En este estudio se caracterizan las diversas formas en que las familias con responsabilidades de cuidado aquellas en las que habita al menos un niño o niña de hasta 4 años, una persona con discapacidad y/o una persona mayor con dependencia que residen en barrios populares se organizan y distribuyen responsabilidades entre sus integrantes para acceder a los recursos que necesitan para cuidar en un contexto de carencias materiales persistentes. Los resultados ponen en evidencia que las estrategias de desarrollo urbano con perspectiva de cuidado tienen un enorme potencial para mitigar la reproducción de las desigualdades sociales y entre géneros y para remover los mecanismos de transmisión intergeneracional de desventajas sociales. La incorporación de la perspectiva del cuidado en las estrategias de desarrollo urbano promueve intervenciones tendientes a reducir la carga de dependencia de las familias, redefinir el pacto intergeneracional y entre géneros de las dinámicas familiares de cuidado y dinamizar la economía del cuidado y promover el acceso de las mujeres al trabajo formal.

No abstract

No abstract

World population is about 7.5 billion people. Approximately 3 billion live in cities and around 1 billion live below poverty line. Recently, in Habitat iii in Quito, it was argued that within the next 20 years our cities will absorb an additional 2,000 million inhabitants. When this happens, 2 billion people will be living below poverty line.For an oblivious, indulgent discipline -obsessed with designing second homes and corporate buildings to be published on couché paper magazines -this data may seem irrelevant. However, for a discipline conscious of the power that architecture and urban design have in order to build poverty, increase inequality and materialize social divisions, such information cannot be but a ground-shaker, a call for action.For a long time, design has operated from a reflective imaginary built on aesthetics. In recent decades, this process has developed a repertoire of impressive morphological rhetoric and spatial sophistications, but has restricted our domain to a framework only understood and -many timesonly valued by architects.It is urgent to expand our domain of concerns, not because architects ought to do things other than those we are trained for, but because by expanding our area of interest we can regain the ability to influence and better contribute with the skills and features that only synthetic thinking can bring on certain topics. For instance, worldwide, the crisis condition is no longer an exception. We attend every day to repetitive economic oscillations where levels of inequality and social division increase, or how due to extreme situations of political uncertainty or climate change, millions of people are banished from their places of origin -as it occurs with the more than forty million refugees living in camps all over the world.Locally, we see the increasing unequal distribution of urban attributes as a result of freedom relinquished to an impatient capitalism, deployed in highly privileged urban areas opposed debate The imaginary of urgency has taken over architectural discourse at a speed consistent with the promptness of the answers it supposes. The very nature of the concept, still, has made it impossible to analyze more closely. That is why in this issue of arq we take the time for asking: is the urgent so urgent? Are we facing a new social consciousness or is it just a rhetorical change? Does it reflect an actual need or is it simply a new imaginary?