In this text we opt for the terminology of self-production, rooted in the lefebrvian concept of the production of space, instead of the vague informal, too imprecise to became operational. We’ll focus on the miraculous procedure of transforming informal into formal; the holy grail of participation. Arriving as a counter-hegemonic position against rationalist forms of modern urban planning, its aim was that all citizens, especially those representing a minority, could have a voice in shaping territories. Participation is almost like “informality”. The term has been so broadly used that we need to fill these buzzwords with content, since both terms are unsatisfying. This isn’t being picky about words; making a statement on what you call a thing reveals a great deal on how you relate to it. As in other recent urban transformations, in self-produced territories participation is the new black. From the favelas of Rio to the slums in Mumbai, passing through the turkish gecekondular or the argentine villas, all upgrading programs include a certain degree of dwellers entanglement. But are they emancipatory? Can people change (themselves, their space, their life) trough their own praxis? I have my doubts, based on the definition of what being emancipated means by Rancière, “One need only learn how to be equal men in an unequal society”.
Neoliberal forces have largely adulterated participation, cannibalizing the radical content of its initial struggles. Now what we have is a soft, blended, apolitical set of techniques where architects and technicians make people draw (or doodle?), most of the time after a political decision about that place had already been taken. At least in Portugal, we often see it used as a political legitimisation tool.
Another danger of this contaminated participation is the effort placed on the construction of consensus, the romantic idea that (all) stakeholders bring (all) their interests on board and that power relations are balanced by sticking notes on top of a drawing plan, having an architect as a mediator. I prefer Markus Miessen’s vision on the “nightmare of participation”, seeing the creative potential of architects to cause tension, enabling “political politics”. In order to reinforce people’s right to place(making), participation needs urgently to redefine its significance, to become less trendy and more insurgent. Not so sexy and be more conflictual.
By choosing conflict, instead of consensus, doesn’t imply to forget context, but instead to build based on knowledge, having context as a starting point. Sofia Borges, a Portuguese artist explored the creation of local knowledge in a project that took place for 6 years in a deprived neighbourhood in the outskirts of Lisbon. She titled her project with a quote made by a local resident: “Everything we don’t know about other places, we know about this one”, announcing that we need to see dwellers as experts. They are not experts on architecture, so it’s redundant to let them do the design, but they are for sure experts on living there.
We need to stop orbiting around the idea that people are incapable of adding any value to planning processes (no participation), or in opposition, that people are fully capable of designing the changes that they want to see implemented reducing the presence of the architect to a mere translator (soft participation). There is still room for an insurgent architect.
Final Note As I write this, the inhabitants of Torre de David in Caracas, Venezuela, are being sent off to government-built housing that lies more than 50 km away from the city. It started with 100, but now a total of 1,200 families are going to be evicted, allowing Chinese investors to follow up the original plan, for a commercial and office centre. Was it helpful, or indeed enough, to become a symbol of resistance at Venice Biennale 2012, only 2 years ago? Apparently not. Being myself an urban research, I was thrilled to see the Golden Lion-winning Pavilion being awarded to Urban- Think Tank for a research project on Torre de David. But today, once again the strength of capital, transformed a space of place into a space of flows. How can we participate in this?
Photo: Quotes by children about demolished places at Quinta da Vitória. This one talks about shared water supply, © Sofia Borges (Project and photos)
Photo: Map of Quinta da Vitória built collectively by its inhabitants, central piece of the exhibition that took place in the neighborhood. Darker areas represent evictions, © Sofia Borges (Project and photos)
