economic framework for verticalization with an emphasis on land prices and costs of construction will likely generate interesting and useful results in guiding compact city policy in sub-Saharan Africa.
PITFALLS AND POTENTIALS
During my doctoral studies, I encountered three counterproductive positions that I have participated in to some extent. More specifically, these include an excessive focus on semantics rather than material conditions, excessive focus on sophisticated algorithms for computation of urban form metrics, and exaggeration of the potential design application of urban morphology methods. Although I am critical of all three positions it is important to note that I admit to having adopted aspects of these in the papers presented in Part II. More specifically, the paper Understanding Density in Unplanned and Unregulated Settlements of Peri-urban Africa: A Case Study of Maputo, Mozambique (Jenkins & Mottelson, 2020) engages in a lengthy discussion on the appropriate use of terminology. The paper Urban Form of Informal Settlements in East Africa: A Taxonomy of Block Types (Venerandi & Mottelson, 2021) adopts advanced methods to measure and compare urban form while neglecting the fundamental questions such methods should be used to address. However, these experiences have strengthened my views on architecture, spatial planning, and research on cities which are discussed by the end of this final section of the thesis. The first issue raised, namely the excessive focus on semantics, is linked to the emphasis some scholars place on the significance of language in constructing our reality. Such views were notably developed by French post-modernist intellectuals such as Derrida and Foucault and have gained popularity particularly in certain academic and activist milieus since then (Young & Collin, 2004). In the context of this research, the use of the term ‘slum’ has spawned endless discussions on terminology. Some view the term as derogatory to the residents of such areas. Some argue it legitimizes evictions of the residents of such areas (Jenkins, 2013). More recently, the same critique was adopted concerning the term ‘informal settlements’. Perhaps most embarrassingly, an op-ed in the Architectural Review claimed that ‘informality is a fallacy’ without considering the meaning of the term while attributing quasi-racist motives to seminal scholars of informal architecture such as Rodufsky (Agha & Lampert, 2020; Rudofsky, 1987). During the past ten years, I have spent a considerable amount of time in some of the most deficient urban areas in the world and I have never encountered a resident of these areas who was concerned about the derogative connotations of terminology used in academia to describe the obvious problems in their neighborhood. If terminology is used to justify evictions of residents, it is obviously worth discussing. However, it seems that the people in power who authorize evictions find ways of justifying such actions regardless of terminology. This is exemplified by the emerging critique of the use of the term ‘informal’. The term ‘informal settlements’ has a meaning. It refers to the extra-legal conditions relating to the construction and occupancy of the land. Unless you are in
favor of complete deregulation of land acquisition and construction, so anyone can claim land and build on it without regard to regulation, terminology for describing such extra-legal conditions is necessary in order to confront the issues associated with it. It seems that amending the regulation as well as instituting more democratic control and stronger accountability measures of the powerful institutions (public and private) are more important in addressing forced evictions, social exclusion, and inequality than semantics in academia. The continued shifting critique of language may continue indefinitely, first from slums to informal settlements, then from informal settlements to non-formal settlements, and so on. However, any documentation of the effects of such critiques of language remains to be published. Accordingly, I would argue that such efforts should be curbed in favor of application of strategies with a more substantially documented impact. The excessive focus on semantics rather than emphasis on material conditions may be rooted in the neo-liberal global hegemony, whereby the frameworks for ideological discussions exclude viewpoints challenging the economic order of society. Fukuyama (1989) famously claimed ‘the end of history’, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war, and the consequent global hegemony of free-market liberal democracy. Piketty (2020) argues that the neoliberal hegemony has caused a shift in the critique of ideology. Namely, that capitalism and liberal democracy are so widely accepted as the mode of governance of the social order and as a consequence, postmodernist critique of power structures neglects the fundamental material conditions. Rather than addressing issues of growing inequality through economic measures, opposition to globalization along with the consequent concentration of wealth and consolidation of elite economic power is manifested in an array of movements based on identity politics. On the right, such movements include so-called ‘ethnonationalists’ which are essentially white supremacists who seek privileges based on ethnic or national identity. On the left, single-issue minority rights movements such as LGBTQ support groups and Black lives matter have emerged in order to address structural injustices and in some cases advocate for privileges for these groups. Although policy prescriptions such as affirmative action may be justified given the nature of inequalities based on ethnicity, it is notable that large segments of both the left and right-wing contemporary political movements advocate for privileges based on minority identity rather than universal measures to address inequality. Similarly, although in a different setting, the political spectrum in many African countries transgresses the traditional right-left framework as political parties to some extent are based on ethnic identity rather than social class, as is seen in Kenya (Shilaho, 2018). Varoufakis (2016) suggests that independent nation-states no longer control the fiscal policies in Europe due to the centralization of policy in the European Union and globalization with consequent free flow of capital across borders. Žižek (2011) argues that the hegemony of capitalism is so consolidated that we cannot imagine alternatives to contemporary social order. Chomsky (2016) suggests that international corporations
271
