Housing, in many regions around the world, represents a lucrative sector for investment and often the rich are at a serious advantage, being able to afford whatever houses they want or sell these same assets at ever increasing profit margins in relation to the demand.
This leaves the low-income earners majorly disadvantaged as they cannot afford these increased housing costs. Leaving them to settle in slums and neglected, dilapidated public housing schemes. The urban picture then created is one of inequality, with the well-off segregated in lavish neighbourhoods and the working poor having to make due with substandard living conditions. Often lacking access to water, sanitation, electricity and transport, these slums grow to become crime and disease-infested and ultimately hopelessness of overcoming the situation sets in.
With the increasing rate of rural to urban migration of human population the concept of housing needs to be re-imagined, researched and re-invented. The moment property wealth and investment held more value than building a happy community in upcoming urban areas is the point slums were born. Also known as favelas, colonias, townships, shantytowns, villas miseria, ghetto or bidonvilles in different countries, these settlements are a physical representation of failing urban-planning models.
The inability of the local authorities to plan for the different social income groups in an urban area means the under-privileged are left to create their own systems. We need to design systems that cater for basic housing needs, build harmonious communities and prioritise social integration to counter slums and the associated inequality, poverty and social segregation.
In this model, housing is not a representation of wealth or an opportunity to make money but instead it is provision of the basic housing need and an opportunity of social cohesion. This inclusive planning in urban management allows all urban dwellers access to basic amenities.
Such developments combine two, three and four-bedroomed units together or studio, one and two-bedroom units together allowing families of different but related social and economic backgrounds to live in proximity. This leads to evenly spread out infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and police stations; awarding everyone access to the same amenities. Countries like The Netherlands have established policies such as The Housing Act (1902), which recognises that affordable housing is a shared national responsibility. Read more on this here.
The upper class, tend to be uncomfortable with diversity and integration of different socioeconomic groups in a given area. If a doctor cannot be a neighbour to the school bus driver, your pre-conception of people in the society need to be rehabilitated. Slum dwellers are not social pariahs but victims of urban mismanagement. People living in affordable houses are not drug-dealers and thieves. Attitudes need to change for this housing to work.
Mixed income developments even the playing field and do not favour the higher income group over the under-privileged city dwellers. Their occupancy will not lower the property value or lower the standard of facilities in the community. The poor can then benefit from social networks that could enable them to integrate better in the job market and ultimately reduce their level of poverty. They will have access to community facilities that would otherwise not be accessible being forced to settle illegally in dense, disorganized, marginalized settlements.
Prioritise the value of homes and the community they serve to restore and advocate for the creation of decent houses for everyone, not just those in the top percentile- everyone.
I’d love to hear your opinions on this. Share in the comments.
