work and leisure

Influences on City Structure: Influence of History

Cities in the developing world often developed from ports e.g. Singapore, Georgetown (Penang), Yangoon (Myanmar), Manila (Philippines), Hong Kong. These were gateways for trading with the hinterland in spices and other goods, nodal points of entry and exit for goods and services.

Asia: Characteristics

• Mixed, haphazard land use

o Still applicable today e.g. Manila, Jakarta, characterised by godowns, administrative blocks, commercial trading companies and old pre-war houses dot the urban landscape

• Spontaneous growth

o Squatter settlements and proliferation of slums

• Racial segregation resulting from strong govt planning

Latin America: Characteristics

• CBD: central plaza or square, flanked by govt buildings and church

• Commercial spine along major transport route with surrounding high class residential areas. Contains some light industries as well. The spine is thin because the society isn’t developed yet, few wealthy people

• Disamenity sectors in outskirts (areas lacking amenities)

• Spontaneous growth

o Still occurring e.g. Rio de Janeiro: population growth leading to unplanned settlements, slums, favelas

|Possible questions for influences on city structure: DRQ on model of city |

|Look out for |

|Mixed land use |

|Rich/poor divide |

|Others – racial segregation, Latin American commercial spine |

|Role of govt |

|Singapore – concept plans, re-imaging |

|Manila – Tondo: new housing but at the cost of squatters losing homes |

|Brazil – favelas, self-help schemes, Cingapura project |

Influences on City Structure: Role of State

Some cities are meticulously planned by govt for specific objectives (Singapore). In other cities planners do not have the power to influence land use on the level of individual plots, but only plan on a broad level, leaving more to market forces (more laissez-faire e.g. US)

Planning principles include

• Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City concept incorporating parks, green belts

• Land use zoning: activities located near each other for synergy, industry and residential land use spatially separated

• Issues of balance and equity: aiming for a balance of activities meeting different needs of the population – social, economic, residential, religious etc.

• Market forces e.g. URA’s White Sites that let developers decide what to build

• Master plans and concept plans: align strategic goals at different levels

o Raffles Master Plan 1822 – allocated separate areas for different races

o Ring Concept Plan 1972 – based on the concept of a Ring City, transportation a key feature of the plan. MRT and expressways planned

o Revised Concept Plan 1991

▪ Decentralisation with the 4 regional centres

▪ Secondary CBDs: Marina Bay area

▪ Gentrification and conservation

▪ More reclamation, increased housing density

o Revised Concept Plan 2001: planning for 5.5 million

▪ Focus on identity

▪ More recreation

▪ Flexibility for business

Manila case study: Lack of planning

Started off as a port in the 16th century, growth in 20th century fuelled by rural-migration

• Rich-poor divide: ½ live below poverty line, the rich live in the Makati district south of the city centre, while poor are spread across the city in large slums

• Environmental problems

o Land pollution from govt inability to deal with the 4000 tonnes of waste generated daily

o Water pollution because only 15% of population has proper sewage system, the other 85% goes into canals and rivers, which are used by squatters as a source of water

o Flooding caused by clogged drains

• Social issues

o Tondo: inner city area, site of Smokey Mountain which used to be home to around 20,000 people, but now cleaned up. Fenced apartments built in the area but not affordable to the poor, so the squatters have settled outside the fences.

a) Describe possible strategies to deal with rapidly growing residential areas in cities in LDCs. [9]

b) Evaluate the benefits and limitations of any 2 strategies. [16]

a) Possible Strategies

• Ease concentration of population in residential areas

• Improve living conditions of those most affected by overcrowding in these areas i.e. slum dwellers

Decentralisation

• Setting up of new towns/satellite towns

• Planned development built some distance away from congested city centres

• Self-sufficient

• E.g: New Towns in Singapore; “Satellite cities” around Cairo: Fifteenth of May, Sadat City, Tenth of Ramadan, New Ameriya

Encouraged migration

• People are provided with incentives to encourage them to migrate away from city centres e.g. Indonesian Transmigration Programme

Upgrading existing squatter settlements

• Providing basic services such as water supply, electricity etc.

• Improving the physical layout of the area

• Establishing security of tenure (property rights) for the residents

• E.g. Tondo Foreshore Development project in Manila, the Baan Mankong Program launched by the Thai government in 2003

b) Benefits and Limitations

Encouraged migration benefits

• Helps to relieve pressure on urban areas

• Reduces the ‘primacy’ and ‘backwash effect’ of the primate city

• Economic growth not confined to Jakarta – many major cities eg. Medan (pop. 2 mil), Pekanbaru, Makassar etc.

• Allows farmers to own and cultivate relatively large plots of land – impossible in cities – more equitable distribution of wealth?

Encouraged migration limitations

• New land may not provide for people as much as it would in cities e.g. Indonesia

• Invasion into indigenous lands

• disparity in welfare between the migrants and locals leads to inter-communal resentment and conflict

• Transmigration something like counter-urbanization – environmental problems as forests have to be cleared for settlement

Site-service schemes benefits

• More practical for poorer countries e.g. Kenya

• Improved living standards (ST and LT) e.g. Rocinha, Brazil

• Improves community sprit and sense of ownership

• More protection against natural disasters

Site-service schemes limitations

• Limited quality of housing

• Cannot cope with rapid rate of migration e.g. Sao Paulo

• In some cases, relocation is required

• Little effect on urban sprawl, even encourages

• Still myriad of social problems e.g. corruption in Manila

• Governments do not treat it as top priority e.g. Rio de Janeiro Mayor

• Dwellers unwilling to cooperate e.g. Brazil

• Increase in population density, e.g. Mexico City

Cingapura Project in Sao Paolo

Project aims to help Brazil's shantytowns

The Washington Times / June 25, 1996

By Larry Luxner

SÃO PAULO, Brazil -- A slum reconstruction and improvement project executed by the mayor of South America's most populous city is getting warm words of praise -- even from his political opponents.

Paulo Maluf, mayor of São Paulo, says his pet project – dubbed "Projeto Cingapura" – was inspired by a recent trip to Singapore, a city-state dominated by high-rise apartment buildings and known for its cleanliness and efficiency.

"The project takes its inspiration from Singapore's success in keeping communities together while upgrading buildings and providing city services," according to the U.S. Consulate in São Paulo. "A principal aim of the project is to keep families in place and turn them into homeowners at relatively low cost."

São Paulo, with 16.4 million inhabitants, now ranks as the world's second-largest metropolitan area, according to "An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements 1996." The report, presented earlier this month during the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, says São Paulo is smaller than Tokyo (with 26.8 million people) but surprisingly larger than both New York (16.3 million) and Mexico City (15.6 million).

Nevertheless, at least two million paulistas, as residents of São Paulo are known, live in unhealthy slum conditions – a 19.4% increase since 1987. These slum-dwellers are clustered in 243 favela nuclei containing at least 200 huts each. Projeto Cingapura aims to urbanize and upgrade favelas and corticos (partition-houses) for some 92,000 families containing 500,000 individuals. The three-phase project, begun in June 1994, costs around $250 million. Of that, $160 million is being funded through a loan from the Inter-American Development Bank, with the remaining $90 million coming from the São Paulo Municipal Housing Fund.

Yet the work, supposed to be finished in March, is lagging far behind schedule. Less than a fourth of the 28,136 apartment units have actually been completed.

In a recent briefing for U.S. officials, Atilio Piraino Filho – an advisor to the São Paulo municipal government's housing and urban development office – said that the city's large poverty belt "is a result of immigration to São Paulo from other parts of Brazil, as well as formerly middle-class paulistas moving to slums as a last resort for housing." He said that nearly half of all slum dwellers earn more than four times the minimum salary of $400 a month. "Far from demonstrating economic well-being, however, this figure discloses that many people formerly described as lower middle-class have experienced a decline in their living standards and can no longer afford middle-class housing."

In a nutshell, Maluf's program for verticalization and urbanization of slums involves the regularization and "gentrification" of slum areas by keeping families in their present neighbourhoods. The project will provide basic sanitation systems, sewage, electricity, garbage collection and paved roads, and is divided into three phases. According to Piraino Filho, 40% of favela huts will be urbanized; the remaining 60% will be given access to low-interest loans for transforming their huts into brick houses. He says the project will be financially self-sustainable "because families entering the newly constructed units will have to pay a monthly mortgage fee – approximately $60 – until the $13,000 cost of each unit is fully amortized over 25 years.

In addition, the rebuilding process is being performed according to population density, type of soil, elimination of dangerous spots, and the establishment of schools, medical facilities and sports centres.

Comments the U.S. Consulate: "The favelas being upgraded under Projeto Cingapura are among the worst in São Paulo. Residents' primary source of drinking water is polluted, there are no sewage systems, and most of the areas are subject to flooding. The favela population strongly supports Projeto Cingapura because it provides improved living conditions, access to sanitation, health care and schools, and will significantly improve the living conditions of thousands of São Paulo residents. In addition, Mayor Maluf can be expected to take credit for the project's eventual success, with an eye to the October 1996 mayoral elections."

OTOH

A follow-up study done on the Cingapura project revealed some similar problems (Hewitt, 2002). Moving to a regulated apartment from a regulation free favela required quite a change in habits for some residents. The small size of the apartments could not be built upon or enlarged as is commonly done in squatter settlements. Similarly, some individuals who were dependent on raising livestock in the favela brought their animals, such as a family goat, to live with them in their small apartment. Financial problems were also encountered from residents who could not afford to pay the rent, maintenance fee and other bills that they did not have before. It may be fortunate that less than 14,000 of the projected 140,000 units were built in the end.

– geog.uvic.ca/dept2/undergrad/honours/hunter.pdf

-----------------------

A suburb in Markham, north of Toronto in Canada

[pic]



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download