Turner, John F.C. “Barriers and Channels for Housing Development in Modernizing Countries.” Journal of American Institute of Planners 33.3 (May 1967): pp. 167-181.
Turner is seen by many as a pioneer in self-help housing research. Writing in the last 1960s and later, his work focused initially on Latin America and particularly on Peru and Mexico. However, once invited to work in the U.S., he realized along with other researchers, that his theories regarding housing development were applicable to the U.S. context as well.
This article clearly presents Turner’s argument that squatter settlements “offer uniquely satisfactory opportunities for low in come settlers” (167). Much more flexible than standardized housing policies supported by the government, these settlements actually meet the specific needs of settlers. Challenging the principle of minimum modern standards, Turner argues that “ordinary families in urbanizing countries do…prefer to live in large unfinished houses – or even large shacks – rather than in small finished ones” (167). While it is unclear what he would define as an ordinary family, Turner’s point is obvious. Unlike middle income families who can rely on stable wages and employment to provide social security, lower income families look to property ownership for security. Geographic stability, while an impediment for wealthier groups, is actually an “agent of social mobility” for settlers. Turner also highlights the role that generational concerns play; families tend to view this geographic stability as something which will help their children to “achieve a higher social status” (167).
Even if this geographic stability and possession of land means the settlers must sacrifice and wait for public services, Turner claims that most view the process of self-help as worth it. Before turning to his case study of Pampa de Cuevas in Lima, Turner makes sure to emphasize the incredibly rapid urbanization occurring in Latin American cities. Squatter settlement growth rate of 12 percent per year double rates of city growth; two-thirds of the growth in Peruvian urban population is made up of squatters. Using Pampa as an example, he argues that the majority of individuals prefer illegal squatting to the limited legal alternatives.
Whether unable to find other accommodation or searching for home-ownership, Turner’s settlers are motivated by a variety of reasons and produce a much more diversified social population than state-sponsored housing programs. While urban tenements might be closer to work, the squatter settlements provide for a more complete fulfillment of settlers’ needs. Settlers are able to achieve greater independence at an earlier stage in life (many are young families) and living conditions are constantly – even if gradually – improving. One “physical advantage” of this type of housing is that living spaces are larger than in “instant development” (urban housing programs). “Progressive development,” as Turner calls it, also solves the problem of obtaining credit and struggling with long-term mortgages. Furthermore, he claims that “it…stimulates the investment of nonmonetary resources – those that are in most abundant supply in a developing country” (177) and strengthens social and familial relationships.
Clearly, Turner challenges “instant” housing projects and argues for autonomy in self-help settlements. While Turner’s work can clearly relate to the experience of Villa El Salvador, it also provides an interesting tool for analyzing the government’s involvement in the colonias.
Tags: self-help housing, theory
