The Social Role of Design by Larissa Heinisch

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN AN INVESTIGATION OF PRACTICES CHALLENGING URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY ACROSS GLOBAL, URBAN AND PERIPHERAL SCALES London School of Economics and Political Science | MSc City Design and Social Science SO449 Independent Project 2017 | Candidate Number: 60780

London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Department of Sociology LSE Cities Programme MSc City Design and Social Science SO449 Independent Project 2017 Candidate Number: 60780 Word Count: 9938

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN AN INVESTIGATION OF PRACTICES CHALLENGING URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY ACROSS GLOBAL, URBAN AND PERIPHERAL SCALES

London, 22th August 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... 9 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 11 1.1. KEY CONCERNS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 13 1.2. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 14 1.3. METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 14

2. CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY .................................. 17 2.1. AN OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY ......................... 19 2.2. HOW INEQUALITY AFFECTS OPPORTUNITIES IN AN URBAN SCALE ................................... 22

3. INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN .............................................................. 27 3.1. SOCIALLY ENGAGED ACTIONS IN AN UNEQUAL WORLD .................................................... 29 3.2. DEALING WITH SOCIAL-SPATIAL ISSUES ON AN EVERYDAY PRACTICE ............................... 31 3.3. NEW PERSPECTIVES FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN DISCIPLINE ......................... 38

4. THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM ÂNGELA ........................................................ 41 4.1. JARDIM ÂNGELA IN CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 43 4.2. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF DESIGN IN JARDIM ÂNGELA ................................................... 45

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................................... 51 6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIXES ...................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................... 66

ABSTRACT The scale and speed of urbanisation around the globe is occurring on a large extent which imposes significant issues and new challenges since these rapidly changing urban environments emerge coupled with inequalities which affect opportunities to participate and access. This reality calls for the realignment of the architectural and urban discipline and new roles for built environment professionals. Therefore, this study investigates, critically discusses and proposes what can the emerging roles be for practitioners while challenging this unequal reality and how they can or cannot promote positive social impacts. In order to address these concerns and questions, this study consists of qualitative research which is based on a multi-method approach, with an ethnographic and secondary data analysis methodology. Methods used include interviews, questionnaires, exploratory visits, literature review and analysis of projects. This study in a first instance analyses distinct types of socially engaged practices while also assessing the social-spatial relationships that are engendered by these approaches. In order to ground this broader discussion, this research also focuses on a case study which concerns Jardim Ângela neighbourhood: a peripheral low-income and predominantly informal settlement in the megacity of São Paulo (Brazil). Therefore, this investigation is based on three dimensions that provide distinctive views of urbanisation and increased inequality: global (world dynamics), urban (São Paulo within the Brazilian and Latin American contexts) and peripheral (Jardim Ângela area). Based on this investigation, this paper argues that although built environment professionals cannot entirely realign socioeconomic structures of inequality, they can promote positive socialspatial impacts and challenge this reality through design by assisting in the provision of infrastructure, enabling processes or advocating for structural changes. This paper concludes and suggests that the architectural and urban discipline should be realigned towards a systematic, humane and multidimensional approach. It is expected that this study can bring new perspectives and hope for socially engaged professionals, while also qualifying everyday life of individuals impacted by these practices. Key words: urbanisation coupled with inequality; global, urban and peripheral; architectural and urban practices; socially engaged professionals

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to first thank my family since without their support I would never have been able to have this great opportunity of taking a master’s degree. Thank you for all your love, help, and trust. I want to thank my advisor Suzanne Hall for all her wisdom and confidence in this work through all its phases. Also a special thank to all the lectures from the MSc City Design and Social Science programme which in different ways inspired me and have shown me that good design is social. To the Royal Geographical Society, LSE Cities and LSE Sociology for the support that allowed the fieldwork part of this project to happen. My deepest thanks to Dave for his support and for being my companion along all this process and in life. Also a special thank you to the May family for all their help along this year. I want to thank all my friends around the world that even though distant were always present and to my fellow master’s colleagues which not only inspired me but provided support accompanied by endless coffees, meals, and pints. My profound gratitude to the residents of Jardim Ângela for sharing their time and knowledge, and also for teaching me important lessons, especially to Cláudio, Vivi, Dada, Paulinho, Fábio, Dona Rita (in memoriam) and the Instituto Favela da Paz (Peace Slum Institute). I want to particularly show gratitude to all the practitioners that inspired this work, for sharing their experience and making time to allow this study to happen: Tiago Brito, Luis Milan, Marcos Boldarini, Mariana Morais, Darren Gill and Sophie Morley. A special thank to Julia King for her insights on this work since its early stages. This paper is dedicated to all professionals that challenge social-spatial issues in their everyday practice. I hope this study can bring new perspectives, hope, and trigger further discussions towards qualifying people’s lives and realities through design.

1. INTRODUCTION

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Practice disturbs. It can and does promote one set of truths, belief systems, values, norms, rituals, powers and gender relations in place of others. It can impose habits, routines and technologies that may lead to new and unfamiliar ways of thinking, doing and organizing, locally, nationally and even globally.â&#x20AC;? (Hamdi, 2004: xix)

12 12

CHAPTER 1

1.1.

Key concerns and research questions

Urbanisation is occurring on such a significant scale and speed globally that imposes significant issues and new challenges, calling for the realignment of the architectural and urban discipline across the world in different ways (Robinson and Roy, 2016; Watson, 2009). Rapidly changing urban environments emerge coupled with unequal distribution of resources and their consequential opportunities in cities, implying on worrying outcomes such as the fact that even in the twenty-first century still ninety percent of the planet’s population has little or no access to basic infrastructure and services such clean water and shelter (Smith et al, 2007). Parallel to this scenario, conventional practice and education regarding the built environment profession (including works of architects, urban designers, planners) have for long been limited to serving a minority of the world’s population and it is still considered an elitist career (Tovivich, 2011), as this service remains frequently seen as a luxury people can do without especially when faced with economic constraints (Cesal, 2010). As a result of this disparity, there is the urgent need to debate the professional responsibility and value of practitioners engaged with city-making concerning the promotion of positive social impacts within the context of inherited economy and inequality. Regarding this debate of social responsibility and professional value, Crawford (1991) calls for the critical approach to both practices and their representation, arguing that as the profession is structured these professionals cannot be socially responsible. However, differing at a certain extent from Crawford’s point, this paper argues that the key structural issue is not necessarily the constitution of the profession but actually the present structure of the economy. Therefore, given that this global economic panorama does not indicate that substantial changes are likely to occur in the near future, the questions that are imposed are: How is it possible to work within contexts that are deeply polarised and contested? While structures of inequality are not realigned, how architectural and urban professionals do actually engage with realities as they are in place? What can and cannot be done within inequality? Therefore, this study investigates and critically discusses what can be emerging roles for architectural and urban practitioners while challenging this unequal reality and how they can or cannot promote positive social change. In the first instance, to simply understand these phenomena, this study engages with distinct types of socially engaged practitioners working in different spheres concerning the sector of action (such as public, private, non-governmental organisation, academia) and the size of the organisation (large, medium and small). Some lessons can be learnt by analysing this practical expertise in combination with theoretical knowledge acquired through literature review and while also critically assessing social-spatial implications that are engendered by these distinct approaches. Moreover, in order to ground this broader discussion, this research also focuses on a case study which concerns the Jardim Ângela neighbourhood: a peripheral low-income predominantly informal settlement in the megacity of São Paulo (Brazil). Based on this particular local scenario, this study questions what is the role of an architectural and urban practitioner and what it means to be socially engaged in contexts like this one, while also reflecting what processes can be used to achieve positive change and what are the social-spatial outcomes that can thus be engendered. It is also important to highlight that this discussion is based on three dimensions that provide distinctive views of urbanisation and increased inequality: global (world dynamics), urban (São Paulo within the Brazilian and Latin American contexts) and peripheral (Jardim Ângela area). These dimensions provide three distinct lenses that raise different types of questions and pose specific challenges for architectural and urban discipline, though some trends and threads permeate all these layers. While debates concerning socially engaged practices can be very localised or dominated by a western perspective, working across scales enables to reflect towards potential conflicts or contrasts and also to perceive contributions, allowing to distinguish from themes that go across and that do not go across these different scales.

INTRODUCTION

Therefore, the research questions that guide this study and conduct the critical analysis and discussion of the key concerns are: • How built environment professionals can or cannot promote positive social impacts within the present worldwide unequal reality across global, urban and peripheral scales? • What is the role of a built environment professional in marginalised contexts such as a peripheral low-income informal settlement in the megacity of São Paulo (Brazil)? • Can conclusions and recommendations for theory and practice be depicted from this particular case to other similar contexts? This paper argues that although built environment professionals cannot realign entirely socioeconomic structures of inequality, they can promote positive social-spatial impacts and challenge this reality through design, assisting in the provision of infrastructure and enabling processes while also advocating for structural changes to occur. It is also argued that since these practitioners are now dealing with a different scale of concern, which is not just about objects anymore but the relation of objects to systems, it is necessary to think and act systematically close to the reality on the ground, and in between and with distinct scales such as the global, urban and peripheral dimensions suggested in this work. Therefore, this study concludes and suggests that a systematic, humane and multidimensional approach should be incorporated to the architectural and urban discipline, with some key actions such as: to exercise how to be creative and innovative beyond the physical sphere but also regarding political, economic, social and legal constraints; the urgent approximation with other areas of expertise, such as sociology and anthropology, in order to better understand social complexities associated to city-making dynamics; and to expand the statement of issues and discussion of solutions beyond the built environment area, also allowing that a range of perspectives can have a voice and be incorporated into practice. 1.2.

Objectives

The key objective of this study is to critically discuss what positive social changes built environment professionals can or cannot promote in the face of urbanisation processes coupled with inequalities, and therefore propose what could the possible emerging roles for these practitioners be while acting within this context. In order to achieve this aim some specific objectives were outlined, as stated below: • Understand the rapid global urban growth process and how this implies on social-spatial issues and challenges for city-making; • Investigate how built environment practitioners act while challenging this context by studying distinct socially engaged approaches in terms of everyday practice concerns; • Analyse these broader themes based on the grounded study case of Jardim Ângela neighbourhood, a peripheral low-income settlement in the city of São Paulo (Brazil); • Distinguish between specific findings and broader issues in order to suggest recommendations for theory and practice. 1.3.

Methodology and structure

In order to address the concerns, questions and aims presented in the previous topics, this study consists of qualitative research which is based on a multi-method approach, with an ethnographic and secondary data analysis methodology. Methods used include interviews,

CHAPTER 1

questionnaires, exploratory visits, literature review and analysis of projects. These are further explained and presented in table 1. METHOD

HOW IT WAS APPLIED

In person, hour long semi-structured interviews, preceded by a brief questionnaire, Interviews and with socially engaged built environment questionnaires practitioners based in London, São Paulo and individuals involved with Jardim Ângela. Jardim Ângela area in São Exploratory visits to Jardim Paulo (Brazil), which included observations, Exploratory participatory observations, photographic visits survey, sketching, mapping and informal interviews with residents/users of the area. Critical analysis and engagement with key literature regarding global urbanisation coupled with inequality, socially engaged Literature review architectural and urban practices, and the case study’s contextualization across different scales. Analysis of projects’ processes and outcomes Analysis of for Passagens contest: a design competition projects looking for proposals of qualification for some specific alleys in Jardim Ângela.

AIM To understand how built environment professionals deal with the issues emerging from urbanisation coupled with inequalities on their practices and the social-spatial changes that can or cannot be promoted To analyse how the key concerns of this study translate socially and spatially to this grounded case and, by analysing this area dynamics, to outline findings that can address the rresear esearch esear ch questions. address research To comprehend and reflect about what theory exposes as the issues and challenges for built environment professionals, while also acquiring background information for the case study analysis. Understand the design approaches and the intended social-spatial outcomes to be engendered by the proposals.

Table 1: Methods adopted. Source: Author’s image

Regarding the structure of this text, the study is organized and will be presented in six chapters as shown below: Chapter 1: Provides an introduction to the study`s key concerns, research questions, objectives, methodology and structure. Chapter 2: This chapter provides an overview of the rapid global urbanisation dynamics coupled with inequality and its associated challenges and issues, while also exposing how these translate into the case of the Latin American city of São Paulo (Brazil). Chapter 3: Based on theoretical and practical expertise, this chapter critically investigates the role of built environment practitioners and analyses the social positive impacts that can or cannot be promoted by their action and what can be new perspectives for the profession. Chapter 4: Exhibits the contextual analysis of Jardim Ângela neighbourhood, a peripheral lowincome neighbourhood in the city of São Paulo (Brazil), grounding the previously exposed topics on this case study. Chapter 5: In this chapter it will be discussed the results originated from the analysis of Jardim Ângela neighbourhood case, making links with the broader investigation regarding the built environment practitioners` social impact and role. Proposals for the realignment of the architectural and urban discipline will be suggested, while also evaluating and identifying potential future studies regarding this topic. Chapter 6: At this final chapter, it will be synthesised the main points raised in the text, providing answers for the research questions, concluding thoughts and implications for theory and practice. It is expected that this research contributes to the debate of how can built environment practitioners significantly impact and promote social change, therefore generating more qualified, egalitarian and just realities. Moreover, it is desired that this study can bring new perspectives and hope for socially engaged professionals that contest unfair global forces in everyday practices, practitioners which believe in advocating for social change through their action and that do not lose confidence in the key role that the built environment can play in facilitating beneficial socialspatial relations to occur. INTRODUCTION

2. CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY

â&#x20AC;&#x153;[...] cities will increasingly become concentrations of poverty and inequality and hence important sites for intervention, but will at the same time present urban management and planning with issues which have not been faced before.â&#x20AC;? (Watson, 2009: 2263)

CHAPTER 2

This chapter exposes an overview of the rapid urbanisation that is occurring globally, coupled with rising inequalities, and how this generates certain social-spatial issues and implications for cities and consequently for built environment professionals involved with city-making such as architects, urban designers and planners. This section also exposes how these global dynamics translate socially and spatially into the Latin American urban reality and more specifically to Brazilian cities such as São Paulo, which is the context where the Jardim Ângela case study is situated. 2.1. An overview of global urbanisation coupled with inequality According to data from the ‘World Urbanization Prospects’ produced by the United Nations (2014), over half of the world’s population is now urban with 54% living in urban areas, although this number still substantially varies across each country’s level of urbanisation. In the case of Brazil, for example, the percentage of the overall country’s population living in urban areas corresponds to 86% with this number also based on the United Nations 2014 prospects. Moreover, the same report predicts a continuity of these trends of population growth and urbanisation, as can be seen in the figure 1 below, allied to data that show that 2,5 billion people are projected to add to the world’s urban population by 2050.

Figure 1: Urban and rural population of the world - between 1950 and 2050. Source: UN (2014: 7)

The ‘World Urbanization Prospects’ report also brings information regarding where this urban growth is going to occur with more intensity in terms of speed rate and scale. As can be seen in figure 2 on the next page, most of this increase is occurring and it is predicted to keep happening with more intensity within cities of developing countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the case of Latin America, it can be seen that most of the Latin countries are predicted to be between 80% and 100% urban by 2030 and in Brazil specifically the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are expected to host 10 million people or more by this same decade. This rapid urban growth combined with a mismatch between a high demand for resources and the lack of their adequate provision and distribution leads to increasing inequality as it is possible to visualise in the map of figure 3 which indicates income Gini coefficients across the world. This coefficient measures the difference of income distribution among individuals or households within a country from a perfectly equal distribution, ranging from a value of zero which represents absolute equality to a value of one hundred which is related to absolute inequality (UN, 2016). As can be seen on the map below, this indicator demonstrates that Brazil, the context where Jardim Ângela case study is situated, is one of the most unequal countries in the world.

CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY

Figure 2: Percentage urban and urban agglomerations by size class - 2030. Source: UN (2014)

Figure 3: This map, when overlapped to the one shown in figure 2 is a clear indication that areas of greatest urbanisation mostly coincide with areas of greatest inequality. Source: available on <http://static3.uk.businessinsider.com/ image/545e18d9dd0895d64e8b4673-960/world-inequality-gini-index-map.png> accessed on 05/06/2017

Therefore, the perversity lies on the fact that urbanisation processes, as illustrated in the previous maps, came coupled with increased inequalities. It was expected that cities were going to be one of the greatest human invention and actually spaces that were thought to help the poorest (Glaser, 2012), but realities across the globe show that they have not done that indeed. Instead, cities have increasingly become machines of inequality, leading to social and economic polarization between global elites and the global service class that serves this elite as works by Sassen (2009, 2015) expose. The same author raises attention to the fact that what is at stake is that conflicts and contradictions between the powerful and the disadvantaged are assuming concrete forms in our cities, with the materialization of this sharp divide leading to changes to the meanings of urbanity and civic life (Sassen, 2009).

CHAPTER 2

Evidence of this process is expressed through spatial segregation resulting from the social exclusion between distinct socioeconomic groups, with two coexisting disastrous realities as exposed in figure 4: the imposed exclusion and the self-segregation (Sugai, 2015). The first case affects disadvantaged individuals which are relegated to devaluated sites, environmentally fragile and risk areas or forced to reclaim a space in the city in the form of informal occupations. The second situation is an explicit choice to deny the contact with diversity and potential conflicts encountered in the urban sphere, resulting in the large number of walls present in cities worldwide and the emergence of fortified enclaves for home, leisure, and work (Caldeira, 2008) such as the typologies of private condominiums and closed neighbourhoods. According to Rolnik (2015), we are living in an increasingly walled world, what evidences the difficulty of the current society in dealing with complexity, freedom, and recognition or respect for heterogeneity and diversity. Instead, the configurations of our cities often demonstrate denial and alienation in relation to conflict resolution, preferring to isolate the problems, making difficult the possibility for socialspatial integration of distinct socioeconomic groups and leading to the fear of the public space.

Figure 4: This is an iconic representation of two sad realities that spatial segregation originated by social exclusion processes can have in the city of SĂŁo Paulo (Brazil). Source: available on <https://denisesetubal.files.wordpress. com/2009/10/paraisopolis_foto_de_tuca_vieira_livro_as_cidades_do_brasil.jpg> accessed on 02/06/2017

Although individuals of both imposed exclusion and self-segregation realities are not fully participating of civic life and experiencing urbanity, it is important to highlight the sub humane conditions that people living under the first case are subjected to. Therefore, beyond civic life and urbanity concerns, it is also of high importance to talk about inequality and its social-spatial implications when a majority of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population (90% as exposed in the previous chapter) cannot access the most basic needs and while there are still people living within subhuman contexts as illustrated in figure 5 below. Moreover, this reality also means that issues concerning economic and social rights stated in United Nationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2015) [1948] are being neglected, with the article 25 of this document being of extreme significance to the built CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY

environment concerns, stating that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family [...]” (UN, (2015) [1948]: 52)

Figure 5: subhuman living realities across the world prove the necessity to discuss and address inequality. Source: available on <http://i0.statig.com.br/bancodeimagens/9i/kt/6i/9ikt6i4k7vxjiczsm3efzh4d1.jpg> accessed on 28/06/2017

2.2. How inequality affects opportunities in an urban scale As examined previously, urbanisation coupled with inequality implies on social-spatial issues which are intensively perceived particularly, but not exclusively, in the megacities of developing countries (Watson, 2009), and therefore are not actually distinctive to Brazil and the overall Latin American context. This process is occurring in such a significant rate and scale that is a global concern, calling for the need to rethink the architectural and urban discipline and for the realignment of the built environment profession across the world, since these are certainly not qualified realities envisioned by citizens and/or practitioners. However, in order to ground the discussion, it is also important to briefly expose how inequality is portrayed and affects chances to participate in the urban scale context where the Jardim Ângela case study is situated, which concerns the Latin American panorama and Brazilian cities also with regards to São Paulo particularities. Latin American cities have just broadly experienced a profound scale of urbanisation since the last quarter of the twentieth century, undergoing mass urbanisation long before Africa and countries in Asia like China (McGuirk, 2014), with the rapid extent of this process leading to a very pronounced nature of inequalities and putting an enormous acceleration and pressure in the urban sphere (Gwynne and Cristobal, 2014). As a result, some of the highest measurements of inequalities (as the Gini coefficients exposed in the figure 3 from the previous section) can be

CHAPTER 2

found in some of these countries, Brazil being the case of point. McGuirk (2014) exposes how this Latin American urbanisation dynamics led to a particular atmosphere across the continent, which is very experimental and highly political, with countries of South and Central America hosting “some of the greatest experiments in urban living of the twentieth century” (McGuirk, 2014: 7), including housing programmes and infrastructural upgrading schemes for low-income groups living in devalued areas. Therefore, the Latin American background proves to be a very relevant scenario to critically analyse and discuss issues arising from urbanisation coupled with inequalities and the responses provided by built environment practitioners seeking to impact positively socialspatial concerns such as segregation, lack of urbanity and civic life, and subhuman living conditions as exposed in the previous section. Within this Latin American context, it is important to acknowledge how Brazilian cities are important cases and iconic examples of the sharp divide socially and spatially expressed in the urban sphere, which is originated from the high inequality in the economic panorama and disparities in terms of life chances and abilities to access and participate in the opportunities that cities have to offer. The Brazilian architect and urbanist Flávio Villaça (2012) calls attention to the importance of comprehending these phenomena, affirming that if the spatial segregation which occurs in the Brazilian cities is not understood, no urban study will be complete, also adding that this process is the most important urban and spatial manifestation of the inequality that domineers our society. Maricato (2001), another Brazilian urban scholar and activist, calls attention to the realities found in cities across Brazil with her studies mainly focusing in the São Paulo context. She states that these realities are a reflection of an unequal and authoritarian society that is based in privileged relations and arbitrariness, which ends up producing cities with its same characteristics, configuring urban spaces as a fighting arenas replete with conflicts, disputes and conquering by the most powerful. Therefore, understanding the contradictions and injustices that occur at this urban scale, the links with the global economic dynamics and how this translates to local contexts is one essential step in order to think and act systematically in between and with distinct lenses that depict social, economic, political and legal implications of urbanisation coupled with inequality. Regarding the city of São Paulo and its particularities, it is important to outline that inequality is particularly spatialised in this context due to the sprawl process through which the city was configured and that is illustrated in figures 6 and 7 on the next pages. As can be seen in the urban footprint map, the built up area expanded horizontally across the city, spilling out beyond the administrative area, what shows a misalignment between administrative boundaries and the dynamism concerning where people actually live and work (Burdett et al, 2011). When overlapping this map with the social order mapping (figure 7), it is also possible to visualize that this urban configuration came combined with a sharp spatial division between distinct socioeconomic groups, exacerbating conflicts and disparities between a duality: centre and periphery. This peripheralisation of exclusion, combined with low levels of social infrastructure and transport, with commuting times of over four hours a day (Burdett et al, 2011), dramatically affects life chances and opportunities of the marginalised groups living in these edges of the city. Moreover, it is important to say that this marginalisation is not only physical and spatial, but also symbolic since peripheral areas can be commonly associated to poverty, violence, crimes and fear (Caldeira, 2000), what also adds to the difficulty of fully integrating and participating with the urban experience. Therefore, the study of this peripheral scale, combined with the understanding and connections with the global dynamics and urban dimensions are key to comprehend and address urbanisation processes coupled with inequalities. Moreover, within this unequal panorama of the economy that does not indicate massive structural changes in the future, the following questions remain: What can built environment practitioners do within polarised realities, and what is the role of these professionals in marginalised contexts such as peripheral low-income settlements in megacities as São Paulo? This is investigated and critically discussed in the following chapters.

CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY

Figure 6: urban footprint of SĂŁo Paulo. Source: available on <https://urbanage.lsecities.net/data/urban-footprint-saopaulo-2009> accessed on 30/06/2017

CHAPTER 2

Figure 7: Social order mapping in the city of SĂŁo Paulo with lighter to darker tones evidencing the polarization between privileged classes in the centre and disadvantaged groups in the periphery respectively. Source: Burdett el al (2011: 263)

CHALLENGES OF URBANISATION COUPLED WITH INEQUALITY

3. INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

“Designers can be facilitators or mediators, but also triggers. They can operate as members of a co-design team, collaborating with a well-defined group of final users, or as design activists, launching socially meaningful design initiatives. In any case, designers play a specific role in conceiving and realizing a variety of design devices. In brief, the best they can do to promote citizens’ participation in large-scale transformations is to use their creativity and their design knowledge and skills “to make things happen” and, in this way, to promote and sustain the social conversation on possible futures.” (Frediani, 2016: 100)

28 28

CHAPTER 3

This chapter explores, based on theoretical and practical expertise, the meaning of socially engaged practices, the role of built environment professionals and the social positive impacts that can or cannot be promoted by their action, and what can be new perspectives for the architectural and urban discipline within the unequal realities present around the world. This discussion will later support the critical analysis of Jardim Ângela case study which is exposed in the next chapter, depicting multidimensional issues imposed for practitioners. 3.1. Socially engaged actions in an unequal world In first instance, it is important to clarify what are the professionals called in this study as ‘built environment practitioners’ and what is meant by ‘socially engaged practices’. The focus is on the action of practitioners involved with city-making and that exercise their expertise and seek to promote change through design, including works by architects, urban designers, planners. The emphasis will be mainly on the architects’ actions concerning social-spatial issues originated from urbanisation coupled with inequality, while also speaking about urban practitioners and design professionals more broadly. It is also important to add that design here is understood as both processes and outcomes that can engender diverse social-spatial relations and, in this work, concerns the architectural and urban transformations that lead to the configuration of the multiple built environments encountered in cities. Fainstein (2000) draws attention to the enduring tension between a focus on the process and emphasis on desirable outcomes, also highlighting that decisions concerning city-making are often warped by considerations of their economic impacts as opposed to their social ones. In other words, urban development projects are largely expected to be profitable, to generate business opportunities and to create conditions for private investments, while on the other hand they often ignore the needs of marginalised groups, exacerbating political and economic disadvantages (ASF, 2012). This paper defends that is necessary to move from city-making beyond form, function and profit priorities towards justice as defended by Lefebvre (1996) [1968] and Harvey (2013), and in addition the need to investigate possibilities within the current economic panorama whilst advocating for structural changes. It is also argued that in order to promote this, built environment practitioners have a considerable challenge, but also significant possibilities for action that should be further explored. This relates to the second clarification needed which concerns ‘socially engaged practices’. Since key concerns of this study include the social-spatial issues that arise from urbanisation coupled with inequality and what can and cannot be done within the present reality, this paper investigates “practices that seek to challenge the dominant professional model of capital-intensive, client-dependent production” as discussed by Jones and Card (2011: 228). The same authors also draw attention to the fact that this ‘social’ category has gained resonance professionally and academically and is serving as an entry point for the wider discussion of role and responsibilities of practitioners, since conventional built environment education and practice have for long been and still are limited to serving a minority of the world’s population, being considered as an elitist career (Tovivich, 2011) and closely aligned with the powerful, materialising status and generating surplus value to the urban spaces (Jones and Card, 2011). Evidence of the repercussion that this debate has already achieved worldwide lies on facts such as that two of the key largest global events concerning the built environment thematic had their last edition with a social focus. These concern the ‘Venice Biennale 2016’ in architecture (Figure 8) and the ‘Habitat III’ conference held in Quito in the same year (Figure 9). This indicates the beginning of a positive change, triggering the emergence of new roles for the profession, and proving that, although built environment practitioners had their work traditionally aligned to the interest of the wealthy and powerful, these professionals are still concerned with social and economic injustice. However, it is also important at this point to raise awareness towards projects INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

that are just using this â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;socialâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; label and are not really addressing entrenched inequality issues, but pretending to be and using architectural and urban objects in rebranded and business as usual model, that instead of challenging issues is actually masking and hiding key concerns. That is why it is of extreme importance to investigate and critically discuss real capacity for positive social change through design, as it is exposed next.

Figure 8: Venice Biennale 2016 poster which according to its curator (the Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena) seeks to offer a new point of view as the one the archaeologist on the ladder illustrated in the picture had when studying the Nazca lines, since those stones did not make sense while only observed from the ground. Source: available on <http:// www.domusweb.it/en/news/2016/02/22/reporting_from_the_front.html> accessed on 05/06/2017

Figure 9: HABITAT III conference had as an outcome the publication of a shared vision document which seeks to achieve an equal, inclusive and just urban future. Source: available on <https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ NUA_Adopted.jpg> accessed on 05/06/2017

CHAPTER 3

3.2. Dealing with social-spatial issues on an everyday practice This is an investigation of how built environment practitioners challenge social-spatial issues arising from urbanisation processes coupled with inequality on an everyday practice. This study explores themes such as the potentialities and limitations of architectural and urban projects, the role of professionals working within these contexts, the skills they have to challenge this reality and the ones to be further developed, the focus on processes and outcomes, and what are the key references regarding this emerging field of socially engaged practices. The methods used to understand these themes include interviews with professionals and literature review, both concerning socially engaged practitioners and initiatives dealing with marginalisation originated from entrenched inequality. The interviews consisted of in-person, hour long semi-structured conversations preceded by a brief questionnaire to obtain the interviewees profile details and give them time to familiarize and get comfortable with the interview process (see appendixes A and B for participants detailed profiles and interview schedule). The selection of participants, which is summarized in table 2 below, included a range of practitioners working across different spheres concerning sector of action such as public, private, non-governmental organisation, and academia. It was also a selection criterion to choose professionals working in organisations with diverse sizes (large, medium and small), balanced male and female ratio, and with distinct years of experience. The interviews were conducted with three professionals based in London, four in São Paulo, and four interviews specifically with practitioners and residents engaging with the Jardim Ângela context, therefore enabling to depict different types of issues and challenges for architectural and urban discipline across global, urban and peripheral lenses, and also emerging themes that permeate all these layers. This section will focus on a discussion regarding worldwide challenges and broader concerns calling for the realignment of the built environment profession, while specific issues concerning urban and peripheral dimensions will be more closely explored in the next chapter. The analysis of this practical expertise in combination with reflections provided by the literature review formed a base for the explorative debate of potential perspectives for the architectural and urban discipline within the unequal realities present around the world. The key points from this investigation were analysed and then summarized in the interpretative collages of figures 10 to 15 exposed in the next pages, and which configure a provocative starting point for the critical discussion of these themes in the following section. INTERVIEWEE

PROFESSIONAL DESCRIPTION

Architect and urbanist at self-owned small scale practice in São Paulo (Brazil)

Architect and urbanist at self-owned medium scale practice in São Paulo (Brazil)

Technical assistant at São Paulo’s Housing Department and co-founder of a Brazilian non-governmental organisation called COURB

Senior consultant at ARUP International Development based in London (United Kingdom)

Researcher at LSE Cities, lecturer at distinct institutions in London (United Kingdom) and architect at self-owned small scale practice

Associate at Architecture Sans Frontières-UK, lecturer at distinct institutions in London (United Kingdom) and architect for Kingston upon Thames London Borough Council Table 2: Overview of interviewees’ profile. Source: Author’s image

INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN PROJECTS CAN PROMOTE POSITIVE SOCIAL IMPACTS?

“[...] for something for me to have positive social impact it has to be then a project that actually challenges the power structures that exist. And when I say power structures I also mean entrenched inequality. [...] it tries to change those arrangements, change those terms, change the way that power is landing physically.” Interviewee 6

physical base for things to be able to happen

“[...] there are procedural ways, processes ways and there are also physical ways.” Interviewee 5

element of articulation as a strategy of “seam” “A project generates social inclusion in fact when it creates opportunities for people to break this vicious cycle of exclusion. Firstly with social interactions, generating diversity, and or in fact including people in the society and the opportunities in the city. Sometimes with public transport, for example, so more towards this infrastructural side and improving access.” Interviewee 4

Figure 10: By analysing how professionals envision architectural and urban projects promoting positive social change, two main aspects become clear: design have procedural and physical potentialities, and both involve an element of connection. Procedural ways relate to the promotion of processes that articulate different aspects and involve distinct actors, while also generate opportunities to challenge existing arrangements and power structures. The physical aspect is related to creating a base to catalyse these actions. Source: Author’s image

CHAPTER 3

WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN PROJECTS REGARDING SOCIAL CHANGE?

“Firstly, for a project to achieve this social issue it has to be mutidisciplinar, alone it does not have this reach.” Interviewee 1

economics

funding

financial sustainability race of urban change and growth lack of adequate data/information

“I think not all social problems can be solved by design, and sometimes, and whilst that is a bad thing to say in itself, the real problem is when design projects come in and gloss over and pretend to be solving, and all you doing is just channelling money and moving away and keeping the status quo. And so my worries is that I feel that with architecture often what we doing we are actually entrenching and glossing over, and sort of we are supporting inequality as opposed to trying to change it and to really really address it.” Interviewee 6

politics

dispute for space and representation in the city

bureaucracy

Figure 11: Becomes evident that practitioners willing to promote positive social impact through design see the extreme need to think architecture and urbanism no longer as just objects, but objects in relation to systems. Regarding this systematic thinking, the importance of working with interdisciplinary expertises was highlighted and the most often mentioned fields concerning the necessity for engagement due to limitations of design were economic and political expertise. Source: Author’s image

INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A BUILT ENVIRONMENT PRACTITIONER IN RELATION TO GLOBAL URBANISATION PROCESSES COUPLED WITH INEQUALITIES?

articulator facilitator

"I often think my role is less of actually design, but actually about designing the network [...] link people that sometimes might not talk to each other.”

Interviewee 6

“I really like to use an expression from an interview with Álvaro Siza, in which the architect is like a figure of a mediator of a series of issues: technical, political, social or whatever these issues are.” Interviewee 3

collaborator King (2016)

networker

enabler of something better

“[...] connect small scale processes with something bigger.” Interviewee 7

influence, convince and mainstream find, put forward solutions and implement a proposal

“The role of materializing what is necessary for these multidisciplinary actions to have greater success.” Interviewee 1

Figure 12: In line with the key opinions regarding potentialities and limitations of architectural and urban projects, professionals perceive their role as actors that work with and in between distinct disciplines, individuals, scales, concerns. Therefore, the figure of an articulator or terms such as mediator and facilitator of this network were highly cited. But it is also important to emphasise that the interviewees also consider that it is the professionals’ responsibility and contribution to create procedural and/or physical solutions, and also to have a critic action influencing structural changes. Source: Author’s image

CHAPTER 3

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THAT ARE THE KEY SKILLS THAT A BUILT ENVIRONMENT PRACTITIONER HAVE TO PROMOTE SOCIAL CHANGE AND WHICH ONES NEED TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED?

“One of the things that I tell my students in their first year is architecture is about scale and that is your fundamental skill. Actually, it is not something that many people understand.” Interviewee 7

a vision of the whole from macro to micro communication of proposals

draw an alternative reality and make things visual how to run and manage the business side of design

capacity to perceive nuances and issues of each context participatory engagement

translation of disciplines work hard creativity sell the story

strategic influence liability knowing more about economic and politics

to listen

to share

“Accept diffuse ownership,the architectural profession inability to take their hands off it, their own unwillingness to let it go.” Interviewee 5 Figure 13: Regarding skills mentioned to perform the roles exposed in figure 12, being able to work across different scales and disciplines while having a holistic vision of the whole process, and also visualisation abilities for the creative representation and translation of ideas into a proposal were the key ones. In addition to that, there is an important aspect of being skilful towards strategic influence in terms of selling a project and advocate for some more beneficial relationships to occur in the place of others. Skills considered that need to be further developed include a more humane approach closer to people and the reality on the ground, being able to listen, collaborate and perceive nuances. Another key point mentioned was to learn how to manage the business side of conducting a project. Source: Author’s image

INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

REGARDING THE FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND THE FOCUS ON THE OUTCOME, WHICH DO YOU EMPHASISE IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL APPROACH AND WHY?

“The outcome needs to be inserted within a process with community involvement and effective presence of the state. That’s all very simple to say, but how do we deal with that in a universe with 1,500 favelas as we have in São Paulo?” Interviewee 3

“We generally start with the outcomes.”

Interviewee 5

“ I think I am much more interested in the process. I think the process of how a building or a built project comes about is when it can have agency, that is where it can have a social impact [...] how you get in to sort of built form and what is happening afterwards.”

“I sort of see it as a cycle, so the process is really important and the outcome is important and embedded in the process allowing to access if the output has been successful.” Interviewee 7

Interviewee 6

“I am 100% about the process. If you value these processes, if you assume that the construction with the population is more important than the result achieved, I think it already shows this social concern. Because I can already assume that my project starts at the first contact with the community, this transformation already begins with a dialogue and the result is a consequence of this process.” Interviewee 4 Figure 14: Since both procedural actions along the creation process and the act of physically delivering a result as a proposal or a built form were mentioned as important aspects of the design practice, it was also key to explore the emphasis that practitioners put on the process and/or outcomes of their works. Within the interviews conducted there was a range of different opinions with approaches ranging from a focus entirely on processes or fully on outcomes, a combination of both or even varying according to the project cycle. The overall conclusion is that both can enable positive social impact and incorporate the previously mentioned contributions of the architectural and urban discipline to social change since the focus on process or outcome is a personal choice of where practitioners believe they can have more impact on. What is important is to keep in mind is that regardless of the approach selected, thinking systematically, effectively providing solutions and having proximity to people’s concerns and realities are essential actions. Source: Author’s image

CHAPTER 3

WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN REFERENCES REGARDING SOCIALLY ENGAGED PROJECTS? “There are lots of ways to practice and, if we do not push that further, we are gonna make ourselves even more irrelevant. The profession has made itself irrelevant and so that is why the fact that RIBA has now those books [concerning social architecture and urbanism] on the shelf on their bookshop for me is meaningful because that is the institution.”

Interviewee 5

people I have worked with

Medellín (Colômbia)

“It is really difficult to think of references. Especially regarding theory I have very few references. I think we Latin Americans should build our own references.” Interviewee 4

Nabeel Hambi Teddy Cruz “I cannot think of any. I still have not found something like that.” Interviewee 2

Aravena

the need for more practical examples

“My hesitation with the last Venice Bienalle is that we are starting to objectify and glorify development.”

Rem Koolhaas

Interviewee 7

Konkuey Design Initiatives “Perhaps the reflection on this theme is more in the production of the academic field.” Francis Kéré

Interviewee 3

Figure 15: Interestingly, when questioned about references in this social engaged practices field, many interviewees struggled to remember or suggest practical examples or literature recommendation. This might be related to the fact that this is an emerging field where references are still being built and consolidated, but also reinforces the need and validity of making information available for those willing to work with marginalised realities. Nevertheless, names of professionals and practices that are increasingly gaining international notoriety were appointed, especially from developing countries, such as Alejandro Aravena (Chilean architect known for incremental social housing proposals), Francis Kéré (architect from Burkina Faso who has recently won several awards and designed a number of educational buildings in Africa) and the “social urbanism” from the plan for Medellín (Colômbia) in early 2000. The talk from interviewees regarding theoretical references reinforced the importance of academia towards critically accessing practices in reaction to bigger concerns and disseminating knowledge, also highlighting the need to approximate theory and practice. Source: Author’s image

INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

3.3. New perspectives for the architectural and urban discipline Some important points can be highlighted from the investigation exposed in the last section and that will support the discussion about the case study of Jardim Ângela neighbourhood in the next chapter. Firstly, the need to understand processes and outcomes of designing becomes evident, the procedural and physical ways of delivering solutions, and therefore the distinct possibilities of professional action for promoting social change. The interviews made visible debates brought in the literature, such as the argument that architectural and urban professionals should act as enablers with small, local, incremental changes, acknowledging that people are already constructing themselves so the role of practitioners is to enhance and support these already existent processes as defended by Turner (1972, 1976), Hamdi (2004) and also by Kapp et al (2008) which suggest the triad role of mediating, criticizing and creating interfaces. Therefore, these authors argue for the shift from product-oriented to process-oriented design, while names as Aravena (2011) believe in using built forms as a way to “provide a short cut to equality”, emphasising the importance of physical outcomes. It can also be pointed out a third point of view which calls for the role of the activist (McGuirk, 2014) and the need to contest utilitarian approaches to social architecture for neoliberal goals (Boano and Perucich, 2016), defending that there are no real further possibilities for social change within the present economic panorama, so they key is neither on the focus on the process or outcomes, but on advocating for structural socioeconomic changes and radically working outside the current system. This study argues that all three actions are simultaneously necessary and that practitioners need to be sensible regarding which contexts require each of these approaches. It is also defended that, while the current economy does not change, it is necessary to explore possibilities within reality as it is, and that although design cannot alter by itself the structure of economic production it can influence and shape how resources are distributed, thus facilitating or limiting opportunities. This reinforces the importance of thinking systematically especially in relation to political, economic, legal, cultural and social concerns in order to make the project feasible and actually implemented. Moreover, what becomes central to this overall discussion is the need to act and think practically and strategically in between and with scales as the global, urban and peripheral dimensions suggested in this study, with professionals acting in what Hamdi (2004) exposes as being a fourth dimension that moves among and interact with each scale of this framework, making necessary connections while also having a holistic vision and being close to people and realities. That is why it is important to base this broader discussion in a grounded qualitative study in case, in order to explore what it means to act socially within the global, national and peripheral lenses. Therefore, in the next chapter, the case study of Jardim Ângela is critically analysed and contextualized in light of the preceding sections.

CHAPTER 3

INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF DESIGN

4. THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM Ã&#x201A;NGELA

“The increasing concentrations of global flows have exacerbated the inequalities and spatial divisions of social classes. In this context, an architecture or urbanism of equality in an increasingly inequitable economic condition requires looking deeper to find a wide range of places to mark and commemorate the cultures of those excluded from the spaces of global flows. These don’t necessarily lie in the formal production of architecture, but often challenge it. Here the idea of a city is an elastic urban condition, not a grand vision, but a ‘grand adjustment’.” (Mehrotra, 2009: 143)

42 42

CHAPTER 4

This chapter presents the Jardim Ângela case study, situated in São Paulo (Brazil), and uses this scenario in order to ground the discussion about the challenges and broader concerns previously exposed regarding urbanisation coupled with inequalities and the social role that design can or cannot have on addressing these issues. This low-income and predominantly informal settlement was selected due to its peripheral location in the megacity of São Paulo, what exacerbates the urban disadvantages existent in this area and raises different types of questions and challenges for architectural and urban discipline across global, urban and peripheral lenses. Moreover, this peripheral condition which is structurally marginalised presents an interesting challenge about this site, since these margins in the city can be seen as the most urban deprived spaces, but also where some of the most radical experiments can occur conforming “spaces of insurgent citizenship” as exposed by Holston (1998: 39), a starting point to discuss how city-making is being conducted and reinvent the urban environment as a whole (Jacques, 2011). Another key reason for selection of Jardim Ângela was due to the possibility of engagement between the researcher with actors seeking to promote social-spatial change in this neighbourhood (built environment professionals involved in a design contest for the area, residents and local organisations). In order to investigate this scenario the following methods were used: interviews, exploratory visits, literature review and analysis of projects. Based on this particular case, this study then questions what means to be socially engaged in contexts like this and, by linking with the themes exposed in the previous sections, reflects towards lessons for the architectural and urban discipline. 4.1. Jardim Ângela in context Jardim Ângela is located in the south portion of the city of São Paulo, as can be seen in figure 16 below. It consists of a large area of 37 square kilometres which is occupied by 295,434 residents and has a density of 7,899 inhabitants per square kilometre (Prefeitura de São Paulo, 2010). The neighbourhood faces critical socials issues related to poverty, urban violence and drug trafficking, and is considered one of the most dangerous areas in São Paulo and was also appointed once by the United Nations as the world’s most violent place (Manso, 2016). Moreover, as illustrated in the map below, accessing Jardim Ângela from São Paulo’s city centre takes more than two hours commuting by public transport (with longer times on weekends and during rush hours) and requires three different bus routes (meaning increased price for public transport fares). This exacerbates the brutal duality between the centre and the periphery present in the city of São Paulo, as exposed in the section 2.2., and reinforces the marginalisation of this neighbourhood not only spatially but also symbolic on the edge of São Paulo’s contextual reality. It is important also to mention that a bus rapid transit (BRT) system is predicted to be implemented in order to partly enhance this connection, but while this does not happen due to political and economic constraints, remains the question whether this will actually generate structural positive impacts or change the local dynamics (IVM, 2017).

Figure 16: Peripheral location of Jardim Ângela neighbourhood in relation to São Paulo’s city centre, reinforced by distance, commuting time and cost, and social stigmatisation. Source: Google Maps (2017)

THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM ÂNGELA

According to data from IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) Jardim Ângela’s population has grown 27,34% in the period between 2010 and 2014 while this figure for the city of São Paulo corresponds to 10,35% during the same analysed time. That means that the area has grown proportionally almost three times more than the overall area of São Paulo. This combined with a lack of adequate plan and provision of housing and basic urban infrastructure (figures 17 and 18) aggravates the poverty conditions and related social-spatial issues present in the neighbourhood, making life in Jardim Ângela a daily battle towards survival and pursuit of dignity.

Figures 17 and 18: Precarious housing and urban infrastructure in a favela (slum) area of Jardim Ângela. Source: Author’s image

Despite these issues faced on an everyday basis by Jardim Ângela’s residents, it is also worth to highlight some valuable community led initiatives and dynamics existent in the area. Among these can be cited cultural events that were communally developed and maintained by the residents in partnership with local organisations such as Instituto Favela da Paz (Slum of Peace Institute) as the Samba na Dois (Samba in Street Two). This constitutes of a street party with traditional Brazilian samba music that occurs every second Sunday of the month attracting people from inside and outside the area, promoting local commerce, and which perfectly illustrates the appropriation of previously undesirable territories (stairways notorious for robberies and the Street Two known as the frequent deposit of corpses), making them the main stage of culture in the favela.

Figure 19: Samba na Dois event. Source: Author’s image

CHAPTER 4

Another initiative in this complex but also lively context which is important to be highlighted for this study is a design contest named Passagens (meaning in Portuguese ‘alleys’ but also the act to ‘pass by’), which was promoted by the Institut pour la Ville Mouvement (Institute for the City in Movement) - IVM , an international organization that focuses on mobility and accessibility in cities and has been developing studies in the area for two years (IVM, 2017). The aim of this competition was to propose design ideas to recover the walkability and the social value of four pre-selected areas in Jardim Ângela, encouraging the formation of interdisciplinary teams and also providing a one-week workshop for the participants that reached the final phase (on which the teams had the opportunity to have contact with international advisors and local organisations in Jardim Ângela). This design contest will be used as a base to debate the role of design in promoting positive social impact in contexts such as this peripheral low-income settlement in the Brazilian megacity of São Paulo in light of the discussion presented in the preceding sections. 4.2. Analysis of the role of design in Jardim Ângela The Passagens contest was chosen as a design initiative in the area to analyse and to ground the discussion of themes emerged from last chapter’s investigation, due to the possibility to compare distinct design approaches concerning processes, outcomes, proposal’ limitations and potentialities to social impact, and skills used in the competition. This study was done through interviews with participants and project analysis of two teams that make to the final phase which will be called Proposal A, that was the winning one, and Proposal B which presented interesting aspects for a counter discussion. The summary of the two proposals is presented in the table 3 below: INFORMATION

PROPOSAL A (WINNER)

PROPOSAL B

Team members

3 Architects + 1 Environmental Manager

2 Architects + 1 Urban Manager + 1 Transport Engineer

Three words used by the team to define their proposal

Respect, urbanity and provocation

Viable, articulating and integrative

Illustrative images

The proposal has three conceptual dimensions of concern which are related to the three words used to describe the project itself (respect, urbanity and provocation). These also permeate three scales ranging from the relations between metropolitan dynamics, local Brief summary context and the specific interventions of the proposal suggested. Proposes examples of intervention that symbolically call for residents to actively shape the four passageways (by illuminating or painting some identified points, implementing street art or urban furniture) which they call "provocations".

Proposes a system of signalisation with itineraries for the area in order to improve legibility and in this way to promote the exchange of information and interaction among residents. Suggests the implementation of distinct types of signs in the area and small changes along the passageways.

THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM ÂNGELA

(continuation of table 3)

INFORMATION

Aspects emphasised along the process

PROPOSAL A (WINNER) The team’s starting point was to acquire a “territorial reading” by studying the research material provided by IVM and with their own past experiences working in other peripheral contexts. From that, they elected some key concepts and envisioned a physical proposal to be the basis for relations linked to material, metropolitan and globalisation aspects. The later contact with the community, which occurred during the workshop week for finalists, came as a “final seam” of the previous study and debate among team members. They also highlighted how the communication of the proposal was a key aspect of the process, ranging from the use of concepts, graphic representation and the oral final presentation.

PROPOSAL B Since the design contest’s aim was to raise the social value of the movement, the team reflected towards how mobility could potentiate meetings and empower local actors. Therefore, the key aspect emphasised along the process was to better understand the community they were designing for by visiting the area and talking with people. The aim of this approach was to perceive local strengths and identify key actors that could foster physical encounters and information exchange among people. The signalling proposal came as an intention to indicate these possibilities of communication between people.

How the team believes that the outcome of their proposal promotes positive social impact

The team envisions their proposal promoting social exchange through these “provocations” since these could create awareness and bring to the attention of people that sometimes would not notice this spaces (both residents and people from outside the area). They also believe that symbolically interfering in some points can promote meetings and moments of exchanges, improving access to places and promoting security. They envision this proposal as a starting point to encourage that other interventions keep happening and getting other shapes, therefore qualifying the rest of the neighbourhood

This team believes that their design proposal promotes the articulation of this community by making people meet and talk with each other, sharing information and therefore getting united and working together towards the generation of their own autonomy. They also envision that legibility can bring external people to frequent the area, therefore enhancing the possibility for exchange with other socioeconomic groups. Since they believe that information is a very valuable asset and a difficult one to be accessed by people living in peripheral contexts, they consider that this proposal has a lot of potential and is easy to be replicable.

What the team considers that are limitations of their proposal when promoting positive social impact

The pre selection of four areas by the institution that promoted the contest was seen as a limitation since the team believes that a more holistic approach than only improving these passageways is necessary in order to promote greater social impact. Another limitation voiced by the team consists of the possibility of other actors involved in the implementation of this proposal not performing their roles (e.g. the state not giving permission or not obtaining funds)

This team believes they lacked in making their intentions more spatial, materialising more what they saw as potential through physical proposals.

CHAPTER 4

(continuation of table 3)

INFORMATION

PROPOSAL A (WINNER)

PROPOSAL B

The judges classified this proposal as a “tray project”, meaning that this can What the incorporate diverse possibilities of judging panel interventions, even the ones proposed considered by other teams as the singling idea was distinctive of proposal B. They considered this about the proposal as being the most “porous”, proposal “permeable” and capable to receive other sorts of contributions.

The judging panel pointed out the validity of this proposal of making the area walkable through networks of information and signalised routes within this territory.

The team agrees with the judges’ What the team opinion regarding the possibility believed was of their project to embrace diverse possibilities of intervention. They add distinctive that having a multi-scale concern in about their their approach was another a key proposal point.

The contact they had with people from Jardim Ângela, while some other teams did not prioritize this in the same way. This team believes that a key aspect of their own proposal was the recognition that this space has its own identity and important actors that can execute change by themselves, making this a viable and affordable idea.

Table 3: An overview of the two analysed proposals with information obtained through interviews with both teams (see appendix C for interview questions), project analysis (the complete final posters can be seen in annexes A and B), and information provided by IVM (2017). Source: Author's image

As exposed in table 3 above, proposal A valued concepts and symbolic meanings in their intervention project prior to interactions with the reality on the ground. They presented a proposal that acknowledged distinct scales and put a strong emphasis on the way ideas were presented to the judging panel, being very efficient to “sell” their project and making use of the power that images can have while making their argument (Dorrian, 2015). Proposal B on the other hand prioritized the contact with the community and small changes to foster local processes, as defended by Hamdi (2004), focusing on affordability and viability, not having such a visually impactful outcome as the one from team A. Perhaps as a result of this almost exclusive attention on the site and interaction with residents, their discussion ended up being very localised, not encompassing a multi-dimension and flexible perspective as the one from proposal A. THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM ÂNGELA

What is interesting to mention is that both strategies seek articulation among different actors and concerns, and also try to promote positive social impact by inviting people from outside Jardim Ângela to frequent the area, being this through a “provocation” strategy or a signalisation system. This intention to enhance or mitigate implications of isolation produced by spatial segregation by acknowledging the importance of increasing individuals social networks is argued by Marques (2012). This author proved the importance that relational settings have on mediating effects of segregation through a study of 209 individuals living in situations of poverty in seven locales from the metropolitan area of São Paulo. Both proposals then envision to challenge through design this peripheral condition concerning stigmas and physical barriers by promoting interactions within residents and with the attraction of people outside the area. According to the judging panel, the aspects prioritized to select the winning proposal were innovation, potentialities to create social value, the feasibility of the project and its replication capacity, incorporation of social, cultural, geomorphologic and environmental specificities, and integration with local actors (IVM, 2017). When analysing these criteria more closely and also the reason stated of why proposal A was chosen as the winner, it is possible to argue that the judges did not considered the practical reduction of inequalities as a key aspect, but prioritized a scheme that could incorporate a greater number of interventions and be a flagship proposal, therefore raising IVM’S scope of action in the area. It is also important to highlight that this panel was composed by nine members from which five were architects, one civil engineer, one social scientist, one psychologist, and a member which is a resident and local activist from Jardim Ângela neighbourhood. Moreover, five of the judges were Brazilians and the other four were from France, Spain and Colômbia. The interdisciplinary multicultural formation of this panel must be valorised and specially the inclusion of a resident’s perspective, however this was still very unbalanced leading to a debate still mainly within the architectural conventional expertise. This final judging panel and also the award ceremony occurred in the Institute of Brazilian Architects, in the city centre of São Paulo, therefore also spatially distant from Jardim Ângela’s context, making residents’ participation at this occasion difficult. When investigating the concerns raised by this contest with other Jardim Ângela residents through interviews conducted during exploratory visits guided by residents in the neighbourhood, some aspects became evident. Firstly, it is possible to say that there was a high value in simply being listened and towards initiatives that care about qualifying the area and generating design ideas for that context. Also the approximation between design practitioners with the residents and the reality on the ground itself was considered as an act of building a trustable long-term relationship and actual interest in their situation and capacity (since self-construction and selforganisation, as illustrated by the promotion of samba events, are processes important to be understood in the current context of the area). Therefore acknowledging these particular local dynamics is essential in order to actually implement a proposal within the structural constraints presented by the peripheral condition, as argued by Turner (1972, 1976). So what does the Jardim Ângela case tells us about global, urban, peripheral challenges and issues for the architectural and urban discipline? A first reflection towards this matter is represented in the figure 20 below and this will be further discussed in the next chapter in combination with the broader debate regarding the social role of design previously exposed.

CHAPTER 4

GLOBAL polarization between global elites and disadvanteged groups

U R BA N economic and political injustice

physical and symbolic borders, social-spatial segregation

IPHERA PER L unequal distribution of resources

stigmatization

lack of basic services

struggle for survival

marginalisation

scale of change

pressure on cities

precarious housing

informality

issues with urban systems (e.g. transport)

race of growth

funding and legal constraints poverty

urbanity and civic life under threat

entrenched inequality

Figure 20: global, urban and peripheral issues and challenges for the architectural and urban discipline, that can also be considered as opportunities for actions by practitioners, based on Jardim Ângela case. Across all these lenses there are structural concerns related to multilayered outcomes of how the rate of growth and change imposes pressure on places (A), social stigmas (B), and power systems (C). Source: Author’s image

THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF JARDIM ÂNGELA

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

“It is no longer just a matter of “changing the world”, but rather accepting that the world changes, whether we like it or not, and that it is necessary to understand the dynamics of change, differentiate what is progress of humanity or greater inequality [...]” (Josep and Muxí, 2014: 11)

52 52

CHAPTER 5

Based on lessons from the investigation exposed through this paper and issues imposed for the architectural and urban discipline across global, urban and peripheral scales, this study calls for practices based on a systematic, humane and multidimensional approach. In face of the present reality, the discussion in the architectural and urban discipline can no longer be only about objects, it must be about objects in relation to systems. This requires professionals to be creative and inventive beyond exclusively focusing on forms, symbolic and conceptual meanings, technique and aesthetics. It also demands the incorporation of a systematic way of designing. In other words, city-making needs to be perceived as a relation between physical and social as defended by Tonkiss (2013) and therefore architectural and urban practitioners need to take in to account social, economic, legal and political implications of the act of designing and shaping cities, calling for a collaboration of interdisciplinary expertise. This does not mean that design professionals must master all these fields, however, they do need to understand these structural dynamics and gain proximity to these and other disciplines according to each context. This will inevitably lead to increasingly collaborative authorships of projects and the very much needed abolishment of the obsolete figure of the single creative genius that has been for so long praised in the built environment world, the demystification of the “miracle worker” as criticized by Lefebvre (1996 [1968]: 151). This also requires the ability to acknowledge capacities, limitations and mistakes, accepting the fact that architects and design practitioners overall cannot know and do not need to know about everything, neither be always in control of the situation or keep fostering an unhealthy competitive atmosphere around design. It is acceptable to not know, try, experiment and succeed or be wrong, and even more fundamental to share these experiences and make information available in order to not repeat failures, qualify practices and move forward towards a better and more significant professional action. Secondly, the necessity of a more humane action concerns a design approach which is closer to people and realities on the ground. In first instance it requires design practitioners to have empathy towards social-spatial issues arising from urbanisation coupled with inequality and the situation of individuals living in these contexts. It also demands professionals to be able to listen and to incorporate different perspectives, to be sensitive to the nuances of distinct contexts, and therefore to unite design knowledge to sociology, anthropology and psychology expertise. Communication skills in design can no longer be primarily about producing beautiful and sometimes misleading images and conceptual speeches, but also need to be about how to establish successful dialogues with different individuals in order to investigate and depict real causes of problems, be able to co-create in an incremental way (as Turner (1972, 1976) and Hamdi (2004) defend), and transmit ideas to the range of actors involved in shaping cities. The conversation about the definition of issues and the standards for successful approaches can no longer be held only within the built environment field. At this point, it is also important to raise awareness towards ethics and accountability concerns that emerge when working close to people and their realities, especially when practising in marginalised contexts such as the peripheral case of Jardim Ângela exposed in this study. Design for groups and individuals living in poverty must not result in a poor design and perhaps even ‘half good’ solutions need to questioned as Boano and Perucich (2016) do when criticizing the incremental houses produced by Aravena. Moreover, even while experimentally trying and putting forward ideas, professionals need to have liability for what sort of design is being produced, the implications of their actions, and the real meaning behind using a ‘social’ label for proposals. Finally, a multidimensional approach for design consists of being able to work with and in between distinct actors, concerns and scales. On this matter, the role of an articulator, mediator or whatever the term chosen to name this way of interacting and practising among distinct dimensions acquires a strong significance. Professionals need to constantly move from top-down to bottom-up perspectives, across a range of disciplines and through different scales. Perhaps these scales can be the global, urban and peripheral used and suggested in this study, which can DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

also acquire other classifications and meanings according to each specific context. Drawing on lessons from the investigation presented in this paper, what is important, is to strategically design this multidimensional network in order to foster positive change. Perhaps socially engaged practices ultimately mean design to be closer to society in a systematic, humane and multidimensional way, showing that good design is an important tool for everyday life which can and should be a financially and technically accessible service, and that it has an enormous value beyond economic and profit interests. In order to promote this there are various ways of practising and it is important to be aware of the different possibilities to develop processes and also the distinct outcomes that can be engendered, and that the selection of the most appropriate approach may vary from context to context. It is also essential to know the practicalities of making projects like this to happen in a financially sustainable way, redefining and learning how to measure successful and impactful procedures or results. Moreover, professional practices across all sectors (public, private, non-governmental organisations, academia) have significant and diverse contributions. These range respectively from providing structural means to scale up actions, test and promote social business models, catalyse engagement and cooperation among parts, and making the critique about undergoing practices in relation to broader concerns. Further studies on design methodologies for social change, how to fund and run the business side of socially engaged practices, ways of measuring positive social impacts, and the possible contribution of each sector for change are required and recommended. All these points imply that architectural and urban education and practice need to be much different from the overall existent ones. Although some indications of this shift are already emerging across the world, it still needs to be much more prominent. As Josep and MuxĂ (2014) state in the introductory quotation of this chapter, it is not about changing the world but rather about accepting that the world is constantly changing independently if we accept it or not, and therefore the architectural and urban discipline needs to realign. It is not expected that all professionals are going to work with these marginalised contexts, however, it is defended that every design practitioner â&#x20AC;&#x153;should, at every minute, be aware of the sociological implications of his or her choicesâ&#x20AC;? (Cesal, 2010:192). For those accepting the enormous task of reshaping society and the built environment (Crawford, 1991: 44) it is important to have information available and critically reflect on the role that design has in this change. These were intentions of this study and it is expected that this discussion can bring new perspectives and hope for these professionals, while also qualifying everyday life of individuals impacted by these practices as portrayed in figure 21.

CHAPTER 5

Figure 21: Residents of Jardim Ã&#x201A;ngela neighbourhood. Source: Available on <https://urbanage.lsecities.net/ photographs/jardim-angela-sao-paulo> accessed on 29/06/2017

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6. CONCLUSION

58 58

CHAPTER 6

Although design cannot by itself entirely realign entrenched inequality, it can promote positive social-spatial impacts and challenge this scenario. In order to promote this, practitioners can have key roles by facilitating or limiting the distribution of resources and infrastructural delivery of architectural and urban improvements, enhancing or supporting existent processes, or even advocating for structural changes. Across all these actions, architectural and urban professionals are capable of provide a new perspective of how reality could be, put forward solution ideas, and be critical towards unfair realities. The investigation presented in this paper and the contact with socially engaged practitioners and practices in London, São Paulo and the Jardim Ângela context have shown that urbanisation coupled with inequality across global, urban, and peripheral lenses imposes difficult issues for the architectural and urban discipline, which across all these lenses consist of structural concerns related to power systems, social stigmas, and multilayered impacts of the pressure imposed on places by the extent of growth and change. In order to challenge these issues and engage with structurally marginalised realities as they are, it was argued that design has procedural and physical potentialities or limitations, distinct emphasis on processes and outcomes, and practitioners have relevant skills and also other abilities that need to be further developed. The particularities of Jardim Ângela case study reinforced the themes depicted along this preceding broader discussion. It also raised awareness about the necessity of revaluating success in the built environment field, moving the debate beyond the power of image or concepts and towards the real practicalities of making a project happen with engagement of the distinct players involved in city-making across a range of levels. Based on the discussion and critique of these topics, this paper concludes and suggests that is necessary to realign the architectural and urban discipline towards a systematic, humane, and multidimensional approach, both concerning theory and practice. This means the realignment of both education and actions by professionals in a way which considers architectural and urban objects in relation to systems, closer to people’s realities on the ground, and increasingly working with and in between distinct dimensions. It is expected that this study can foster broader debates concerning the social responsibility of architecture and urbanism, while also triggering actions towards bringing design closer to society in an accessible, responsible, and qualified way.

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aravena, A. (2011). Elemental: A do tank. Architectural Design, 81(3), 32-37 Architecture Sans Frontières - ASF (2012). Challenging Practice: Essentials for the Social Production of Habitat. Available on <https://challengingpractice.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/150112challenging-practice-book_modified.pdf> accessed on 03/07/2017 Boano, C., and Perucich, F. (2016). Half-happy architecture. Viceversa, 4, 58-81 Caldeira, T. (2008). Worlds set apart. Available on <https://urbanage.lsecities.net/essays/worldsset-apart> accessed on 29/06/2017 Caldeira, T. (2000). City of walls: Crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley: University of California Press Cesal, E. (2010). Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice. London: Mit Press Crawford, M. (1991). Can architects be socially responsible?. in D. Ghirardo (ed) Out of Site: A Social Criticism of Architecture. Seattle: Bay Press Dorrian, M. (2015). Writing on the Image: Architecture, the City and the Politics of Representation. London: IB Tauris Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review, 35(4), 451-478 Frediani, A. (2016). Re-imagining Participatory Design: Reflecting on the ASF-UK Change by Design Methodology. Design Issues, 32(3), 98-111 Glaeser, E. (2012). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier. London: Pan Gwynne, R. and Cristobal, K. (2014). Latin America transformed: globalization and modernity. New York: Routledge Hamdi, N. (2004). Small change: About the art of practice and the limits of planning in cities. London: Earthscan Harvey, D. (2013). Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso Holston, J. (1998). Spaces of insurgent citizenship. Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history, 2, 37-56 Instituto Brasileio de Geografia Estatística - IBGE (2017). População. Available on <https://cidades. ibge.gov.br/> accessed on 30/06/2017 Institut pour La Ville en Mouvement - IVM (2017). Bambuzal e Fundão por Estúdio +1. Available on <http://concurso.cidadeemmovimento.org/finalistas/estudio-1/> accessed on 01/07/2017 Institut pour La Ville en Mouvement - IVM (2017). IVM anuncia a equipe vencedora do concurso nacional Passagens Jardim Ângela. Available on <http://cidadeemmovimento.org/ivm-anunciaequipe-vencedora-do-concurso-nacional-passagens-jardim-angela/> accessed on 01/07/2017 Institut pour La Ville en Mouvement - IVM (2017). Passeia, Menininha! Por COURB+Sampapé. Available on <http://concurso.cidadeemmovimento.org/finalistas/passeia-menininhacourbsampape/> accessed on 01/07/2017 Institut pour La Ville en Mouvement - IVM (2017). Saiba quem são os jurados da fase final do Passagens Jardim Ângela. Available on <http://cidadeemmovimento.org/saiba-quem-sao-osjurados-do-concurso-passagens-jardim-angela/> accessed on 01/07/2017 Jacques, P. (2011). Estética da ginga: a arquitetura das favelas através da obra de Hélio Oiticica. Rio de Janeiro: Casa da Palavra Jones, P. and Card. K. (2011). Constructing ‘“Social Architecture”: The Politics of Representing Practice. Architectural Theory Review, 16:3, 228-244 Josep, M. and Muxí, Z. (2014). Arquitetura e Política: ensaios para mundos alternativos. São Paulo: Gustavo Gili

Kapp, S., Baltazar, A. and Morado, D. (2008). Architecture as Critical Exercise: Little Pointers Towards Alternative Practices. in: Alternate Currents, field: (a free journal for architecture), vol. 2, no. 1, October 2008 Lefebvre, H. (1996) [1968]. The right to the city. In E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds) Henri Lefebvre: Writing on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell, 147–159 Manso, B. (2016). The Reduction in Homicides. In Homicide in São Paulo. Springer International Publishing, 151-159) Maricato, E. (2001). Brasil, cidades: alternativas para a crise urbana. Petrópolis: Vozes Marques, E. (2012). Social networks, segregation and poverty in São Paulo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(5), 958-979 Mehrotra, R. (2009). Kinetic city. Issues for urban design in South Asia. Reclaiming (the Urbanism of) Mumbai. Explorations in/of Urbanism. Sun Publishers, Amsterdam, 142-152 McGuirk, J. (2015). Radical cities: Across Latin America in search of a new architecture. London: Verso Prefeitura de São Paulo (2010). Dados demográficos dos distritos pertencentes às Prefeituras Available on <http://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/regionais/ Regionais. subprefeituras/dados_demograficos/index.php?p=12758> accessed on 30/06/2017 Robinson, J., and Roy, A. (2016). Debate on Global Urbanisms and the Nature of Urban Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 181-186 Rolnik, R. (2015). Um mundo cada vez mais murado. Available on <https://raquelrolnik.wordpress. com/2015/10/08/ummundocada-vez-mais-murado/> accessed on 09/10/2015 Sassen, S. (2009). Cities in Today’s Global Age. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 3-34 Sassen, S. (2015). Cities: Capital, Global, and World. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 585-592). Smith, C., Cooper-Hewitt Museum, United Nations, & Smithsonian Institution (2011). Design with the other 90%: Cities. New York: Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum Sugai, M. (2015). Segregação silenciosa: investimentos públicos e dinâmica socioespacial na área conurbada de Florianópolis (1970-2000). Florianópolis: Editora da UFSC Tonkiss, F. (2013). Cities by design: The social life of urban form. Cambridge: Polity Press Tovivich, S. (2011). Architecture for the urban poor, the ‘new professionalism’ of ‘community architects’ and the implications for architectural education: reflections on practice from Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London) Turner, J., and Fichter, R. (1972). Freedom to build: Dweller control of the housing process. New York : London: Macmillan ; Collier-Macmillan Turner, J. (1976). Housing by people: Towards autonomy in building environments (Ideas in progress). London: Marion Boyars United Nations - UN [1948] (2015). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available on <http:// www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf> accessed on 29/06/2017 United Nations - UN (2014). World Urbanization Prospects. Available on <https://esa.un.org/unpd/ wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.Pdf> accessed on 29/06/2017 United Nations - UN (2016). Income Gini coefficient. Available on <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/ income-gini-coefficient> accessed on 29/06/2017 Villaça, F. (2012). Reflexões sobre as cidades brasileiras. São Paulo: Studio Nobel Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259-2275

Reference list for images without captions: Front cover: Jardim Ângela. Source: Author’s image LSE logo: Source: Available on <http://personal.lse.ac.uk/otsu/LSElogo.jpg> accessed on 21/08/2017 LSE Cities Programme logo: Source: Available on http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSECities/images/ citiesProgrammeNewLogo.jpg> accessed on 21/08/2017 Cover of chapter 1: Cantinho do Céu. Source: Author’s image Cover of chapter 2: Overview of São Paulo. Source: Author’s image Cover of chapter 3: Cantinho do Céu. Source: Author’s image Cover of chapter 4: Jardim Ângela. Source: Author’s image Cover of chapter 5: Jardim Ângela. Source: Author’s image Cover of chapter 6: Jardim Ângela. Source: Author’s image Icons for figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14: Source: Available on <https://thenounproject.com/> accessed on 10/08/2017 Image of politician in figure 11: Source: Available on <https://media.melty.de/article-16945so-f1467297842/media.jpg> accessed on 10/08/2017 Diagram in figure 12: Source: Lecture material made by Julia King (2016) Image of architectural project in figure 14: Source: Available on < http://www.ceramichemarcuzzi. it/_img_key/52-BACKUP-fotolia_44976699_xs.jpg accessed on 10/08/2017 Image of the book ‘Small Change’ written by Nabeel Hamdi in figure 15: Source: Available on <https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/ books/1428064426i/8739095._UY475_SS475_.jpg> accessed on 10/08/2017 Image of Alejandro Aravena in figure 15: Source: Available on <https://worlddesignsummit. com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Photo-Alejandro-Aravena-copy.jpg> accessed on 10/08/2017 Image of Francis Kéré in figure 15: Source: Available on <https://www.designboom.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/francis-kere-serpentine-pavilion-2017-designboom18.jpg> accessed on 10/08/2017 Images of proposals in table 3: Source: Available on <http://concurso.cidadeemmovimento. org/finalistas/> accessed on 01/07/2017

APPENDIXES Appendix A - Interviewees’ profiles Interview

Description

Gender

Time practising

Sector(s) of practise

Size of organisation practising

Scale/context of action

Based in and mainly practising in

Nationality

Date of the interview

Architect and urbanist at self-owned small scale practice in São Paulo (Brazil)

Male

8 years

Private

Small

Urban National

São Paulo (Brazil)

Brazilian

20/06/2017

Architect and urbanist at self-owned small scale practice in São Paulo (Brazil)

Male

8 years

Private

Small

Urban National

São Paulo (Brazil)

Brazilian

20/06/2017

Architect and urbanist at self-owned medium scale practice in São Paulo (Brazil)

Male

19 years

Private

Medium

Urban National

São Paulo (Brazil)

Brazilian

23/06/2017

Technical Assistant at São Paulo’s Housing Department and cofounder of a Brazilian nongovernmental organisation called COURB

Female

3 years

Public and NGO

Large (Public) and small (NGO)

Urban National

São Paulo (Brazil)

Brazilian

24/06/2017

Senior Consultant at ARUP International Development

Male

9 years

Private

Large

Global International

London (United Kingdom)/Various developing countries

Irish

13/07/2017

Researcher at LSE Cities, lecturer at distinct institutions in London (United Kingdom) and architect at self-owned small scale practice

10 years

Academia (research and teaching) and independent practice

Medium (academia) and small (independent practice)

Global International

London (United Kingdom)/ India

British/Venezuelan

03/08/2017

Female

(continues on the next page)

(continuation of appendix A)

Associate at Architecture Sans FrontièresUK, lecturer at distinct institutions in London (United Kingdom) and architect for Kingston upon Thames London Borough Councils Design contest participants and winners Design contest participant Resident and member of local organisation in Jardim Ângela Resident and member of local organisation in Jardim Ângela

Female

10 years

NGO, academia (teaching) and public

Medium

Global International

London (United Kingdom)/ African countries

British

07/08/2017

Male and Male

N/A

Peripheral Local

N/A

Brazilian

20/06/2017

Female

N/A

Peripheral Local

N/A

Brazilian

24/06/2017

Female

N/A

Peripheral Local

N/A

Brazilian

11/06/2017

Male

N/A

Peripheral Local

N/A

Brazilian

20/06/2017

Appendix B - Interview script for professionals based in London and São Paulo

" # (continues on the next page)

# of appendix B) (continuation

%& #

' $

(& ) *& )

' +

+ ,

-& )

$ ! $

.& /

+ $

0& )

1& ) 2& )

$ !

Appendix C - Specific questions for participants of Passagens contest 1. Can you deďŹ ne your proposal using three words? 2. What were the key aspects emphasised by your team along the process? 3. How do you believe the outcome of your proposal can promote positive social impact? 4. What do you consider the limitations of your proposal are regarding the promotion of positive social impact? 5. What do you believe was distinctive about your proposal when compared to the other proposals submitted?

ANNEXES Annex A - Proposal A (Winner) final posters for Passagens contest

Annex B - Proposal B final posters for Passagens contest