Nicholas Salter
1)How does the ‘Heartfelt Houses’ project in Medellin, contribute to improving social equity
through the creation of an environmentally sustainable environment?
2)What is the role of community participation and how is this established by the
relationships amongst the stakeholders?
3)Has the project improved economic outcomes for the residents in the neighborhood/city?
Environmental Health and Equity: Global
Strategies and Innovation
April 30, 2011
McGill University
Planet of Slums
 In the year 2007, population shift from rural to urban locations
resulted in the majority of people living in urban settings.
 It is estimated over a 1 billion people are now living in slums.
 Slums often result from an increase of population outside the
capacity of cities to provide affordable housing or economic
alternatives.
 Difficulty in accessing land tenancy leads to illegal invasions and
abnormal land purchase of available or open terrain.
 Without improvements, the global slum population is estimated
to reach 1.4 billion in 2020 and 2.67 billion by the year 2030.
Background
 Daily Conditions
 Slums are often situated on dangerous land and have frequent overcrowding, lack
security of tenure, access to clean water, and proper waste disposal.
 Life Expectancy
 Slum dwellers are more likely to die earlier, experience more hunger and disease,
attain less education and have fewer chances of employment. Overcrowding plays a
major role in the transmission of diseases.
 Urbanization
 Re-shaping population health problems, towards non-communicable diseases and
injuries, alcohol- and substance-abuse, and impact from ecological disaster.
 Strategies for Improvement
 Assignation of terrains with basic public services’ provision, shelter upgrading, social
regeneration programs and large scale infrastructure improvement projects
Project Methodology
 Case Study Selection
 ‘Heartfelt Houses’ is slum upgrading project
in the Juan Bobo community, in Medellin,
Colombia
 Recipient of 2008 UN Habitat Award for Best
Practice.
 Notable for employment of a “no relocation”
policy and use of community participatory
mechanisms.
 Case Study Methodology
 Snowball sampling method
•
45 semi-structured interviews conducted
during June and July of 2010
• Frequent site visits and observation
• Collection of project reports, presentations,
academic articles
• Use of translator for Spanish language
interviews
Medellin, Colombia
Geographic Conditions
 Terrain restricts the use of space
 Expansion from river at the center
of the valley upward into the slopes
 Precarious and vulnerable to
geological risks (landslides and
flooding)
Urban Development
 Massive relocation programs and
other type of housing failures
 Upper and upper-middle sectors
built according established norms
 Rest of city developed via selfhousing, illegal subdivisions and
land invasions
 Barrios populated by refugees
displaced by guerrilla, paramilitary
and military action
“You can see the poor areas are almost spectators
on the sides, so it is something that you can’t ignore.
They are always going to be there … they are always
in your mind. We can see these communities …
trying to thrive and make something of themselves.”
(Carlos Montoya, EDU, Director of Juan Bobo
Project )
Empresa Desarrollo Urbano de Medellin (EDU)
 EDU as primary actor involved
 EDU is a decentralized agency from the local government responsible
for municipal development of projects leverage private and public
sectors
 To increase efficiency, Fajardo’s municipal government decided to
position EDU to coordinate development projects for all the different
departments of the municipality
Institutional Coordination
• This project leveraged a variety of institutional partners in Medellin
including organizations at the municipal, departmental (provincial or
state) and national level .
• An institutional alliance model emerged which created a synergy
between the institutions
• Political will of the mayor’s office was identified as key to maintaining
institutional coordination
Juan Bobo
 Environmental Situation
 Tendency of overcrowding
 Poor accessibility system
 Polluted water and garbage
 High percentage of inadequate
utilities :


illegal aqueduct s and energy service
informal sewer systems
 Environmental damage in
surrounding systems (i.e. Local
creek)
 Lack of protection of hill slopes
 Socio-Economic Conditions
 Poor economic situation and
informal employment
 High presence of disadvantaged
community members (migrants and
ethnic minorities, single parent
families)
 Deeds to the ownership of their
housing structure but not the land it
occupied
Photo courtesy of EDU
“whenever it would rain … I would be putting pots
and pans on the floor to catch the rain, covering
holes up on the wall with whatever I could find “
(Juan Bobo Community Member)
``in college … certain teachers ... would say that, all those parts
on the side of Medellin, on the valley, on the mountainside …
those zones were …. not for housing … [But] there are houses
being built there … You can’t ignore that.”
(Juliana Portillo , Coordinator of the Juan Bobo project)
Photo courtesy of EDU
Innovative Intervention
•
Policy of no relocation which sought to
maintain both the social and economic
networks of the community.
•
Traditional housing professionals
believed that the land in the area could
not be built on safely.
•
The project sought to demonstrate that
some of the unconsolidated and
informal zones were NOT too risky too
intervene within.
•
Recognizes principles of social and
economic equity over market delivery
and expansion
•
Create an social, environmental and
economically sustainable intervention in
order to address larger global, nation or
city-wide problems at the local level.
Photo courtesy of EDU
Planning
Implementation Process
 In-depth geo-referential
 Remove unsafe housing
mapping and socio-economic
surveys
 Community participatory
mechanisms to gather input
 Intervention plan combined 3
intervention strategies:
 Temporarily displace residents
 construction of new buildings
 Build apartment buildings for
displaced residents
 Remainder of homes:
Residents given materials and
workshops to rebuild their own
homes.
 relocation of existing housing within
the community
 upgrading of existing housing
 Reorganize the settlement to
introduce public services:
 sewage
 water systems
 electricity
 Create public spaces and increase
accessibility
Photo courtesy of EDU
Environmental Impact
•115 house improvements
• 115 legalization processes of
houses to be entitled
SERVICES
•Water, electricity and
sanitation
•Connected to the official
grid in which residents
now billed monthly
SPACES
•Introduction of green,
public and communal
spaces
•Increased pedestrian
accessibility
IMPROVED and SAFER HOUSING
• Contingency walls and structurally sound buildings to
prevent disaster in the case of landslides and flooding.
•Reduction of the vectors for
disease in the community:
•open sewage
• unsanitary water,
•dumping of garbage
• areas for water to collect.
•Subsequent clean up of
community creek
Community Impact
POSITIVE COMMUNITY FACTORS
 Workshops: capacity building, conflict
resolution and community cooperation
 Committees and assemblies:
development of an ‘acceptable
community behaviour’ manual
 Social capital: Increased feelings of
competency and self-esteem
 Columbus School Project:
beautification process including various
sectors of Medellin society
NEGATIVE COMMUNITY IMPACTS
•
•
•
Passive participation of community
members
Lack of clear empowerment and
continuing presence of conflict in
community.
Existence of higher conflict among
those in apartments then those staying
in their homes
“overall, it kind of created that connection
between people, it got us all kind of thinking
about, not just about who is right next to me,
who else is in this community? Who can I
meet?”
(Juan Bobo Community Member)
Photos courtesy of EDU
Economic Impact
Positive
 Community members
provided with legal land
tenure transforming the
home into a financial asset
 Maintained informal and
formal economic networks
 Maintained location close
to existing infrastructure
and city core, keeping cost
of localization low.
 Some evidence of short
term job creation directly
and indirectly from
construction process
Negative
 Some reports of incurred debt from
construction process
 Evidence of community members unable
to pay for their formalized services
 Project faced with high costs
 Little evidence of long term economic
development in the area
Challenges
 Questions surrounding social sustainability,
economic feasibility and replication
 The political will of mayor’s office may be a
necessary component of success not currently
present
 Presence of ongoing social conflict in the
community
 Lack of economic development
 Formalization of services bringing additional
costs leaving some residents without
 Ongoing processes of massive relocation and
institutional development happening on
periphery of Medellin
•Long-term effects on the social and
economic networks/capital due to the
policy of no relocation, are difficult to
evaluate at this point in time
Lessons Learned
•The project could be improved by a stronger, more active community capacity building and
participatory intervention.
•Further economic development necessary to allow adjustment to formalization process
•Policy of no relocation and provision of land tenure is an exceptional policy especially in light of other
policies of relocation both in Medellin and other countries
•Impacts of maintained social and economic networks may be felt in later generations