Public housing initiative in Luanda and Maputo: intervention models and socio-territorial impacts in the new millenium
In the beginning of the new millennium, in a globalized neoliberal context, Luanda and Maputo witness the consolidation of different paradigms of urban intervention, associated with certain housing models of public initiative, in which vertical condominiums and single-story housing of extensive grow...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Online |
| Sprog: | por |
| Udgivet: |
Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo.
2015
|
| Online adgang: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/posfau/article/view/90254 |
| Tags: |
Tilføj Tag
Ingen Tags, Vær først til at tagge denne postø!
|
| Summary: | In the beginning of the new millennium, in a globalized neoliberal context, Luanda and Maputo witness the consolidation of different paradigms of urban intervention, associated with certain housing models of public initiative, in which vertical condominiums and single-story housing of extensive growth stand out. Taking into account the contextual specificities of these two Lusophone capitals and their great socio-territorial disparities, we resort to the “right to the city” concept to, through the analyses of four case studies, reflect upon the adequacy of the solutions adopted in these two housing models to reduce such disparities, regarding habitable conditions, access to urbanization benefits, and participation and appropriation of a transformed urban life. In this context, we conclude that there is an unbalance between state investment and the real needs of the majority of the population, mostly low income, which limits the “right to the city” regarding the access to habitable conditions and to urbanization benefits. This limitation exists either in the vertical condominiums, targeted to middle and upper class, as in the single-story housing of extensive growth, more adapted to the lower income population and where the appropriation is allowed in both contexts. Neither case has all the rights considered by the “right to the city,” but Maputo presents a more favorable panorama, partly due to a greater openness to decentralization and popular participation in decision making and responsibility sharing. |
|---|