Coproducing urban space: Rethinking the formal/informal dichotomy

Abstract

Providing an introduction to the special section ‘Close encounters: ethnographies of the coproduction of space by the urban poor’, this article sets out to argue that the image of ‘the informal’ as unruly, messy and dirty continues to inform urban planning around the world. As a reaction to this view, it contends that the informal and formal should be analysed as interconnected and that the informal sphere should be revalued. Urban development is studied as close encounters between established practices, with a locus and a history (tree‐like), and newly emerging, unstable and untraceable practices (rhizomatic). Contrary to the tendency in urban planning to conflate the formal with the tree and the informal with the rhizome, we argue that from the perspective of marginal urbanites, formal planning tends to be very arbitrary and frightening (rhizomatic), whereas informal practices can be very predictable and stable (arboreal). The article analyses residents of marginalized urban areas as inventive navigators who explore the changing physical, spatial and sociopolitical environment, avoiding threats and looking for opportunities, grounded in their everyday practices and life histories. The article concludes that marginal urbanites should be acknowledged as coproducers of urban space and that the right to ‘coproduce’ the city lies at the heart of the call for the right to the city.

Postrevolutionary land encroachments in Cairo: Rhizomatic urban space making and the line of flight from illegality

“…Al‐Narsh's ownership right was contested and overridden not only by other private actors at a time when he could not rely on government protection; the Governorate of Cairo did the same prior to the revolution, by continuing to lease a portion of the land to a third party, even after a court had ruled that the land no longer belonged to the state. Thus, as the editors of the present special section point out (Koster & Nuijten, ), contradictions within formal regulations and official legal processes may make it incorrect, in contexts such as this one, to assume that a formally recognized legal right offers security, or that following the procedures prescribed by official legal process will eliminate risk or dispute. There are, however, a number of factors that solidify ownership claims, as will now be discussed.…”

Editorial: Prize‐winning papers for 2017, SJTG lectures and special issue/section proposals

“…Second, and finally, special issues (of 8–10 papers) and special sections (of at least 3 papers) continue to be an important feature of the SJTG. These may include collections of papers speaking to a specific theme within a given tropical area (most recently the special section on state‐led ‘diaspora strategies’ in Asia; see Hickey et al ., ) or more spatially dispersed sets of contributions (such as the special section on ‘Ethnographies of the coproduction of space by the urban poor’; see Koster & Nuijten, ). Information on requirements of a special issue/section proposal is available on the SJTG website, as are links to the guest edited collections of papers that have been published in the journal since 2009.…”

‘The law is not for the poor’: Land, law and eviction in Luanda

“…Thus, the implicit idea, that formality is the norm and informality the deviation from that norm (an idea also challenged by McFarlane & Waibel, : 2), does not apply to contemporary Luanda, where informal land tenure has become much more of a norm than a deviation. This argument supports one of the themes of this special section, in which formality and informality are in essence not separate domains or concepts in opposition, but rather they overlap in a single twofold concept (see Dovey, : 363; Koster & Nuijten, ). They are inseparable, or two sides of the same coin, and consequently, informality will always exist in conjunction with formality.…”