Kioe Sheng Yap, Cardiff University, United Kingdom (Invited Speaker) on "Housing the Urban Poor in Asia’s Globalized Cities:"

1. INPUT 2012
Cagliari, 10 May 2012
Housing the Urban Poor in
Asia’s Globalized Cities:
Evaluating Outcomes, not Outputs
Yap Kioe Sheng

2. 1. Introduction

3. For decades, the poor have informally housed
themselves. Unable to offer an alternative, the
authorities mostly tolerated informal housing

4. The United Nations
estimates that over
500 million people
live in inadequate
housing in urban
areas of Asia

5. As cities develop, the poor are evicted
Evicted families often face serious hardship

6. Evictions follow a pattern:
1. reduce the population
a. soft or hard
pressure to leave
b. bribing of
community leaders
2. offer of compensation
a. in cash
b. in land
c. in housing unit

7. When the population
resist eviction, land-
owner and residents
may compromise
The landowner and
population decide to
divide the land: land
sharing

8. Today, governments
want world-class
cities without slums
Land owners want to
optimize land values
Investors seek land to
invest in real estate
Land is too valuable
for housing the poor

9. Because of todays’
high land values,
developers prefer
to give housing
units in the project
rather than land
This looks like an
attractive solution,
but is it?

10. 2. Eviction from Boeung Kak
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

11. Boeung Kak Lake

12. 15,000 to 20,000 people lived in and around the lake

13. US$1.5 billion
The Municipality of Phnom Penh leases the
area to a private company for redevelopment
The residents protest and claim that they had
more rights to the land than the company

14. The company fills the lake, flooding the houses;
the population, with NGO support, starts negotiations

15. The company offers house-owners (but not
the renters) three options:
1. cash payment of US$8,500 per family
2. a plot of land with basic shelter, 15kms
from the city centre + US$850
3. some form of housing inside the project,
once it is finished

16. • Most left without or with a cash payment
• Some moved to the resettlement area
• Some waited for inclusion in the project
Why did they leave and where did they go?
Does their departure solve the problem?

17. 3. Sharing land in Borei Keila
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

18. Borei Keila was part of
the Olympic Village for
the ‘63 SEA Games
People occupied it
after the overthrow of
the Khmer Rouge

19. Public-private partnership arrangement
2.0 ha 1740 apartments of 4x12 m in 10
buildings for the original population
2.6 ha commercial development by a
private company
10.0 ha to be returned to the government

20. The project was not completely successful:
• Some 300 families were never included
• The company built only 8 blocks leaving
350 families homeless
• An estimated 400 families had (illegally)
sold their right to a unit to others

21. The excluded
families battled with
the police, but their
houses were
eventually destroyed
It is unknown where
those who left went;
“their departure
solved the problem”

22. 4. Re-development in Dharavi
Mumbai, India

23. Source: Google Dharavi in Mumbai:
• 216 ha of prime land
• 0.6-1.0 million people
• 100,000 housing units
• 5,000 industrial units

24. The government is
inviting private bids to
re-develop Dharavi:
• build housing for
the residents on-
site
• build real estate for
sale on the rest of
the land
Expected cost: US$ 3
billion

25. Phase 1 [sector 5]
• 57,000 apartments
of 30 m2 in 20-
storey buildings
• 25 m2 of space per
business owners
• conditions: house
owner in Dharavi
before 2000
Is this a good idea?

26. Not to be included in the project:
• Renters (30-40% of the population)
• Arrivals after 2000 (30% of the population)
Their departure would solve some difficult
problems, but where will they go?

27. 5. Evaluating Suwan Prasit
Bangkok, Thailand

28. Three squatter communities
of 180 families lived along
Rama IX Road in the 1980s

29. When the owner wanted to develop the land in
1989, the people had to leave

30. They found land for
sale in the urban fringe
and bought it using
money from the
developer and loans
and subsidy from NHA

31. 20 years later
The question is: who benefited, who lost?

32. Housing conditions of many (not all) families
improved in Suwan Prasit, but
• many families from Rama IX never came
• some families from Rama IX came and left
Some left for positive reasons, but some were
forced to leave; it is unknown where they went

33. ?
Number of families on Rama IX
180
Road
Number of plots demarcated in
100
Suwan Prasit
Number of plots allocated to
44
Rama IX families
Number of Rama IX families
35
living in Suwan Prasit in 1992

34. Plot Plot ownership
Type of owner
allocation 1992 2011
Rama IX allottees 44 35 27
Other allottees 56 28 11
New-comers - - 54
Empty or locked - 37 8
Squatter houses - - 6
Total 100 100 106

35. Plots originally belonging to Rama IX allottees
Original owner 22 +
Inherited after death of original owner 5 +
Sold after death of original owner 1 +/-
Sold right-to-a-plot to someone else 5 -
Returned to NHA due to distance to job 1 -
Sold and left 5 +/-
Sold when unable to repay loan 5 -
Total 44

36. 6. What are the long-term outcomes?

37. The World Bank and the Asian Development
Bank have a resettlement policy:
“the resettlement programme will improve, or
at least maintain, pre-project living standards”
• Did living standards improve for people from
Boeung Kak, Borei Keila, Suwan Prasit?
• Who benefited and who did not?
• What about people in Dharavi?

38. Economists like de Soto argue that the poor
need titled property (a plot, an apartment)
They can mortgage the titled property to obtain
business loans and become capitalists
Thus, titled property brings not only shelter, but
also capital, income, employment

39. The poor understand the benefits of titled
property, but some poor have other priorities:
1. cash money
2. income and employment
3. shelter
4. titled property

40. Some families cannot live under the threat of
eviction; they leave without any compensation
Some families leave with a cash compensation
so they can repay a debt or make purchases
Some families have the resources to wait for
the opportunity of a plot or an apartment

41. A plot of land can be available quickly, but it
may be far away. Too far away?
An apartment on-site will take time to develop;
is it worth waiting for?
Some families will not take a risk, but sell their
right and leave with some money in hand

42. Evaluations measuring living standards some
years after project completion are rare
Most evaluations count outputs, not outcomes

43. It is easier to count “number of units built” than to
measure improvements in living standards

45. Thank You