It has been suggested that it is not urbanisation itself that is the problem, but the inability to keep up with this rapid growth in terms of infrastructure and services that is the real issue at hand. Housing in particular is an obvious problem faced by MEDC’s and LEDC’s alike across the continents, although it can be said to be more severe in LEDC’s.
Inadequate housing can be said to result from the exceedingly rapid growth of the population that cannot be sufficiently housed, or from the inability to afford to live in a ‘house’ (that is, not a shanty).
In MEDC’s, housing in the city is generally crowded, small, and does not allow for a private garden or public spaces. The crowded housing is the result of the lack of public or private transport in previous times which meant that people had to live close to their workplaces, and in most cases the workplace was located in the CBD. The problems mentioned above such as traffic congestion and overcrowding that arise with urbanisation are being realised, and people are beginning a trend of moving out of the city into the suburbs - ‘counter-urbanisation’.
People leave the city to live in the suburbs for the more ‘green’ atmosphere and higher standard of living. Outward growth of the city is the result of the expansion of the public transport network and the affordability of private transport (I.e. the car). This then results in commuter villages. These settlements are occupied by people who commute to work on a daily basis, but prefer the lifestyle of the suburbs. In some cities such as London, the government and people were concerned with how quickly the urban sprawl was crawling out into the rural areas. A ‘green belt’ – a strip of land which mainly consists of national parks and protected areas where no housing could be built – was introduced in an effort to preserve some natural areas for farming and recreational purposes. In the outer areas of Chicago (McHenry County), it seems that “farming is a thing of the past in [that] zone” because there is an escalating number of housing developments to accommodate for these commuters in a previously rural district.
One way to slow down the urban sprawl is to make the city more attractive, to improve the housing in the city. ‘CBD regeneration’ is the process of improving (not replacing) older housing by adding basic amenities such as bathrooms, kitchens, indoor toilets and hot water systems – also known as gentrification. That is, the outer shell of the house is kept (possibly for heritage reasons) but the interior is completely redone. The government may encourage this to reduce counter-urbanisation. A local example of CBD regeneration is Richmond, Melbourne. Low-income workers in industry previously inhabited this area, thus housing was poor and very closely packed. The area deteriorated with time, and became an undesirable area to live in. In recent years (within the last 15 to 20 years) houses in the suburb have been bought and modernised with renovations, and is now seen as a relatively attractive area occupied by wealthy families. The proximity to the city (thus employment and services) has also added to the appreciation of areas such as these.
‘Urban renewal’ is the revitalisation of public housing estates (or slum areas) that previously have been “disadvantaged by poor urban planning, poor social planning and over concentration” (Queensland Government, 2002) by knocking down existing buildings and redeveloping the area. The aim of this is to improve the standard of living in the area for current and future residents, in hope that the area will become an attractive neighbourhood. This process usually involves the inhabitants so that local pride, self-esteem and a sense of community are strengthened. With this, it seems that problems that exist in this otherwise slum such as the trade of illicit drugs can be alleviated. An optimistic real-life example of urban renewal is in the South Bronx, New York. During the 1970’s, the Bronx was seen to be a “bombed out, abandoned and dysfunctional neighbourhood” of America, and “the cause of the large scale flight of middle class people from cities to suburbs”. The area was originally filled with “old, slummy-looking high rise apartment buildings”, but today has “attractive ranch houses with shiny, new vans parked next to them, well tended lawns, and a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere” (Shnidman, 2002). The government had invested ~~~ in the regeneration of this area when it was on the brink of ‘death’. Now the house prices are escalating – it is the fastest appreciating neighbourhood in New York.
Slum clearance involves the bulldozing of slum areas. In Mombasa, Kenya, in 2002, slum clearance occurred because the administration believed that the areas were “instrumental in the supply of illicit drugs and alcohol” (BBC, 2002). As a result, there were nearly 2000 families left homeless without most of their possessions (which were stolen by those that flattened the slums or otherwise put in flames) not knowing where to go next. The only result of the slum clearance is the relocation of slum inhabitants to other parts of the city – it barely lightens or solves any problems. The only possible motive for slum clearance is to relocate these people to government housing or to encourage them to return to their origins.
Self-help schemes are common in LEDC’s where the government cannot afford to finance major rehousing schemes. Usually in a self-help housing scheme, the government provides basic amenities, and building materials at a cheaper price. It is then up to the people to build their own houses. When a collection of houses is built, a public tap and toilet are installed. Dandora in Nairobi is an example of such a scheme. In other countries such as Mexico, there is financial assistance given to those on lower-incomes who want to own their own house. Without this assistance, these people would not be able to own their own homes. Current state housing programmers are encouraging those who live in inner-city shanties to move to self-help housing on the fringe of the city. Even in Los Angeles, the government is spending US$200 million for low-cost housing loans to encourage people (in particular immigrants) to buy their own homes so that they are not forced to live in inner-city shanties. Advantages of these schemes are that people find a sense of pride in their home, are financially better off, and can create a stronger community bond (people often ask their neighbours for assistance in construction).
