# Where Beverly Hills meets Haiti: when opulent wealth and extreme poverty meets in Sao Paulo, Brazil



## Maria Theresa (Jul 1, 2005)

Brazil has one of the worst income disparities in the world and that is widely known. Nevertheless, its quite interesting how some of the richest neighbourhoods border large slums. One of Sao Paulo´s fanciest districts, Morumbi (an indigenous word for green hills), a huge residential area, is neighbour to a dangerous favela, Paraisopolis ( something like " the paradise town").

Here are some google earth images:

First, the lush Morumbi, with its dense vegetation, hilly streets and swimming pools.
1








2








3









This mansion is almost a palace.
4









Another huge one.
5








6









The number of swimming pools and tennis courts in Morumbi is incredible
.7








8








9








10








11









Then...
12









A single house is equivalent to how many shacks in terms of area?








13








14








15








16
A soccer field in the middle of Paraisopolis.
16









A closer look in the slum.
17








18


----------



## isakres (May 13, 2009)

loved the name of the poor neighborhood: Paraisopolis (Paradise Ville)...Maybe the inhabitants or Paraisopolis live happier than its neighbours lol.


Seen similar disparities in Mexico City and other cities of the emerging countries as well.


----------



## samba_man (Dec 26, 2004)

Awesome thread !


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

you see the same thing in Morocco , good thread to see the difference


----------



## pokistic (May 8, 2007)

WTH! That can't be real. I never seen something like this so extreme. Amazing thread.


----------



## isakres (May 13, 2009)

^^Where do you live?, Louxemburg?


----------



## Maria Theresa (Jul 1, 2005)

pokistic said:


> WTH! That can't be real. I never seen something like this so extreme. Amazing thread.


of course it´s real!


----------



## brazilteen (Mar 20, 2010)

the right face ^^


----------



## kicksilver (Oct 27, 2009)

Maria, I hope you don't mind if I show these guys some social disparities of Rio de Janeiro too. But don't worry, it's the rich part of the city. 

First, a famous picture of São Paulo that Maria forgot to post... It's a picture of Morumbi on the border with Paraisopolis. It's a top condominium, as you can notice by yourselves, there's a private pool in each apartment.










Now, let's go to Rio de Janeiro.

Welcome to Rocinha. It's probably Rio's largest slum upon a hill. There are much larger slums over here, but they're flat on the ground. Rocinha is sat in the most expensive part of Rio, between Leblon, São Conrado and Gavea neighbourhoods, three of the most expensive of the city. 

Full view of Rocinha from São Conrado.









Rocinha on top of the hill, and Rodrigo de Freitas Lagoon in the background, along with the luxury neighbourhoods of Jardim Botanico (Botanic Garden), and Botafogo.









Aerial view of Rocinha...









Welcome to Vidigal slum. It's sat just between Leblon and São Conrado, on the other face of the Rocinha's mount. It's also located on a really expensive area, perhaps the city's most expensive. The view is incredible, as it's on the seafront.




























Now it's time for Copacabana to shine. Yes, the world's most famous neighbourhood. In it, there is the Pavão-Pavãozinho (Peacock-Little Peacock) slum. It's an expensive neighbourhood, but much less than the previous areas shown. 

From the beach...









From the beach, but closer...









Aerial view of the slum...









The slum inside the neighbourhood... Just beside the residential buildings, on top of a tunnel.


----------



## fragel (Jun 16, 2010)

This is by far the best rich/poor contrast picture that I've ever seen. The two worlds are only separated by a wall. 



kicksilver said:


>


----------



## brazilteen (Mar 20, 2010)

*impressive picture of são paulo*


----------



## brazilteen (Mar 20, 2010)

*Salvador-Bahia Brazil*


----------



## ChitownCity (May 11, 2010)

:shocked::shocked::shocked: That's just sad....


----------



## jefferson2 (May 31, 2008)

ChitownCity said:


> :shocked::shocked::shocked: That's just sad....


there could be another perspective too...

I imagine Paraisopolis grew where it did because people have more opportunities for jobs there (than they might in other parts of Brazil, or than they might further from the centre of Sao Paulo)

i dont necesarily think it would be better if rich and poor lived far from each other

nice pics though! you cant get that too many other places


----------



## Karabuy (Feb 16, 2010)

nice thread


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Crazy contrasts in these pics, hopefully Brazil can progress to a more equal future, I don't think I could really enjoy such wealth with slums right next to me. It's not surprising that the crime rate is so high and rich people have to live behind high walls with security guards.


----------



## Compton_ (May 20, 2004)

kicksilver said:


> First, a famous picture of São Paulo that Maria forgot to post... It's a picture of Morumbi on the border with Paraisopolis. It's a top condominium, as you can notice by yourselves, there's a private pool in each apartment.


This picture is very known in Brazil. I first saw it in a schoolbook when I was 14. Moreover, in the Brazilian soap opera "A Próxima Vítima", one of the characters lived in this building!


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

> I imagine Paraisopolis grew where it did because people have more opportunities for jobs there (than they might in other parts of Brazil, or than they might further from the centre of Sao Paulo)
> 
> i dont necesarily think it would be better if rich and poor lived far from each other


I think this is an interesting perspective, and I agree.


----------



## Aceventura (May 6, 2007)

*Gunmen invade luxury hotel in Rio de Janeiro*

http://http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juJkPto0-dv9ljbU9X3KkYwqlggwD9HO1SH81



> By FELIPE DANA (AP) – 5 days ago
> RIO DE JANEIRO — Gunmen engaged in a shootout with police took 30 people hostage Saturday at a luxury hotel popular with foreign tourists but within hours freed the captives and surrendered to police.
> The upscale, beachside neighborhood where the Intercontinental Hotel is located was transformed into a virtual war zone as the 10 suspects — armed with high-caliber rifles, grenades and pistols — exchanged fire with police in a shootout that killed a bystander as she was getting out of a taxi.
> *Dozens of other suspects fled into a nearby slum where the shootout began.* Spent casings from high-caliber weapons littered the pavement in front of the hotel and residents of the neighborhood said they were awakened by the shooting.
> ...


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

jefferson2 said:


> there could be another perspective too...
> 
> I imagine Paraisopolis grew where it did because people have more opportunities for jobs there (than they might in other parts of Brazil, or than they might further from the centre of Sao Paulo)
> 
> i dont necesarily think it would be better if rich and poor lived far from each other


It would be better if the poor weren't so poor though...

Impressive pics!


----------



## lfernand (May 28, 2008)

In the past when the slums began to grow the government should have helped these people without money and no perspective to build their houses in other places, delimiting streets and enough space between the houses, also building infrastructure(water, light, sanitation). But they chose to close their eyes and pretend these people didnt exist.

The result you see above, marginalized people, drug dealers with state power in these communities and a rage that insuflates violency in Brasil.

I live in Juiz de Fora, a city with 600 thousand inhabitants in Brasil, 150 km from Rio de Janeiro and is pretty safe here, theres a crime rate here more like some US cities, doesnt reach the low European levels but dramatically differs from the reality of various brasilian metropolis. The slums (small ones) here are just invaded grounds, but the houses have water, sanitation and all the basic things.

I have a opnion, this had to be priority in Brasil, sanitation and elimination of some types of slumns, the laws today dont allow the government to take off these people from there, but something has to be done.


----------



## Positronn (Jan 25, 2008)

Fern said:


> It would be better if the poor weren't so poor though...
> 
> Impressive pics!


Not everyone that lives in slums are poor. Many dwellers are just low middle-class, they have a new LCD television and air conditioning. Slums are not just a social or economic problem, but mainly the product of government negligence. Favelas are "holy", they can't be touched and removing is always controversial. Bullshit IMO. If they don't want to live faraway, the slum has to be taken down, new commieblocks built and so the formal city comes.


----------



## lfernand (May 28, 2008)

Positronn said:


> Not everyone that lives in slums are poor. Many dwellers are just low middle-class, they have a new LCD television and air conditioning. Slums are not just a social or economic problem, but mainly the product of government negligence. Favelas are "holy", they can't be touched and removing is always controversial. Bullshit IMO. If they don't want to live faraway, the slum has to be taken down, new commieblocks built and so the formal city comes.


Exactly. That's pure negligence, the slumns were formed in the big cities by rural populations from the north(amazon region) and northeast mainly, these people migrated to south's metropolis without any money and the government should have helped this people building streets and infrastructure.

Unfortunatelly this situation remain unchaged in Brasil, many people live in slums today because they dont have to rent/buy a house and the slums are well located in the city. The politicians dont want to discuss nothing about slums removal cause it may cost several less votes to them.


----------



## BrickellResidence (Feb 4, 2008)

i met a friend who lives in those poor zones in mexico city, he lived in a house that outside looks bad like poor but when i entered the house it had LCD 42 inch TV and 4 Spacious rooms and a big dining room and a garage with a Volvo s60 i was like WTF!!! jajajaja


----------



## xerxesjc28 (Mar 3, 2008)

^^ Commi blocks can be really bad. The USA is a great example of how horrible and disastrous government housing can be for poor neighborhoods, particularly good example are poor black neighborhoods. Not sure if the commie blocks came first or the bad neighbor hoods the reside in. 

Highways also destroyed many great black neighborhoods, Over town in Miami is a great example, a working class neighborhood of some 40,000 IIRC then after a highways was built through it circa 1960's, it went down to 10,000.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^I agree, just look at the Indian slums where lots of commies are constructed. Life has not gone a better road there..., and go back in time to the Hongkong of the 60ties and 70ties. All those people living in slums where put into massive housing projects. They now live with 5 in one room and have only a sort of cage bed wich belongs to them... It that so much better?

I don't know what I prefer or is there even asked what these people living in them prefere???

*Hongkong:*










*India:*










*Brazil:*


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

*In hongkong shacks are even build on to roofs of appartments:*


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ That's the paradoxes of the whole "developpement" ideology where it is assumed that "developpement" (ie trying to follow the same path as that of 'developped' countries) magically makes all problems go away.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^ what eklips said!


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

The inequality shown in the first pictures is just scandalous:shocked:


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

Problems like this are not limited to Brazil. It's definitely very obvious in many southeast asian cities or densley populated regions. Even where I live, they're putting up mid-rise condominiums in the middle of a slum areas and vast expanse of gated communities border shanties. hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Brazil has had lots of different theories to development over the last 70 years, mostly disastrous failures. I suspect that "printing" money to create housing and infrastructure was one of the causes of hyper-inflation (though certainly not the only cause).

I think it is better to accept that the elimination of slums is a 50 year project (if ever), and focus on education, the creation of small business and building of private investment. You are MUCH better off with educated, industrious people living in slums than uneducated, unmotivated people living in brand-new govt. housing.


----------



## engenx4 (Jul 2, 2010)

PROJECTS TO FINISH WITH SLUM IN SAO PAULO

BEFORE 2009








2010








BEFORE 2009------- 2010








BEFORE 2009








2010








BEFORE 2009








2010









....................
In MANAUS
BEFORE








NOW (2010)








NOW (2010)








NOW (2010)








NOW (2010)








NOW(2010)








NOW (2010)








NOW (2010)








NOW(2010)


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^ So and where did these people go? I guess just another newly build slum outside the city...


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

At least is better than the old slum ^^, i guess... Btw i doubt Copacabana is the world's most famous neighborhood, that would be somewhere in Los Angeles or New York City.


----------



## .for.ce.br (Sep 1, 2010)

Slums are a problem in all developing countries, not just Brazil... Take Mexico City, Mumbai or Jakarta... And it's a BIG problem to solve...


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

-Corey- said:


> At least is better than the old slum ^^, i guess... Btw i doubt Copacabana is the world's most famous neighborhood, that would be somewhere in Los Angeles or New York City.


Hiding poverty does not make it go away, and destroying people's homes is a bit of a problem don't you think?


----------



## brazilteen (Mar 20, 2010)

*They went to popular apartaments or houses*

*SÃO PAULO*









*OLINDA*









*MANAUS*


----------



## engenx4 (Jul 2, 2010)

joshsam said:


> ^^ So and where did these people go? I guess just another newly build slum outside the city...


the government built houses for them 

examples


























another







G]













































Ghettos ?? maybe


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Maria Theresa said:


>


Extremer cases in México 

The Wealthy Neighborhood











The Slum











Both of them











High class, middle high class, poor class


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Favelas are illegal settlements. It doesn't matter where people _want_ to live, there has to order and land management. We do not live in a Laissez-faire society, government intervention is essential to a cities health and success. That's the problem with Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc...people are "allowed" to build anything anywhere. The result is a chaotic and unorganized city, with multiple health issues.

I've seen favela areas that have been destroyed to make way for controllable development...it's entirely possible.


----------



## Vovin (Jan 18, 2006)

^
It's very hard to define what is "illegal" and what it's not in a country like Brazil, where most of the land is simply taken by force through the use of violence, since the beginning of portuguese colonization. The difference, of course, is that the illegality of the rich is ignored, while the illegality of the poor is criminalized. This being said, i don't believe that a favela, after gaining some infrastructure as sewage (that most have by now, at least in Rio de Janeiro) is a unhealthy environment, although i cannot say the same about sterilized suburbs.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

> This being said, i don't believe that a favela...is a unhealthy environment, although i cannot say the same about sterilized suburbs.


This is honestly shocking to hear. I've been in many favelas in Brazil (Sao Paulo, Fortaleza, Manaus, and Santos) and they are not something I would call "healthy". Unpaved roads, with garbage everywhere, gang controlled, etc. We had a team from work get stopped in a favela by a local gang thinking that they were the police. It took a long time to convince the gang that my team was not the police. If they were the police, the gang would have killed everyone in the car. This is not healthy or safe. I wouldn't want to live anywhere where simple services like fire, hospital, and police are not welcome.


----------



## Vovin (Jan 18, 2006)

Maybe the realities are different across brazilian cities, because the ones i know here (Rocinha and Parque União), have problems but they are the same problems that affect the poor "formal" neighboorhoods like violence and lack of public services, the street were i live had open sewage for 6 months and the prefecture ignored (in the rich neighboorhoods it wouldn't last one day), and it's not a favela neither a real poor area of the town, just is far away from the touristic centers, that is enough to be ignored.

Then how can you say that a favela is so worse? At least there they don't pay taxes (and have a strong sense of community, a strong informal economy etc)


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

^^ I think you are addressing all of the issues of why I consider Brazil 3rd world, or "developing".


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I'll come later to this thread to bash, contradict and dismantle this appalling argument that "people actually like living in favelas".

As for now, I stay with the facts:

(1) they are illegal settlements

(2) their houses are substandard at best, hazardous and deadly usually, as favelas are often built over land unsuitable for settlement and/or with absolutely improper techniques to deal with leveling and slope stabilization

(3) they concentrate a significantly high proportion of poverty and crime, especially violent crime, within any city where they exist. Read carefully: I'm not saying that all people living there are criminals or that criminals are found only in favelas.

(4) they are like a cancer in the urban environment, fomented by lawlessness and attracting further reprehensible social phenomena like black trading, drug distribution etc.

As so, *there is one, and one only, feasible solution to favelas: complete dismantle followed by bulldozing/demolition/implosion*. They should be wiped out of the map and their dwellers relocated to proper housing elsewhere. Anything short of that is appeasement.

I know some twist and strange school of thought see favelas as something "desirable" or even "interestings". I invite those who think like that to move to a favela where murder rates are above 200/100.000 hab. and police resembles more of a military force than a security corp.

Favelas are the biggest shame of Brazil. We shouldn't promote them EVER, instead, fight for their ultimate destruction, not only as inadequate housing arrangements and settlements but as a representation of what is worst in Brazil, what we must overcome if we want to call our country developed. It is a degenerated culture and a twisted system of values that needs to be destroyed and annihilated together with those crappy and hazardous buildings - once the population is relocated elsewhere, preferably to the outskirts of the city in new and functional housing projects that gives them a single house where households can develop a better sense of living as individuals with rights.


----------



## kicksilver (Oct 27, 2009)

Despite the fact that I always disagree with Suburbanist when it comes to transportation methods, his post is flawless... That's the reality, and the solution.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Favelas are the biggest shame of Brazil. We shouldn't promote them EVER, instead, fight for their ultimate destruction, not only as inadequate housing arrangements and settlements but as a representation of what is worst in Brazil, what we must overcome if we want to call our country developed. It is a degenerated culture and a twisted system of values that needs to be destroyed and annihilated together with those crappy and hazardous buildings - *once the population is relocated elsewhere, preferably to the outskirts of the city in new and functional housing projects that gives them a single house where households can develop a better sense of living as individuals with rights.*


Surprisingly, I do agree with you in some aspects of your post. Favelas are a shameful reality in many countries, as everyone deserves access to safe and decent housing. That said, why do you advocate that the poor be relocated to the outskirts of the city? Instead of concentrating the poor in the cities, you'd rather them be concentrated on the outskirts. That's not going to solve the problem. People work in the cities because that is where the jobs and money is to be found, so why should the poor be banished or 'relocated' when they can be given safe and proper housing in the city close to job opportunities just like everyone else. If you place the poor in new and shiny developments it won't make a difference in changing the culture of poverty if there are no jobs or they have to travel hours every day to get to work. This is what creates ghettos in the first place, this idea that the poor should be placed out of sight and away from the wealthy and middle classes. This I think is not the solution for Brazil or any other country.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

Northsider said:


> Favelas are illegal settlements. It doesn't matter where people _want_ to live, there has to order and land management. We do not live in a Laissez-faire society, government intervention is essential to a cities health and success. That's the problem with Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc...people are "allowed" to build anything anywhere. The result is a chaotic and unorganized city, with multiple health issues.
> 
> I've seen favela areas that have been destroyed to make way for controllable development...it's entirely possible.


Illegal or not, if the governments of these countries are unwilling or unable to provide decent housing for the poor, they will continue to build settlements where they want.


----------



## lfernand (May 28, 2008)

I completely agree with Suburbanist and NorthSider. Unfortunatelly in Brasil we have a law that a person owns a invaded ground if he can proove he lived there for five years, besides it theres a lot of hipocrisy and protecionism with the slumns, so this situation ll remain unchanged, thanks to the idiots that think protect slumns is protecting the poor.

Actually, these slumns protectors, politicians and ONG members trully help to marginalize the dwellers and to mantain a series of problems associated with this type of dwelling. I think in some decades Brasil ll reach the 5th position in GDP and I am absolutely sure the slumns ll be at the same place and maybe even biggers.

I think theres no medication against the stupidity.


----------



## jefferson2 (May 31, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I'll come later to this thread to bash, contradict and dismantle this appalling argument that "people actually like living in favelas".


logically, if someone chooses to live in a favela, it implies they view it as their best option - so they must 'like' living there in the broadest sense of the word. having said that, most people here who have actually been to one, seems not to think too highly of them

from the view of someone who has bever been to one, the favelas in southern rio look to have some positive points. I assume they pay no taxes, they are near jobs, near the beach, on what would probably be quite valuable land, and i would imagine there is a strong sense of community. also it provides a source of labor for jobs in the city

could there not be an argument for providing services, trying to contain crime problems, and trying to make sure structures are safe and arent located in places prone to mudslides; rather than simply relocating people to cheaper, more sterile, out of the way real estate


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ the sense of community (one ruled by durglords where police is "the enemy") is the first thing to be smashed, indeed. So I support relocation efforts that disperse people around the metropolitan area, to break root and poisoned social relationships. Like to give those people a "fresh start in unfamiliar surroundings".


----------



## Vovin (Jan 18, 2006)

I'm really afraid of you. That's what they did to slaves in first place, placed people of different ethnicities apart, to "break root and poisoned social relationships." You want to do it again to their descendants? What next? A gas chamber?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Unfortunately, there are no good answers, most especially the "everything's fine in the favelas" answer and the "bulldoze their lives to pieces" answer.

Moving people to new housing without the job skills, tools and incentives to maintain the housing is wasted effort and money. Moderate amounts of housing accompanied by some efforts at skill development or other directed services is likely to work better. This leaves a lot of people in very poor conditions, but so does every other proposal.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ the sense of community (one ruled by durglords where police is "the enemy") is the first thing to be smashed, indeed. So I support relocation efforts that disperse people around the metropolitan area, to break root and poisoned social relationships. Like to give those people a "fresh start in unfamiliar surroundings".


What I like about you is that things are very clear, you are a pure example of un-hidden class warfare waged against the poorest. You don't resort to political correctness to hide the class violence which seems to be entrenched so deeply within yourself.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Ah, it's bad not pay lip service to political correctness.



Vovin said:


> I'm really afraid of you. That's what they did to slaves in first place, placed people of different ethnicities apart, to "break root and poisoned social relationships." You want to do it again to their descendants? What next? A gas chamber?





eklips said:


> What I like about you is that things are very clear, you are a pure example of un-hidden class warfare waged against the poorest. You don't resort to political correctness to hide the class violence which seems to be entrenched so deeply within yourself.


I'm talking specifically about people living in favelas. I'm not talking about all poor people, not even about poor people of a given ethnic background (just non-sense).

My reasoning is that there is a threshold below which a micro-society is beyond repair for civilized life and so must be disbanded so its individual members can reintegrate while forgetting the past and reprogramming themselves for a better life.

Most favelas in Brazil are below that threshold. Most are ruled by criminal gangs (which makes, alone, the case for heavy armed intervention to crush such criminal activity that takes control over the territory) related to drug trafficking. People there never had any notion of rights, and were never been respected as citizens should be.

This rotten combination poisons the community as community. Individual "favelados" can always get back on track to a productive, civilized and decent life if given the opportunity, but that would be almost impossible if their notion of community prevails, if the social bonds formed by criminal ruling, fear and twisted social logic subsist.

Imagine someone addicted to gambling. A critical step on treatment is to get away from the crowds that goes the casino every Friday. Bad companions can damage character and morale. Bad environment can damage a community standard of values and hope, beyond any repair - only relocation and/or gentrification will suffice.

So I want them to be relocated elsewhere so they can reorganize their own lives in other communities. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm not talking about housing people in tents, I'm talking about giving them decent housing far from the place (within the same metro area) they used to live in, and scattered. So a given relocation community would be formed by people relocated from 10-20 different favelas, and people living a given favela would be relocated to 10-20 different new housing projects.

Then, I'd bulldoze the favelas altogether to wipe them out of the map as a bad chapter on history of Brazil. There is nothing to be proud about favelas, the hardness it imposes on its dwellers, the degenerated cultural expressions brewed there, the violence that traumatized, maimed and destroyed so many families, the lawlessness it represents and the ultimate failure of the concept of urban civilization. So I don't even want to preserve their history. Just blow it up once people are decently relocated.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Interesting thread. I see so many similarities to Manila where you have the same. The most luxurious neighborhoods and malls are right next to slums etc.

In Hong Kong and Singapore the solution was indeed to build social housing for the people living in shanty towns. In Hong Kong each person was allocated a few square meter.

On this image I recently made of a neighboorhood built specificall to house people of the slums a few decades ago you can see the uniform blocks (block 20 and 21) The building on the foot of the hill is the previous version and first generation of this social housing and the last "man standing". These type of blocks were built to house the people after a major fire in the shanty town. It is protected as such and will become a youth hostel. Originally there were hardly any sanitary facilities.









The interesting aspect is that they are now building a 3rd generation of blocks (urban renawal on the left) that will gradually replace the older blocks. These are much higher allowing them to be spacious and are obviously of better quality.

High res

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xavibarca/4989492758/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Countries can learn from Hong Kong and Singapore in how to turn slums into livable neighborhoods. The advantage of these places is cultural rejection of crime. All these neighborhoods are as safe as the most expensive neighborhoods in Hong Kong. Of-course countries like Brazil and the Philippines have much more people making replication a very tough job.

Back on topic. Even right next to an iconic skyscraper with a luxurious mall like the new ICC building (visible in the distance) you can find these old dilapidated blocks of social housing.


----------



## orlando01 (May 3, 2010)

DBertrand said:


> Brazil will never be a developed country!
> 
> It is a mixture of races that did not work


Que atrasado mental.


----------



## NickABQ (Jun 6, 2007)

Suburbanist-

I must say, you are well-spoken, clearly defined and articulate. You make some excellent points, and try to support them with particular, specific and tidy arguments.

Too bad it's all bullshit.

What you have said is a clear reflection of a priviledged, neo-liberal perspective, from a developed country. 

Who the hell are you to tell Brazilians (of any sort, but ESPECIALLY favela-dwellers) how they should live and what their communities should be like. No offense, but no-one in Tilburg should be dictating anybody outside of Tilburg how to live. And if you're a Brazilian that packed up and headed for the Netherlands, then you gave up your stake in community planning there. 

NOW LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR. I'm not necessarily supporting favelas as a healthy, stable place to live. It is common knowledge to us all that informal settlements fail in some objective standards of urban safety, health and well-being. I think you just took your argument a few steps too far. To suggest stratifying communities on purpose, and bulldozing their own home-communities (even if they are "ruled by gangs and druglords") is completely acenine. 

The golden rule of planning is that THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ANSWERS. More often than not, and in the case of Brazilian favelas, the people just don't have the resources (money, time, technical expertise, opportunity, option, legal avenues etc) to actually take decision making into their own hands. 

Cheers


----------



## kicksilver (Oct 27, 2009)

NickABQ said:


> Suburbanist-
> 
> I must say, you are well-spoken, clearly defined and articulate. You make some excellent points, and try to support them with particular, specific and tidy arguments.
> 
> ...


As a resident of Rio de Janeiro, I disagree with you completely. Suburbanist's opinion is very coherent. Slums are unhealthy.=, it's honest and working dwellers deserve better housing.


----------

