Learning About Sustainability From Informal Settlements & Practices

picture11

  • Compare and contrast two different urban areas of your choice. The first one is known to have high income groups, organized planning, buildings comply with city codes, … and is considered urban formal area. The 2nd is known to be a slum area with low-income housing, organic urban form, dominated by informal practices and suffers from deteriorating conditions. Write one page summarizing the existing condition of both and the main standing alone characteristics.
  • Applying the sustainability knowledge and tools you learned throughout the class, write one-page describing which of both is more sustainable than the other and why.

(Sustainable Development in Cities, USP 514 Class Discussion)

#Sust_Glob_South

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Learning About Sustainability From Informal Settlements & Practices

  1. The two different urban areas that I am choosing to compare and contrast are the Richmond district in San francisco California, and the Maharashtra slum in India. Lets begin with the Maharashtra slum in India, slums are the result of the gap between the demand and legal/formal supply in the business market. They can form from low cost of land, lack of legislation, lack of law enforcement, and usually appear near urbanized areas which contains the seeds for basic human services. Maharashtra just so happens to be India’s most developed and wealthiest state, and is a perfect example of the wealth gap that is found in most slum areas. Estimates tell us that about 60% of Maharashtra’s population lives in slums. This sprawling slum infrastructure hides many complex social problems. According to the government, the Maharashtra Pollution Board has not been able to compile a proper data set to identify water pollutants and assess if the drinking water has been contaminated. This reflects one of the characteristics that are common in slums, that is the lack of services, utilities, and infrastructure. Maharashtra also doesn’t have any common effluent treatment plants that are treating industrial toxins operating in an area that has a population clocking in at the millions. These leads to environmental and health issues in air, water, and waste due to a lack of infrastructure and proper legislation. With the lack of basic necessities like clean water, electricity, and sanitation coupled with the exponentially increasing population, the problem in Maharashtra will not go away overnight.

    The Richmond district in San Francisco California can be considered as the polar opposite urban infrastructure in comparison with the Maharashtra in India. The Richmond District is known to be a safe, peaceful, serene, family neighborhood that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Golden Gate Park. The neighborhood hosts excellent public and private school systems, reliable public transit, scenic views, a social hub, a variety of culture, and LED winning public utilities and services. For anybody who has lived in the area, they will be quick in telling you that the neighborhood provides clean and comfortable means of living. With large parks and things of that nature peppered around the district for recreational use of locals, the Richmond district has many different futures that cater to human well being.

    When comparing the infrastructure of the Richmond District and the slums of Maharashtra, we can find little to no similarities. The biggest difference would be the population size of both areas, the population size of Maharashtra being one of the stems for all of its problems. The population of the Maharashtra slums is estimated at 17 million, while the Richmond District only has a population of only 50,000. Since the Maharashtra slums contain such a large population, it is mandatory for a strong infrastructure consisting of sustainable legislation and strict law enforcement. However, the slums of Maharashtra lack both these qualities, and neglect to try to meet the basic human rights of its citizens. These problems in the slums rise from improper planning that ignores the massive growth of a population around a planned city and neglects to deal with the ongoing ramifications. Things like clean water and proper waste management will arise from this neglect when in the face of a massive population. When these basic human rights aren’t meet, the result will be higher crime rates, civil unrest, poverty, and low life expectancy. When we put these characteristics next to that of the Richmond District, its easy to differentiate on why the living conditions are better in the Richmond District. For starters, basic human rights are meet and even surpassed in the Richmond District, which provides the means for its inhabitants to pursue happiness. We also can compare the population sizes of both areas, with the Richmond District’s being much smaller there is less demand for energy and utility services. And with the average level of income for homeowners being $60,000, the inhabitants of the area have the means to pay for any services and municipalities that the city provides.

    Like

  2. The two different urban areas that I am choosing to compare and contrast are the Richmond district in San francisco California, and the Maharashtra slum in India. Lets begin with the Maharashtra slum in India, slums are the result of the gap between the demand and legal/formal supply in the business market. They can form from low cost of land, lack of legislation, lack of law enforcement, and usually appear near urbanized areas which contains the seeds for basic human services. Maharashtra just so happens to be India’s most developed and wealthiest state, and is a perfect example of the wealth gap that is found in most slum areas. Estimates tell us that about 60% of Maharashtra’s population lives in slums. This sprawling slum infrastructure hides many complex social problems. According to the government, the Maharashtra Pollution Board has not been able to compile a proper data set to identify water pollutants and assess if the drinking water has been contaminated. This reflects one of the characteristics that are common in slums, that is the lack of services, utilities, and infrastructure. Maharashtra also doesn’t have any common effluent treatment plants that are treating industrial toxins operating in an area that has a population clocking in at the millions. These leads to environmental and health issues in air, water, and waste due to a lack of infrastructure and proper legislation. With the lack of basic necessities like clean water, electricity, and sanitation coupled with the exponentially increasing population, the problem in Maharashtra will not go away overnight.

    The Richmond district in San Francisco California can be considered as the polar opposite urban infrastructure in comparison with the Maharashtra in India. The Richmond District is known to be a safe, peaceful, serene, family neighborhood that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Golden Gate Park. The neighborhood hosts excellent public and private school systems, reliable public transit, scenic views, a social hub, a variety of culture, and LED winning public utilities and services. For anybody who has lived in the area, they will be quick in telling you that the neighborhood provides clean and comfortable means of living. With large parks and things of that nature peppered around the district for recreational use of locals, the Richmond district has many different futures that cater to human well being.

    When comparing the infrastructure of the Richmond District and the slums of Maharashtra, we can find little to no similarities. The biggest difference would be the population size of both areas, the population size of Maharashtra being one of the stems for all of its problems. The population of the Maharashtra slums is estimated at 17 million, while the Richmond District only has a population of only 50,000. Since the Maharashtra slums contain such a large population, it is mandatory for a strong infrastructure consisting of sustainable legislation and strict law enforcement. However, the slums of Maharashtra lack both these qualities, and neglect to try to meet the basic human rights of its citizens. These problems in the slums rise from improper planning that ignores the massive growth of a population around a planned city and neglects to deal with the ongoing ramifications. Things like clean water and proper waste management will arise from this neglect when in the face of a massive population. When these basic human rights aren’t meet, the result will be higher crime rates, civil unrest, poverty, and low life expectancy. When we put these characteristics next to that of the Richmond District, its easy to differentiate on why the living conditions are better in the Richmond District. For starters, basic human rights are meet and even surpassed in the Richmond District, which provides the means for its inhabitants to pursue happiness. We also can compare the population sizes of both areas, with the Richmond District’s being much smaller there is less demand for energy and utility services. And with the average level of income for homeowners being $60,000, the inhabitants of the area have the means to pay for any services and municipalities that the city provides.

    Like

  3. USP 514
    Professor Gohar
    Learning About Sustainability From Informal Settlements & Practices
    Kimanthe Kithika

    Havana, Cuba, The Barbacoas
    Existing Conditions:
    Before the revolution, over half of Cuba’s population lived in urban areas, with a large proportion centered in Havana. Urban and regional policies established during the early 1960s were directed toward regional growth, with resources going to areas lying outside of Havana, in order to diminish urban-rural imbalances. Nevertheless, Cuba‘s population imbalance continued its rise, with its urban population peaking at nearly 75 percent by 2000. Informal settlements were quickly eradicated after the revolution, as they represented examples of the failure of capitalist society; consequentially, Havana’s informal settlements are hidden within the city’s historic center, in the former colonial houses (1).
    1- Urban Form
    Havana’s Barbacoas, literally meaning grill or barbeque, are platforms built into the high vertical edifices of colonial-era residences that subdivide indoor spaces to accommodate a larger number of people. Barbacoas take advantage of the verticality of older colonial architecture to create vertical and horizontal subdivisions that produce multiple levels of housing where only one existed before. They can be as simple as mezzanines or as complex as independent structures within a larger space. Barbacoas are organized around modern techniques and vernacular methods that fall outside the control of experts (2).
    2- Social Pattern
    Presumably, any building can become a barbacoa. One encounters just about every possible arrangement. A former single-family mansion is now 22 rooms for multiple families. The transformation is prompted by the need to incorporate the different functions of a home in one room, with all public activities (kitchen, eating and living) along with water, waste and gas services kept on the lower level while the more private activities are on the upper levels provided by the barbacoas (2).
    3- Services, Utilities & Infrastructure
    Barbacoas are highly dependent on existing infrastructure (such as water, waste and gas), which usually remains on the lower level. Wooden barbacoas are often eventually replaced with a ‘placa’- or a thin concrete slab, and individualized services become shared services.
    4- Environmental Conditions
    Because of the covered and subdivided windows, barbacoas can be poorly ventilated and the weight they add to load-bearing walls can lead to the disfiguration of building façades or to the collapse of the entire structure.
    5- Informal Ownership
    Personal experience is vital for constructing barbacoas, since all cases involve self-construction without any formal training. The Housing and Population Census of 1995 reports that 51.4% of Havana’s buildings have been transformed into barbacoas, a total of approximately 10,813, and only five to ten percent of them have building permits (Chinea, 3).
    Sustainability
    Perhaps it is too early to have the sustainability debate about barbacoas. Slums are forbidden in Havana, so it is difficult to distinguish between Havana’s formal and informal features because of the way the hidden barbacoas are integrated into the existing urban pattern. Similarly, while the informal dwellings require a minimum of building materials, mostly recycled from collapsed buildings, and benefit from the existing infrastructure and city services, which is more sustainable, they also place additional strain on both the building and the services, creating an unsustainable property conflict; finally, an equity conflict is revealed here as well because the barbacoas “also serve as an indicator that the inhabitants’ capacity to build and transform the city has remained intact”, though “… the confrontation is evident, since the desires for preservation counter those of inhabitation (4)”.

    Works Cited:
    1. Adriana Navarro Sertich, CUBA: Barbacoas, https://favelissues.com/2010/08/17/cuba-barbacoas/, August 17, 2010
    2. Patricio Del Real, Building the barbacoas in Havana, Cuba, Informal construction sheds light on modernity in Latin America, Clemson University, 2003
    3. Chinea Hernandez, Madelin, ‘Ideas para un modelo de intervenci6n en la vivienda de interes social, Planificacion, Fisica, La Habana: Cuba, 2003.
    4. Patricio Del Real, Joseph Scarpaci, Havana Beyond the Ruins: Cultural Mappings After 1989, Duke University Press, Aug 10, 2011

    Like

  4. Jose Flores
    USP 514

    The two urban areas I am going to focus on is Mexico City, Mexico and a little village outside of the city called Neza-Chalco-Itza. Mexico City is the capital of Mexico and has a population of 8.9 million people but the metropolitan area of Mexico City has a population of 21.2 million people. The slum of Neza-Chalco-Itza has a population of four million people. It is a very dense area with around 80,000 people per square mile. Mexico City is considered to be a “mega city” and is the most important city in Mexico. Some features that the city has are its museums, universities and plazas. Most of the people from the slums work in the city doing household help or hard labor.
    The major issues in Mexico City are the rise in population, sprawl, inequality, and water accessibility. Another issue it faces is increased fares in its subway system.
    The major issues in the slum area are crime, gang culture, poor water & sanitation, political corruption, transportation, and basic healthcare. The homes are man-made shacks and the drinking water is polluted. According to the 2000 census, 1.8 million people are living without water in their homes. Access to clean water is very difficult for people living in the slums. There are delivery trucks that deliver water but it is really expensive. Potable water is free in the city so people take water jugs and fill them up because the delivery cost is expensive as well.
    Some positives are that people in these areas tend to have a strong community spirit and are very family oriented. I believe that it is because of the catholic religion that brings people together. Another positive is the local economy; many local residents create products and make food from the surrounding area and sell them in the city.
    The built-up epicenter of Mexico City is more sustainable then the slum of Neza-Chalco-Itza. The transportation component of Mexico’s City Plan has upgraded, reducing the congestion and carbon emissions in the city. It was once the most polluted city in the world but great efforts have been made to erase that title. In 2007 Mexico City implemented a Green Plan, which has the support from the World Bank and UN to focus on waste management, public spaces, mobility, and sanitation. It has a population of over 21 million people and the best way to have a more sustainable future is through educating the people. The majority of people get around by foot, motorcycle, or car. These are essential in the daily lives of the residents to go to the plazas and open-air markets. Most people living in the slums work in the city. As much as the urbanization of the city is growing, the rich heritage of the small-town life is still persistent throughout the city. The slum of Neza-Chalco-Itza has little to no sustainability features. There is no clean water in the area, so the people have to go into the city and bring back water. The roads are made up of dirt and garbage because there is no waste management in the area. The habitation is not made to be lived in and more sustainable solutions should be made to take care of the living conditions in this area. The city’s future is pushing towards a more environmentally sustainable plan for the center of the city but it really should focus on the people in need with clean water, better accessibility, healthcare, and a better living environment.

    Like

    • The two urban areas I will compare is Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, and Rochina,Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. First I am going to start with Rochina. Rochinha is the 9th biggest slum in the world. The total population of inhabitants in this city is 100-200 thousand people. It is also Rio De Janeiro largest and most densely populated city ever in Brazil. The people that lives in the city has to live in steep and rugged landscape of about 0.80 square miles. The community in the city is really cramped and it has to fit a total amount of 100-200 thousand people. The landscape of Rochina, is really steeped, rugged, and they are all cramming together with someone else. Since the place is really small they have to all cramp together. The landscapes are all stacked together and pretty tall some are 7,8,9, or even 11 stories tall. However, most of the houses in the city has basic sanitation, plumbing, and electricity. Even with basic sanitation, plumbing and electricity the health of people are really startling. They are because there is a minimum of 6,000 people living there to have one health disability out for 200 thousand which is really high for a city with basic sanitation. Also the education system in Rochinha is really low. It is really low because there is only 4.1 formal years of education in Rochina and less than 1% of Rochina adults can earn a degree above high school diploma. This is bad because most of jobs that allow adults to make a living are strictly reserved for higher education.
      Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is considered the complete opposite of Rochina Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is the capital of Japan. The infrastructure of Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is way more advanced compared to Rochina. Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, have a population of 28,025,000. In Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, there are a lot of shops, really reliable pubic transportation like buses, trains, and railroad services. It is also really convenient to get to one place to another by public transportation. One of the most reliable public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is the high-speed express trains run by Japan Rails. Many people will take that to go to one place to another. Public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is inexpensive and clean and brings them to anywhere they want. In Tokyo, crime rates are really low all day from day to night. Education in Tokyo, is really tough. However, Tokyo, has the highest concentration of Institutions of higher learning with over 100 Universities and colleges, which is about one quarter of Japan. One third of Japan’s university students are enrolled in Tokyo Schools. The restaurants in Japan are mostly clean, water is safe to drink, only problem will be noise and smog problems. Tokyo also made a lot of parks and a lot of gardens. They have a total of 6,000 different parks and gardens covering more than 1,000 hectares(2,471 acres) in the city. Most parks are associated with shrines and temples and gardens are there to help repair cherry blossom tree and get ready for Cherry Blossom festival in Tokyo.
      When it comes to comparing infrastructure of Tokyo, Japan, and the slums of Rochina, there is little to no similarities. I think one of the biggest difference between Rochina and Tokyo is education. Rochina’s education level is that less than 1% of all adults in Rochina can’t get a higher degree after high school diploma and most jobs that help support their family need them to have higher education. While in Tokyo, 1/3 of Tokyo’s students go to universities and colleges and are able to find a lot of jobs even though education is tough but it’s worth it. When it comes to education other countries and cities that are developed should support Rochina with education and try to give the people there in Rochina a good education so they can take care of their families. The other big difference is population size. In Rochina the population is only 100-200,000 people, while in Tokyo, the population is 28,025,000 people. Rochina lack economy and life expectancy compare to Tokyo. They do because they all live in landscapes that are all stacked together and all cramped up but in Tokyo, houses, buildings, apartments, etc are everywhere and not all cramped up compare to Rochina, people in Tokyo, can live a better life, with health care, and clean water, while Rochina have to deal with a lot of people getting a health disability not a lot of health care due to lack of education, no access to clean water, and poverty. What Rochina need is better education, better health care, accessibility o clean water, and better living environment.

      Like

  5. The two urban areas I have chosen to compare and contrast are the suburb neighborhood of Bloubosrand and the informal settlement of Kya Sands. Both located in region A in the city of Johannesburg South Africa.

    http://unequalscenes.com/kya-sandsboubosrand
    (click link for photo)

    Bloubosrand consists of large single-family homes strategically placed along paved roads. Each of the homes surrounded by trees and some of the homes have their own swimming pools. According to an article by Lucy Morris for the Daily Mail, the houses in Bloubosrand are worth over 1 million rand. Contrasting the informal settlement of Kya Sands where the majority of homes are made out of recycled tin and old tires.

    Kya Sands is a recognized informal settlement in that it was not planned and does not have formal permission to exist. Professional Mobile Mapping reports that the settlement is made up of 16, 238 people living in 5,325 dwellings. If this report is accurate that means that Kya Sands has a population density similar to that of Kibera in Nairobi, which we learned about in detail during lecture. A study was done on the resilience of the people in Kya Sands through a series of interviews of its residents. Initial findings suggest that although the Kya Sands settlement has poor living conditions and dangers such as crime, fire and flooding, the settlement itself provides a service to its people. It allows them access to a city, which they were formally excluded from. All economic, health care, educational and social opportunities are found in cities. The Kya Sands settlement acts as an entry point to the city for the poor, and allows the residents of Kya Sands access to those amenities. The settlement of Kya Sands is largely a result of the systematic oppression caused by apartheid, which is still evident today, long after it was abolished. Employment opportunities are dismal in the settlement and the residents rarely have a steady source of income.

    People live much harder lives in Kya Sands than they do in Bloubosrand. Basic necessities are difficult to acquire and social amenities are not available to the residents of the settlement. Kya Sands faces a major lack of healthcare and education, and often living conditions can be dangerous. Also, many of its residents lack access to energy to power their homes and have little access to clean running water. In that regard, Kya Sands is not so sustainable. However, Bloubosrand in my opinion is also unsustainable. The size of the homes, the individual swimming pools, all seem so unnecessary. I think neither of these two urban areas is truly sustainable. Bloubosrands residents probably consume and produce more waste than those of Kya Sands, contributing to the larger issue of climate change, making the area not as sustainable. While Kya Sands is not sustainable because the living conditions make it difficult for it’s people to thrive and rise out of the poverty that they face.

    http://randburgsun.co.za/291264/hopeless-in-kya-sand-informal-settlement/
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3654070/See-extreme-divide-rich-poor-South-Africa.html
    http://informalcity.co.za/kya-sands

    Like

  6. The two urban areas I will compare is Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, and Rochinha,Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. First I am going to start with Rochinha. Rochinha is the 9th biggest slum in the world. The total population of inhabitants in this city is 100-200 thousand people. It is also Rio De Janeiro largest and most densely populated city ever in Brazil. The people that lives in the city has to live in steep and rugged landscape of about 0.80 square miles. The community in the city is really cramped and it has to fit a total amount of 100-200 thousand people. The landscape of Rochinha, is really steeped, rugged, and they are all cramming together with someone else. Since the place is really small they have to all cramp together. The landscapes are all stacked together and pretty tall some are 7,8,9, or even 11 stories tall. However, most of the houses in the city has basic sanitation, plumbing, and electricity. Even with basic sanitation, plumbing and electricity the health of people are really startling. They are because there is a minimum of 6,000 people living there to have one health disability out for 200 thousand which is really high for a city with basic sanitation. Also the education system in Rochinha is really low. It is really low because there is only 4.1 formal years of education in Rochinha and less than 1% of Rochina adults can earn a degree above high school diploma. This is bad because most of jobs that allow adults to make a living are strictly reserved for higher education.
    Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is considered the complete opposite of Rochinha Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is the capital of Japan. The infrastructure of Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is way more advanced compared to Rochinha. Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, have a population of 28,025,000. In Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, there are a lot of shops, really reliable pubic transportation like buses, trains, and railroad services. It is also really convenient to get to one place to another by public transportation. One of the most reliable public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is the high-speed express trains run by Japan Rails. Many people will take that to go to one place to another. Public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is inexpensive and clean and brings them to anywhere they want. In Tokyo, crime rates are really low all day from day to night. Education in Tokyo, is really tough. However, Tokyo, has the highest concentration of Institutions of higher learning with over 100 Universities and colleges, which is about one quarter of Japan. One third of Japan’s university students are enrolled in Tokyo Schools. The restaurants in Japan are mostly clean, water is safe to drink, only problem will be noise and smog problems. Tokyo also made a lot of parks and a lot of gardens. They have a total of 6,000 different parks and gardens covering more than 1,000 hectares(2,471 acres) in the city. Most parks are associated with shrines and temples and gardens are there to help repair cherry blossom tree and get ready for Cherry Blossom festival in Tokyo.
    When it comes to comparing infrastructure of Tokyo, Japan, and the slums of Rochinha, there is little to no similarities. I think one of the biggest difference between Rochinha and Tokyo is education. Rochinha’s education level is that less than 1% of all adults in Rochinha can’t get a higher degree after high school diploma and most jobs that help support their family need them to have higher education. While in Tokyo, 1/3 of Tokyo’s students go to universities and colleges and are able to find a lot of jobs even though education is tough but it’s worth it. When it comes to education other countries and cities that are developed should support Rochina with education and try to give the people there in Rochina a good education so they can take care of their families. The other big difference is population size. In Rochinha the population is only 100-200,000 people, while in Tokyo, the population is 28,025,000 people. Rochinha lack economy and life expectancy compare to Tokyo. They do because they all live in landscapes that are all stacked together and all cramped up but in Tokyo, houses, buildings, apartments, etc are everywhere and not all cramped up compare to Rochinha, people in Tokyo, can live a better life, with health care, and clean water, while Rochinha have to deal with a lot of people getting a health disability not a lot of health care due to lack of education, no access to clean water, and poverty. What Rochinha need is better education, better health care, accessibility o clean water, and better living environment.

    here’s a picture from both cities I compared: http://www.imgonline.com.ua/result_img/imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-uN9EFJxQkXW3.jpg

    work cited: http://mundoreal.org/about/about-rocinha
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/japanese-political-geography/tokyo

    Also I posted another one but that one is not changed so can you delete the previous post and keep this one I am posting.

    Like

  7. The two urban areas I will compare is Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, and Rochinha,Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. First I am going to start with Rochinha. Rochinha is the 9th biggest slum in the world. The total population of inhabitants in this city is 100-200 thousand people. It is also Rio De Janeiro largest and most densely populated city ever in Brazil. The people that lives in the city has to live in steep and rugged landscape of about 0.80 square miles. The community in the city is really cramped and it has to fit a total amount of 100-200 thousand people. The landscape of Rochinha, is really steeped, rugged, and they are all cramming together with someone else. Since the place is really small they have to all cramp together. The landscapes are all stacked together and pretty tall some are 7,8,9, or even 11 stories tall. However, most of the houses in the city has basic sanitation, plumbing, and electricity. Even with basic sanitation, plumbing and electricity the health of people are really startling. They are because there is a minimum of 6,000 people living there to have one health disability out for 200 thousand which is really high for a city with basic sanitation. Also the education system in Rochinha is really low. It is really low because there is only 4.1 formal years of education in Rochinha and less than 1% of Rochina adults can earn a degree above high school diploma. This is bad because most of jobs that allow adults to make a living are strictly reserved for higher education.
    Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is considered the complete opposite of Rochinha Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is the capital of Japan. The infrastructure of Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan is way more advanced compared to Rochinha. Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, have a population of 28,025,000. In Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan, there are a lot of shops, really reliable pubic transportation like buses, trains, and railroad services. It is also really convenient to get to one place to another by public transportation. One of the most reliable public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is the high-speed express trains run by Japan Rails. Many people will take that to go to one place to another. Public transportation in Tokyo, Japan, is inexpensive and clean and brings them to anywhere they want. In Tokyo, crime rates are really low all day from day to night. Education in Tokyo, is really tough. However, Tokyo, has the highest concentration of Institutions of higher learning with over 100 Universities and colleges, which is about one quarter of Japan. One third of Japan’s university students are enrolled in Tokyo Schools. The restaurants in Japan are mostly clean, water is safe to drink, only problem will be noise and smog problems. Tokyo also made a lot of parks and a lot of gardens. They have a total of 6,000 different parks and gardens covering more than 1,000 hectares(2,471 acres) in the city. Most parks are associated with shrines and temples and gardens are there to help repair cherry blossom tree and get ready for Cherry Blossom festival in Tokyo.
    When it comes to comparing infrastructure of Tokyo, Japan, and the slums of Rochinha, there is little to no similarities. I think one of the biggest difference between Rochinha and Tokyo is education. Rochinha’s education level is that less than 1% of all adults in Rochinha can’t get a higher degree after high school diploma and most jobs that help support their family need them to have higher education. While in Tokyo, 1/3 of Tokyo’s students go to universities and colleges and are able to find a lot of jobs even though education is tough but it’s worth it. When it comes to education other countries and cities that are developed should support Rochina with education and try to give the people there in Rochina a good education so they can take care of their families. The other big difference is population size. In Rochinha the population is only 100-200,000 people, while in Tokyo, the population is 28,025,000 people. Rochinha lack economy and life expectancy compare to Tokyo. They do because they all live in landscapes that are all stacked together and all cramped up but in Tokyo, houses, buildings, apartments, etc are everywhere and not all cramped up compare to Rochinha, people in Tokyo, can live a better life, with health care, and clean water, while Rochinha have to deal with a lot of people getting a health disability not a lot of health care due to lack of education, no access to clean water, and poverty. What Rochinha need is better education, better health care, accessibility o clean water, and better living environment.

    here’s a picture from both cities I compared: http://www.imgonline.com.ua/result_img/imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-uN9EFJxQkXW3.jpg

    work cited: http://mundoreal.org/about/about-rocinha
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia/japanese-political-geography/tokyo

    Like

  8. I will compare San Francisco and the favela neighborhoods in Brazil, particularly the Cidade de Deus (City of God) favela in Rio de Janerio. The Brazil favelas have quite the history; they were built in the late 1800’s by soldiers as informal housing, but eventually came to be occupied by African slaves. Modern favelas, or favelas as we know them, were built around the 1970’s for the nation’s poor. As people moved from the country to the city, but were unable to find places to live, they built and occupied the favelas. Since then, their population has grown, and according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, about 6% (or about 11 million people) of the country’s population lives in favelas. The favelas lack planning as we know it in the western world, though they are going through a period of attempts at public policy and governance on the local level. These newer policies are aimed at preservation of and upgrading the favelas, which is the opposite of the eradication and relocation policies of the 1950’s. However, even the preservation policies aren’t enough to mediate the abject poverty and violence in the favelas. The popular 2002 movie “City of God” brought western awareness to the suffering of those who live in favelas, and yet, not much changed for those who live there. Once again, the 2016 summer Olympics shined a light on the continued suffering in favelas, but nothing significant has happened for the residents of the favelas. As of right now, there is a “peace police” force that occupies the City of God favela, which Brazilian officials hope will quell drug and cartel violence. The City of God also has its own currency which people hope will encourage local spending. But many problems are still alive and well in the favelas. High infant mortality rates, no universal building or health codes, youth caught between police and gang forces, little access to education, and no real desire on the part of the Brazilian government to want to make them genuinely safe and habitable.
    This is all a very stark contrast to San Francisco, a city that is planned down to the width of the sidewalks we walk on. Another difference is the incredible wealth in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area. The tech industry has brought massive amounts of money to the San Francisco Bay Area, and that wealth continues to grow for many people. However, despite the seemingly endless wealth of a few people, and the incredibly detailed city code, San Francisco has lots of issues. Income inequality is a huge issue facing many of San Francisco’s residents, an issue that is highlighted by the increasing droves of people moving out of the city and into the south and east bays (or even farther in some cases). Displacement of the working is a huge issue that will eventually cause San Francisco to implode. If there are no more janitors, teachers, firefighters, or baristas, San Francisco will not be able to continue running. But the city is very intricately planned and governed, so there is the hope that continued governance will eventually right these, and many other, wrongs. Unfortunately, money talks in the city, and money gets things done.
    Both places, while incredibly different, have their positives and negatives. But unfortunately, neither of them are particularly sustainable. The favelas in Brazil are essentially houses stacked on top of more houses. Physically, this is unsafe as at some point, the weight of all these residences will come crashing down on the lowest houses. Another physical issue with the favelas is the continued drug warfare that takes place in and around them. People should not be forced to live in a place where they are constantly afraid of violence. On top of this are issues surrounding health and infant mortality. If no children are being born, or are not surviving infancy, eventually the population could stagnate or decline. The residents of favelas deserve access to quality health care, as well as sanitation, water, and electricity. While San Francisco may have access to all those things, plus many more, the city simply cannot survive if its poorer populations continue to be displaced. Not to mention the coming water level rise, which will eventually put the city under water. There is a frustrating future ahead for both places, and a lot of problems that need addressing. But currently, neither the favelas of Brazil or San Francisco are particularly sustainable.

    Like

  9. The two urban areas I will be comparing are San Francisco (US) and Rocinha Favela near Rio De Janeiro (Brazil). While there are affluent areas within Rio, I am focusing on SF to analyze because I am more familiar with it as a city.
    As with any affluent city, San Francisco and Rio De Janeiro included, most affluent cities have decent public transportation, formal sanitation and sewage, tend to be more accessible for disabled peoples, have structurally sound buildings for the most part, have more services available, are legally recognized (as compared to slums), may have more green space (than slums), and can hold more people with less land. San Francisco as a whole is one of America’s most expensive cities to live in, but it does not have as good of infrastructure as one might expect for its pricetag. As far as economic inequality goes, The neighborhood of Rincon Hill in San Francisco is an extremely high income area ($137,199 median income) in contrast to the neighboring downtown lower income neighborhood of the Tenderloin ($24,545 median income) which is home to many of SF’s homeless population. Nearly seven thousand people are homeless in San Francisco, our public transportation is fairly outdated and slow compared to other developed countries, and many of our existing buildings are not being taken care of.
    While Rio De Janeiro the City may be fairly developed, it has a number of slums surrounding it known as favelas. The largest being Rocinha, a densely populated community of about seventy thousand sprawling over steep hills. As with most slums, Rocinha lacks a formal sewage system which results in oven sewage running throughout the community via canals. Unlike most slums, however, many residents of Rocinha have electricity and running water in their homes, which are often made up of brick or concrete. Public Transit is also an issue when it comes to slums, due to the fact that they are organic in form with narrow corridors that don’t allow for any cars to pass through, let alone busses. Some of the favelas outside of Rio (ie. Complexo do Alemão) have addressed this lack in transit options by installing a cable car gondola system that is able to traverse the steep slopes of the favelas and connect its residents to city services more cheaply than a elevated light rail could. Maybe San Francisco could learn a thing or two about cheaper solutions to addressing public transportation in a hilly landscape. Slums like the favelas outside of Rio are the perfect example of an organic urban sprawl, and a pedestrian only community. As previously noted, the narrowness of slum alleyways can cause problems with accessibility navigating through the areas, especially if you are not able-bodied, but as the favelas also proved, there are creative solutions like gondolas that can address this problem.
    While the Brasilian government used to try and eradicate its favelas and replace them with new housing, they realized in the 80s that it was economically and socially better to instead upgrade them. Improving buildings structures and utilities, transit, access to healthcare and educational services are all the solutions being employed so as to not displace these tight knit communities. Technical problems surrounding slums, such as sewage and electricity etc., can and are being slowly addressed, but there are also lessons to be learned from these communities as well. Slums provide residents with cheap housing, allow for some creative freedom not allowed for in formalized cities (like building your own house without permits etc.), and encourage innovation (even if out of necessity). Slums tend to have incredibly high rates of recycling and reusing items, and general use less resources per capita than city dwellers do.
    Cities, like San Francisco, encourage gentrification, are unaffordable for many people, and in general are far more resource intensive per capita than in slums. Cities do allow for more density due to the possibility of skyscrapers, which in theory mitigates urban sprawl and may conserve natural spaces. It is harder to implement land use changes in cities, and they also tend to be less community oriented than in slums. Cities could learn from the creativity and resourcefulness of slums, and with improvements,both cities and slums can work on innovative transit, rainwater capture systems, vertical green walls and roofs, and pedestrian skywalks etc. Investing in small-scale local infrastructure is the key to upgrading slums into safer, healthier, and more accessible places to live.

    Like

  10. There are many different types of urban areas around the world. It is not uncommon to a huge gap between two different urban developments. The two urban areas I will be comparing are the slum neighborhoods of Cabanatuan City in the Philippines and the Sunset district of San Francisco. The slums of Cabanatuan City consist of many people just trying to survive with the resources they have available. You can see people gathering water from water wells and bringing it back to their homes on their back to just something available to them when they need it. Others have small stands selling cheap goods from what they could find around the area. Each building is built from the wood and cheap metal pieces. If a heavy storm were to hit, then it would mean the end of almost the entire neighborhood. Even light rain is troublesome since it penetrates wooden and sometimes card board made shelters. The streets are so underdeveloped that you see more motorcycle taxis and horses carrying carriages rather than cars due to the rough and uneven terrain. The only cars you will see are from people who are just passing by to the next city. Majority of the time people are walking because barely any of them could afford any type of transportation. Food is either found, bought, and commonly stolen from food stands as a means to survive. Life in the slums of Cabanatuan City sounds rough for the residents that live there.

    The Sunset District of San Francisco is home to a neighborhood of middle-class residents. All the houses are of the same height and same shape and same square feet area. The houses are also built in a grid shaped pattern to maximize the use of space as well as organize the neighborhood in a neat fashion. You can see that there are street lights in every corner unlike the slums in the Philippines which means that the use of electricity and technology is clearly highly more advanced in this urban area. In the Sunset District, you can even see a line of high quality restaurants. Some are even so popular that people from outside the city of San Francisco travel just to eat there. Other amenities such as grocery stores and bank establishments are present for the convenience of the residents. A well established public transportation system is also present that give the people a reliable mode of getting around rather than driving a car. The Sunset District in San Francisco is a prime example of the average resident of the city.

    Even though San Francisco appears to be the more ideal place to live in, the slums of Cabanatuan City in the Philippines probably have a more sustainable development. The city is constantly changing at a pace that is so fast that the consumption of resources is maxed out efficiently to a point where we just may run out of it eventually. San Francisco has such a huge population that resources are becoming outsourced from other areas whether it be goods or services. The slums of Cabanatuan City do not have the tools to outsource their resources from other areas so the people have to just make use of what is available to them in the area. This means that their consumption of resources can not exceed the amount they have which keeps the population at a constant level. Development also will move at a much slower pace which would give all other factors of the urban area to move at a constant pace to maintain sustainability. Although San Francisco may have the more favorable living conditions, the slums of the Philippines ultimately appear to be the more sustainable urban area.

    Like

  11. The first urban area I will focus on that has high income groups and organized planning
    is Makati, Metro Manila. The second urban area, which is a slum area, will be the slum in the district of Tondo, Manila.

    Existing conditions of Makati, Metro Manila: The districts of Bel-Air, Urdaneta, and Forbes Park in Makati are areas of high income groups. These districts are of low density and have a lot of thick vegetation, which makes living conditions ideal for those who can afford to live here. Since Makati is the financial district of the Philippines and the riches place in the country, many of the buildings in the city are all high rises. Spreading outwards to other districts, many of the houses are privately owned surrounded again by thick vegetation.

    Existing conditions of Tondo, Manila: Tondo District is one of the most densely populated areas in the Philippines. Many residents lack adequate water, housing, sanitation, education, health and employment. The Pasig River, which runs through Tondo, is polluted yet folks find entertainment by still using it. The housing conditions in this slum area consist of consist of irregular buildings made out broken down brick buildings patched up with steel pieces. Since the roadways and alleys are narrow, some residents build small shacks alongside bridges if there is no other place to squat. Others may live at the end of an alley. Compared to the living conditions of the districts in Makati, Tondo is very densely populated and contains little to no vegetation. Instead, pollution from municipal solid waste can be found. Tondo was home to the now closed down landfill Smokey Mountain. It is common for slum areas to be living off of waste because it may be the only job available. Because of poor housing conditions, future storm events can flatten down homes causing many squatters to rebuild their homes all by themselves without any aid. If any aid, the temporary shelters can only do so much until another storm comes.

    I would conclude that Makati is more sustainable than Tondo because the region is more adapted to environmental change from storm systems. Whereas Tondo does not have the adequate and accessible resources to recover from a major storm system. The slum areas will continue to have poor living conditions if housing conditions do not improve.

    Like

  12. For my two areas of comparison I selected Kibera a region of Nairobi, Kenya and Baldwin Hills which is a district located in the hills of Los Angeles California. Starting off with the slums of Kibera, there are about 2.5 million people living in this region, and they represent approximately 60 percent of Nairobi’s total population. Nairobi is a fairly large city yet that 60 percent only occupy 6 percent of the total cities land. As we discussed in lecture, these slums are developed from the gap between the demand and the legal and formal supply in the housing market. These people do not have proper policy with in the government to design and build them homes to support the harsh conditions they live in. These people of slums all over the world are forced to live in informal settlements. The residents of Kibera are packed in very tightly, usually multiple family members all sharing one tiny room. From the video we viewed in class though the conditions may be unimaginable to us as americans, they still make it work. They are well functioning communities who are able to to convert what little resources and tools they have into enough to survive on the daily. Though there are some positive components, there are still a large number of problems that can be found in the slums. Due to poorly constructed infrastructure, you never know one your house may break down or is falling apart and you are not able to repair it. I think one of the most important characteristics of informal settlements is social patterns. There are so many social problems within these communities, these people deal with lack of education and lack of family planning. These conditions environmentally are not good for these people. There water sources are contaminated and the food they usually eat is scare and lacks nutrition that people need on the daily. There is no waste management so there is sewage and pollution throughout the streets. The other area of Baldwin Hills is and urban area in inner city Los angeles. A lot of the homes are much larger than the surrounding area. it is similar to the san Francisco neighbor hood of Ingleside with the multiple hills. The house are evenly split and it is like a grid like construction with all of the homes.

    When comparing the two location you do not see a lot of similarities just a large amount of differences. The Baldwin Hills area may be urban but it is well establish with middle class families and efficient technologies. Of the two, I feel that Baldwin Hills is much more sustainable than Kibera. There is just too much of an established city when compared to the slum. Kiera is one of the poorest regions and does not provide its residents with proper health stands and they are exposed to the dangerous of a unestablished environment. Though cities like Baldwin Hills are quite expensive and can be hard for most to afford.

    Like

  13. Akram Yasin Abdulrahman
    USP 514
    Professor A. Gohar
    3 December 2016
    Thane(Urban Formal) vs Dharavi (Slum)
    The two urban areas that I’ve decide to contrast are located in Mumbai, India. Mumbai in itself is one of the World’s most populous metropolitan cities, with the whole region consisting of nearly 20,000 million people which instantly indicates that there are plenty of challenges to accommodate its citizens in a sustainable manner. The formal urban area that I’ve picked is known as Thane, which is a suburban residential area on the outskirts of the city. It has a population of approximately 1.9 million people with roughly a 91% literacy rate. (1). The current existing conditions of Thane are of progress where the whole municipality ranges from working class, middle class, and some upper class areas for people of higher socioeconomic status. The county of Thane has a size of 147 km2 in which there is a high number of urban expansions in the form warehouses, factories, and department stores for major companies in India. Thane also has a very efficient public transport system by having two major train lines that directly connects to the central part of the city. The second area that I chose is called Dharavi, which is also known to be one of the largest slum areas in the world. It was created and founded in 1882 as part of British India when India was still under occupation, and it currently has nearly 1 million residents among shattered households, waste dumping spots, and dysfunctional water allocation.

    The main standout points are its lack of accommodation towards it citizens whereas the major established occupations are animal skin and leather production (which serves nearly one fifth of Dharavi’s) whilst many forms of employment are small created business at residential sites (such as markets and restaurants). Quite impressively, on top of traditional services the aspect of recycling has helped employ almost 250,000 people in Dharavi which is needed considering the scarce resources within community. (2). In addition, on top of being an area with extreme high population density, low quality housing, and lack of quality and necessity jobs, another major issue is the concern regarding sanitation. The Dharavi slum has unfortunately not a clear access to clean water and malfunctioning sewage system which has resulted in the contamination of diseases and pollution in the form of air, land, and inconveniently water as well.

    I believe that it is fair to state that given its comprehensive conditions, Thane serves as a more sustainable area for its citizens as opposed to Dharavi. A very vital point and integral cause of why problems such as sanitation and lack of commodities in the slum of Dharavi can occur is because of its extreme population density. As mentioned, Thane has a square area of 147 km whereas Dharavi has a shocking area that only covers 217 hectares which is equivalent of barely 2.2 square kilometers. It is strongly agreed that some of the root problems that eventually has accumulated and developed into the excess income inequality gap is derived from high density and because of how the city is structured it has been tremendously difficult to urbanize the area in a sustainable and progressive manner. As once again looking from a fundamental perspective, Thane has been a growing and expanding area since the 14th century with many different cultural compositions providing for its economy including both Muslim and Portuguese settlers, prior to British colonization. In comparison to Thane, Dharavi which is actually situated on a peninsula was formed as a result of the British occupation urbanizing a swampland and essentially made for the natives that were not considered to be providing for the growth of the economy (in other words no use for the sustaining of exploitation to the British colonial power).

    Since slums in general are the direct result of the gap between legal and formal supply within the housing market, it is argued that the Hindu caste system was used and taken advantage of where individuals of the lowest class or of no class also known as Dalit or Untouchables, along with other minorities (Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists) where displaced into slum areas such as Dharavi whilst the settlers and of course the natives that were able to benefit from their colonizers had a higher chance in finding more sustainable opportunities.(3). Indeed India is progressing forward with a growing economy and many social justice initiatives accomplished towards minorities and people of low socioeconomic status, however due to the high population densities not just within Dharavi but in the majority of the larger cities in India, the slums do not provide sustainable services given the generic sustainable lens. Economically speaking it might be cheap to live in Dharavi and more expensive to reside in Thane, however citizens Thane have a much higher chance in accommodating themselves with a high literacy and a growing urbanization that actually serves a wide scale of socioeconomic backgrounds. Dharavi however is not able sustainably provide for itself where not even the basic commodities such as clean water and functioning sewage system is in place, and it is nearly impossible for them to compete with citizens in the metropolitan part of Mumbai given their poor background.

    In a social and environmental aspect Dharavi fails horribly due to its poverty stricken circumstances. While crime rates have been significantly low and people working excessively to survive, the fundamental lacking conditions of utility services causes an unhealthy environment that may bring social cohesion but only keeps the residents of Dharavi at a survival state whilst being on the lowest socioeconomic bracket. Thane is undoubtedly a more sustainable area despite the fact that it is not completely an affluent area, but because of its solid structure and fundamental building blocks. Thanks to the result of high literacy while urbanizing and expanding the municipality; it has become able to grow and expand to serve its community while the citizens are capable of connecting to the main parts of the City and challenge for opportunities.

    Works Cited
    1. ‘’Thane City Census 2011 Data’’. Web.
    http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/367-thane.html
    2. McDougall, Dan. ‘’Waste Not, Want Not in The 700M Slum’’. The Guardian.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/04/india.recycling
    3. Jacobson, Mark. ‘’Mubai’s Shadow City’’. May 2007. National Geographic.
    4. Map 1 : Dharavi. NY Times.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/28/world/asia/an-industrial-slum-at-the-heart-of-mumbai.html
    5. Map 2 : Thane. Travel Indiapro.

    Like

  14. Akram Yasin Abdulrahman
    USP 514
    Professor A. Gohar
    3 December 2016
    Thane(Urban Formal) vs Dharavi (Slum)
    The two urban areas that I’ve decide to contrast are located in Mumbai, India. Mumbai in itself is one of the World’s most populous metropolitan cities, with the whole region consisting of nearly 20,000 million people which instantly indicates that there are plenty of challenges to accommodate its citizens in a sustainable manner. The formal urban area that I’ve picked is known as Thane, which is a suburban residential area on the outskirts of the city. It has a population of approximately 1.9 million people with roughly a 91% literacy rate. (1). The current existing conditions of Thane are of progress where the whole municipality ranges from working class, middle class, and some upper class areas for people of higher socioeconomic status. The county of Thane has a size of 147 km2 in which there is a high number of urban expansions in the form warehouses, factories, and department stores for major companies in India. Thane also has a very efficient public transport system by having two major train lines that directly connects to the central part of the city. The second area that I chose is called Dharavi, which is also known to be one of the largest slum areas in the world. It was created and founded in 1882 as part of British India when India was still under occupation, and it currently has nearly 1 million residents among shattered households, waste dumping spots, and dysfunctional water allocation.

    The main standout points are its lack of accommodation towards it citizens whereas the major established occupations are animal skin and leather production (which serves nearly one fifth of Dharavi’s) whilst many forms of employment are small created business at residential sites (such as markets and restaurants). Quite impressively, on top of traditional services the aspect of recycling has helped employ almost 250,000 people in Dharavi which is needed considering the scarce resources within community. (2). In addition, on top of being an area with extreme high population density, low quality housing, and lack of quality and necessity jobs, another major issue is the concern regarding sanitation. The Dharavi slum has unfortunately not a clear access to clean water and malfunctioning sewage system which has resulted in the contamination of diseases and pollution in the form of air, land, and inconveniently water as well.

    I believe that it is fair to state that given its comprehensive conditions, Thane serves as a more sustainable area for its citizens as opposed to Dharavi. A very vital point and integral cause of why problems such as sanitation and lack of commodities in the slum of Dharavi can occur is because of its extreme population density. As mentioned, Thane has a square area of 147 km whereas Dharavi has a shocking area that only covers 217 hectares which is equivalent of barely 2.2 square kilometers. It is strongly agreed that some of the root problems that eventually has accumulated and developed into the excess income inequality gap is derived from high density and because of how the city is structured it has been tremendously difficult to urbanize the area in a sustainable and progressive manner. As once again looking from a fundamental perspective, Thane has been a growing and expanding area since the 14th century with many different cultural compositions providing for its economy including both Muslim and Portuguese settlers, prior to British colonization. In comparison to Thane, Dharavi which is actually situated on a peninsula was formed as a result of the British occupation urbanizing a swampland and essentially made for the natives that were not considered to be providing for the growth of the economy (in other words no use for the sustaining of exploitation to the British colonial power).

    Since slums in general are the direct result of the gap between legal and formal supply within the housing market, it is argued that the Hindu caste system was used and taken advantage of where individuals of the lowest class or of no class also known as Dalit or Untouchables, along with other minorities (Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists) where displaced into slum areas such as Dharavi whilst the settlers and of course the natives that were able to benefit from their colonizers had a higher chance in finding more sustainable opportunities.(3). Indeed India is progressing forward with a growing economy and many social justice initiatives accomplished towards minorities and people of low socioeconomic status, however due to the high population densities not just within Dharavi but in the majority of the larger cities in India, the slums do not provide sustainable services given the generic sustainable lens. Economically speaking it might be cheap to live in Dharavi and more expensive to reside in Thane, however citizens Thane have a much higher chance in accommodating themselves with a high literacy and a growing urbanization that actually serves a wide scale of socioeconomic backgrounds.

    Dharavi however is not able sustainably provide for itself where not even the basic commodities such as clean water and functioning sewage system is in place, and it is nearly impossible for them to compete with citizens in the metropolitan part of Mumbai given their poor background. In a social and environmental aspect Dharavi fails horribly due to its poverty stricken circumstances. While crime rates have been significantly low and people working excessively to survive, the fundamental lacking conditions of utility services causes an unhealthy environment that may bring social cohesion but only keeps the residents of Dharavi at a survival state whilst being on the lowest socioeconomic bracket. Thane is undoubtedly a more sustainable area despite the fact that it is not completely an affluent area, but because of its solid structure and fundamental building blocks. Thanks to the result of high literacy while urbanizing and expanding the municipality; it has become able to grow and expand to serve its community while the citizens are capable of connecting to the main parts of the City and challenge for opportunities.

    Works Cited
    1. ‘’Thane City Census 2011 Data’’. Web.
    http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/367-thane.html
    2. McDougall, Dan. ‘’Waste Not, Want Not in The 700M Slum’’. The Guardian.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/04/india.recycling
    3. Jacobson, Mark. ‘’Mubai’s Shadow City’’. May 2007. National Geographic.
    4. Map 1 : Dharavi. NY Times.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/28/world/asia/an-industrial-slum-at-the-heart-of-mumbai.html
    5. Map 2 : Thane. Travel Indiapro.

    Like

  15. I will be comparing Midtown, San Diego, California, USA with Mahwa Aser, San’a’, Yemen.
    Midtown, San Diego has a population of 18,785 with a median income per capita is $49,950. (Areavibes) The urban community is surrounded by Downtown to the south, Hillcrest and Park West to the east, Midway District to the west and Mission Hills to the north. It provides many amenities to its population such as grocery stores, schools, parks, libraries, and public transportation (Areavibes). Balboa Park, a 1,200-acre urban park that provides open spaces, gardens and cultural centers such as museums and theaters, is bordering midtown to the southeast. (Balboa Park) Midtown provides sewage, electricity, clean tap water, and public safety services such as police, fire, and lifeguards. (City of San Diego) Midtown follows the Uptown community plan, which sets compliances for land use, walkability, public transit and the public realm. Sustainability has been acknowledged and is implemented through better building practices, preservation of biological diversity, storm water management, and community engagement. (City of San Diego)
    Mahwa Aser, has a population of 17,000 people and is considered a slum close to the city San’a’, which is the capital of Yemen. The residence is living in informal housing that does not provide access to running water, sewage or electricity. (Wikipedia) There is not infrastructure and school and the only jobs available are begging and street cleaning. The people of Mahwa Aser are from African heritage and have been largely ignored by the Yemen government. In more recent time, the Yemen Government has made promises to build homes within the slums. It is regarded as one of the most life-threatening places to reside. (Banu)
    Community wise, Midtown, San Diego is much more sustainable than the slum Mahwa Aser. People in midterm generally show a high income per capita and are able to indulge in a multitude of leisure activities. People have access to basic human resources such as sewage, clean air, water, and a safe environment. Residence in Midtown are protected by the law and have access to important institutions such as hospitals, schools, police and firefighters. Mahwa Aser cannot provide any of these amenities for its people, that are important to be considered sustainable. It is regarded as life-threatening to live there.
    Analyzing the ecological footprint, Mahwa Aser has much fewer CO2 emissions than Midtown, San Diego. Due to the high income,the Californian urban neighborhood, people are able to use CO2 emitting appliances such as cars and airplanes. They are also able to eat meat on a daily basis and buy products that are shipped from all over the world. These emissions add up and makes Midtown, San Diego less sustainable than Mahwa Aser, where people rely on walking and can’t purchase a large variety of food and products that traveled a long distance. Both urban areas have the same population, but Midtown far outstrips Mahwa Aser when it comes to consumption and pollution.

    Bibliography
    “Midtown, San Diego, CA Employment.” Areavibes. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
    “Inside The Park.” Balboa Park | A Landscape of Arts and Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
    “Public Safety.” City of San Diego Official Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
    “Uptown Community Plan Draft”. City of San Diego. Web. 03 Dec. 2016
    Banu, Sufia. “Top 10 Horrid Slums Found in Well-off Places.” WondersList. N.p., 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.
    “Mahwa Aser.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2016.

    Like

  16. John Pascual
    USP 514
    Professor Gohar
    December 3, 2016

    Link to Lima, Peru article: https://nextcity.org/informalcity/city/lima
    Link to Sao Paulo, Brazil article: http://pages.uoregon.edu/sergiok/brasil/brafacts.html#Geography

    The two urban areas I am to compare and contrast are Lima, Peru and Sao Paulo, Brazil in South America.

    First, Sao Paulo, Brazil is a growing megacity with high trade revenues as many natural resources exist within this area. Some examples, are iron ore, nickel and timber. When we breakdown Sao Paulo’s land use percentages, sixty-seven percent of their lands is covered in forests and woodlands. With the growing amount of environmental pollution and the need for a megacity like Sao Paulo to expand due to its growing urban population, we notice the conditions where modes of resource consumption have a direct effect on sustainability. The growing water pollution from mining resources and land degradation is a serious issue on a sustainable spectrum. As more environmental pollution contributes from resource extraction, the overall environmental impacts due to climate change should get worse overtime and little is being done to help establish ‘greener’ policies for environmental sustainability.

    Second, Lima, Peru is an informal settlement area where much of the poverty is still there and to some extent, the poverty is only growing. As such, 50 to 60 percent of Lima, Peru make their income from informal sectors and this is only getting worse. The extremity with the informal sector is not developing with the main urban sector as wages are weakening from an evolving globalization market economy. The result is astonishing as half the population of Lima are impoverished without little to no resources like food and basic needs like schools and drinkable water sources. But as the article does address this, the article does mention as Lima, Peru as still a more organized informal settlement where “middle-aged” settlements exist with connections to electrical and improved water connections by 79 percent since the 1970s. Though, 33 percent of the slums in Lima still struggle with extreme poverty and access to basic needs.

    From a sustainability lens, I believe that much needs to be done from the grassroots level and organization from a sustainable practice approach. Both cities have some sustainable elements built into the ‘urban city’, but what can change is more public intervention whether through government, foreign aid, and/or foreign volunteering to implement a more effective, cohesive and sustainable practices that help establish some form of aide in dealing with environmental pressures of a globalizing world. In Sau Paulo, Brazil car congestion and traffic problems do exist along with the pressures of carbon emissions and climate change. In addition, much of the resources extracted from their lands only pollute their lands and water sources remaining needed for future generations and future agricultural resources. Much of the land within Sao Paulo, Brazil is mainly connected with forests and woodlands. From a San Franciscan way of thinking, I think preserving their natural resources is what Brazil needs as the need to globalize their remaining forest for timber is a recurring theme. As such, preservations of forest and parks for future generations is important for its inhabitants. The economic sector should arise from individual upward mobility and through national interventions that promote an even-level working field.

    Even though Lima does experience extreme poverty in the forms of economic digress, hunger and lack of adequate access to basic resources, much efforts to combat these issues should take form on a grassroots level or muti-lateral level. I think much of the poverty here and around the world is growing exponentially as climate change is also a growing issue. Lima, Peru within a sustainability lens should not give up on hope and should look for alternatives to spur urban growth and generate some kind of local economy. This growth should implement factors of innovation and influence from foreigners and outside intervention as many informal settlements do require this for social change. By doing this, we inspire ourselves to learn from the informality in informal settlements and inspire those who are effected by societal poverty and reinvent social conversions of change.

    Like

  17. The nice urban formed area I chose would be Richmond neighborhood in San Francisco because I feel the tiny neighborhood has been well organized to provide comfortable environment to the local residents. On the other hand, I chose the “inner villages” that exists in Beijing, China. The “inner villages” were once the rural villages around the city, and gradually got swallowed by the huge city development. Those areas mostly are considered as out of the city boundary, so they only have limited services and infrastructures provided. Today, the land lords from the “inner villages” mostly rent out their properties to new city-migrated populations or the low working class residents from the city. In terms of the urban form, Richmond neighborhood has well organized urban structure, and the houses usually are two story buildings since the neighborhood was designed for residential use. On other hand, the “inner villages” mostly have massive one story self-built houses, and living density usually is very high. The constructions also usually have safety issues since many of their self-built houses did not get approved by the city planning commission. In other words, the “inner villages” are very unfavorable for people’s living since the areas lack of adequate residential elements for people to build their community. Secondly, Richmond neighborhood has very nice social pattern that the local residents were enjoyed to share the peaceful neighborhood. Abundant of restaurants and local shops located at Richmond neighborhood for local residents to share their daily activities. However, the “inner villages” only feature to have massive poor condition residential constructions without different kind of element in the neighborhoods. Also, the high crime rates make the “inner villages” to become unsafe neighborhoods, the local residents would need to suffer under the broken social pattern. Moreover, Richmond neighborhood has much better services and infrastructures provided since it was under the control of the city planning. However, most” inner villages” in Beijing do not even have water services or sewage system. “Inner villages” usually have serious pollutions problems, but Richmond neighborhood mostly could ignore the pollution issue since the city has planned to resolve the issue before the neighborhood was existed. Regarding to ownership status, Richmond neighborhood usually are self-owned property, but “inner villages” mostly only provide rental housing for low working class residents.
    Slum areas exist because of the lack of urban planned areas to low working class residents, so I think it’s important to have them in our city because that could somehow help to relieve the high housing demand in such tiny inner cities. However, I also believe that slum areas could get improved with its living condition, services and infrastructures. The obvious developed gap between slum areas and rich neighborhoods has drawn the different developed scale to both kinds of neighborhoods. Appropriate urban policies are required to resolve the huge gap between them. Increasing the connection and inter-connected development between two kinds of neighborhoods could help to balance the different development scales. At the same time, improving the infrastructures and utility services on those slum areas and intend to change them to become more livable for low working class residents. Moreover, the city government should look for more investment in slum areas with incentive policy to private developers because inner city redevelopments would be the ultimate goal for those slum areas in the inner cities.

    Like

  18. Daniel Rodarte

    1.
    There are a wide variety of urban areas around the world. Some are very popular while others seem to be ignored. The two urban areas that I will be comparing are Daly City, and Rocinha in Rio de Janeiro. I will start off by talking about the existing condition of Rocinha. This slum located in Rio de Janeiro, is considered to be the most urbanized and densely populated slums in Rio. This area has a population of around 100 to 200 thousand people. By looking at pictures, the landscape in which they live on is very steep and crammed. The residents houses are crammed and at times stacked up onto each other that can rise up to 11 stories tall. This can pose many hazards to the community. If houses are not built properly, they may begin to cave in and put residents in danger. These homes are made out of brick and cement that have running water and about 99% have electricity. Also, the poorer areas, in most cases, are located highest on the hilltop, which is also only accessible on foot. This area also lacks basic services and public investment, making it more difficult for families to provide on a daily basis. In this area, sanitation is a very big problem. In this city, the sewage flows through the middle of houses down a large channel. These living conditions pose great health issues to residents. This slum is an ideal place for the transmission of many diseases. According to Rocinhafavela.com, there are only two health clinics in Rocinha. Only having two clinics open is not enough to treat the many people in need. According to Rocinhafavela.com,” poor ventilation, overcrowded housing, and narrow streets enhance the transmission of tuberculosis…In Brazil, tuberculosis is the fourth leading cause of death”. On a final note, majority of the people living here are connected. There is a strong social pattern that is interconnected.
    The second urban city I want to discuss is Daly City, California. In this city, almost all of the houses look the same. Homes in this middle class area are have the shape and height with an almost equal amount of square feet, unless it’s a corner house or an apartment building. In this area, the roads are wide and are made for cars to be driving on. There are a sufficient amount of grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations, and clinics in the local area. In Daly City, the public transportation is somewhat efficient. It can be expensive and at times not reliable. Sam Trans needs to reconsider the needs of the surrounding community. In Daly City we have electricity and running water. Our sewage system works in a way that we do not see it visually and is disposed under us. We also have a sufficient amount of law enforcement in the area.

    2.
    In my opinion, the town Rocinha in Rio De Janeiro is more sustainable then Daly City. The way I see it, to be more sustainable, you have to use only what you need, and not use an excess amount of materials. The homes in Rocinha are not the greatest, but they do serve its purpose in putting a roof over ones head. This is cost efficient and allows for the people to put their money elsewhere. To be sustainable, I believe you have to have a healthy community. Even though crime rates in this area are high because of drug gangs, the locals still have a sense of community. I think a part of this is due to how close they live to each other. Even though the sewage runs through the homes at times, this area can be seen as more sustainable. Another reason being, is that they do not produce a lot of CO2 emissions since their are not a lot of cars in the area.

    Work Cited
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27635554

    http://rocinhafavela.weebly.com/health-issues.html

    http://mundoreal.org/about/about-rocinha

    Like

  19. The two urban areas that I choose to analyze are Russian Hill neighborhood in San Francisco and Cow Palace in Daly City. Russian Hill is one of the highest income neighborhoods in San Francisco with an average household income of $263,623 dollars. For instance, the cost of a one-bedroom apartment rents for about $3,300 dollars. Russian Hill is located directly to the north from Nob Hill and to the South from Fisherman’s Wharf. It is a residential neighborhood with artistic restaurants and antique shops. There are also many entertainments such as clubs and pubs in surrounding neighborhoods. Many fine art exhibit places and crafting shops offer opportunities for experience and learning. In addition, Russian Hill has he most famous Lombard Street and other stunning landscapes and views that attracts tourist and visitor every day. Moving through Russian Hill neighborhood could be difficult due to its steep nature of hills. There are several Muni bus lines and a cable car line as public transportation resources of the area.
    On the other hand, Cow Palace represents the name of the famously blighted neighborhood of Bayshore which is located on the boarder of San Francisco and Daly City. Cow Palace is originally the California State Livestock Pavilion but was used to host sports games and many special events as of today. Bayshore has a total population of 64,267 with an average household income of $86,151 dollars. Some notable characteristics of Bayshore neighborhood could be its people, diversity and its stability. Neighborhood mainly attracts college students with its walkability and relatively safety from crime. Bayshore is also a diverse neighbor with many Asian, Brazilian and Pilipino immigrants. However, cow palace area is known to be an urban “slum area” that suffers from deteriorating conditions.
    In comparing sustainability among these two urban areas, I believe Russian Hill neighborhood would be more sustainable compare to Bayshore neighborhood of Daly City. In terms of social sustainability, Bayshore is incomparable to Russian due to reinvestment, suppression on minority groups, and low quality of life. For example, buildings in Bayshore are mostly deteriorated with improper water fixtures which continues to waste energy resources. As for economic sustainability, Russian Hill already have the relatively competitive resources such as having high income residents and with financial district nearby. Bayshore is isolated on the south edge of San Francisco with little business corporations and fewer opportunities for themselves as well as their next generation. Finally, the environmental sustainability would be better for Russian Hill neighborhood as it has enough capital and other resources to maintain and improve its environment. Other than lack of maintenance resources, the community of Bayshore also lack the awareness of protecting their neighborhoods which would make it harder for reform. Overall, I believe that Russian Hill is a sustainable urban area compare to Bayshore-Cow Palace.

    Like

  20. I am choosing to look at two overlapping areas within San Francisco’s South of Market Street (SOMA) district: apartment buildings and homeless encampments. The formal housing in the SOMA district has a median price of $3,359 one month’s rental of a one bedroom apartment. This district is among the neighborhoods with the highest costs of living in the city. The people that live there are upper middle class and upper class. The homeless encampments cost no rent, but there are financial costs tied to living there due to frivolous fines and arrests of homeless people. These encampments are often groups of tents along wide streets or underneath freeway overpasses. Many of the residents are San Francisco natives and have recently lost their housing. The encampments are not legal but are necessary to house people in their home city as city services seek to relocate them out of state rather than find solutions that actually serve the homeless people best. They are people without homes, not just eyesores to the rich as they are so often categorized. Though both populations live in the same geographic locations, class separates the two as if they are in completely different worlds. The upper class people literally live above the have-nots in their high rise apartments while their neighbors struggle to meet their basic needs for survival.

    It is a tough call, but I believe that the high rise apartments are more sustainable. They are able to house people in a space efficient way while providing all the essential amenities for a comfortable living space. My making cities denser it also allows for public transit to be an effective way to get around when there is less ground to cover to get to different places. The problem is who is able to afford to live there. If these housing units had availability for low income residents and properly accommodated to all income levels then it would be the most sustainable option.

    Like

  21. Damien Hudovic
    Prof. Gohar
    USP 514
    Week of 11/29/16
    Today, I will be comparing a ‘developed’ area and a ‘slum’ area in regard to their livable sustainability. For the developed area I choose Geneva, Switzerland, one of the wealthiest cities per capita. In many senses, Geneva is a true ‘international’ city, being the headquarters of over twenty global programs, the seat of several United Nations agencies, and along with the International Red Cross Committee. Apart from diplomacy, Geneva is also a major center of banking institutions. It requires significant infrastructure in order to handle being a destination and business hub. Switzerland’s public transit is some of the best in the world, connecting this mountainous nation together. In a 2009 Mercer Survey, Geneva was ranked third in quality of life worldwide after Vienna and Zurich. As a caveat, the city is also the fifth most expensive to live in in the world. Over twenty percent of the metropolitan area is covered in green areas, lending it the nickname “The City of Parks”. The city is very compact 15.93 km2 (6.15 sq mi) with a high population density 12,000/km2 (32,000/sq mi). The cityscape is a traditional old European layout with usually five story buildings closely linked together around winding avenues. 200 streets in the central city ban the use of automobiles.
    Concurrently, I will examine the slum area of Orangi Town of Karachi, Pakistan. According to a United Nations World Nations Report 2016, Orangi is now considered the largest slum on the planet with an estimated 2.4 million people. The main influx of population largely occurred during the 1970s Bangladeshi War of Independence, as a place to settle incoming refugees. A slum by nature, has to be self-sufficient because little aid comes from the national or local government. An example of this was the populace creating a system of plumbing themselves, by their own hands. 8000 streets and roads have plumbing, a full ninety percent. Most people in the town like in unauthorized homes on government land. Household size is around eight per two room hut. On average, expenditures are equivalent to $100 per month with a greater share of their money going to water per month ($15) versus United States ($5). Unfortunately, Orangi Town oftentimes has shortages of basic utilities like water and energy along with social infrastructure. Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) “provided support to construct a self-financed and self-managed sanitation system under the component-sharing concept, where households manage sewerage lines in the lanes and secondary sewers, whilst the government is responsible of main sewers and treatment plants.” According to OPP, “the success of this approach is based on understanding the needs of the informal sector and developing low cost solutions with appropriate technology, and strong lobbying capacities aimed at different levels of government.”
    Comparatively, the two dwellings differ in many respects. Geneva is blessed with a stable, wealthy, and safe economic climate, whereby the citizens can directly benefit. Orangi Town does not possess that blessing, making government aide difficult to come by. However, as earlier stated, the Orangi citizens have by matters of necessity, learned how to live a self-sustaining lifestyle. Humans are very resourceful and creative beings in any environment, including Orangi. They take what little they have and make some kind of living out of it. If the global finance system crashes again, most likely Orangi will be relatively unscathed, while banking capital Switzerland would be devastated. Geneva’s level of prosperity is only propped up an international system centered around finance. Taking excess profit, they have a greater pool of resources to invest with. Pakistan’s indebtedness (public debt to GDP ratio of 61%) and dangerous instability force the people to take their life into their own hands. Orangi people consume factors of magnitude less resources than a Swiss, making their surroundings more livable in the long-run. If I were Geneva, I would divest assets and localize more of their economy to weather any coming storms.

    Like

  22. The first Urban Area I would like to analyze is Seattle. This has been one of the best places I have visited when thinking about planning, housing income and formal business. This are has many highways for transportation and a very large airport. Also it is well sustained considering it is so close to the ocean. This place also has many buildings for housing just like San Francisco although on the out skits the housing is much more spread out and less dense. This place has quite a bit of organized planning due to the waterways and pipelines as well as the shift in the buildings. This city is among some very high-income groups in the general city it self. Although there are homeless issues throughout the city it is not much worse than anywhere else in the U.S. This area is also a port for many other regions across the northern United States and acts as a hub to many other local islands and small pieces of urbanized land.

    The next place in which I would like to summarize is the slums of Detroit, Michigan or more than less the deteriorated neighborhoods of demographic and economic decline. Local crime rates are some of the highest in the U.S. this is a place that is a great example of urban decay. A big role in this was the collapse in a big part of the automobile industry because of technology and lack of government support. In many cases it’s almost a replica of many other urban areas although many of these slum neighborhoods have just altered in condition instead of grown in new size and proportion.

    Seattle, in this case is the most sustainable and there are many reasons why, although I do believe that one major factor was the decay in job availability and the workforce and wealth of these regions that showed the most significant position. Seattle has a stronger government and state emphasis as well as it is better developed in the urban sprawl aspect. Detroit has many neighborhoods that have deteriorated just because of the separation of resources as well as mobility in tough conditions. Many people that lived in Detroit had jobs that were connected to the automobile industry and it was a major shift in the way economics played out when some automobile companies went into halt or even slowly merged with other corporations. Seattle also has a greater amount of jobs in the smaller consumer group, which leaves more room for inside revenue and outside revenue to keep it sustainable even if bigger corporations had issues. The main thing about Seattle is that it is a destination for many people of wealth and in many cases people looking for jobs in service instead of industrial. There are good amounts of industrial but it is more evenly distributed. This City of Seattle has had the best sustainable ratings amongst many other cities and including has a well-rounded good healthy environment.

    Like

  23. The formal urban area I will study is San francisco’s Sunset district. The informal urban area of study is Dharavi, Mumbai, India.
    The Dharavi slum is the second most populated in Asia, with an estimated population anywhere between 300,000 – 1 million people, with 750,000 being the most common estimate. The total land area that Dharavi occupies is roughly 0.75 square miles, and it occupies the southwest portion of Mumbai. The plot of land the settlement sits on was a mangrove swamp until it was filled it in with human waste and debris in the late 1800’s. There is a network of roads able to handle vehicular traffic that go through Dharavi, but a majority of the navigation is done by walking through tight alleyways in between homes. The “deepest” spot lies about 300ft away from a main road. There was no master plan or official governing body that planned out the settlement, but rather it was built up over time however its citizens saw fit. Most homes are one to two stories high and haphazardly constructed out of concrete with corrugated metal roofs, and without any kind of building codes. Most homes are only around 300 square feet and can house up to 15 people. To a westerner, perhaps the most shocking aspect about Dharavi’s infrastructure is the sewer system. Most sewage and refuse flows through open channels, through streets, and eventually into the nearby Mithi river. Few homes have toilets, most people pay to use crowded community restrooms with water service, while others use free poorly maintained shacks. For most people that do not have a water spigot in their home they often have to pay the local “Goons” or gang that controls the communal water spigots. Citizens also pay the “electricity Goons” if they want access to electricity in their homes. There are no street lights in the settlement and many of the women feel unsafe and/or have been physically assaulted while walking at night. There are also no recreational areas or activities for women to gather around in Dharavi. Most trash is burnt, which results in toxic smoke clouds pervading the surrounding area. Recycling is a major part of the economy there, any piece of reusable plastic or metal is recycled in some way. Aside from recycling a few major parts of the economy include leather making and pottery.
    Residing in the western side of San Francisco, the Sunset district was primarily built up in the early 1900’s. The population density in San Francisco as a whole is about 17,000/square mile (no specific population density data was available for this district). The overall layout of this district was planned very formally. The streets are arranged in an orderly grid system. San Francisco applies specific building codes/standards that all construction must meet in order to ensure structural safety during earthquakes. Building regulations restrict most homes from building higher than two stories, so the result is a neighborhood that is very uniform in its appearance. There is high quality reliable water, electrical, sewer, and gas infrastructure available to every home in the district. The sewer is directed to a wastewater treatment plant where it is disinfected before release into the ocean. There is weekly garbage/recycling pickup, so there is very little trash around the sidewalks and streets. There are street lights on every street as well as in some of the parks scattered around the district.

    When examining the sustainability factors of Dharavi and the Sunset district you find that they have very different pros and cons. On a local scale Dharavi is not environmentally sustainable because it dumps large amounts of raw sewage and trash into the nearby river, while the Sunset district disinfects its sewage at a water treatment plant. However, on a global environmental scale I can infer that the settlement has a much smaller impact on the environment than the Sunset, specifically, global warming. This is because in Dharavi very few people own a vehicle, there are no street lights, and most families only use electricity to power small televisions or appliances. This is in contrast to Homes in the Sunset district which, from my personal observation from living there, typically have at least one car, a whole house heater, a hot water heater, extensive lighting, large televisions, washer/dryers, and large refrigerators all to serve one family. All of those modern amenities are energy intensive and contribute to global warming.
    In regards to the social dimension of sustainability the Sunset is clearly superior to Dharavi. The Sunset has free public schools, reliable public transportation, a modern hospital, streets that do not have disease infected sewage running through them, public parks, and streetlights. All which help maintain a healthy and safe society.
    Overall I believe that the Sunset district is more sustainable based almost entirely on the fact that it has better healthcare and sanitation. If a disease were to be introduced into Dharavi, like Ebola, it could prove disastrous for the the life of the settlement.

    Works Cited:

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2007/05/dharavi-mumbai-slum/jacobson-text

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/apr/01/urbanist-guide-to-dharavi-mumbai

    https://www.census.gov

    Like

  24. San Francisco is one of the most developed cities in the world. With top notch city planning and the most progressive urban and cultural city in California, it is safe to say San Francisco a developed urban area. The economy of San Francisco tops around 388 billion dollars and is home to several millionaires. The city even has a department of the environment where the health of the natural and physical environment is constantly under scrutiny to ensure that the city of San Francisco’s environment stays clean. There are not many cities in the United States with a department specifically designed to ensure the health of the environment. For that reason, San Francisco is the most progressive cities in the US and sets the platform for city wide environmental law for many other places around the globe.

    The rural town of Guiyu, China is considered the hub of the world’s electronic waste. According to Zheng Songming (year), head of Guiyu Township Government, the town of Guiyu receives 52 square kilometers of e- waste every day. Many villagers work sixteen hours a day, for around 17¢ per hour to dispose of the e-waste (China Daily, 2005). All day these people are subjected to stripping cellphones apart to retrieve valuable materials, burning plastic over a coal fire to reveal precious metals like copper and gold, and even putting electronics in acid baths to extract gold from microchips. Usually acid baths are a cocktail of chemicals that are highly corrosive. The presence of these chemicals everyday has been causing serious harm to the villagers in Guiyu. Discarding the majority of e-waste directly into huge landfills which just sit on top of the soil has left the natural water source of this town undrinkable, thus leaving this town to divert water from somewhere else. The women in this village town have a higher than normal rate of infertility, and 80% of the children in this town have high levels of lead in their bodies (Monbiot, 2009). The town is subjected to toxic ash that floats in the air from all the burning of metals and plastics from the e-waste which they breath in on a daily basis.

    Unlike Guiyu, San Francisco is one of the leading cities for recycling and composting. The environment in San Francisco is very heavily regulated and the department of the environment does a great job at doing so. Guiyu has no department of the environment, and does not have environmental regulations regarding electronic waste disposal like the city of San Francisco does. The wages in San Francisco and Guiyu are completely contrasted as well. While in Guiyu the average wage is 17 cents per hour, in San Francisco the wage has increased recently to $13 per hour. With a low wage of 17 cents per hour the citizens in Guiyu have been stuck in a perpetual cycle of working with electronic waste. The electronic waste has degraded their environment so heavily that the soils are no longer able to farm from and produce has to be shipped from a different town. These people are subjected to harsh living conditions within this slum and have to endure pollution on a daily basis. For these reasons I believe San Francisco is a more sustainable city than Guiyu China.

    China Gate. N.p., 24 May 2005. Web. 15 Sept. 2016. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/chinagate/2005-05/24/content_445250.htm

    Huo, Xia, Lin Peng, Xijin Xu, Liangkai Zheng, Bo Qiu, Zongli Qi, Bao Zhang, Dai Han, and Zhongxian Piao. “Result Filters.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

    Leung, Anna, Nurdan Duzgoren-Aydin S., K. Cheung C., and Ming Wong H. “Heavy Metals Concentrations of Surface Dust from E-Waste Recycling and Its Human Health Implications in Southeast China.” ACS Publications. American Chemical Society, 2008. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

    Pinto, Violet N. “E-waste Hazard: The Impending Challenge.” Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Medknow Publications, Aug. 2008. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

    Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM). “United Nations Environment Programme.” — Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM). United Nations, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

    Like

  25. I will be using the two urban areas, Slums in Cairo, Egypt and Los Angeles, California to compare and contrast.

    The slums in Cairo, Egypt started to arise from post-World War II population growth. However, the population in these slums spiraled out of control during the 1960’s due to unregulated housing and lack of government interference. These informal areas are ignored by the government and are not provided infrastructure. The government only interfered when it was evident that there were noticeably less land for agriculture due to the urban expansion from the slums. The current population of Cairo, Egypt is 7.772 million spread over 174.9 mi2 and 27.8% lives below the poverty line. According to a study done by the UN, 25-35% of the population in Cairo resides in the slums or the areas around it. The Egyptian Ministry of Housing reported that there are more than 1200 informal areas in Egypt and around 80 are located in Cairo alone. The type of building construction in the slums vary and depends on the slum types. Some buildings that are at least 5 floors are supported by concrete frames and bricks inside walls. There are also building influenced by western small developers that are up to 10-14 floors which allows for more tenants in a smaller footprint. These types of construction is generally sturdier than others however the areas are prone to densification due to families growing which ultimately causes overcrowding. In other slums in Cairo, such as Manshiet Nasser where most garbage collectors reside, the conditions are more severe. These are located on former agricultural lands that were then sold to individual builders. Buildings were then built with no paper works or permits and no city codes to abide by. Many of these areas are not near any water supply and lack sewage network. The people in these areas suffer from illiteracy, poverty, unhealthy living conditions and etc.
    Los Angeles, CA has a population of 3.884 million spread over 503 mi2. In 2015, poverty rate in Los Angeles was 18.7 percent. All building must abide by city building codes along with plumbing and mechanical. Developers must require a permit to construct. Los Angeles provides Low income housing to those who need it which is free to apply. Los Angeles is known to be a progressive and trendy city where all types of people reside. The city is known for it’s diversity and vast range of professional fields. Los Angeles and the city structure is made to accommodate cars hence the big, wide roads even though there is a reliable public transportation system the city is spread out. There are also many colleges and universities located in LA county.
    The urban areas I chose are total opposites of each other. Each city is structured very differently and are made to cater the people living in it based on their income, necessities, and what they can or cannot afford. People in Los Angeles lives a contrasting lifestyle compared to people in the slums of Cairo. In the slums of Cairo, everyone lives on the minimal because they cannot afford anything else many cannot afford anything else. In this way, they are living a more sustainable lifestyle since they are only relying on things that they can afford which is barely anything whereas in Los Angeles, people tend to buy or consume more than what we really need. In terms of housing, the slums occupies less land and houses more people in that limited land however, the living conditions are unhealthy but in Los Angeles everything is spread out and mostly a car dependent city but everything is up to code and safe for people.

    Like

  26. Nicholas Evans
    USP 514

    I will be comparing two very different urban areas. The first is of a downtown area in Walnut Creek, CA. The second is Mumbai Slum, India. I have never been to India so my knowledge is only of the research I have done. Walnut Creek is a “destination city” the city is in between two freeways and is designed to service the downtown area. Mostly comprised of shopping and other avenues of economic interest such as conventions or marketplaces in the hotels. Walnut Creek is a very different place compared to Mumbai. In just about every aspect.
    Downtown Walnut Creek is planned and serviced by the city offices, the Mumbai Slum in India was designed by the inhabitants of the area and built up over many years with little strategic planning and regional design. Sustainability, such as self sufficiency, Mumbai is the clear winner. Walnut Creek relies on people coming to the downtown area to buy things and spend money, not that Mumbai Slum does not have an area to buy and trade; Walnut Creek is just designed to service trade and shops. Mumbai, is self reliant in many aspect where Walnut Creek is not. Mumbai, has its own labor force that resides in that particular community, also most of the trade done in Mumbai stays in Mumbai. Unlike, Walnut Creek in which most of the workers do not live in the city limits and most of the people buying thing are taking those things elsewhere.
    In cleanliness and sanitation, the downtown has much more accessibility to running water and bathrooms. The amount of space used by one person is much more as well. This is in all aspects, it’s kind of an unfair comparison but still noteworthy. Transportation is also an important way to value the sustainable system, this is how the work force and the people move about the area in comparison. Mumbai doesn’t have public transportation. Mumbai doesn’t have many roads. That’s one way Mumbai is inhibited to have a transportation system. As, Walnut Creek has, light rail and buses.
    The New York Times wrote an article on Mumbai about the amount of childbirth deaths and how that number is one of the higher in the region, called “Hospital Confronts Childbirth Deaths in Mumbai Slum” The rate of childbirth deaths is an indicator of many things, what I think it can indicate is the is access to quality medical treatment in the region. The article says that the amount of deaths is almost five times the amount of an average city in the world. This is a problem that Walnut Creek does not have. In fact Walnut Creek has some of the best hospitals in the East Bay. Obviously, there are extremely different economic circumstances for both regions but in this comparison it is noteworthy of the medical infrastructure in place of both areas. The Mumbai slum has makeshift hospitals which are built out of recycled materials and are not sanitary. The article goes on to state that access is also hard because their is no clear pathway to the hospitals in Mumbai slum. This is again an infrastructure problem that the Mumbai Slum faces.
    Both regions have their own social constructs that create a different cultures, with very different outlooks of re-usability and sustainable planning. What is important to remember is that although the economics work different in the regions the intent to be self sufficient still remains in both regions. What one person may throw away in Walnut Creek another may sell in Mumbai. This is a difference of the region that is outstanding, the resiliency and recycling efforts that are made to keep costs low in the slums.

    Like

  27. Submitted December 3rd at 4:30 pm

    Urban areas have different and unique ways to developing. in the most cases they are shaped by historically being an area of settlement and over time they are further shaped by policies regulating further development as well as laws that dictate the individual actions of the people living there that will infringe the well-being of the other member of the community. In the most extreme cases urban areas are sometimes developed through the attempt to solve “gap between the demand and the legal and formal supply in the housing market” as described in this week’s class discussion. To accurately compare and contrast the two methods of settlement, we can compare the San Francisco, California and Kibera, Nairobi.
    San Francisco has been a place for settlement since the historical period in California known as the gold rush and before that it was an area that was inhabited by Native American tribes. Since then San Francisco has evolved to have policies behind developments and is now considered a world class city. In this urban area we see a variety of different aspects of city life such as cultural centers, retail areas, formal housing developments, and community centers funded by the government. This city also has a diverse range of income groups that contribute to the diversity of the city as well as the way the city further develops. San Francisco also has transportation system that ensures citizens as well as visitors a reliable way to move around the city. In addition to this there is a police force, an emergency response system, and laws in place to ensure the safety of citizens.
    In comparison the slum settlement in Kibera are developed through informal circumstances as well as extreme conditions of poverty. The slums in Kibera also lack formal infrastructure, such a plumbing and water systems that reduce the risk of disease amongst the community. Based on the video seen in class it seems as though there no governing structure and citizens abide by a set of community rules apply through a silent understanding. There is also heavy influence from outside charitable organizations that the community relies on to sustain itself. The people who live in these communities did not plan on living in these slums but through circumstances they settled down in this informal community. The provisional aspects of this urban settlement have continued on to be more permanent and there should be steps to establish it as such.
    When considering the sustainability aspects of these two urban areas they are both sustainable in different ways. San Francisco has measures of development that have sustainability in mind such as transit systems, water systems, and incentives for citizens to use less resources. On the other hand, there is constant development in San Francisco and there is large amount of resources used to create these developments and people living in this city live a first world lifestyle, using a considerable amount of resources as well as creating waste. In the slums of Kibera the people are using every bit of resources they can as well as reusing anything they can. We do not have to consider the factor of transportation because the citizens of this urban area mainly walk as a method of transportation. Therefore, in terms of the use of resources as the sustainability definition, Kibera would be considered more sustainable considering their high populations and needs for accommodating those people. However, the living condition in these slums are not suitable for human living and effort can be made to improve that with sustainability in mind.

    Like

  28. I will present something out of the ordinary, two different cities in the Middle East. The urban area that has high income would be Manama, Bahrain, and the city that would be considered slum and war torn is Fallujah, Al Anbar, Iraq.

    The City of Manama is in the northern end of Bahrain at the shores of the Persian Gulf. The town is capitalism run amok. The city contains many mid and high rise apartment buildings, US and European based business chains from Carre Four to Starbucks has presence thoughout the city. The city is diverse in cultures, from local national Bahraini, Filipinos, Indians, Europeans, and American service members due to US Navy headquarters for naval forces in Persian Gulf.
    The City of Fallujah, located 48 km from Bagdad is situated next to the Euphrates River. The city is very organic and lacking foreign chain businesses. Most buildings in Fallujah were mosques, residential two to three story buildings, small business merchants, and shops made from converted garages. Large presence of buildings were damaged from shelling and war related activities. The city is homogenous of local national Sunnis, but had American service member presence from 2003 to 2011.

    Manama:

    Equity is very lacking. Due to economically thriving city many of the Indians that are involved with construction have been working in slave labor.

    Environment: Public transit is very lacking—no rail system and unknown bus system–and fuel prices are very low which encourages more car driving. The crescent shape high-rise contains a wind turbine which generates electricity for the building.

    Economics: Thriving with many foreign businesses and international presence. Too much richness from oil industry.

    Manama is a city missing out on potential sustainable options. With many sunny hot day, the city can take advantage of hot wind and solar power.

    Fallujah:

    Equity: War torn. Attempts with employment programs related to security. During the Saddam era, the local nationals I spoke with told me the town’s major employment was under the previous regimes’s military and government and small business merchants.

    Environment: Too many houses rely on petrol based generators and polluted from burning garbage and feces. Missed energy opportunity from hot wind and plenty of sunny days. Due to war, environmental hazards from Depleted Uranium, which has caused high rates of cancer, per Al Jazeera news. During the last decade, due to electrical infrastructure damaged and non-functioning street lights, United States Agency for International Development (US AID) provided local infrastructure projects of installing solar-battery powered street lights.

    Economics: Lack of employment. Oil isn’t present in Al Anbar province. With presence of Euphrates River, missed agricultural opportunities to grow dates and raise more sheep and goat.

    Like

  29. Simon Wannehag Hagene
    USP 514

    A World of Equity

    There is undoubtedly a great injustice when it’s estimated that the 1% owns an entirety of 99% of the world’s wealth. The capitalistic system has led to a possessiveness wherein billions of people are poor and struggle to make a living, which in turn contributes to environmental damages of shattering strengths. The urbanization could be the key to a sustainable living, yet right now it’s consuming the world’s resources. How can we turn it around?
    Let’s starts with a comparison of two major urban areas: the capital of Oslo in Norway and capital of New Delhi in India. First of, the population is much greater in New Delhi than Oslo, thereby something to keep in mind when analyzing the developments of each place.

    Oslo is a very well-developed city as of 2016, a modern and ever-growing place with about 700 thousand residents. Norway is a country whose economy has been successful due to its oil and gas production, however, 9 out of 10 jobs actually exist in other types of business. Oslo is the center of innovation, events and political scenes, which has made it an ideal place for new-thinkers and change-doers. However, even though it goes well economically, and it’s considered a rich city with more than enough basics for a decent living for most, the pressure is becoming increasingly visible for the those already struggling. The growth of population is putting a pressure when it comes to creating enough housing for its poorest, with the prices skyrocketing for every year. A trend also seen in London, Paris, New York and San Francisco. Furthermore, they still haven’t been able to solve the unhealthy air pollution they encounter every winter due to the heavy usage of cars. As well, the climate change brings in heavier rainfalls during the summer, causing the sewage pipes to become overloaded, thus let out into the fjord (people are then encouraged not to swim for a week!) These are issues not to be taken lightly, as it affects everyone, regardless if you’re rich or not.
    New Delhi is as well a city with a growing population, currently at almost 22 million people. Unlike Oslo, New Delhi has a major problems with poverty and people living in slum areas where many don’t even have access to safe drinking water nor sanitation(less than a third of all of India have sanitation), and the inequalities are of the highest in the world. Lack of water, food, housing and all basics of life are hard to get by here. Air pollution is often at dangerous levels all-year-round due to the countless cars, and the climate change contributes to record hot summers with the heat known to be “boiling” the asphalts on the streets.

    Fortunately, both cities are about to make changes for the better. In Oslo, they’re increasing their focus on bicycle plans, public transportation and renewable energy to better the air quality. There are also measures being made to keep the fjord healthy, with improvements of pipes and new technologies to detect and prevent flooding from affecting larger areas. They also increase taxes on high-income individuals, which is invested back into new housing.
    In New Delhi, with help from both the government and private companies, they are increasingly investing in affordable, low-income housing. They struggle with meeting the demands of water and electricity supply, however, the local officials aim to make Delhi a “solar city” through generation of 1,000 megawatt of power by 2020 and taking it further to 2,000 MW by 2025. Additionally, there are countless efforts to expand the public transport- however, with a record number of about 16.6 million vehicles, it’ll be a painfully slow transition unless they find more funding.

    Overall, there is no question of which urban area is currently more sustainable than the other. Oslo is part of a wealthy country with considerably fewer people, and they can therefore afford to invest and improve much faster and easier. New Delhi has to first solve the water and energy crisis before they’ll even be able to move forward with other projects. Conclusively, equity is the number one reason preventing progress in order to provide economic and environmental advantages to achieve today’s view on sustainability.

    Sources:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/06/delhi-air-pollution-closes-schools-for-three-days
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-melancon/in-the-background-life-in-delhi-slum_b_3343823.html
    http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/government-announces-policy-to-make-delhi-solar-city-1416232
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_India#Low_income_housing
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Delhi

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s