A Critical Reflection on Lecture of Urban Transitions in East Africa.
Between Informality, International Capital and Inherited Planning Legislation.
by Fransiska Lee
It is impossible to initiate a discussion of urban transitions without thinking about urban planning and development. Reflection on urban transitions in East Africa brings me back to two questions which were always asked during the lectures of the History of Planning. What is urban planning for? Who is urban planning for? Moreover, when talking about transitions, there are a period of time, processes and changes. Thus, what makes urban transitions such an interesting topic is whether the processes and outcomes are effective at solving urban problems or at least shifting the pressures of the status quo.
There are critical points which can be clearly understood from the lecture: that urban transitions occur all over the world but on different cause-and-effect scales and that there are different historical backgrounds and current circumstances behind each of the transitions that make them appear similar but actually distinct. The articles — the Influence of Planning Standards on the Long Term Sustainability of Settlements: Evidence from Dar es Salaam (2013) and Translation of Urban Planning Models: Planning Principles, Procedural Elements and Institutional Settings (2015) — written by the lecturer and his colleagues are helpful in illustrating the complexities of urban transitions such as those occurring in East African cities, particularly in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
From both articles, it is clear that the writers’ interest in the complexities of urban transitions in Dar es Salaam were shifted. The latter article seems to be the development of the research conclusion written in the earlier article. At first, the writers focused on the mushrooming of informal settlements in Dar es Salaam by analyzing formally planned and informally developed settlements. The facts showed that both formal and informal residential areas experienced land use changes, densification and gentrification (Scholz et al., 2013). Over time, residential areas in Dar es Salaam changed into mixed-use areas. Given the facts, the writers concluded that the core of the problems is that the Tanzanian statutory system and its implementation could not manage rapid urbanization and could not solve urban problems and challenges in Dar es Salaam. While the planning authorities assumed that planning standards cannot be enforced to informal settlements and the fact that most areas of Dar es Salaam were informal settlements inhabited by poor people, the population’s need for adequate basic infrastructure and flexible livelihoods through at least small-scale commercial or income generating activities became unfulfilled.
Armed with the result of previous research, the latter research then focused on why urban planning models and its realization in Tanzania failed to manage rapid urban development and even made Dar es Salaam’s current circumstances more complex. The research conclusion is that there was a growing gap between the ‘ideal’ urban planning models and the reality — existing urban fabric and morphology — because the planning models maintained the colonial principles inherited from previously ruling Western countries (Hossain et al., 2015). Even the race-based segregation formed in the colonial system has been continued and transformed into socio-economic segregation, influenced by the political and power system which represent the dominant groups. Despite this continuum, no specific African post-colonial urban model has been developed to address the particular urban challenges arising, neither in academic discussion nor in planning practice (Hossain et al., 2015, p. 148).
There were actually efforts to translate the colonial urban planning models into contemporary urban planning legislations and institutions through the processes of adaptation, appropriation, hybridization and refusal. However, the refusals due to the unfulfilled needs of affordable housing and decent livelihoods and the expanding of unplanned development areas showed how three other translation processes had seriously failed to form the planning models that focus on the rapidly growing population with problems and challenges that followed. The reliance on ‘Western’ planning experts, the top-down planning approach, ‘normalized’ segregation, more concern on layout and visual appearance, lack participation of stakeholders and the domination of politics and bureaucracy in the planning institutions were some of the remaining colonial legacies which failed to be transformed.
To conclude, the lecture and articles help me to reflect on not only the importance of effective urban planning and development but also urban conditions and systems that must be considered in realizing urban transformation. Urban transformation is not a stand-alone process. It is both local-specific and holistic integration of many aspects, not only technical, but also historical, governmental, political, socio-economic, cultural and environmental aspects. In addition, the lecture reminds me of Miraftab’s thought about the informality of third world cities: the upside-down perspective of city failure — how widespread informality can be seen as local resistance to Western urban planning and development models and that planning should not be defined only as a professional practice in a formal structure but also as actions taken by the majority of marginalized people to fight for decent housing and livelihoods (Miraftab, 2009). Miraftab’s thought then brings me to the question asked in the lecture when talking about uncontrolled development: from whose perspective is that urban development is uncontrolled or unwanted?
Another thing I learn from the lecture is that urban development is labeled uncontrolled if it is not carried out or as planned by the government or the authorities, with less consideration on the effectiveness of existing urban planning models. Possible solutions for this case are by changing the stakeholders’ mindset first and start synergizing the institutionalized planning models with the localized planning approach which allow the local community and other relevant stakeholders (such as local planners, architects, academics and NGOs) to participate in planning and development processes. Those who doubt the impact of participatory planning — mostly governments — may learn from the success story of Nahr el Bared Reconstruction in Lebanon. Moreover, a good governance that upholds transparency, accountability and participation, accompanied with just legislation should be developed and maintained by all stakeholders in all planning and development processes. That way, urban transformation can be prevented from being politicized or influenced only by dominant groups.
References
Miraftab, F. (2009). Insurgent Planning: Situating Radical Planning in the Global South. Planning Theory 8, №1 (February 2009), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099297
Scholz, W., Shedrack, J., Dayaram, T., & Robinson, P. (2013). The Influence of Planning Standards on the Long Term Suitability of Settlements: Evidence from Dar es Salaam. ISOCARP Review 09, Frontiers of Planning: Visionary Futures for Human Settlements, 28–44.
Hossain, S., Scholz, W., & Baumgart, S. (2015). Translation of Urban Planning Models: Planning Principles, Procedural Elements and Institutional Settings. Habitat International, 48. 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.006
