When I first arrived at Villa 31, I could barely see it. It was hidden behind factories  and skyscrapers and fully blocked by the  main highway. However, after the first visit, I  could not forget its narrow streets and broken  houses and, like all the residents of Buenos  Aires, I came to know that the city’s biggest informal settlement, with 40,000 inhabitants,  is located behind the central station.

This  neighborhood, which was first established in  1932 by unemployed immigrants, was almost  fully destroyed by the government in the late  1970’s, and now grows by 10% a year, is only  one example of the growing number of informal  settlements across the world and their marginal  living conditions. This trend is a result of a global urbanization  phenomenon.  

As people continue to migrate away from rural areas and into cities, the  demand for housing causes people to  invade land or old buildings and build  their own houses. As a result, the number of people living in  informal settlements is skyrocketing and has  surpassed 860 million people globally. These  areas have different names—they are called  “Favelas” in Brazil, “Basti” in India, and “Villas”  in Argentina—but they are characterized by similar illnesses. As construction is informal  and unguided, these settlements have no  formal streets, lack basic infrastructure such  as sewage, electricity and drainage, and suffer  from the absence of public services such as  garbage removal, public transport, and law  enforcement. Furthermore, even if these  resources are present in some areas, they often  tend to be unreliable, poorly maintained, or extremely expensive.  

Moreover, these neighborhoods are formed  adjacent to formal areas. As in the case of  Villa 31, industrialized zones can be seen  beside populated shantytowns and organized  high-class neighborhoods often exist on the  doorstep of marginalized illegal communities.  This reality demonstrates how different shades  of development can “coexist” in the same  geographical district and how unequal and  unsustainable the urbanization process can  be; unequal as it does not fairly distribute  resources or take care of the weak, but rather  focuses on social and territorial dimensions, and  unsustainable because of its social, economic,  and environmental faults that put the whole  system at risk.  

This phenomenon contradicts basic standards  of governance and prevents the fulfillment of  basic rights such as access to housing, water  supply, and food security. Thus, this trend forces the creation of a new urbanization process that will  follow the human rights principles of  equality, inclusion, and the rule of law.  

In order to achieve this ambitious goal, the  faculty of Urbanism in the University of Buenos  Aires has introduced the participatory technique  of “The Compass.” At first, as the conditions of each informal settlement needed to be learned clearly, this tool  defines the characteristics of the designated  area and generates information through local  surveys, focused interviews, group facilitation,  and research. Secondly, it presents the findings  in an urban “Compass” with four basic axes –  rights; social organization; public services and  regulation. Thirdly, this initial diagnosis serves  to identify sufficient interventions, prioritize  potential projects, and design a prospective plan  that becomes the basis of cooperation between  the local population, other similar communities,  and professional and governmental bodies.  Lastly, a formal collaboration between the  different sectors is initiated in order to generate  a concrete action plan for implementation, a  monitoring system for tracking progress, and  the distribution of the responsibilities among  the different sectors in order to achieve the  designated goals.  

From my experience in Buenos Aires,  it was clear that this tool offers rights, while public institutions are evaluated  through the direct local perspective of the  citizens. Moreover, as this tool also involves a  collaborative process for designing an action  plan, it empowers the residents to become  decision makers and to take responsibility on  the implementation, while it demands that the  officials be accountable for their policies. As a result, a new relationship between  the government and the citizen is  formed and a new form of democracy,  one that focuses on community rights  and needs, is established. 

Together with that, I am looking forward to seeing how this tool will be implemented  n Israel. As Israel lacks an official plan for  urbanization, this tool can surely help in  identifying differences between neighborhoods  and designing focused interventions for  answering specific needs. Furthermore, this  tool can empower local residents on the one  hand and initiate cooperation between different  sectors on the other. And finally, as marginal  communities are often absent from decision making processes, this tool can offer a healthy  and inclusive urban planning process, one that  will give voice to the often invisible residents of East Jerusalem, Akko, and the Negev, and one  that maybe shortly will answer their needs.