Urban Geog – Structure
1.
Urban Concepts

Urbanisation
o Concept of urbanisation & relationship to urban growth
o Suburbanisation, counter-urbanisation and re-urbanisation in DCs
o Urbanisation trends in DCs and LDCs

World/Global cities

Primate cities
2.
The City

CBD Dynamics

Bid-rent theory

Functional zoning

Social forces

Multiple nuclei
3.
Influences on urban structure

Historical

State planning

Office decentralisation

City future forms

Globalisation
4.
Managing urban environments

Housing problems

Housing solutions

Transport issues
A suburb in Markham, north of Toronto in Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg
Suburbanisation
Counter-urbanisation
Defn: movement of people away from the city to the edge, within city limits, usually within
a 1-hour commute. Usu. upper class phenomenon, and in US, white.
Defn: movement of people away from cities into rural areas beyond city limits. Can be
seen as an extreme form of suburbanisation, push-pull factors more intense
Can be controlled (planned) or uncontrolled (urban sprawl)

Horizontal expansion of city, engulfing rural areas and farmland

Result of poorly-planned growth

Aided by the advent of the private car and motor highways – urban sprawl often
occurs along transport belts. E.g. avg. US household has 2 cars
Preconditions

Dependent on transport (cars) and increasingly communications technologies

Almost exclusively a DC phenomenon, except Indonesia’s transmigration programme
(forced counter-urbanisation, politically motivated)

Limited to those who can afford the daily commute
Causes

Push: Poor quality of life in inner-city areas
o Congestion, pollution
o “White flight”: esp. in US, white middle-class residents move out of non-white
inner-city neighbourhoods

Push: High property prices in cities compared to suburban developments

Pull: Improvements in transport infrastructure – development of railroads in UK in
1920s and 30s, highways and road networks in the US post WWII

Pull: Government policies/private initiatives
o US: federal govt underwriting mortgages
o UK: building societies which provided mortgages, govt development of New
Towns e.g. Milton Keynes

Pull: development in communications technology which allows more people to work
from home
Causes

Pull: Higher quality of life in rural areas. Less stressful, less pollution
o Japan: People living in log cabin communities, over an hour away from Tokyo by
bullet train, to escape the concrete jungle for open spaces

Pull: development in communications technology – people work from home

Pull: holiday homes, e.g. Parisians buying homes in rural areas for May-Sept

Push: hectic life in cities, especially for retired
Consequences

Political: govt planning necessary to avoid urban sprawl. E.g. creating green belts,
New Towns, providing necessary infrastructure

Social: segregation
o Rich-poor and racial segregation, e.g. Watts (inner-city) vs. Beverly Hills (suburb)
in L.A.: Beverly Hills: 90% white, 70% earn over $35k annually compared to
Watts: 70% Hispanic & 25% black, 60% earn below $35k

Economic: hollowing out of city centre
o As middle-class taxpayers move out of inner city areas, the financial viability of
the city is affected. E.g. federal govt rescued NYC in 1975

Environmental: urban sprawl
o Intrusion into green belts and farmland. E.g. much of London is built on formerlyproductive farmland.
o Cities joining into each other e.g. Bos-Wash megalopolis in NE US
o Loss of sense of place, termed “geography of nowhere” (Kunstler, 1993)
Moderate vs. extreme
Partial break
Urban enclaves within rural setting
Can lead to suburbanisation
Complete break
Rural immersion, in rural enclaves
Stays at village, hamlet level
Consequences

Services grow in rural areas. E.g. transport, out-of-town shopping centres

Rural enclaves grow into suburbs, esp. in US, complete with shopping malls

Society stratification
o Rural enclaves exclusive, intended to keep people out
o Racial segregation esp. US: those moving out of cities are mostly white
o Economic stratification: not many can afford this kind of lifestyle

Hollowing out of inner city (NYC) to communities in upstate New York

City govts lose money/taxpayers
o The rich move out, and city authorities can’t afford to support social services. E.g.
NYC had to be saved from bankruptcy in 1975

Communities grow apart
o Rural communities become insular, esp. walled neighbourhoods in US
o “Escape” from concerns of wider community

Environmental damage to rural areas: encroachment on farmland

Reliance on transport: bullet train in Japan, highways and car in US
Rates and Levels of Urbanisation – DCs
Level of urbanisation high in DCs:

Long history of urbanisation
o Industrial Revolution in 1800s led to economic opportunities being concentrated
in cities

Urban-rural migration for economic opportunities. Also, international migration esp. to
cities in the US

BR high throughout, but in cities the population growth rate translated into high rates
of urban growth
Rates of urbanisation low in DCs:

DCs already highly urbanised: about 80% of the UK’s population lives in cities. Figure
for most DCs around 70-80% – most people already live in urban areas, so ruralurban migration likely to be much less significant

Pop growth rate slowed down in general

Suburbanisation and counter-urbanisation occurring because of congestion, high
rents, cost of living, quality-of-life issues: people are moving out of recognised urban
areas, slowing urban growth
Rates and Levels of Urbanisation – LDCs
Level of urbanisation low in LDCs:

Shorter history of urbanisation

Cities in former colonies served mainly as trading ports, rest of country largely
unaffected by urbanisation

Restrictions on who could live in the city areas in many former colonies, inhibited
growth

Growth only took off post-independence
Rates of urbanisation high in LDCs:

Pop growth rate high, LDCs generally less urbanised: more scope to grow

Industrialisation leads to rural-urban migration as urban areas naturally become
growth poles, creating economic opportunities and attracting migrants. E.g. Mexico
City in 70s: as many as 1000 migrants every day
Urban Sprawl



Horizontal expansion of the city towards outskirts, engulfing rural areas
Result of uncontrolled, poorly-planned growth
Uncontrolled suburbanisation
Causes

White flight: middle classes escaping from inner city (perceptions of crime etc.),
new neighbourhoods developed

Use of the automobile and building of highways that radiate out from city centre,
as well as improvements in transport network e.g. the London commuter belt
covering an area of several thousand km2

Some argue that green belts have paradoxically encouraged urban sprawl by
limiting the area available for urban expansion, forcing people to live outside of
the green belt
Consequences

Lower house prices in suburbs, more can afford their own home

Relieving pop pressure in city centre

Engulfing farmland, loss of rural heritage

Heavy reliance on cars = carbon emissions. Also traffic congestion because of
long commute

Loss of sense of place – suburbs all tend to look the same, Kunstler’s geography
of nowhere. Increasing homogenisation of culture and society.

Social phenomena e.g. (!) obesity blamed on urban sprawl because of
dependence on car, rather than walking to buy groceries and stuff

Stratification – only middle class and above can afford the commute
Myrdal’s Brilliant 3-in-1* Cumulative Causation Model
Primate Cities good or bad?
*Primate cities, world cities and global cities – adapt as desired
Case studies: (LDCs) Bangkok, Manila & (DCs) Tokyo, London
Describe the development of primate cities.




Some cities enjoy concentrated growth in trade or commerce early in a country’s
development e.g. ports.
Built-in momentum to grow even more
o Concentration of workers, jobs, investment
o Rural-urban migration – push-pull factors
Over-concentration of activities leading to backwash effect as one city draws in
economic (retail, commercial, industrial) and social (cultural, political, educational,
administrative) activities at the expense of other cities. Other cities become
dependent on it for services. – stage where primate cities establish primacy
o E.g. Bangkok dwarfs all other cities in Thailand; few rural Thais would consider
moving to anywhere but Bangkok
Decentralisation (spread effects) – the extent to which this happens/has happened
to primate cities is questionable –
o Diseconomies of scale (problems of overpopulation) and trickle-down effect leads
to other cities eventually developing into growth poles in their own right
o Spread effect expressed in the spatial outflow of people in
suburbanisation/counter-urbanisation that eventually reduces primacy of
primate cities
o E.g. London: spread effects so great that overspill towns were created (Milton
Keynes), London Metropolitan Green Belt created to limit urban sprawl (over
5000 km2 O.o)
o OTOH Bangkok: 60 times larger than Chiang Mai, centre of Thai culture,
economy (produces 40+% of the GDP), administration, political power, little
evidence of decentralisation to other regions except tourism.
Special characteristics of global cities

First-name familiarity (e.g. Paris, London. OTOH where on earth is Abidjan?)

Concentration of economic activity (e.g. headquarters of MNCs, law firms, stock
exchanges that have considerable influence over world economy)

Advanced communications network

Large population

Cultural institutions (museums, universities)

Lively cultural scene (film festivals, music, theatre, art galleries, buskers)

Influential media (e.g. BBC, New York Times)

Sports (e.g. events like Wimbledon, ability to host Olympics, World Cup etc.)
The big 4: London, Paris, New York, Tokyo
Good

Focus growth: govt resources more effectively used. Easier to provide infrastructure

Multiplier effects create wealth/jobs e.g. tourism: hotels cater to tourists, who also
support services e.g. food, tour guides, shopping

(In LDCs) important channel for modernisation. Primate cities serve as a conduit for
socio-economic opportunities e.g. squatter settlements in Cairo which have become
so permanent that satellite dishes are a common sight
Bad

Slums – uncontrolled development in Bangkok in 70s, 80s and urban sprawl
o Massive buildings that don’t blend well with Bangkok’s older architecture e.g.
office blocks downstream from the royal palace complex

Pollution and health problems – many primate cities are health hazards e.g.
Manila: people living on Smoky Mountain and other landfills, Jakarta cited as bird flu
hazard because of people living with poultry (which has been banned but
enforcement is dubious), Bangkok’s legendary congestion

Inequality, disconnect e.g. in Thailand, provinces feeling neglected. In the last GE,
voters in Bangkok largely supported the Democratic Party while voters in the
provinces voted for the Thai Rak Thai party

Lack of spread effect to other cities (link to Cumulative Causation Model).
Centrifugal pattern of growth so pronounced that MNCs only cite their
offices/investments in prominent primate cities

Parasitic effect – smaller towns and cities drained of capital, talent as people and
money move out into the primate city

Unemployment – Jakarta’s jobless rate is around 17% even as the economy grew by
6% because of the influx of rural-urban migrants. Cities cannot create jobs fast
enough for them
CBD
CBD Re-imaging
CBD: area in the city which provides the highest concentration of administrative, financial,
commercial and possibly retail functions.
Re-imaging: constant readjustment in response to changes in social and economic trends.
E.g. in Singapore, industrial and residential growth relevant in 70s now complemented
with commercial, leisure and recreation.
Structure of the CBD includes the inner core (highest concentration of financial &
commercial activities), outer core (lower concentration, wider range of activities) and
zone of transition (mixed zone of old and new land use, including areas of discard,
characterised by constant redevelopment).
Past questions:
N2004
a) Describe the changing nature of the CBD in urban areas you have studied. [9]
b) TWE are the changes in the CBD the consequences of increasing difficulties (O.o?)
experienced within the CBD. [16]
Question b)
Consequences of difficulties within CBD

Spatial limitations affect traffic – leads to changes in road upgrading, traffic
congestion, need for more public transport

Outdated buildings need to be demolished – gentrification of Chinatown, old
National Library making way for some road tunnel
Not consequences of difficulties within CBD

Maintain competitiveness and relevance, both within the city and against other
cities. E.g. the integrated resorts

Creating urban economies of scale: larger critical mass attracts economic activity

Urban growth = CBD inadequate to meet the needs of the city. Need for
secondary CBDs to spread growth, create secondary growth poles

Tourist activities incorporated into CBD and 24-hour CBD: drawing on spatial
strengths of CBD (accessibility, prime land, lots of people)
Need for re-imaging
1. CBD’s relevance to the rest of the city changes over time. Re-imaging helps
keeps the CBD relevant e.g. providing leisure activities (Clarke/Boat/Robertson
Quay)
2. Old landscape needs to be updated to keep up with the times, e.g. Gentrification
in Chinatown, Bugis area
3. Building functions, architecture, planning principles change.
4. Keep up with competitors: other upcoming world cities like Shanghai, Hong Kong.
Attracting economic activity and people
Re-imaging strategies to vomit on the paper
1. Secondary CBDs

In Singapore, Tampines, Woodlands and Jurong East are examples

Provide secondary retail and commercial functions to spread growth,
reduce overconcentration of activity in CBD
2. Continuous redevelopment

Takes place in outer core and zone of transition

Old buildings torn down to make way for new ones – accounts for the
changing face of CBD

E.g. Old National Library, parts of Chinatown (later rebuilt at the
expense of cultural heritage, turned into tourist trap)

Problem: loss of character (Lonely Planet describes Singapore as
“shockingly modern and anonymous” O.o)
3. Gentrification

Places like Chinatown, Boat Quay. Changed the character of these
areas (formerly warehouses, shophouses) to upmarket pubs,
restaurants serving office workers after work.
4. 12-hour to 24-hour city

Attract people by turning CBD into a vibrant area at night

Draw on CBD’s strengths of central location, large pool of bored office
workers and high rents to support pubs, restaurants, nightlife, bazaars.

Creation of integrated hubs of activity e.g. integrated resorts combining
retail, commercial and leisure functions.

These activities are supported by 3 main groups of people: locals,
people working in the vicinity, and tourists
Alonso’s Bid-Rent Theory
Influences on City Structure
From the Urban Geog tips: Bid-rent can be useful in answering other questions
Social forces

Burgess (1925): concept of a city based on a single centre that spreads itself
concentrically outwards by the process of invasion and succession

Poor rural-urban migrants settle nearest city centre, for accessibility to jobs. This
pushes out the richer inhabitants, who move further out from the city centre. The
process is repeated, and eventually a rich-poor divide is created

Invasion and succession creates a rich-poor divide. E.g. LA – Watts vs. Bel Air
The bid-rent theory postulates that price & demand for land changes in relation to
proximity to the CBD. The ability to bid for land results in patterns of differentiated land
use.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Offices e.g. Shenton Way
Retail e.g. Orchard
Light industry (older parts of the central area) e.g. North Bridge Road
Low income residential e.g. Redhill, Bukit Merah
High income residential e.g. Bukit Timah
Heavy manufacturing e.g. Jurong
This theory is based upon the reasoning that the more accessible an area, the more
profitable it is going to be. Retailers and offices wish to maximise their profitability, so they
are much more willing to pay more for land close to the CBD and less for land further
away from this area.
Bid-rent theory explains why financial & commercial activities are almost always found in
the most accessible parts of the city, while industrial and residential land uses are further
away. In reality, multiple peak land value intersections (PLVIs) create their own growth
poles, resulting in multiple nuclei in a city.
Poorer people (in low income residential areas) live near the city because of urban history
– the houses closest to the CBD are likely to be older, built before modern land planning
and growth of cities, and the run-down appearance and lack of amenities (reflecting older,
more functional urban planning – or even no planning at all) produces lower rents. Subletting (dividing the unit up for multiple tenants so they all share the cost of the full rent)
also reduces rents.
Influence of transport

Transport is an important influence on land use

It connects different nodes of growth together

Higher accessibility along highways and expressways means that rents/prices
are higher along them.

Cities start growing horizontally, in wedge or ribbon-like patterns. These sectors
are areas of growth for middle-class housing, suburban shopping malls, even
light industry. E.g. Ventura and Pacific Highways along the coast of LA
Influence of growth poles

Growth poles are hubs or clusters of activity, can be financial, commercial,
industrial, residential in nature

Growth pole theory is based on the observation that growth happens at different
points with different degrees of intensity

Growth poles spread out growth in the city. They also attract similar activities in a
cluster, become obvious after some time.
Government

Development of new towns

Urban redevelopment
o Re-imaging
o Destruction and construction
o Creation of green belts
o Conservation of old buildings/monuments
Others

Cultural and ethnic groupings e.g. Chinatown, Little India

Topophilia: aesthetic, emotional or nostalgic attachment to a place

Gentrification: creative class want to stay in the inner-city because of nightlife
and close proximity to work and leisure
Influences on City Structure: Influence of History
Influences on City Structure: Role of State
Cities in the developing world often developed from ports e.g. Singapore, Georgetown
(Penang), Yangoon (Myanmar), Manila (Philippines), Hong Kong. These were gateways
for trading with the hinterland in spices and other goods, nodal points of entry and exit for
goods and services.
Some cities are meticulously planned by govt for specific objectives (Singapore). In other
cities planners do not have the power to influence land use on the level of individual plots,
but only plan on a broad level, leaving more to market forces (more laissez-faire e.g. US)
Asia: Characteristics

Mixed, haphazard land use
o Still applicable today e.g. Manila, Jakarta, characterised by godowns,
administrative blocks, commercial trading companies and old pre-war
houses dot the urban landscape

Spontaneous growth
o Squatter settlements and proliferation of slums

Racial segregation resulting from strong govt planning
Latin America: Characteristics

CBD: central plaza or square, flanked by govt buildings and church

Commercial spine along major transport route with surrounding high class
residential areas. Contains some light industries as well. The spine is thin
because the society isn’t developed yet, few wealthy people

Disamenity sectors in outskirts (areas lacking amenities)

Spontaneous growth
o Still occurring e.g. Rio de Janeiro: population growth leading to
unplanned settlements, slums, favelas
Possible questions for influences on city structure: DRQ on model of city
Look out for

Mixed land use

Rich/poor divide

Others – racial segregation, Latin American commercial spine
Role of govt

Singapore – concept plans, re-imaging

Manila – Tondo: new housing but at the cost of squatters losing homes

Brazil – favelas, self-help schemes, Cingapura project
Planning principles include

Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City concept incorporating parks, green belts

Land use zoning: activities located near each other for synergy, industry and
residential land use spatially separated

Issues of balance and equity: aiming for a balance of activities meeting different
needs of the population – social, economic, residential, religious etc.

Market forces e.g. URA’s White Sites that let developers decide what to build

Master plans and concept plans: align strategic goals at different levels
o Raffles Master Plan 1822 – allocated separate areas for different races
o Ring Concept Plan 1972 – based on the concept of a Ring City,
transportation a key feature of the plan. MRT and expressways planned
o Revised Concept Plan 1991

Decentralisation with the 4 regional centres

Secondary CBDs: Marina Bay area

Gentrification and conservation

More reclamation, increased housing density
o Revised Concept Plan 2001: planning for 5.5 million

Focus on identity

More recreation

Flexibility for business
Manila case study: Lack of planning
Started off as a port in the 16th century, growth in 20th century fuelled by rural-migration

Rich-poor divide: ½ live below poverty line, the rich live in the Makati district
south of the city centre, while poor are spread across the city in large slums

Environmental problems
o Land pollution from govt inability to deal with the 4000 tonnes of waste
generated daily
o Water pollution because only 15% of population has proper sewage
system, the other 85% goes into canals and rivers, which are used by
squatters as a source of water
o Flooding caused by clogged drains

Social issues
o Tondo: inner city area, site of Smokey Mountain which used to be home
to around 20,000 people, but now cleaned up. Fenced apartments built
in the area but not affordable to the poor, so the squatters have settled
outside the fences.
a) Describe possible strategies to deal with rapidly growing residential areas in
cities in LDCs. [9]
b) Evaluate the benefits and limitations of any 2 strategies. [16]
a) Possible Strategies

Ease concentration of population in residential areas

Improve living conditions of those most affected by overcrowding in these areas
i.e. slum dwellers
Decentralisation

Setting up of new towns/satellite towns

Planned development built some distance away from congested city centres

Self-sufficient

E.g: New Towns in Singapore; “Satellite cities” around Cairo: Fifteenth of May,
Sadat City, Tenth of Ramadan, New Ameriya
Encouraged migration

People are provided with incentives to encourage them to migrate away from city
centres e.g. Indonesian Transmigration Programme
Upgrading existing squatter settlements

Providing basic services such as water supply, electricity etc.

Improving the physical layout of the area

Establishing security of tenure (property rights) for the residents

E.g. Tondo Foreshore Development project in Manila, the Baan Mankong
Program launched by the Thai government in 2003
b) Benefits and Limitations
Encouraged migration benefits

Helps to relieve pressure on urban areas

Reduces the ‘primacy’ and ‘backwash effect’ of the primate city

Economic growth not confined to Jakarta – many major cities eg. Medan (pop. 2
mil), Pekanbaru, Makassar etc.

Allows farmers to own and cultivate relatively large plots of land – impossible in
cities – more equitable distribution of wealth?
Encouraged migration limitations

New land may not provide for people as much as it would in cities e.g. Indonesia

Invasion into indigenous lands

disparity in welfare between the migrants and locals leads to inter-communal
resentment and conflict

Transmigration something like counter-urbanization – environmental problems as
forests have to be cleared for settlement
Site-service schemes benefits

More practical for poorer countries e.g. Kenya

Improved living standards (ST and LT) e.g. Rocinha, Brazil

Improves community sprit and sense of ownership

More protection against natural disasters
Site-service schemes limitations

Limited quality of housing

Cannot cope with rapid rate of migration e.g. Sao Paulo

In some cases, relocation is required

Little effect on urban sprawl, even encourages

Still myriad of social problems e.g. corruption in Manila

Governments do not treat it as top priority e.g. Rio de Janeiro Mayor

Dwellers unwilling to cooperate e.g. Brazil

Increase in population density, e.g. Mexico City
Cingapura Project in Sao Paolo
Project aims to help Brazil's shantytowns
The Washington Times / June 25, 1996
By Larry Luxner
SÃO PAULO, Brazil -- A slum reconstruction and improvement project executed by the
mayor of South America's most populous city is getting warm words of praise -- even from
his political opponents.
Paulo Maluf, mayor of São Paulo, says his pet project – dubbed "Projeto Cingapura" –
was inspired by a recent trip to Singapore, a city-state dominated by high-rise apartment
buildings and known for its cleanliness and efficiency.
"The project takes its inspiration from Singapore's success in keeping communities
together while upgrading buildings and providing city services," according to the U.S.
Consulate in São Paulo. "A principal aim of the project is to keep families in place and turn
them into homeowners at relatively low cost."
São Paulo, with 16.4 million inhabitants, now ranks as the world's second-largest
metropolitan area, according to "An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human
Settlements 1996." The report, presented earlier this month during the Habitat II
conference in Istanbul, says São Paulo is smaller than Tokyo (with 26.8 million people)
but surprisingly larger than both New York (16.3 million) and Mexico City (15.6 million).
Nevertheless, at least two million paulistas, as residents of São Paulo are known,
live in unhealthy slum conditions – a 19.4% increase since 1987. These slumdwellers are clustered in 243 favela nuclei containing at least 200 huts each. Projeto
Cingapura aims to urbanize and upgrade favelas and corticos (partition-houses) for
some 92,000 families containing 500,000 individuals. The three-phase project, begun
in June 1994, costs around $250 million. Of that, $160 million is being funded through a
loan from the Inter-American Development Bank, with the remaining $90 million coming
from the São Paulo Municipal Housing Fund.
Yet the work, supposed to be finished in March, is lagging far behind schedule. Less than
a fourth of the 28,136 apartment units have actually been completed.
In a recent briefing for U.S. officials, Atilio Piraino Filho – an advisor to the São Paulo
municipal government's housing and urban development office – said that the city's large
poverty belt "is a result of immigration to São Paulo from other parts of Brazil, as
well as formerly middle-class paulistas moving to slums as a last resort for
housing." He said that nearly half of all slum dwellers earn more than four times the
minimum salary of $400 a month. "Far from demonstrating economic well-being, however,
this figure discloses that many people formerly described as lower middle-class have
experienced a decline in their living standards and can no longer afford middle-class
housing."
In a nutshell, Maluf's program for verticalization and urbanization of slums involves the
regularization and "gentrification" of slum areas by keeping families in their present
neighbourhoods. The project will provide basic sanitation systems, sewage,
electricity, garbage collection and paved roads, and is divided into three phases.
According to Piraino Filho, 40% of favela huts will be urbanized; the remaining 60%
will be given access to low-interest loans for transforming their huts into brick
houses. He says the project will be financially self-sustainable "because families entering
the newly constructed units will have to pay a monthly mortgage fee – approximately $60
– until the $13,000 cost of each unit is fully amortized over 25 years.
In addition, the rebuilding process is being performed according to population density,
type of soil, elimination of dangerous spots, and the establishment of schools, medical
facilities and sports centres.
Comments the U.S. Consulate: "The favelas being upgraded under Projeto Cingapura are
among the worst in São Paulo. Residents' primary source of drinking water is polluted,
there are no sewage systems, and most of the areas are subject to flooding. The favela
population strongly supports Projeto Cingapura because it provides improved
living conditions, access to sanitation, health care and schools, and will
significantly improve the living conditions of thousands of São Paulo residents. In
addition, Mayor Maluf can be expected to take credit for the project's eventual success,
with an eye to the October 1996 mayoral elections."
OTOH
A follow-up study done on the Cingapura project revealed some similar problems (Hewitt,
2002). Moving to a regulated apartment from a regulation free favela required quite a
change in habits for some residents. The small size of the apartments could not be built
upon or enlarged as is commonly done in squatter settlements. Similarly, some individuals
who were dependent on raising livestock in the favela brought their animals, such as a
family goat, to live with them in their small apartment. Financial problems were also
encountered from residents who could not afford to pay the rent, maintenance fee
and other bills that they did not have before. It may be fortunate that less than 14,000
of the projected 140,000 units were built in the end.
– www.geog.uvic.ca/dept2/undergrad/honours/hunter.pdf